What accounts for the fact that some students are super-devoted and therefore wholesome and some are not?

[Jaded Sage]

I don't mean students as in being enrolled in school or university. I mean studiers or learners. So I agree there is nothing unwholesome about dropping out. By wholesome I mean both virtuous and conducive to virtue.

I'd like to know why you make this distinction. You seem to be saying that it's OK (in a virtuous sense) to drop out of a specific course of study but if you are an independent ( ? life-long) learner then 'dropping out' is 'vicious', in some way. Of course, you can be both a life-long learner who is studying a specific course to try to improve oneself or attain necessary qualifications. Whether or not any action can be judged 'virtuous' or 'vicious' depends on a variety of factors. Usually pertaining to individual circumstances.

Also, you can't jump to any conclusions that continuing with a specific subject ( whether devoted or super-devoted ) and achieving desired outcome leads to virtue, or is a result of virtue.

Dropping out of an official enrollment in an institution is irrelevant. It's the super-studiousness that seems to result in virtuousness.
I mean super-devoted to mean something like too busy or interested in study to be vicious and therefore virtuous by default at least.

[Jaded Sage]

I would argue using time wisely and not getting distracted is a virtue.

[Jaded Sage]

That's kind of missing the point. What causes the wholesomeness causing super-devotion? By super-devoted I guess I mean something like to busy or too interested to do anything unwholesome or become unwholesome in any way, as if there is no time or interest to.

Is this a response to my opening objection that 'there is no such fact'? The point I am making is that it is only your hypothesis, and quite a shaky one at that. Others have asked questions of you. Still waiting your response.

No this is a response to the hitler and churchill post. I'm not sure what you mean by 'there is no such fact.'

[marjoram_blues]

That's kind of missing the point. What causes the wholesomeness causing super-devotion? By super-devoted I guess I mean something like to busy or too interested to do anything unwholesome or become unwholesome in any way, as if there is no time or interest to.

Is this a response to my opening objection that 'there is no such fact'? The point I am making is that it is only your hypothesis, and quite a shaky one at that. Others have asked questions of you. Still waiting your response.

No this is a response to the hitler and churchill post. I'm not sure what you mean by 'there is no such fact.'

OK, so it was a response to Hobbes' Choice post of Tue, Dec 1st - it would have been better if you had quoted him:

HC: Your premise is false. What about wholesome students that are not devoted, and unwholesome students that are devoted? I understand that Hitler was a devoted artist; Churchill a poor student.

I'm not sure what the difficulty is in understanding my meaning. Given that it addresses your opening post/title; also, my fuller explanation above. Start at ' The point I am making...'

[marjoram_blues]

I would argue using time wisely and not getting distracted is a virtue.

Sometimes getting distracted is outwith one's control; external circumstances. However, even if it is something that you can control, it is not necessarily a bad thing. Time out can help recharge batteries.

It can be argued that too much time spent in a single activity is a 'vice', if it means other important life areas are neglected.

[Walker]

What accounts for the fact that some students are super-devoted and therefore wholesome, and some are undevoted and therefore not wholesome?

Plato says this will happen: someone correctly practicing philosophy (we will call this both the art of living and studying in general) will become wholesome because of what he studies, disdain doing unwholesome things, and make social life a secondary priority. This became true of me, but my fellow students became as Plato said the majority of students become: vice-ridden. I also became significantly happier than my fellow students, as Plato suggested would happen. I assume it was because of a sincere investment of devotion. What causes the difference, and how can we fix the problem?

The Golden Rule is a rule because of natural law.

Not because someone says so.

This is the portrayal of a religious man* according to the rule.
Not the idiot portrayal. The other one.
He is good, there is no evil in him.
Life is full of people like this.

30. The first part of the rule dominates this religious performance*.
31. The second part of the rule naturally follows in the performance.
In sequence and conjunction.
Naturally.

Life is subtle
Life is art
Art is hyperbole
Life is biblical
Life is funny, and serious, and all the rest.

Mark 12:30-31King James Version (KJV)

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

* “You thought? Where the hell did you get that from, you thought!”

How can we fix the problem?

Every problem is a creation of mind, and every problem has the same cause.

[Jaded Sage]

What accounts for the fact that some students are super-devoted and therefore wholesome, and some are undevoted and therefore not wholesome?

Plato says this will happen: someone correctly practicing philosophy (we will call this both the art of living and studying in general) will become wholesome because of what he studies, disdain doing unwholesome things, and make social life a secondary priority. This became true of me, but my fellow students became as Plato said the majority of students become: vice-ridden. I also became significantly happier than my fellow students, as Plato suggested would happen. I assume it was because of a sincere investment of devotion. What causes the difference, and how can we fix the problem?

Mark 12:30-31King James Version (KJV)

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Walker, you clever son of a bitch. I didn't even see that connection. I think that's exactly what it is!

[marjoram_blues]

What accounts for the fact that some students are super-devoted and therefore wholesome, and some are undevoted and therefore not wholesome?

Plato says this will happen: someone correctly practicing philosophy (we will call this both the art of living and studying in general) will become wholesome because of what he studies, disdain doing unwholesome things, and make social life a secondary priority. This became true of me, but my fellow students became as Plato said the majority of students become: vice-ridden. I also became significantly happier than my fellow students, as Plato suggested would happen. I assume it was because of a sincere investment of devotion. What causes the difference, and how can we fix the problem?

Mark 12:30-31King James Version (KJV)

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Walker, you clever son of a bitch. I didn't even see that connection. I think that's exactly what it is!

JS, perhaps you can explain what the connection is, and to what.

[Jaded Sage]

So usually that is seen as one commandment, two parts: love God, love others. This clever bastard wants to equate loving God with loving learning, and loving others with being wholesome (as we've defined). He wants to say that the second part follows naturally from the first part. It's fuckin' genius!

[marjoram_blues]

So usually that is seen as one commandment, two parts: love God, love others. This clever bastard wants to equate loving God with loving learning, and loving others with being wholesome (as we've defined). He wants to say that the second part follows naturally from the first part. It's fuckin' genius!

So, you think that it is necessary to love God before people can be 'virtuous' and study hard - or v.v. to love learning and then be 'virtuous' ?
Loving God is the missing factor which differentiates you from other 'vicious' students???

Have I got that right?

[Jaded Sage]

I didn't even say that about phil. I'm going to start ignoring your questions if they don't start getting on topic.

[marjoram_blues]

I didn't even say that about phil. I'm going to start ignoring your questions if they don't start getting on topic.

Is this your virtuous response to my questioning your thought process ?

I have no idea what you said about phil. Please give serious attention to my last post, which is very much on topic. I'm keen to understand.

You can ignore my (and others' ) questions/responses wherever and whenever you like.
But ask yourself the real reason why you do this. And think of the consequences.

[Jaded Sage]

Yes, it is. I invite you to reread the original post about phil(osophy).

[marjoram_blues]

Yes, it is. I invite you to reread the original post about phil(osophy).

So, you avoid answering questions that are attempting to follow/critique your thinking process.
And you think that is the right thing to do ?

[Risto]

So, you avoid answering questions that are attempting to follow/critique your thinking process.
And you think that is the right thing to do ?

I'm following this thread and I appreciate your questions because self-reflection is not often enough. Philosophy is often done better through dialogue with others as they can question our own thinking in ways we cannot notice ourselves.