Why turn your back on the wisdom of the ages?

[Alexander's Horse]

This isn't a plug for any particular religion or philosophy but I have noticed a lot of people today say they can work life out for themselves according to a set of beliefs and guiding principles which they craft themselves.

I think this is the height of foolishness. In fact when people say this to me, I think, "you conceited fool". That idea really makes me laugh.

Why? Because even if you make the most cursory study of religion or philosophy or politics or history you will find so many great people who have gone before you and blazed the trails to better ways of living and thinking. People who are much wiser than you, that came to some understandings after many years of struggle and study, that made all the mistakes and can tell you how to avoid them. Stories and lessons that have stood the test of time, universal truths. To quote Leviticus, there is nothing new under the sun.

You will also find so many beautiful ideas and so much inspiration for your daily life. Drink at the well of human experience and be grateful that others have gone before you. This is like the greatest journey you could ever go on and now you're part of the story.

Someone who ignores all of that is a prize fool if you ask me. Don't tell me a pimply 17 year old kid living a pampered life in a Western country can work it out better for themselves. If that worked, why is there so much youth suicide and depression?

What a self crafted philosophy usually boils down to is selfishness - which is a recipe for tears, unhappiness and lack of fulfilment. Why? I suspect its because in the end we all know we will die and if its all about "me" then in the end its all in vain - I don't care how wise or rich or powerful you become. As Shakespeare put it so well - life is time's fool.

The sooner you all realise you are part of something bigger than yourself, that you don't have all the answers and probably never will, that the more you think you know the less you really understand, the happier you will be.

Its about humility - a very unfashionable word in our "me" focussed today.

It is Sunday here and that is Horse's troll sermon for today

[Bosh]

Yeah, I'd be completely lost without Hume

[Apocalypse]

Did you make this thread because of what I posted yesterday? I didn't mean to look like I thought all of that up on my own, just that I made a few connections.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Did you make this thread because of what I posted yesterday? I didn't mean to look like I thought all of that up on my own, just that I made a few connections.

Yes partly - but I only read the thread title - which alludes to a very common approach today which I think is making people unhappy.

I mean youth is depressed and suicidal? Think about that for a moment. Shocking.

[CygnusZ]

I'd be lost in this world without Nietzsche.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Yes partly - but I only read the thread title - which alludes to a very common approach today which I think is making people unhappy.

I mean youth is depressed and suicidal? Think about that for a moment. Shocking.

That's a relief, kinda. My thread was also more about things that really only apply to me specifically, not some major thing I want everyone to believe.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by CygnusZ
I'd be lost in this world without Nietzsche.

But isn't that point? You might not agree with what he wrote but where is the respect?

Same with Hume. Maybe there is something there for you but you'll never find it with that attitude.

Its like your skimming across the surface of life without any guiding lights but your stomach, your d*ck and your addled little brain.


But, if that floats your boat......

[Ecthy]

Tell me where to start then, horse.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Tell me where to start then, horse.

Sit at my feet Grasshopper

No, I don't have the answers but my opinion is that paradoxically life begins to become worthwhile with the death of self - live for others and for the bigger ideas.

Open your mind with humility and try to learn from those that have gone before and maybe you will find a kind of salvation and inner peace and purpose in this world even if there is no life after this one and your life may seem to you to never amount to much. But you'll be glad to have lived it.


Or something like that

[notyoueither]

Ok. Who stole Horse's log in?

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


But isn't that point? You might not agree with what he wrote but where is the respect?

I respect Nietzsche and Hume, because they both encourage the opposite of what you're saying. Basically, any philosopher really does. If mankind's unique ability is that he questions his enviornment, how can your universal condemnation of self-created philosophy be in step with your own view that we must follow previously discovered philosophy?

"Gods in all things" -- Thales

"Even great spirits have only their five fingers breadth of experience - just beyond it their thinking ceases and their endless empty space and stupidity begins. " --Nietzsche

[Seeker]

I think the most important lesson we learn in schools is that respect can only be learned, there is no such thing as 'natural authority'.

Personally, I like what the Buddhists say about this:

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, KILL HIM!!" (famous saying)

The 'road' being the road to enlightenment, the 'Buddha' being the great teacher/philosophy/religion/book or whatever that has become your idol.

Also see Hesse, Hermann...ALL his 'Bildungsrommel' type books have this common theme, that in order to achieve any real enlightenment the student MUST 'kill the teacher'.

[Hydey]

All the answers are there before my eyes, I just need to know the questions.

[Aeson]

There may be nothing new under the sun, but there certainly is still room for improvement in this world. The danger isn't a philosophy that is too new, or too old, but one that isn't questioned or allowed to progress.

[Lorizael]

But what if one of the twenty thousand here has thought of something new, AH?

All of the greats that came before us were ridiculed for having new and radical ideas. If we had told them to simply stay put and do as their ancestors did, where would we be now?

And how does the fact that I have pimples have anything to do with this?

You can never silence the imagination. Never hinder the advancement of knowledge.

[mindseye]

I agree 100% with Horse.

Sorry gotta run. It's time to check on the humunculus Im growing in the terrarium.

[Jon Miller]

your post was thought provoking

not sure if I completely agree (not saying I disagree, just saying I am not sure)

but I do think it is stupid to do things with no knowledge of what has come before

Jon Miller

[Skanky Burns]

I agree with Horsey, you need to learn from the mistakes others have made. But you also need to sift through the ideas they had, and only use the ones that apply to you.

[Alexander's Horse]

Did I say follow a particular philosophy or religion? No

Did I say not to explore, expand knowledge, to find new ways of seeing the world? No

Did I say a self centred philosophy and moral system is meaningless, worthless, foolish and makes you unhappy? Yes

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Seeker
Personally, I like what the Buddhists say about this:

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, KILL HIM!!" (famous saying)

The 'road' being the road to enlightenment, the 'Buddha' being the great teacher/philosophy/religion/book or whatever that has become your idol.

Hmm, ahhhh, the context seems to be not quite right.

[cia]

The context is right Urban Ranger. It means to let go of the ways of thinking which bind you to a singular mode of thought and try to expand from there.

[Aeson]

Why? Because even if you make the most cursory study of religion or philosophy or politics or history you will find so many great people who have gone before you and blazed the trails to better ways of living and thinking. People who are much wiser than you, that came to some understandings after many years of struggle and study, that made all the mistakes and can tell you how to avoid them.

You also seemed to imply that wisdom is reserved for those in the past, or relatively so.

To quote Leviticus, there is nothing new under the sun.

I agree completely, and there never was anything new under the sun. Any thought process has to draw on experience or developed function, and as such cannot be original in itself. Even these 'self-crafted' philosophies you're talking about draw upon principles and morals that have been rehashed over and over again. Every once in a while someone mixes the ideas together in a better way, and that's where advancement comes from.

Concerning the first point, it is entirely possible that someone can put together a new compilation of ideas that achieves their own personal desires far better than any previous compilation could. The fact that they feel the need to come up with their 'own' philosophy would suggest that they had found something lacking in those they were familiar with.

I personally have read quite a lot of different views, and don't completely agree with any of them. I try to take those things which are valuable within any philosophical system and add them to my own. My own personal compilation of ideas I've found of worth is constantly being revised as I am exposed to new sources.

I agree that to disregard history is foolish, for the reasons you stated, as well as because it isn't possible to do. Original thought is an illusion. If that was the only point you were making I wouldn't have responded.

Now, concerning selfishness. Every motivation is selfish in nature. Our motives can be to improve or degrade our environment, but the reason it is a motive remains the same; self-gratification of some sort. This self-gratification doesn't have to be happiness, comfort, pleasure, or anything specifically, rather anything which serves as a reason for action. Noble motivations are usually termed selfless, but they aren't. They just improve circumstance outside the individual driven by them.

Now this whole line of thought should be considered self-centered, and doesn't claim to be otherwise. I don't think it makes it particularly meaningless, worthless, or foolish. It also doesn't have a direct effect on individual happiness. Understanding why we do things can only help us better motivate ourselves to do the 'proper' things. How we apply that understanding, and what we consider 'proper', determines happiness or lack thereof.

At the same time, a 'selfless' philosophy can often be one which causes great personal unhappiness. I'm not saying the individual's motivations are not fulfilled, but rather their motivations are to place other's happiness before their own. Because happiness (personal or otherwise) is not the only possible motivation this still allows for 'selfless' actions to be selfish in nature. The happiness caused by this action is not the goal, just an effect of the desired end or a catalyst for it. Many of the great stories (fiction and non-fiction) draw upon this, Christ in the New Testament, Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, and I'm sure you can think of many others. Personal happiness, or at least in a contemperary sense, was put aside to help others. These actions, while ultimately selfish, were still noble and deserving of respect.

We are not perfect in our actions or knowlege. If we were, our goals would always be achieved. Then our philosophical positions could be judge entirely upon the results they achieve. As it is, we usually end up somewhere other than we've aimed for. Even with a perfected philosophy we would still make mistakes. That combined with effects outside our control could make even a perfect philosophy lead to disaster, or a flawed one to lead to success. To judge a philosophy only on whether it brings happiness or not is rather short-sighted.

To make unqualified generalizations is dangerous.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Aeson

To make unqualified generalizations is dangerous.

Yes - and you just made an unqualified generalisation

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Seeker
Also see Hesse, Hermann...ALL his 'Bildungsrommel' type books have this common theme, that in order to achieve any real enlightenment the student MUST 'kill the teacher'.

I guess only to learn that this was a mistake he wouldn´t have made with a little bit of wisdom....

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Aeson
Now, concerning selfishness. Every motivation is selfish in nature. Our motives can be to improve or degrade our environment, but the reason it is a motive remains the same; self-gratification of some sort. This self-gratification doesn't have to be happiness, comfort, pleasure, or anything specifically, rather anything which serves as a reason for action. Noble motivations are usually termed selfless, but they aren't. They just improve circumstance outside the individual driven by them.

Well, I just have the question:
Is clearly everything somehow "selfish" - without doubt?

[Urban Ranger]

That's debatable.

[Skanky Burns]

No, its true. If you give money to the poor, you get the feeling that you are helping others less fortunate than yourself, for example.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
No, its true. If you give money to the poor, you get the feeling that you are helping others less fortunate than yourself, for example.

AND IT MAKES YOU FORGET YOUR OWN PROBLEMS AND FEEL HAPPY - that's my freaking point

[Skanky Burns]

Glad to help you make your point.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
No, its true. If you give money to the poor, you get the feeling that you are helping others less fortunate than yourself, for example.

Maybe I can say this about my own actions/motivations, but OTOH, how can I say this definately about other (or even all) actions?
And even if I can say this about everything - if the money objectively helps someone, is this action/motivation then only selfish?