|
We've heard about the devastating events and unfortunate lifestyles around the world and appreciated that we were not put through that experience. Some people find it in their hearts to donate to charity funds and that's it. Sure, financial support definitely helps the needy however there is another type of support that is much more helpful, emotional. Think about it: what do you feel when you hug a friend or family member? You feel appreciated and loved. The connotations behind a hug present a healthy interpretation of the meaning of life. So the victims of natural disasters like tsunamis and earthquakes should be financially and emotionally supported because it helps establish a link or unity that can help create a better world. Instead of clicking a couple times and donating an arbitrary sum of money to Red Cross or WWF or other charities, draw pictures (because some people can't read English) depicting your concerns and reach out to them or if you have the necessary resources, go out and volunteer in countries.
What about those who just don't care? Currently, I have no answer to try and persuade them except Plato's Republic. In the Republic, Plato explains why you should live a good and just life.
Once we can establish this unity, we can create a stronger bonded world and take our minds off of superficial things (i.e. money and personal luxury) and work to support society as a whole because we have this appreciation for life.
This idea may be a bit too communal because it is based off Plato's Republic. This communal aspect does have good implications in my mind however it is very hard to implement because of apathetic people who only live life to feed their desires. These people are similar to tyrants because they live for desire. The philosophical person seeks truth and reason and it makes sense for the philosophical person to be peaceful because there is no benefit that comes from fighting.
Sorry to cut you guys off like this, it's 2 am and I'm tired so that's it for now. Just let me know what you guys think. Thanks
|
I like our race. As a person considering the cold death as an inevitable outcome I find it amazing how we act. We're here set with our instincts to protect ourselves and our offspring, something (which in principle) that should push us to be as xenophobic as we can be, but we've turned this world into a inter-connected community. We've actually gotten to a point where some forms of xenophobia (those against race) are considered taboo. It's like we're fighting our instincts, a middle-finger to nature... and I absolutely love it.
|
Doesn't the "philosophical person" who seeks truth and reason seek it because he derives "pleasure" from it. Is he really seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge or from the pleasure he gets from it?
|
I like Aristotle much better. More down to earth and doesn't try to sort of escape from reality like Plato.
it is very hard to implement because of apathetic people who only live life to feed their desires
aren't the truly apathetic the ones who don't even care for themselves?
Doesn't the "philosophical person" who seeks truth and reason seek it because he derives "pleasure" from it. Is he really seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge or from the pleasure he gets from it?
Depends who this person is, and what you mean by pleasure. Some people pursue this quest because they simply can't do anything but think philosophically. They're sort of like Socrates and they have an innately driven quest that they can't quite explain. Other people on the more practical level are philosophers for their own and others' ends, and make the more basic philosophies that most people go by in life. They go about and try to figure out the simple problems in life. There's a kind of satisfaction that JS Mill talked about in defending his utilitarianism, and that's the intellectual kind, not associated with things like pleasure from food, water, sex, etc.
I myself seek reasoning and truth for the same reason as Aristotle: to balance out the extremes of pleasures and pains and to not get carried away with emotions. It's interesting to think of it when you consider that this reasoning will end up giving me a more balanced life rather than being extremely happy, and yet that's my aim in implementing this philosophy. But there's more to it than that, and I think that's within what JS Mill said about a more intellectual satisfaction. But that's as much as I can say with what you've said.
|
On May 15 2011 16:09 Ilikestarcraft wrote:
Doesn't the "philosophical person" who seeks truth and reason seek it because he derives "pleasure" from it. Is he really seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge or from the pleasure he gets from it?
Well, in a sense, the philosophical person does experience some pleasure from it, however the TRUE philsophical person does not seek knowledge because of the pleasure but from the knowledge. It's subtle.
*edit* I meant to say that the philsophical person does not seek knowledge for pleasure but for reason and science.
On May 15 2011 16:31 Roe wrote:I like Aristotle much better. More down to earth and doesn't try to sort of escape from reality like Plato. Show nested quote +it is very hard to implement because of apathetic people who only live life to feed their desires aren't the truly apathetic the ones who don't even care for themselves? Show nested quote +Doesn't the "philosophical person" who seeks truth and reason seek it because he derives "pleasure" from it. Is he really seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge or from the pleasure he gets from it? Depends who this person is, and what you mean by pleasure. Some people pursue this quest because they simply can't do anything but think philosophically. They're sort of like Socrates and they have an innately driven quest that they can't quite explain. Other people on the more practical level are philosophers for their own and others' ends, and make the more basic philosophies that most people go by in life. They go about and try to figure out the simple problems in life. There's a kind of satisfaction that JS Mill talked about in defending his utilitarianism, and that's the intellectual kind, not associated with things like pleasure from food, water, sex, etc. I myself seek reasoning and truth for the same reason as Aristotle: to balance out the extremes of pleasures and pains and to not get carried away with emotions. It's interesting to think of it when you consider that this reasoning will end up giving me a more balanced life rather than being extremely happy, and yet that's my aim in implementing this philosophy. But there's more to it than that, and I think that's within what JS Mill said about a more intellectual satisfaction. But that's as much as I can say with what you've said.
I don't consider the true apathetic person to be a person of society. YES, I agree with Aristotle's golden mean. However, the point was that embracing society and caring about everyone and living in a communal world is very likely to be the golden mean doesn't it?
|
meh rather than try to be good or just do whatever the hell i want i try to live neutrally and not bother anyone. i try not to do anything greedy or bad, like for example i don't want to be a high paid executive or anything, but i'm not going to pretend that it's worth giving up all my time in vain to try to be some kind of mother theresa either
|
I like Aristotle much better. More down to earth and doesn't try to sort of escape from reality like Plato.
Both are integral to the development of our civilization. The sum of Platonic virtue is transcendence. The sum of Aristotilean virtues is moderation. The aims of modern theoretical science, avant-garde arts, and most political, ethical, and personal endeavours are Platonic. TL.net, a virtual-reality, is heavily inclined toward Platonism, and most of our virtues are Platonic ones.
As I was thinking about some of our differences in opinion last night, I considered how rarely this forum observes Aristotle's definition of virtue, to wit, that deficiency and excess are the two poles of evil. Virtue lies at neither extreme, but in the middle. The moral compass of this forum is rather Manichean: with one extreme representing evil, and the other good. Hence a Liberal can never imagine such a thing as too much liberty, a democrat can never imagine such a thing as too much democracy, a progressive can never imagine such a thing as too much progress, a human rights activist can never imagine that humans can lay claim to too many rights, etc.
Despite the tendency of this forum toward anti-religiosity, the adoption by the Catholic Church of Tomism as its official theology makes the Catholic view of human nature rather more realistic than the supposedly rational outlook of our fellow forum-goers.
Inspiration and understanding link at a crossroad, and one ought not blame others if they possess a little too much of either zealotry or apathy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
