marjoram_blues wrote:
JS, yet again, you show faulty judgement in your approach/attitude to others and their constructive participation. That you find such a waste of time, is unfortunate.
That you treat such as irrelevant, is problematic to further learning... for all concerned.
So much for 'super devotion' and being 'wholesome'.
This is the only post in which I will address this.
My devotion seems to have been questioned. The proper devotion here would be to the original question, and as is appropriate, mine will remain so until it has been adequately answered.
The question of what I meant by 'wholesome' was in order, as I used the word half-innovatively-half-mistakenly, and then redefined/ammended it to mean 'both virtuous and conducive to virtue.' However, the question of what I meant by 'virtue' seemed drastically off-topic (unless I missed an explanation as to how the Nature of Virtue is related to the Cause of Virtue); I have already addressed the fact that we all have a very basic sense of what is meant by 'good' and 'bad' and I assumed it was obvious that this very basic sense would easily be more than sufficient for the main discussion. Although, being such a basic sense, indeed, presumably the most basic sense of all, any subsequent discussion concerning the Nature of Virtue (which should take place after the main discussion concerning the Cause of Virtue) would certainly require further development—for instance, it might be fun to discuss: the specific virtues, the types or modes of these virtues (if there are types or modes), the value of the virtues caused by super-devotion, and how the virtues caused by super-devotion compare to the virtues acquired by the more traditional or conventional means. So if I misunderstood, then I mean to follow an order of operations.
As for the shift to the theological expression, it seems to me we would get too caught up in traditional theological conceptions. I fear that the question of what it might be that causes super-devotion to the art of living and independent studies to lead to wholesomeness would get lost in our consideration of whether loving God leads to the same: for instance, the obvious objection that plenty of people who claim to love God are quite unwholesome, the analog I mentioned at the beginning as essential to the question: why some students become wholesome and others do not (why some theists became wholesome and others did not). The intent is to avoid all the cumbersome baggage that always comes with theological discussion. The average person has already made up their mind and therefore refuses to rethink. Someone's ineptitude, likely my own, led to bringing up the well-known group of the many people who are wholesome despite being non-studiers or non-believers. This group is irrelevant to the discussion, unless, of course, a seriously indepth and devoted (*used intentionally*) discussion revealed to us that we ought to rethink the nature both of learning itself and of God Itself (as is prompted by Walker's comparison being as apt as it appears to be), which might make us wonder if non-students can have a love of learning, or if atheists can somehow love God—these questions are subtle, deep, and thought-provoking, but, as of yet, they are pre-mature.
In your question about God, I detected the hint of an unsavory tone (although, more than most people, I know that over the internet, tone can be difficult to convey, and easily misinterpreted). The study of philosophy is the enterprise of gentlemen. If the mistake was mine, I apologize. I do, however, maintain what I said above. In general, it is my experience, and only my personal opinion, that the most common response often consists of either correcting largely insignificant mistakes (such as grammer and citation errors), trailing off onto irrelevant tangents having little or nothing to do with the main point of the original post which therefore ought to be moved to a different thread, or childish shouting contests that result in insult and name-calling. When I perceive something to be of that ungentlemenly and haphazard nature, I consider acknowledgement beneath me, and participation unworthy of my time.
Note: I want to distinguish average devotion and above-average devotion from super-devotion, so that average devotion and above-average devotion do not necessarily lead to wholesomeness, but super-devotion does necessarily lead to wholesomeness.
Also: the question concerning God should have been directly at Walker first, if only to make sure I had not misrepresented him—after all, he appears to have made the claim via comparison, which I'm happy to discuss if it does become appropriate.
becomes more noticeable as the body refines and actions integrate into life.