Living Ones Philosophy

[thedoc]

Doc, this description of wisdom comes from Jacob Needleman's book "A Sense of the Cosmos." Do you sense any truth in it? If so is it really meaningful to restrict the idea of wisdom to secular goals?

Every great spiritual teaching speaks of itself in its own way as a mirror of cosmic reality. In the traditions of China the Tao is both the way to truth and the way things are. In Christianity the Word is both the teaching of Jesus Christ and the fundamental manifestation of God.

In the Hindu tradition (including Buddhism) Dharma means both duty and the sustaining order of the universe. And in the Hebrew tradition Torahincludes not only law in the sense of the teaching, but also law in the sense of the foundations of God's creation.


.............A well-known passage in the book of Proverbs expresses this idea without ambiguity.

Wisdom is speaking:
The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water...
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth... when he gave the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment; when he appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by him...
Now therefore harken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.
Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.
(Proverbs 8:22-33)
Wisdom thus speaks not only as the teaching (the instruction) but as the divine pattern of the cosmos.

That seems to include secular goals as well as spiritual goals in it's definition.

[Nick_A]

Doc wrote:

That seems to include secular goals as well as spiritual goals in it's definition.

A skill furthers a societal goal. Wisdom serves a universal goal. An acquired skill can serve a societal goal but doesn't necessarily reflect a universal goal. That is why I keep the concepts separate. What we may call a wise decision may be just a skilled decision or it may reflect understanding of a higher order.

But the point is that living ones philosophy as it reflects universal goals is not just acquiring a skill to achieve a societal goal, it requires facing our own inner opposition to pursuing the love of wisdom.

St. Paul describes our inner resistance to pursuing the love of wisdom:

Romans 7:15-20New International Version (NIV)

15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

[Dalek Prime]

D P wrote:

How is making a living a part of the OP? Again, you just seem to want to bitch about things no one brought up. When did I say material gain was a philosophy, or a part of mine, other than worldly necessity? You are just looking to be contrary.

Making a living which is very good and necessary cannot be considered philosophy defined as the love of wisdom. Those who respect the need of the rare few to pursue the love of wisdom do not consider it making a living

There you go again. I never brought it up. You did. And yeah, that is the etymology of philosophy, but you do not practice its essence; reasoning from a firm foundation. Stop waving love of wisdom as some goal. It's only a starting point.

I won't go so far as to say you don't love wisdom, but I will say you haven't found it, and never will, considering your present trajectory.

[Nick_A]

D P wrote:

There you go again. I never brought it up. You did. And yeah, that is the etymology of philosophy, but you do not practice its essence; reasoning from a firm foundation. Stop waving love of wisdom as some goal. It's only a starting point.

I won't go so far as to say you don't love wisdom, but I will say you haven't found it, and never will, considering your present trajectory.

I don't think you know the function of philosophy; its purpose. If you don't, how can you have a firm foundation to reason from?

[Impenitent]

Imp wrote:

would nihilists be suicidal or nonchalant?

I don't know how anyone could consider suicide attempts to be pursuing the love of wisdom. If someone is standing on a rooftop threatening to jump and a reporter asks them why they want to kill themselves, would anyone say "I'm pursuing wisdom?" This raises the question if wisdom is experienced on the way down or when they hit the ground?

or is it experienced when drinking the hemlock?

-Imp

[Nick_A]

imp wrote:

or is it experienced when drinking the hemlock?

Neither Jesus not Socrates had the intent to die. Socrates didn''t drink the hemlock as an act of suicide. Rather his intent was to act in accordance with his philosophy in the cause of life based on wisdom . The Crucifixion wasn't to promote death but rather conscious human life through the resurrection.

The goal of suicide is escapism. Jesus and Socrates were promoting the goals of conscious life.

[Impenitent]

imp wrote:

or is it experienced when drinking the hemlock?

Neither Jesus not Socrates had the intent to die. Socrates didn''t drink the hemlock as an act of suicide. Rather his intent was to act in accordance with his philosophy in the cause of life based on wisdom . The Crucifixion wasn't to promote death but rather conscious human life through the resurrection.

The goal of suicide is escapism. Jesus and Socrates were promoting the goals of conscious life.

"I don't know how anyone could consider suicide attempts to be pursuing the love of wisdom."

I don't care about your jewish carpenter, but Socrates did have the intent to die as he had many opportunities to evade the sentence but he chose to kill himself.

read Crito again

-Imp

[Nick_A]

Imp wrote:

I don't care about your jewish carpenter, but Socrates did have the intent to die as he had many opportunities to evade the sentence but he chose to kill himself.

read Crito again

-Imp

No, Socrates intent was to live rather than die in escapism. Read Crito again.

[thedoc]

Doc wrote:

That seems to include secular goals as well as spiritual goals in it's definition.

A skill furthers a societal goal. Wisdom serves a universal goal. An acquired skill can serve a societal goal but doesn't necessarily reflect a universal goal. That is why I keep the concepts separate. What we may call a wise decision may be just a skilled decision or it may reflect understanding of a higher order.

But the point is that living ones philosophy as it reflects universal goals is not just acquiring a skill to achieve a societal goal, it requires facing our own inner opposition to pursuing the love of wisdom.

St. Paul describes our inner resistance to pursuing the love of wisdom:

Romans 7:15-20New International Version (NIV)

15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

I think It is a mistake to compartmentalize too much since all things are connected and effect everything else. I believe the film "Pretty Woman" illustrates this well, Richard Gere's character demonstrated a shift in his philosophy in how he used his skill at acquiring companies. Previously he would buy the company and sell off the parts at a profit, after he decided to buy the company and keep it together and turn it into a profitable venture. Ones philosophy often effects how a skill is applied.

[Hobbes' Choice]

imp wrote:

or is it experienced when drinking the hemlock?

Neither Jesus not Socrates had the intent to die. Socrates didn''t drink the hemlock as an act of suicide. Rather his intent was to act in accordance with his philosophy in the cause of life based on wisdom . The Crucifixion wasn't to promote death but rather conscious human life through the resurrection.

The goal of suicide is escapism. Jesus and Socrates were promoting the goals of conscious life.

"I don't know how anyone could consider suicide attempts to be pursuing the love of wisdom."

I don't care about your jewish carpenter, but Socrates did have the intent to die as he had many opportunities to evade the sentence but he chose to kill himself.

read Crito again

-Imp

Nick has only read two books. Simone Weil and the Bible.
But he is too stupid to know that Weil was a radical feminist socialist that would have died rather than speak to Nick.
He's also too stupid to understand the circumstances of the trial of Socrates, that Socrates hd the chance and the offers to escape Athens, and to have plea for a lighter sentence of banishment. Instead Socrates deliberately annoyed his judges by insisting that they keep him in luxury at their expense, an then took the Hemlock again despite the chance of fleeing offered him by his many friends.
People like Nick don't do subtlety.

[Nick_A]

Hobbes wrote:

Nick has only read two books. Simone Weil and the Bible.
But he is too stupid to know that Weil was a radical feminist socialist that would have died rather than speak to Nick.
He's also too stupid to understand the circumstances of the trial of Socrates, that Socrates hd the chance and the offers to escape Athens, and to have plea for a lighter sentence of banishment. Instead Socrates deliberately annoyed his judges by insisting that they keep him in luxury at their expense, an then took the Hemlock again despite the chance of fleeing offered him by his many friends.
People like Nick don't do subtlety.

Actually I would never mention the book which had the greatest effect on me in the presence of blind deniers. Such mind opening books do not deserve to be surrounded by blind condemnation.

Your attitude of denial would make it difficult if not impossible to understand how Simone Weil could have been both a radical feminist socialist and a Christian mystic. Even worse, you are closed to why Socrates chose to drink the hemlock. As such, philosophy is lost on you

[Hobbes' Choice]

IMP wrote:

Nick has only read two books. Simone Weil and the Bible.
But he is too stupid to know that Weil was a radical feminist socialist that would have died rather than speak to Nick.
He's also too stupid to understand the circumstances of the trial of Socrates, that Socrates hd the chance and the offers to escape Athens, and to have plea for a lighter sentence of banishment. Instead Socrates deliberately annoyed his judges by insisting that they keep him in luxury at their expense, an then took the Hemlock again despite the chance of fleeing offered him by his many friends.
People like Nick don't do subtlety.

Actually I would never mention the book which had the greatest effect on me in the presence of blind deniers

PLONK!

[Dalek Prime]

D P wrote:

There you go again. I never brought it up. You did. And yeah, that is the etymology of philosophy, but you do not practice its essence; reasoning from a firm foundation. Stop waving love of wisdom as some goal. It's only a starting point.

I won't go so far as to say you don't love wisdom, but I will say you haven't found it, and never will, considering your present trajectory.

I don't think you know the function of philosophy; its purpose. If you don't, how can you have a firm foundation to reason from?

Oh, do tell? Everyone, Nick is going to tell us how to reason from a firm foundation. But first, a song....

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L7QF32mxftE