Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenment?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenment?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Edited, feel free to delete.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Personally I don't think it matters if you're a laborer, a solitary gardener, a movie lover, a man of business, a hippie, or a homeless person, as long as you're not causing yourself suffering, purposefully or directly causing suffering to others, hindering your intelligence using drugs, or promoting false beliefs.
Nothing ever matters in the face of birth and death. And yet you still claim here various levels of knowledge about the consequences of your actions for your self and others, the long-term effect of drugs and what would constitute a "true belief" to offset the false ones and how much more? But in the immediate, urgent, all-eclipsing face of birth and death, what would all that still matter?

Wisdom is about getting to essentials: that one foundation from where the rest is sucking off some brief sensation of existence. All the "bad things" are just expressions of ignorance and "good things" are expressions and full recognitions of realized nature. Of course a statement like this assumes a proper orientation on bad and good already.

To answer your main question then: you do not live in some kind of relation to enlightenment but just according to your nature. Reflect deeply on whatever it appears as. That's the ideal.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Edited, feel free to delete.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Russell Parr »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:What are your thoughts on the relation between enlightenment and 'wise ways of living'? For example, one might say that you should avoid desires, you should avoid relationships, you should avoid thrill seeking, you should avoid chasing after money. Another might say that it doesn't matter how you live as long as you are peaceful. While another might say that you should spend your time helping others out of compassion, or that you should meditate every day. What are your thoughts on this subject? Are there things you do which you think are not wise, do these in any way hinder you? Is there some ideal way of life you think would be most beneficial to you, such as a peaceful solitude, or a life focused on discussion, or do you think that it's completely irrelevant?

Personally I don't think it matters if you're a laborer, a solitary gardener, a movie lover, a man of business, a hippie, or a homeless person, as long as you're not causing yourself suffering, purposefully or directly causing suffering to others, hindering your intelligence using drugs, or promoting false beliefs.

Based on this answer, someone who answered differently to these questions, might conclude that it is a relatively selfish attitude since I haven't stated anything about helping others in any way. While in general I will be compassionate toward my partner or people I come in contact with, or in the future even help others in another sense such as providing insight through a book, I feel no serious obligation or motivation toward such causes on any larger scale, at least not consistently and not out of any selflessness. Is this something you would disagree with? What is your ideal alternative and do you act upon it?

I'm also happy to further discuss what I've mentioned and any relevant reasoning as to why I live in this way.
I think what you're really asking is, if you don't mind my rephrasing, to what extent should wisdom impact one's lifestyle?

It all depends on how much you value wisdom. How wisdom influences your decisions, relationships, habits, and overall lifestyle is pivoted on this.

The more wisdom is valued, the more it underlies and alters perspectives and actions. A great, all-consuming love of Truth is more likely to lead to complete non-attachment and Nirvana. Wisdom less valued leads to little change in lifestyle; One is more susceptible to the lures of egotistical attachments and thus the joys and sufferings of Samsara persist.

If full Enlightenment is the goal, the best course to take is to cultivate a love for truth and wisdom as much as possible, and everything else will take care of itself.
Kinderfall
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 2:02 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Kinderfall »

Enlightenment; insight into the true nature of reality. It can be argued that ideal or flawed can only be in relation to the quest for truth, and not once you've experienced the goal, because by the time you ultimately reach this insight you've discovered your true nature, and like Cinderella's glass slipper it fits just right.

Honestly, though in my view, a path of clear intent and love of truth necessarily has little regard for what it looks like. Books and teachings are valid pointers, they completely fail when used as a highway.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:On a 'grander scale' yes, but if this were something you lived by literally then you'd have no problem with giving me all of your money and taking some heroin. I asked what matters to you now, not in the face of birth and death. Whether its in relation to enlightenment or not, the question was about how the topic itself and its consideration has no doubt made changes to your way of living.
This whole question about "ways of living" to advance or maintain spiritual or philosophically inquiry or growth is one that is always targeted to those beginning this path, which is almost everyone, still rather full of themselves and full of the world with only some inkling of the wider reality which is only suspected but still desired.

To clarify this lets take the example of the original Buddhist or Christian monasteries. The point here is not all the detail of monastic life but the sudden, radical abandonment of the older identity, clothing style, job, social obligations, worries about income, competition for status and perhaps even boredom. The monastery provided means to "empty that old glass" by a set of different, plain cloths and simple habits, so there's space for learning. This is not that different from how many schools used to be organized too. To understand why such life appears to be so regimented, one has to see how just removing stuff is for most people not going to do much good at all. Like removing a train from its tracks, where is it going to go? Getting bogged down in the wetlands and swamps, for sure. Without a course, without some discipline and efforts, it's almost unavoidable that one gets stuck in one of the many pitfalls of ones own inner chaos and general subconscious. Without some new rails, some discipline, order, time tables and activities, the mind could easily become unhinged or taken over by hidden forces, the ones not yet dealt with. Here would lie the wisdom of the monastic living in relation to the goal.

When it comes to enlightenment it doesn't matter, it cannot matter where one lives or what one now does. There's no way to predict or categorize all the forms and possibilities. Not even by probability! Some might stay in the "monastery", others would leave. Some never came there in the first place.

So your topic is of interest to those still struggling with the first steps because once along the path it's understood the "way" is something that cannot be contained. It's something you can only find out in your own context. But there are generalities of course which are true for nearly everyone starting on the path or struggling with the steps. A little while ago I replied to Matt Gregory something like the following general "advice". This is the closest thing to a valuable answer you'll ever get on any inquiry for "good" or "bad" ways of living:
  • Developing proportional or "reasonable" thought takes quite some energy. In my experience it's not as much time that's missing but properly directed energy and sufficient space for those to develop and silence, focus and so on. Even with seas of time and no distractions available, it doesn't necessarily will lead to any better thought. So I'd suggest looking for other causes, possibly emotional investments or energy misdirections which can affect clarity. And all you need is clarity, not quantity!
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Cahoot »

Diebert wrote:When it comes to enlightenment it doesn't matter, it cannot matter where one lives or what one now does. There's no way to predict or categorize all the forms and possibilities. Not even by probability! Some might stay in the "monastery", others would leave. Some never came there in the first place.
It is rather blissful to spontaneously realize equanimity in every situation, don’t you think?
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Edited.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Cahoot wrote:
Diebert wrote:When it comes to enlightenment it doesn't matter, it cannot matter where one lives or what one now does. There's no way to predict or categorize all the forms and possibilities. Not even by probability! Some might stay in the "monastery", others would leave. Some never came there in the first place.
It is rather blissful to spontaneously realize equanimity in every situation, don’t you think?
In most cases it becomes a nihilistic form of violence, the "bliss" of annihilation and escape from unwanted elements. Bliss here in the meaning of a fleeting state. Once it's experienced above and beyond what one can actually handle, it's just another thing to abandon. Although some have called that the true bliss. But someone's heaven is another man's hell or wasteland.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I wrote a post recently then realized I wasn't logged in, but its main focus was about the general tendency on the forum to completely ignore the fact that wisdom is only useful in ones life.
Your self-serving version of wisdom is certainly useful to your desires. But that's ignored for good reason here!
To begin, the questions that I asked were in the form of examples of advice that people might give, I was not actually stating these things.
You started the thread with the title "ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenment?".

A question I dismissed as being beside the point. There isn't such "relation" and even if we'd define one, there's no answer to give. Apart from the one I did in terms of dealing with challenging cozy attachments and identities in thought, feeling and habits. But there's no formula in how to approach that. For some it would be like leaving a family or partner, for someone else it might mean leaving isolation and live with family or a partner.
Following this you went on to speak about the radical abandonment of monks. No one here is a monk, no one here has done so. So it seems that you went and took a rather extreme and perhaps irrelevant example.
No, it's actually the best example of a context where your question still would make sense. In any other context it would become just another misunderstanding of the topic. Besides, the monastry is a good metaphor for many other situations one can enter or activitites you could choose to engage in. It's just an example of a well known practical life style choice with the aim to learn.
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:as long as you're not causing yourself suffering, purposefully or directly causing suffering to others, hindering your intelligence using drugs
I'm sure you agree regarding the lack of wisdom in causing suffering, and have also stated various similar opinions on drug users.
The path to gaining wisdom is littered with pain and suffering, especially giving such to your self. Certain drugs can very effectively help to broaden or clear the mind but just as easily numb or confuse it permanently. So no, we don't agree at all.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Edit
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Russell Parr »

The more you know and understand the Truth, and the more you meditate on it, the more it undermines and determines what you do with your time and life. Exactly how that manifests is unique with every individual.

It's all about values. You will do what you desire most. If you have desires that are rooted in ignorance, you will chase after those things. If you have a few vices that are deeply ingrained (I assume we all do to some degree), then your time spent pursuing and dealing with those things is grounded in ignorance. Though we are all innocent instruments of nature in the end, any and all ignorance is, by definition, opposite of, and mostly likely, counterproductive to wisdom. Just don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

This reminds me of Dan's video on hypocrisy.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Your self-serving version of wisdom is certainly useful to your desires. But that's ignored for good reason here!
Again, how could you possibly ignore the fact that wisdom is only useful in ones life? Whether that results in changes in thought patterns, beliefs, delusions, or changes in actions.
But your life is simply not an island! Most of it is determined by elsewhere and many things happening (or not happening) on the island is effecting a lot of other places. It's a kind of arbitrarily demarcation but not random: any organism is naturally oriented toward its own survival or expansion. For that reason I mentioned a "self-serving version" of wisdom or in other words wisdom geared to be useful, ruled by more or less damaged instincts, some self-preservation and probably some level of comfort. And yes when "that results in changes" it will be still seen only though the prism of ones own concerns, ones immediate surrounding, ones "life". But at this point "relation to enlightenment" would mean the opposite of that.
And if it is not beneficial to you, then why on earth would you engage in discussion or care at all?
Philosophy means "love of wisdom" not "love for beneficial things".
All I'm seeing from you is some kind of self-denial, as if you aren't getting up for work tomorrow, talking to your mate, or whatever it is you do. Perhaps you don't think you're a person and have somehow made a distinction between and no longer associate with a self, or you as a person?

You'd have to elaborate on why it appears this way? For the sake of the self-servers.
That's all immaterial to the discussion. You are using philosophy, as I told you already a few times, as some way to solve your problems, as a hide-out. And that's understandable. It's at least a motive. But you keep on thinking "that's it" because the moment you'd think otherwise, major problems will start up. Which ones? God only knows.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Edit
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Cahoot »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Cahoot wrote:
Diebert wrote:When it comes to enlightenment it doesn't matter, it cannot matter where one lives or what one now does. There's no way to predict or categorize all the forms and possibilities. Not even by probability! Some might stay in the "monastery", others would leave. Some never came there in the first place.
It is rather blissful to spontaneously realize equanimity in every situation, don’t you think?
In most cases it becomes a nihilistic form of violence, the "bliss" of annihilation and escape from unwanted elements. Bliss here in the meaning of a fleeting state. Once it's experienced above and beyond what one can actually handle, it's just another thing to abandon. Although some have called that the true bliss. But someone's heaven is another man's hell or wasteland.
No equanimity, no bliss.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Cahoot »

“On a 'grander scale' yes, but if this were something you lived by literally then you'd have no problem with giving me all of your money and taking some heroin. I asked what matters to younow, not in the face of birth and death. Whether its in relation to enlightenment or not, the question was about how the topic itself and its consideration has no doubt made changes to your way of living.”

On a so-called grander scale, why make a move to do these things.
Naturalist
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Naturalist »

A simple definition for enlightenment is seeing and knowing it all by our mind consciousness. But what is to be seen or known at all? It is seeing and knowing into the true nature and its orientation all the time.

An ideal way of living in relation to enlightenment is simple and balance. In short, it means Middle Way. It is all about focusing on core, neutral, balance and upright. Our mind consciousness needs to investigate and break through the core of life and all things without any attitudes of favouritism. Any investigations must commence based on unbiased grounds i.e. on neutral and upright positions. Therefore, it is imperative for one to abandon the stereotyping mindset that is associated with the ‘-ism’ or ‘-ology’, for it is a system of pre-conditioning or prisoning. Generally speaking, liberation is the only right potion to the ultimate truth discovery and with the inculcation of right determination, enlightenment becomes achievable for everyone right here, right now.

Moreover, all mundane desires or attachments would lead to suffering, ultimately. And desire or attachment is not something that is sinful or something weird that arises in our existence. As humans, we naturally have desires or attachments and there is nothing to be shameful about. On this pretext, enlightenment would conjure up one’s realisation that desire or attachment is not about good or bad to individuals but a gateway to suffering. To ‘bear with’ is to suffer and the antonym of it is to ‘let go.’ By not submitting oneself to the conditional circumstances, one would be freed, be liberated and be neutralised. Wisely one could see it, know it and let go – no need to grasp it and do not get into any involvement on the other side of the object or matter. Just see things or happenings as they truly are; not delusively are. Just see the things or happenings in direct perception - that is basically label-less, bound-less, stereotype-less or colour-less. At the end of the day, it is merely an attitude away.

Somehow and somewhere, we have actually learned, graduated and liberated out of something without much attention on it. In other words, every one of us has tasted a ‘simple’ awakening moment in one way or another on a daily basis. Live well; live simply now for the sustainability of oneself and the future generations.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Cahoot wrote:No equanimity, no bliss.
The question is here how much violence is needed to reach that. The bloody price of peace... Equanimity can talk about the center of the storm or about the one left standing on the battlefield.. between piles of bones, of all vanquished enemies whose ashes will rise in a next life, to haunt and seek revenge.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
diebert wrote:That's all immaterial to the discussion. You are using philosophy, as I told you already a few times, as some way to solve your problems, as a hide-out. And that's understandable. It's at least a motive. But you keep on thinking "that's it" because the moment you'd think otherwise, major problems will start up. Which ones? God only knows.
You automatically assumed this due to the topic. I spoke about this understandable conditioned response with Russel and went on to elaborate further in the other thread. Rather than repeating myself, take a look.
No, it's based on the majority of your 2000 posts, or at least the ones I've read (many hundreds). The same thing appears each and every time. You are not addressing my first paragraph which went more into that but instead you refer me to another thread where I've to try to find "something you mean" in a lot of text... That's called muddying the waters.

In other words, you don't seem to want to address the topic. All you appear to do is wrapping it all into your favored version of "wisdom" which is not wisdom at all. It's all quoted or replicated, conflicting and self-serving so far. Perhaps you like the freedom it brings, the deliverance from "evil" and personal suffering? And I can relate. But it's not philosophy... yet!
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Edit
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Cahoot »

This broadcast appeared on the radio yesterday. It’s about how people Learn. Learning is UnStoppable.

Fascinating TED talk.

Man puts a computer set to English in a remote Indian village where no one speaks English and the kids figure out how to use it, though they have no previous knowledge.

At 8:50 in the talk, he says he decided to demolish his own hypothesis by finding the Limit. Very interesting.

http://www.npr.org/2013/06/21/179015266 ... themselves
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:The majority of my posts were from 2-4 years ago, and are irrelevant to this discussion. I referred you to the other thread because this same topic was discussed further.
How is referring to another discussion in the middle of this discussion relevant? You'd leave me guessing which post or paragraph you meant in that thread. From what I read many points were being addressed there. It's a confusing maneuverer to refer to something like that. But that's just my opinion! But it's good to learn sometimes how others perceive your words and wonder if you could improve. That's one function of these conversations.
You mentioned a self-serving version of wisdom ruled by damaged instincts, self-preservation and a level of comfort. If you didn't notice, you used almost no reasoning to describe the differences between "any organism", me, and you.
Do I need to differentiate "any organism", me and you for you? It's assumed to be understood and in some ways the distinction is irrelevant as my remark appears to be valid enough for organisms in general.
Nor did you make any attempt at providing reasoning as to why your first sentence was relevant.
It was certainly relevant because your main point was about things "most beneficial to you" and "the fact that wisdom is only useful in ones life"? So I tried to demonstrate this in very simple, clear prose: why "your life" or any organic single life with all its concerns turns out a bit bigger and more connected than you were implying and as such the question about benefits remains quite loaded.
Look how you write the word 'life'. As if it were some imagined thing you have to quote, and as opposed to what?
Yep, most people I talk to seem to have a different understanding of that word than I have. Indeed for them it seems some imagined thing that needs defending and upkeep beyond a natural unfolding and change.
Are you still so entrenched in this "splitting-up" of oneself that you no longer believe you are a living, breathing, human being in this world?
It's ironic that you're somewhat preaching about living, breathing and activities in life while you still do not provide even your actual name here, which is the most public and common of being "someone" online, it reflects so much in how serious one is while talking like that with everyone able to look you up. So perhaps you should dim it with that angle? Privacy concerns, fine, but don't give me that nonsense while still avoiding the topic I raised (what your "life" really is)
As far as I can see, when it comes to having a worthwhile logical discussion, you have no regard for the usefulness of questing for elaboration, patience, or empathetic communication with the intention of further clarification.
Gee, I just wanted to say that about you :) But here's some elaboration, more targeted generally though:

You cannot really trying to "reach" or work towards any enlightenment, maintain it, be in relation with it or whatever. Forget it. All illusive. Some hurl high-speed towards their own completion, others just never come around. Free will has nothing to do with it! Perhaps just genetics or chance? Core spirituality however always had these main functions:

1- assist in avoiding falling in the traps, like the lull, providing ways to propel and shock one further.
2- easing the immense suffering on the path, what is being witnessed and experienced as such.
3- providing temporary structures to dwell in, as not to get a severe case like those in 1 or 2.

Each of these points will eventually turn into its opposite, something religious and only rarely providing the function. There's really nothing more one can "do" as if one could help doing so. That's why discussing means of existence and relationships won't help anyone generally while perhaps kicking in the "nuts" might, or challenging logic or just expressing truths as universal and powerful as possible inside a particular context. Or to provide tantalizing speculative ideas, that can be stimulating too. But generally I trust my own view that if one's on that road, he doesn't need anybody else, really nothing at all. Especially not "the truth" or second-hand wisdom. As nothing is left than to be pulled by ones own momentum, started long time ago.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Interesting post Diebert. Thanks for the further elaboration. I'll get back to it asap.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Edit
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Ideal or flawed ways of living in relation to enlightenm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Yet when I say life I am not referring to an "organic single life". As you mentioned afterward the word "life" is something which brought to mind "organic life" for you. Whereas I was referring to the self or being, not any organism. Which does indeed involve a 'a natural unfolding and change', yet I don't see how this loaded question about usefulness or benefit is any less relevant.

Do you equate the self with "an organism"? Or do you have an aversion to language such as "the self"? Perhaps this is currently a conversational obstacle that requires some clarification. Let me know.
At least we might agree the whole of life is bigger than whatever you meant with "self" or what's "useful in ones life"? The reason this is relevant is simple causality. What appears to be useful for your life might not be for others or not even to yourself on any longer term. This is the problem of all knowledge and value. It means we have to talk about principle first and not by apparent usefulness valid for the day.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Wisdom's usefulness, benefits, or even effects, are in it's usefulness, benefits, or effects on the self. However uninformative or loaded that statement might be, to me it seems a simple statement of fact.
It seems to me that this is the basic activity of life: to maintain itself and look for ways to expand or duplicate. But it's unclear why we need to value wisdom using that standard. What if wisdom would be bad for a self or a whole species? Perhaps wisdom like any other living thing is only concerned with maintaining or expanding, replicating its own "self", in this case wisdom itself? The reason I state this is not to supply a new kind of theory but to suggest these questions come first before one can speak of usefulness and benefits for a human personal self.

The nature of wisdom needs to be addressed in relation to the self.
Locked