Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:26 pm Well, consider the distinction between an arhat you describe, and a Buddha.

An arhat simply is, with no intent other than flowing in the stream of being, and pointed by the currents of wu wei.

A Buddha is a bodhisattva with the intent to liberate all from ignorance, which is somewhat akin to the holy grail ideal of Oxford, although their interests are less ambitiously focused on only the paying students, even if someone else pays for them.

I'd say the significant qualification at the university level is not so much enlightenment, as knowledge.


*

And, the cross-posted question from above:

The question from this is:

how much knowledge is required to apprehend truth?

How much to eat until full, and then empty?

But if the essential qualification is knowledge, then a computer could be a philosopher. Jesus had the same trouble with the Pharisees. They had knowledge and played a role. But inside they were empty. As I see it knowledge is the essential quality for academic philosophy as in Oxford but not for the calling of philosophy which is the love of wisdom. Oxford it seems is capable of teaching knowledge but lacking in the ability to inspire the heart of philosophy or the attraction to the love of wisdom so cannot be said to teach philosophy but is restricted to academic philosophy.

Nick_A wrote:... What would you say is the difference between a philosopher and an intellectual BS artist?

A philosopher knows a bullshit artist when they hear one and a bullshit artist knows bugger all about philosophy.

-1-:

This, with all due respect, is a completely useless arguement on the support of the PC-sexist bias by the Oxford philosophy dept.

I know nothing of the Oxford philosophy department or its biases, nor do I know what the members of the department think about this.

The argument presented is that there are many women philosophers who remain unknown.

The counter-argument is that there are many male philosophers who remain unknown.

It is not an argument about individual philosophers but that women philosophers remain unknown because they have been underrepresented. As part of my formal education I cannot recall having a single woman philosopher in any of the courses I took. The same cannot be said about male philosophers.

How many philosophers remain unknown, male or female, is not something that can be counted: unknowns can't be counted.

I’m not sure if you are just playing around, but I will answer as if you are serious. Unknown to anyone and unknown to most students and teachers of philosophy are two different things. The majority of women philosophers are unknown to students and faculty.

We can't prove even the existence of one unknown; to know it exists, we must know or know of, him or her. That erases the quality of being unknown.

Yes, if they are unknown to everyone they could not be included in the reading lists. But they are known to some and will become known to many more.

So the argument tries to make the reader believe that there are many valuable unknown female philosophers, which is a completely fabricated assumption …

It is only a completely fabricated assumption to those who do not know the work of female philosophers and those who have not polled or talked to people about women philosophers.

This is a sexist bias.

It’s an attempt to eliminate a sexist bias - the bias that women have not or are not capable of doing serious philosophical work.

... you subscribe to refuting the validity of Russell's "teapot" argument with regard to God?

God remains unknown to all, female philosophers remain unknown to most. Something can and is being done about the latter, I don’t think anything can be done about the former. The work of female philosophers can be read. The work of God cannot (although some may think that some sacred text or the world itself is the work of God).

As usual the experts in PC have it backwards. Consider chess for example. We know there are far more men in the game than women. Is that the result of some sort of hidden sexist agenda? No, more men are attracted to the game than women by their nature. But the point is that women are not discouraged from getting involved. Many chess clubs encourage young girls to learn the game. But they rarely reach the strength of the boys. Whenever a girl show talent they are helped. There is no requirement in chess tournaments to include women. If they want to play or not play is up to them.

It should be the same with philosophy. Why worry about how many Simone Weils are out there? Just encourage the ones who are and not try and dull their minds into arguing abortions and gender rights. Perhaps they are capable of more than being indoctrinated into feminist causes and call them philosophy. Forget about PC equality and think individual quality. If they are drawn to the essential questions of philosophy or the questions of the heart like "who am I?" let them flower and forget about all this PC pettiness that serves only to rot the mind.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:20 pm But if the essential qualification is knowledge, then a computer could be a philosopher. Jesus had the same trouble with the Pharisees. They had knowledge and played a role. But inside they were empty. As I see it knowledge is the essential quality for academic philosophy as in Oxford but not for the calling of philosophy which is the love of wisdom. Oxford it seems is capable of teaching knowledge but lacking in the ability to inspire the heart of philosophy or the attraction to the love of wisdom so cannot be said to teach philosophy but is restricted to academic philosophy.

N: But if the essential qualification is knowledge, then a computer could be a philosopher.
W: The essential qualification for the intellectual philosopher, who is distinct from the mystic, is the mental processing that takes place on top of an extensive mental data base of concepts and accurate historical facts.

N: As I see it knowledge is the essential quality for academic philosophy as in Oxford but not for the calling of philosophy which is the love of wisdom.
W: I agree that academically, philosophy should be a basis of facts and knowledge upon which to base reasoning for the purpose of understanding. Philosophy may be the love of wisdom, but as with the mystic, philosophy is not required for the love of wisdom.

N: Oxford it seems is capable of teaching knowledge but lacking in the ability to inspire the heart of philosophy or the attraction to the love of wisdom …
W: I don’t know enough about Oxford to agree or disagree. Never been there. I thought they had a good reputation, based on heresay from uninformed sources.

N: … so cannot be said to teach philosophy but is restricted to academic philosophy.
W: I think academic philosophy is a valid teaching of philosophy at the college level because it does pass along knowledge that has been pondered. However, if the concern and objective is enlightenment, then the surroundings and activities are not important. Enlightenment is the changeless around which surroundings and activities change.

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:32 am
1. It is not an argument about individual philosophers but that women philosophers remain unknown because they have been underrepresented. As part of my formal education I cannot recall having a single woman philosopher in any of the courses I took. The same cannot be said about male philosophers.

2. I’m not sure if you are just playing around, but I will answer as if you are serious. Unknown to anyone and unknown to most students and teachers of philosophy are two different things. The majority of women philosophers are unknown to students and faculty.

3. Yes, if they are unknown to everyone they could not be included in the reading lists. But they are known to some and will become known to many more.

4. It is only a completely fabricated assumption to those who do not know the work of female philosophers and those who have not polled or talked to people about women philosophers.

This is a sexist bias.

5. It’s an attempt to eliminate a sexist bias - the bias that women have not or are not capable of doing serious philosophical work.

6. God remains unknown to all, female philosophers remain unknown to most. Something can and is being done about the latter, I don’t think anything can be done about the former. The work of female philosophers can be read. The work of God cannot (although some may think that some sacred text or the world itself is the work of God).

If someone is (A) unknown to everyone (except the self) then they are (B) unknown to students and teachers of philosophy.

You are saying (B) is true and (A) is not true.

Why would women philosophers be known to a wide variety of people other than their own selves, but not to teachers and students of philosophy? That would be absurd. Therefore (A) is also true, so your retort of 1. and 2. are not valid.

I mean, think about it. If a person who has made valuable contributions to a field is not known to most people in that field, then I daresay they are not known to most people. Therefore for all practical purposes, they are unknown. Therefore my argument stands that you try to refute in your replies 1, 2, and 3.

A practical example to your objection would be the case of Mme Marie Curie. She was known in her field, and known by the public, because she made valuable and important contributions to her field. Mrs. Dee Trotzdembaumgartner, however, was not known to philosophers, and she was not known to the general public, because she made no important contributions to the field of philosophy. Therefore I argue that Mrs. Dee Trotzdembaumgartner is an unknown lady philosopher.

On a personal note, have you heard of Dee Trotzdembaumgartner? No? No, you haven't? Well, there you go.

Consider this: to quote philosophers in at least 40% of all and any papers, will bring light to the X number of female philosophers who published in a study area of philosophy with works that are important and valuable. This may bring attention to their work, but is there a great number of female philosophers whose contributions are valuable enough to be quoted? Is the number comparable to 40% of the number of male philosophers? This may or may not be the case that the number is comparable in today's areas of research and endeavours of philosophical enquiry, but if a student or a professional at Oxford wants to publish a paper on DIRECTLY treating thinkers and their thoughts prior to, say, 1823, then one is hard pressed to make a 40% representation of women philosopher in the age of Enlightenment, or in the fourth century AD or in the 23th century BC. The data is not available.

Your fourth point brings up a directive to action. I should poll those who know female philosophers to know there are female philosophers. But what if nobody knows female philosophers?

You are implying that teachers and students are excluding female philosophers because they are female, and not because their contribution is unimportant.

Does this really hold water? In this day and age? Are there really important women philosophers who have great ideas to contribute, but everyone ignores them because they are female?

THIS above is an insinuation of strong sexual bias against males and females. That we ignore female philosophers despite their great contribution or potential contribution. In turn, this insinuation and its type is a rabidly feminist sexual gender bias.

You think publishers publish papers in the academic publishing world and they give any positive bias to male writers? "This writer is a female. She makes good points, but unfortunately she is a female, so I oppose that we publish her work." You did not outright say this, but you are insinuating this directly and this is absurd.

You are insinuating the above because you insist that i. women published great and very valuable work and ii. we keep ignoring these publications willfully, or else iii the important contributions never even get published.

Your entire rabidly feminist attitude is disturbing, because you can't make your claims without conjuring up real scenarios where the absurd situations as above necessarily pop up. Basically what you are saying is that oppression has been occurring due to gender bias. This I am sorry I don't believe is true.

Walker

N: … so cannot be said to teach philosophy but is restricted to academic philosophy.

W: I think academic philosophy is a valid teaching of philosophy at the college level because it does pass along knowledge that has been pondered. However, if the concern and objective is enlightenment, then the surroundings and activities are not important. Enlightenment is the changeless around which surroundings and activities change.

I agree that academic philosophy has its place but instead of worrying about PC expositions of cold facts, what can a university do if anything to inspire the love of wisdom which is not enlightenment?

The Greek word “philosophy” (philosophia) is a compound word, composed of two parts: 'Philos' (love) and 'Sophia' (wisdom). It literally means love of wisdom.

This raises the question of what wisdom is and what it means to love it. Does academic philosophy enable the love of wisdom or deny it in favor of concentrating on what is necessary to get a degree? This isn’t enlightenment. It is the pursuit of what eros invites us to experience

“One must not think slightingly of the paradoxical…for the paradox is the source of the thinker’s passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity.” ― Søren Kierkegaard

This is what I believe the love of wisdom is. It is the love of the paradox, the questions which invite us to remember what has been forgotten as we begin to experience the wisdom of human “meaning.”

Can dry academic philosophy inspire it especially when PC becomes a consideration or is something else needed to invite the love of a higher perspective? If so is the pursuit being encouraged or discouraged during these times of specialization? I would say discouraged.

The kind of thirst you’re writing about occurs out in the field, and happens when need awakens interest.
The halls of learning can then assuage the need that awakened in the field.
The halls are then less dry.

For example, someone may lose a loved one due to life’s cruelty.
Peace of mind is lost.

A philosophy is sought that accounts for loss.
When the philosophy is found, peace returns.
The seeking isn’t a choice.
It is an imperative to end torment.

Enlightenment is described in many ways.
In addition to your insight, in the context of the absolute it can be called the peace of mind that does not depend upon external conditions (such as a university setting), or thoughts (philosophy), or moods (the vagaries of physical embodiment).

A paradox is a mental construct.
It doesn’t exist in nature.
Wisdom dissolves paradoxes.

-1-:

If someone is (A) unknown to everyone (except the self) then they are (B) unknown to students and teachers of philosophy.

You are saying (B) is true and (A) is not true.

Why would women philosophers be known to a wide variety of people other than their own selves, but not to teachers and students of philosophy? That would be absurd.

I did not mean unknown in an absolute sense (some of your comments indicate that you are well aware of this) and I did not say known to a wide variety of people but not to teachers of students of philosophy.

If a person who has made valuable contributions to a field is not known to most people in that field …

If X wrote a book that few people have read did she make a valuable contribution? If the book is brought to the attention of more people and it is now recognized as important, when did she make a valuable contribution?

Mrs. Dee Trotzdembaumgartner, however, was not known to philosophers, and she was not known to the general public, because she made no important contributions to the field of philosophy. Therefore I argue that Mrs. Dee Trotzdembaumgartner is an unknown lady philosopher.

The question is whether the Mrs. Dee Trotzdembaumgartners of the world did not make an important contribution because their work was never read by most in the field or whether it was never read because it contained little or nothing of importance. In some cases the latter will be true, but there may also be cases in which the former is true. It is the judgment of the philosophy department at Oxford that the former is true in the case of X, Y, and Z, that is, those authors who are on the recommended reading list.

… to quote philosophers in at least 40% of all and any papers …

According to the Cherwell, an undergraduate magazine at Oxford:

The Faculty have revised reading lists for each topic by ensuring that 40% of the recommended articles are written by women and by changing the form of author listing so that first names are given ...

-1-:

This may bring attention to their work, but is there a great number of female philosophers whose contributions are valuable enough to be quoted?

The fact that the question is asked is a good indication that the inclusion of more women philosophers on recommended reading lists has its merits.

From the same article:

Chair of the Philosophy Faculty Board and Fellow at Keble College, Dr Edward Harcourt told Cherwell: “Some of the most interesting new work in philosophy in recent years – in epistemology, in social and political philosophy, in metaphysics, ethics, moral psychology, in the philosophy of language, in aesthetics, and in other areas besides – has been done by philosophers who are also feminists.”

So, it is the conclusion of the department that female philosophers are doing work worthy of being read. But if they are not on the reading list it is more likely that they will remain unread.

-1-:

… one is hard pressed to make a 40% representation of women philosopher in the age of Enlightenment

You are making my point for me. They were there, most of us just don’t know about them. This may help to make it a bit easier:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/20 ... t-science/

I should poll those who know female philosophers to know there are female philosophers.

No, a poll asking people how many female philosophers they know would help determine if you are correct in claiming that it is a complete fabrication to say that there are many valuable unknown female philosophers. If the polling shows that the majority have not read the work or can even provide the names of more than a few if any female philosophers, then it would not be true that that part is fabricated. Whether the work is a value is something the department has answered in the affirmative. Whether they are right or wrong is a judgment that can only be answered by reading the recommended titles.

But what if nobody knows female philosophers?

Again, you make my point, which was that female philosophers are largely unknown.

You are implying that teachers and students are excluding female philosophers because they are female, and not because their contribution is unimportant.

I am saying that if the majority of teachers and students do not know the work of female philosophers then that work cannot be included in what is being taught.

Does this really hold water? In this day and age? Are there really important women philosophers who have great ideas to contribute, but everyone ignores them because they are female?

As I have said, things are changing, and they are changing in large part due to the work of feminist philosophers.

You think publishers publish papers in the academic publishing world and they give any positive bias to male writers?

I think that authors such as Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe went by G.E.M. Anscombe in order to hide her gender in order to avoid sexual bias. And this is why the policy at Oxford includes listing first names first on citations.

You are insinuating the above because you insist that i. women published great and very valuable work and ii. we keep ignoring these publications willfully, or else iii the important contributions never even get published.

I have not said let alone insisted on any of these things. I said that the value of the work must be determined by reading it and that not everyone agrees on the value of any particular work. I said that it would be wrong to assume that female authors are not known because their work is without value. You cannot willfully ignore what you do not know exists.

Your entire rabidly feminist attitude is disturbing …

Well, thank you for your measured response to my attempt to examine arguments in support of their decision. My first comment on this topic was that I have mixed feelings about what they are doing. I concluded my second response by repeating this. I have also said that I thought their actions were heavy handed. How anyone could reach the conclusion you have from what I have actually said is beyond me.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 5:55 am The kind of thirst you’re writing about occurs out in the field, and happens when need awakens interest.
The halls of learning can then assuage the need that awakened in the field.
The halls are then less dry.

For example, someone may lose a loved one due to life’s cruelty.
Peace of mind is lost.

A philosophy is sought that accounts for loss.
When the philosophy is found, peace returns.
The seeking isn’t a choice.
It is an imperative to end torment.

Enlightenment is described in many ways.
In addition to your insight, in the context of the absolute it can be called the peace of mind that does not depend upon external conditions (such as a university setting), or thoughts (philosophy), or moods (the vagaries of physical embodiment).

A paradox is a mental construct.
It doesn’t exist in nature.
Wisdom dissolves paradoxes.

Is peace of mind the goal of philosophy or is it the need to understand which is opposed by the desire for pleasure and peace of mind?

Jacob Needleman in his book "Lost Christianity" says the following after a lecture he had been giving took an unexpected turn:

Of course it had been stupid of me to express it in quite that way, but nevertheless the point was worth pondering: does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure? The history of religion in the west seems by and large to rest on the assumption that the answer is no. Therefore, externally induced emotions of egoistic fear (hellfire), anticipation of pleasure (heaven), vengeance, etc., have been marshaled to keep people in the faith.

I remember reading how one person became attracted to Simone Weil. Philosophy in college was always dry and boring so he hated it. Then a friend asked him to read a little of Simone Weil's observations. This was real and he became enchanted right away. Thinking about this it finally dawned on me that real philosophy is alive serving a human need to "understand" what is greater than themselves. Academics is often dead. it relies on arguing the law of non contradiction as the basis for contemplation. Dis is here and dat's dere. How is real philosophy alive? Simone Weil answers the question in her usual laconic fashion:

"When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door."

How someone so young can come up with this is beyond me. Einstein suggested the same with his explanations of intuition and Basarab Nicolescu explains it using the Law of the Included Middle.. The Socratic method is a means for creating contradictions which can be reconciled through intuition. It is living philosophy as opposed to the philosophically dead reciting facts.

My guess is that more women would be drawn to philosophy if it were allowed to live for them. Women not caught up in feminism or New Age psychology often "FEEL the value of the human need to understand as opposed to peace of mind or self justification. They are attracted to eros. Philosophy can live for them but modern education and culture often does its level best to destroy this natural human impulse within them for the sake of PC. We are indeed representatives of a strange creature.

The need for peace of mind can be one of the prompts that leads to accumulating the knowledge of philosophy.

In that example, the journey begins as a seeking to reclaim peace of mind, and results in learning.

The learning of facts, now fascinating that interest has been awakened by need, continues until the uncorruped peace of mind, i.e. enlightenment that subsumes and incorporates the energy that triggers chaotic emotions, is revealed.

This seeking and finding may require much learning and many dualistic machinations until the drips of knowledge dripping into an expanding balloon, about the size of a human head, pressures the balloon walls separating the inner from the outer, causing them to grow thinner and thinner until they burst.

The result is emptiness remaining where knowledge once was.

Emptiness replaces the knowledge as home.

How? What’s called emptiness is actually pure, unaffected and infinite potentiality from which anything, even identified paradoxes, can manifest if the conditions are right.

This infinite potentiality, which is the unobservable realm in which all is unborn, replaces memory as the reference for possibilities.

As such, rather than memory or the thoughts of another supplying the idea of what should and can be, attention turns to conditions for clues of what has and will manifest from the unborn.

Getting busy, so I’ll just read the interesting comments as they appear.
Apologies for not responding to every insight, which admittedly have not been fully considered, yet.

Reincarnation would account for the youthful wisdom of Weil.

Thanks for your detailed and exhaustive reply, Fooloso4.

Reading your references, mainly which were repeats or quotes of your own, I have to admit I missed quite a few, and it is my fault... I hadn't read all the comments in the thread, and that is a rule-breaking behaviour by me. Mea Culpa.

It seems to me that we are sort of on an agreement that the new decree by the Oxford philo dept is ill-designed. You call it iheavy-handed, and questionable, I call it rabidly feminist. I called YOU rabidly feminist at one point, and I take that back, if I may.

So it's just the degree of depth or height or breadth that is different between the two of us which makes our eyebrows rise.

That said, I noticed a few things:

Chair of the Philosophy Faculty Board and Fellow at Keble College, Dr Edward Harcourt told Cherwell: “Some of the most interesting new work in philosophy in recent years – in epistemology, in social and political philosophy, in metaphysics, ethics, moral psychology, in the philosophy of language, in aesthetics, and in other areas besides – has been done by philosophers who are also feminists.”

Here, Dr. Prof. Chair. Fellow Dr. Harcourt did not make a case for female philosphers. You have to delve into the details to notice he was bs-sing under the weight of PC. He said he read the most interesting... by feminist philosophers. He did not say the philosophers were female. They were feminists. Important detail, which may escape some, or most readers who read superficially.

You, Fooloso4, wrote:

I am saying that if the majority of teachers and students do not know the work of female philosophers then that work cannot be included in what is being taught.

This is so true! But it has no bearing whether there are important female philosophers that some know and some don't, and they ought to be promoted.

In other words, well done, very diplomatic.

You also wrote, Phooloso4:

As I have said, things are changing, and they are changing in large part due to the work of feminist philosophers.

Well, well. I am not sure if the change we are focussing on is the result of the female philosophers that got up in arms and demanded their voices to be heard. There is a contradiction in that as well; if somebody can't be heard, then no matter how many times or how strongly they say they demand to be heard, they won't be heard, because they are not heard of in the first place, their voices are not heard.

Therefore I claim that the push to promote female philosophers did not come from the female philosopers. It came from a source which is powerful, influential, and not female philosopher. I don't know who it is or who they are who started this movement. Some feminists, make no mistake; but who they are, what capacity they operate in society, I have no clue of that. One thing is for sure, this push did not come from female philosophers. (Because they did not have the voice, the clout, the wherewithal; perhaps, and this remains to be seen, perhaps they did not even have critical mass to organize and push.)

-1-:

Thanks for your detailed and exhaustive reply, Fooloso4.

Reading your references, mainly which were repeats or quotes of your own, I have to admit I missed quite a few, and it is my fault... I hadn't read all the comments in the thread, and that is a rule-breaking behaviour by me. Mea Culpa.

I am glad I made the effort and appreciate what you say.

I called YOU rabidly feminist at one point, and I take that back, if I may.

You did and you may. The truth is I am not a fan of feminist philosophy and my wife (who is not a fan of philosophy at all) has never considered herself a feminist. And yet she has always been the main breadwinner, rising to a rank that few women would have a generation ago, while I put everything on the back burner and stayed home to raise our children. It was an unusual thing to do at the time and was met with suspicion by some, derisiveness and jokes by others, but also a few men who told me that they would like to do what I was doing. Today many do, although I suspect it is still the exception.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 5:24 pm The need for peace of mind can be one of the prompts that leads to accumulating the knowledge of philosophy.

In that example, the journey begins as a seeking to reclaim peace of mind, and results in learning.

The learning of facts, now fascinating that interest has been awakened by need, continues until the uncorruped peace of mind, i.e. enlightenment that subsumes and incorporates the energy that triggers chaotic emotions, is revealed.

This seeking and finding may require much learning and many dualistic machinations until the drips of knowledge dripping into an expanding balloon, about the size of a human head, pressures the balloon walls separating the inner from the outer, causing them to grow thinner and thinner until they burst.

The result is emptiness remaining where knowledge once was.

Emptiness replaces the knowledge as home.

How? What’s called emptiness is actually pure, unaffected and infinite potentiality from which anything, even identified paradoxes, can manifest if the conditions are right.

This infinite potentiality, which is the unobservable realm in which all is unborn, replaces memory as the reference for possibilities.

As such, rather than memory or the thoughts of another supplying the idea of what should and can be, attention turns to conditions for clues of what has and will manifest from the unborn.

Getting busy, so I’ll just read the interesting comments as they appear.
Apologies for not responding to every insight, which admittedly have not been fully considered, yet.

Reincarnation would account for the youthful wisdom of Weil.

I see what you mean. I’m just not sure if “peace of mind” is the right term. Plato wrote “Man - a being in search of meaning” Does Man - a being in search of peace of mind indicate the human need for meaning? Is the goal of experiencing meaning to provide peace of mind? Meaning to me implies the desire to feel value while peace of mind doesn’t need objective purpose or value.. I see they are related and am happy you raised the question for me. How is the need for peace of mind related to the human need for meaning? A question worth serious contemplation.

Since I don’t believe in the ready made soul but rather that a soul is human potential, I’ve often wondered if Simone was a partially developed soul which did reincarnate as necessary for her conscious evolution. How is the four year old Simone so repulsed by world hunger that she refuses candy since the French soldiers didn’t have sugar. With most, unless hunger is experienced people don’t think about it. Yet world hunger consumed her and she fought against it as best she could all of her life.

Do you think that human philosophy will ever become a dominant influence? Now we have political philosophy, feminist philosophy, and assorted other labels for philosophy which all demand PC recognition. Will human philosophy reflecting Man as a being in search of meaning ever become a dominant societal influence. I don’t believe so. Specialization seems the rage of the day inviting the conflicts between labels denying the human heart of philosophy or the universal search for meaning.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:59 pm I see what you mean. I’m just not sure if “peace of mind” is the right term.

I think it is the correct way to view enlightenment, Nick.

Peace of mind is more subtle than shouting at the troops, but it can still be present in the shouting.
I think that's where folks err.

Folks can't imagine Buddha ever shouting because of all the statues frozen in laughter or expressions of tranquility.
However, it is correct to not imagine Buddha always shouting.

Peace of mind is the source of rationality.
It is the source of detachment from the clouding of afflictive* emotions.
It fosters equanimity.

So, peace of mind is also rightly applied to philosophy as a condition of the present, that's required for philosophy to reveal.

As such, peace of mind is bigger than specialization.


* Reference klesha