a parable of life...

[Peter Kropotkin]

have you ever noticed that in the journey of the hero,
that the hero is a morally righteous person....
think about the journey... we are going from one place
to another... one of the journey's a hero takes is to
"improve'' themselves...to become a better person,
a better human being.. and how does morality/ethics
help us do that?

is the journey an average, every day journey? no, our hero takes
a journey that is dangerous, hard.. think of the journey of Luke
Skywalker... he is an average human being, but his journey, his
trip is full of adventure and danger....
He escapes from Tatooine, the familiar and routine...and
attempts to become a "Jedi Knight" but as is noted, to become
a Jedi, one must be pure and moral.... the path to the "dark side"
is a path leading to evil, immoral.. the temptation of Luke is
to the "dark side" but other temptations exists... we see this in
our daily lives... and these temptations are much more complicated,
they steer us away from our journey..... to seek out drugs, money,
fame, booze, sex.. is to turn away from the hero's journey..
to get lost in the pursuit of money/wealth.. prevents us from
engaging in our moral story of seeking to become the best
person we can become...if I am lost in my drugs, how do I
continue my journey to become a hero? If I am sitting on my ass
watching TV all day, how do I become a hero? There are many temptations
to stop from our "becoming" something else.. something greater than
ourselves... If I am engaged in pursuing booze or sex or fame,
how do I then find my own journey of seeking out my possibilities...

I have already stated that the possibility I am seeking is to
become a great philosopher.... I want to be mentioned in
the same breath as Kant, Nietzsche and Hume... but if I am
engaged in fame, money, titles, power, material possessions,
how do I "become" or engaged in my journey to become a
great philosopher? How do I seek two completely different
and opposite goals? taking up the pursuit of fame, or titles
or money, takes me away from my own personal journey of
becoming a great philosopher... it is one or the other.....
so how do I resist the many temptations of modern existence
that seduce us from our own hero's story?

it is only by being "Moral" can I achieve my own possibility of
becoming a great philosopher... by walking away from the oh
so seductive possibilities of modern existence, booze,
fame, power, wealth, material possessions...to become "moral"
means to stay on the path to achieving my own personal goal or
possibility of becoming a great philosopher...not to get distracted
by the meaningless nature or goals or possibilities of existence,
that of fame, power, titles, money, or material possessions...

to be able to take my journey into becoming great, I must
forgo the opiates of modern life...I must be Moral, ethical...

Kropotkin

[Harbal]

to be able to take my journey into becoming great, I must
forgo the opiates of modern life...I must be Moral, ethical...

Bon voyage, Peter, and don't forget to send us a postcard.

[Peter Kropotkin]

to be able to take my journey into becoming great, I must
forgo the opiates of modern life...I must be Moral, ethical...

Bon voyage, Peter, and don't forget to send us a postcard.

K: as my journey and yours, are not physical journeys, I.E
traveling to Europe for example, but internal journeys,
journeys of the mind, heart, soul......just as Nietzsche
"ubermensch" is not a physical journey, but a journey into
becoming who you are, but our journey is to become something
more... I would suggest becoming a hero...

but Kropotkin, I am happy just being me... pursing money,
titles, material goods, fame, power....pursing the temporary
baubles of existence... things that come and go at a whim...
you think money is forever? every day, money comes and goes out
of your wallet and every day, we dispose of material goods..
buy a new TV or a new car...and get rid of the old one... you know,
being good citizens, which is to say, being a good consumer..
a good producer and being a good worker...

but I say unto you, that those "goals" are empty goals..
like thinking eating popcorn is a substantial and filling meal...
eating popcorn is empty carbs and nothing of value to our bodies...
and just as eating popcorn has no Nutrional value, pursing the empty
values of wealth, fame, power, titles and material possessions has
no ''nutritional'' value for our bodies, soul or mind....

but what can we pursue that that does have ''nutritional'' value
for our soul, body or mind?

That of pursing the who we are... the overcoming of childhood
indoctrinations, of overcoming the animal in us and rising to
becoming human, fully human....

Nietzsche called it the "ubermensch" overcoming... but that battle
is not about slaying dragons or marching like Frodo to Mordor,
no, that battle is within us... and one path, (for there are many paths)
is to become a hero....

think about the battle within say, Batman or Superman...
it wasn't a physical battle, it is a battle within Batman...
the struggle ''to become'' is an internal one, not an external one...

to become a "Hero" is to seek out what is best in us and
make that our mantra..... I am a good person because I am.....
and that "I am" is not just a physical journey, but a mental,
psychological and emotional journey... it is a journey within us...
and we cannot become a hero without being a "moral" or an
"ethical" person, for can you imagine a hero with dubious moral or
ethical basis? One might say "Batman" but once again, the journey
is within us, not outside of us... Batman is morally conflicted..
and that is the point... he is battling within himself to become
a moral/ethical person and still being able to fulfill his "Mission"...
he doesn't trust himself to do the "right" thing... and his mission,
to rid Gotham of criminals.. has an ethical/moral basis.......
He "fights" crime and that makes him a "hero" but how he fights
crime is his "ubermensch" moment... his overcoming...
can he fight crime and still do so, while being moral or ethical?

My contention is that for us to become human, we must engage in
becoming, which is to say, we must attempt to be heroes in our
own lives...and that means to rise above... to rise above mere
seeking wealth or power or fame or material possessions...
to become something more than just a "good" citizen..

Kropotkin

[Harbal]

My contention is that for us to become human, we must engage in
becoming, which is to say, we must attempt to be heroes in our
own lives...and that means to rise above... to rise above mere
seeking wealth or power or fame or material possessions...
to become something more than just a "good" citizen..

Kropotkin

I'm sure we all will be looking on with great interest to see what you eventually become, Peter Kropotkin.

Harbalkin

[Iwannaplato]

I have already stated that the possibility I am seeking is to
become a great philosopher.... I want to be mentioned in
the same breath as Kant, Nietzsche and Hume...

then it would probably be best to drop the cliches. All three of those philosophers have incredible analytical skills, which is something quite different from sounding noble and not coming up with anything new or interesting or challenging.

[Peter Kropotkin]

I have already stated that the possibility I am seeking is to
become a great philosopher.... I want to be mentioned in
the same breath as Kant, Nietzsche and Hume...

then it would probably be best to drop the cliches. All three of those philosophers have incredible analytical skills, which is something quite different from sounding noble and not coming up with anything new or interesting or challenging.

K: I have heard all my life, one shouldn't throw rocks from glass houses...
I am easily the most original thinker on this website... but you don't have
ears to hear...and you cannot see past your original indoctrinations and
childhood education... you are a naysayer because you have nothing to
offer us in terms of philosophy... and that is fine.. because few
have anything to offer the world today....

I don't write for the ears of today, my writings will get notice in the years,
decades and even centuries from now.. and I am good with that...
for I have covered the gamut of all philosophy... from political science to
metaphysics to aesthetics to epistemology to what it means to be human...

or to say it another way, I have said yes, and you have said no....
but to what Kropotkin? what have you said yes to? and that
reality or truth is what we are talking about.. but I am sure
you have no idea what I am talking about... because all you have is
no.....

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

K: I have heard all my life, one shouldn't throw rocks from glass houses...
I am easily the most original thinker on this website.

For example? What was original and coherent in the OP of this thread.

.. but you don't have
ears to hear...and you cannot see past your original indoctrinations and
childhood education

Such as? Give me some examples of what I was indoctrinated in.

or to say it another way, I have said yes, and you have said no....

The truth in this is that, yes, I do tend to criticize the assertions of others. Negation of the toxic is a part of philosophy and fits with my main goal for participation here: here I can encounter and counter ideas that have power out in the world. I can interact with the bearers of these memes and find out why they these memes are so attractive to some people, why they still (the memes) have some kind of hook for me, what the holes are in these memes, if there is something of value in toxic memes and what that is, how do the bearer of these memes react to being criticized and having problems in their positions pointed out, can I remove these memes from having any hold over me by interacting here and so on. That's on the level of content, iow ideas put forward. Related and enmeshed with that are patterns of interaction. How people put forward their ideas and how they deal with others.

Nothing wrong with that.

Further any shortcomings I might have do not make your posts other than batches of romantic cliches, lacking clarity and originality.

And last, on this point, I do put forward things, but it is less common, here. In the world, every day I put forward yesses.

but to what Kropotkin? what have you said yes to? and that
reality or truth is what we are talking about.

.So, which is it. I still believe the things I was indoctrinated in or is it that I have nothing to put forward? Because the people who have been indoctinated are quite happy to put forward their ideas with great certainty.

but I am sure
you have no idea what I am talking about... because all you have is
no.....

All you have is vague romantic yelps and binary thinking about politics.

I take your word that you were indoctrinated to have beliefs that you have left behind. But you express beliefs in the same vague, romancti, binary language that other people were born indoctrinated into.

It's great that you could question what you were told as a child. But you went to the binary store and bought Pepsi instead of your parents favorite, Coke.

That does not originality make.

And it would not be kind or respectful to pretend that your rants have achieved some kind of originality.

And the divisiveness you add to, or would if your rants were effective, is, yes, something I say no too. Because you just reinforce the binary struggle that the real powers are pleased as punch to have continue.

And look: originality is not easy. But if you mode is lecturing and you compare yourself to Hume, Nietschze and Kant and you don't respond well and clearly to people and your posts have this hyperromantic style, it becomes an appropriate criticism. Apart from the explicit claim to originality, since you compared yourself to people who came up with very original ideas and approaches, there is an implicit claim in all this that our role is to listen which implies originality that I don't see. You end up being a kind of Dattaswami, but a secular version.

It is a forum, which means a place for discussion. And yes, Dattaswami (a little more than you, actually) and you do discuss, but your primary mode is pontification.

[Iwannaplato]

x

[Iwannaplato]

So, what was I indoctrinated in?

[FlashDangerpants]

I am easily the most original thinker on this website... but you don't have
ears to hear...and you cannot see past your original indoctrinations and
childhood education... you are a naysayer because you have nothing to
offer us in terms of philosophy... and that is fine.. because few
have anything to offer the world today....

I don't write for the ears of today, my writings will get notice in the years,

Oh fuck, now we have yet another of the world's greatest philosopher here?

How amazing it is to be on PN in these times of Age, Handjob7, Advocate, Vegetable Ambulance and now Kropotkin.

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh, and that guy who thinks about nothingness all the time, what was his name? He's the greatest of all time too isn't he?

[tillingborn]

I don't write for the ears of today, my writings will get notice in the years,

Oh fuck, now we have yet another of the world's greatest philosopher here?

How amazing it is to be on PN in these times of Age, Handjob7, Advocate, Vegetable Ambulance and now Kropotkin.

And what a coincidence that the less a philosopher reads, the greater they are.

[Iwannaplato]

So, what was I indoctrinated in?

[Gary Childress]

I don't write for the ears of today, my writings will get notice in the years,

Oh fuck, now we have yet another of the world's greatest philosopher here?

How amazing it is to be on PN in these times of Age, Handjob7, Advocate, Vegetable Ambulance and now Kropotkin.

And what a coincidence that the less a philosopher reads, the greater they are.

I suppose what one is reading makes a difference too. From what I can tell, knowledge of philosophical topics hasn't advanced very significantly in thousands of years. The sciences OTOH...

[tillingborn]

...what a coincidence that the less a philosopher reads, the greater they are.

I suppose what one is reading makes a difference too. From what I can tell, knowledge of philosophical topics hasn't advanced very significantly in thousands of years. The sciences OTOH...

It depends what you think philosophy is, or does. My view is that 'a philosophy' is simply an explanation and/or guide to our experience - the reason for what we see, and what we should do about it. So there are no facts involved; instead philosophy is us making sense of our surroundings. That is true even of the sciences and you are quite right, the sciences have made a lot of progress, but at the same time, so have the philosophical models that put all that new information into context. For example, the point that is lost on Immanuel Can is that evolution due to natural selection is philosophical. You can just as easily attribute evolution to the hand of God. When scientists say that philosophy is useless, they are literally correct; it really doesn't matter what you attribute evolution to, but to deny evolution is to deny demonstrable facts, which science records and measures and philosophy explains. Natural selection just happens to be a more recent, and in my view better explanation, but the philosophy makes no difference to the facts.