GENIUS FORUMS

In an attempt to save the unemployment thread from Uni & Vic's sniper war, I'm going to take the major issue here, away from Worldly Matters.

(Note: In the following, a "wise man" and "philosopher" does not include students of philosophy: these words are restricted to those who long practise has granted a significant advantage in the fine art of thinking.)

How should a wise man live his life? Should he behave differently than non-philosophers? If he should behave differently, how is he limited in terms of his structure of employment and idle time, if he is to be authentic to wisdom? If he should not behave differently than non-philosophers, what then distinguishes a philosopher from a non-philosopher; specifically, how would he then differ in terms of the practise of his reason (ie. his moral philosophy)?

The difference between a wise man and an average man being employed is evident in their reasons for doing so. A wise man might get a job for simple reasons, such as having a means to buy himself food, shelter, and health insurance. For the average man it is much more complicated (egotistical) than that. The average man will pursue a job to gain status by building an exceptional amount of wealth, holding a greater influence over the company, and ultimately power over society as a whole. To simply survive is actually a relatively small part of why he seeks a job.

All in all I really don't see why there is such a fuss over whether or not unemployment is an indicator of a good philosopher. It seems much easier and much more reasonable to judge a philosopher by his actual... wait for it.... PHILOSOPHY! Besides, a far better indicator of a good philosopher would be his relationship with women, or lack-there-of. Marriage, long standing relationships, and the constant need to be around the company of women are all equally good indicators that a man is a shabby philosopher, and I'm using the term philosopher loosely here.

Trev, what do you mean by wisdom? What do you mean by morality? In philosophy, for example, we have Nietzsche and say, Aquinas. Difference wisdoms, different moralities...Then you have the morality/wisdom of Christian fundamentalist 'philosophers' vs atheists bla bla, there is also a lesbian baptist philosopher called Jan Robarts...There is no ONE wisdom, or ONE morality.

Treklis, are you gay? A chronic masturbator? Perhaps you sublimate your feelings/sexuality into 'words' i.e. philosophy. Everyone gets off on something!
z

z,

What do you mean by wisdom?

By wisdom, I refer specifically to the unifying theme that all philosophers study; however you best want to interpret that is based on your experience of philosophy. Around here, it's often clumped with "truth", since it is usually agreed that all philosophers spend a lot of time thinking about what's real.

What do you mean by morality?

By morality, I am talking about practical reason: how one conducts one's affairs in accordance to one's beliefs. What one 'ought' to do often translates into action, so a philosopher's morality is usually described both by how he lives his life, and by how he wishes to live his life. In this thread, I am distinguishing how a philosopher believes he should live his life differently than non-philosophers, and if there is a difference at all.

I don't think there are many - if any - philosophers who 'live' their philosophy e.g. Nietzsche. Not exactly Superman ay? ...what's so good about morality anyway? There are also immoral philosophers, who see morality as a fetter. Perhaps you should consider becoming a monk, and take a part -time job at MacDonalds to support your 'habit' - ha! ha! just kidding.

z

z, by the definition of morality I supplied -- after you specifically asked me to define it -- there is no such thing as an immoral philosopher. If one decides to abandon conventional morality, one is still conducting one's life in some manner or other.

Mahayana/Hinayana; Nietzsche no doubt had read Marcus Aurelius, and realized one could be a good stoic, or a good emperor, but not both. Just cause he shows us who Zarathustra is, dont mean he aspires to be Zarathustra.

Epictetus weeps when he neighbor tells him he has been given an appointment in Rome. Epictetus, Pliny, Confucius, Lao Tzu, ancient sages both east and west knew the best life had to offer was the obscurity of tending a garden. Buddhist worried about whether it was worth it to put off greater enlightenment in the effort to enlighten others.

But now, neurology and the biochemistry of the mind enters in, saying that physical activity, such as working a garden, results in greater mental clarity. Which, if you would seek wisdom, seems useful. Social science has also revealed the effect of group think, which Epictetus knew his friend was going to be exposed to in the halls of power. But you can work in a garden by yourself, and learn to think your own thots, as well as find times to work with others- but on tasks which are, after all these thousands of years, instinctive, and provide positive feedback on that account, both- with others, or alone.

If you grow herbs or food, no one will say you are unemployed, whether you make money at it or not. There is an instinctive recognition of the value by people even tho the political and economic system is dismissive. Even if you live in an urban apartment, you may grow herbs inside under lights, as increasing numbers are already doing. The legal system will not correct its ways, but is increasingly turning to blind eye to the practice until you make enuf money to make it worth their while. But a more modest operation can be carried on indefinately, and no one you deal with will think you are not gainfully employed.

Morality -- who cares?

Make one more remark like that and I'll instantly ban you from this forum.

-

Remark like what? It was a serious reply.

Trevor admits there is no "right" and "wrong". However he still wants to know if his actions are "moral" or not -- if they are "right" or "wrong".

Who enforces morality? God or some transcendental law. Trevor admits neither exist.

If it is a societal "morality" you can just look at the legal code for your questions. Geniuses don't usually act on the basis of what the herd thinks though....

If it is a "personal morality", which is some sort of weakness disguised as virtue, it is out of place to go asking other people.

I don't care how you want to justify it. It was an unacceptable response. You're only a finger-snap away from being deleted.

-

Neil, you said "weakness disguised as virtue". What is virtue? Is there any way for virtue to exist without weakness?

I view virtue as some great ability to do something and morality is the inability, or a consequence of it, to do something.

It is true virtue cannot exist without weakness.

Neil: so are you defining morality to be the lack of the ability to do something, and virtue to be the ability to do something? If you are, those are not the definitions I was using.

Nick,

All in all I really don't see why there is such a fuss over whether or not unemployment is an indicator of a good philosopher.

How and where a philosopher spends a large portion of his life seems just as relevant as who he spends his time with. Certain careers seem counter-productive to thinking about philosophy; in particular, careers that require thought tax the brain. It is hard to imagine coming home from 8 hours of doing mathematical calculations and to voluntarily think about the structure of reality.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:How and where a philosopher spends a large portion of his life seems just as relevant as who he spends his time with.

I agree, but I think we are reaching a bit when we try to judge a philosopher based simply on whether he is employed or not.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Certain careers seem counter-productive to thinking about philosophy; in particular, careers that require thought tax the brain. It is hard to imagine coming home from 8 hours of doing mathematical calculations and to voluntarily think about the structure of reality.

Yes I agree that the better the philosopher, the less demanding his job will be. Obviously if he is really dedicated to philosophy he will only put as much effort into work as he needs to get by. You certainly wont see him climb to the top rungs of the corporate ladder.

Nick,

I agree, but I think we are reaching a bit when we try to judge a philosopher based simply on whether he is employed or not.

Yes, but I think Unidian admitted that he was just trying to stir the pot a little.

There is, however, some value to what he said. Maybe the work-at-all-costs mentality is not as dangerous a delusion as women-at-all-costs, but it certainly should not be ignored. In most cases, I would think it is simply one part of the women-at-all-costs mentality; if so, it certainly is one part of that mentality that causes harm.

Yes, but I think Unidian admitted that he was just trying to stir the pot a little.

Right, I was trying to stir up some discussion by reversing a well-established value judgment and asserting the opposite viewpoint. In actuality, there are a number of factors upon which one could judge the philosophical advancement of others. Employment status is neither the most important nor one which is universally valid. But because our society values employment and self-support so highly, it is an attachment well worth challenging frequently and forcefully.

If nothing else, the potential human progress lost or impeded by insisting that talented thinkers occupy the majority of their waking hours with bagging groceries, pumping gas, or occupying cubicles is incalculable. How many Beethovens, Edisons, and Schopenhauers have been lost to this puritanical obsession we will never know. Surely, to be extremely conservative, as many have been lost as have emerged. Regardless of the morality involved, that in and of itself is a tremendous waste.

I believe, for numerous reasons, that forced work must end. In order for that to happen, a few pioneers must eventually start clearing the path. I'm well aware that the idea is far ahead of its time and that tremendous opposition is to be expected as a result. But we have to start somewhere, and it's a dirty job someone has to do. People who value progressive consciousness often find themselves charged with such seemingly Quixotic tasks. For better or worse, it goes along with the territory.

I like tantra philosophy...enlightenment through SEX

http://www.tantragoddessoz.com/free-tan ... -play.html

Trev's definition of morality and wisdom does not compute with the 'lives' of MANY philosophers...another interesting question to ask is how many 'moral' philosophers were/are GAY?
z

z, you seem to be confused as to what this topic is about. If you want to talk about tantric sex, start a new thread.

Trev's definition of morality and wisdom does not compute with the 'lives' of MANY philosophers

You ignored my definitions in your first reply after it and said something irrelevant to them both; thus far, you have shown no evidence that you have even understood my definitions. So you don't seem to be much of an authority on what my definitions are capable of doing.

another interesting question to ask is how many 'moral' philosophers were/are GAY?

That, again, is a question for a different thread. But a thread on the sexual preferences of moral philosophers (like Socrates, Buddha, Diogenes, Jesus... or modern ones like John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, or Mary Midgley) might belong in worldly matters.

Trevor,

A wise man should live his life in whichever way he desires to live a life.

Maybe he should keep living his life the way in which he`s been living it, thus far, for it seems to have worked wonders.

Why does my question mark key not workÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉééééÉÉÉÉ

How do I fix thisÉ ...ÉÉÉ

Now, nitty-gritty, suppose that a wise man became wise by constantly asking questions about the best way to live his life...?

zarathustra wrote:I like tantra philosophy...enlightenment through SEX

http://www.tantragoddessoz.com/free-tan ... -play.html

Trev's definition of morality and wisdom does not compute with the 'lives' of MANY philosophers...another interesting question to ask is how many 'moral' philosophers were/are GAY?
z

I dunno of any. China was famously run by harems and eunuchs with the emperor as just a front man, and out side of this instance, dont know of eunuchs that ever acquired any notable positions.

Ramprasad goes on at length in his hymns to Kali of the value of Tantra. And we know that the "priestesses" of Kali today, and presumably in his time, were transvestites. Who, today, are involved in some kind of ritual sex with otherwise normal husbands on certain ritual occasions. Still, I dont think the Shakti Ramprasad refers to were not normal women.

I can see how men who've devoted so much to study and meditation would take a dim view of such 'shortcuts' as Tantra and/or ritual potions. i'm struck by how often 'Tantra' today implies that it will improve the monogamous relationship; as may be. But the ancient practice, such as outlined by Ramprasad was focused entirely on the attainment of 'enlightenment' regardless of what it did to marriage. The ancient practice of time spent in an ashram or monestary was likewise not concerned with what effect it had on marriage. Bodhisattvahs were not known for being husbands. Or fags. That does not seem to have been on the radar.

The most apparently enlightened fags that I've known were Mahayana, trying to live as a model for their brethren, to bring them along, not so much in ritual or meditation, but in they way they lived and dealt with others, often doing case management, and willing to use sacred potions in ritual. So- they have not been engaged in writing about what others should do. I can see where that tradition could go back milennia, but wouldnt leave any documentation, much less with their names attached so that we'd call them 'philosophers'.

Food for thought concerning morality and wisdom:

* There have been many things written about homosexuality. For example, Homer’s Iliad talked about homosexuality and Plato devoted a whole speech to it. In fact Plato believed that homosexual love was better than heterosexual love - especially for philosophers? opps!

* Schopenhauer is said to have once remarked: "It is difficult enough to devise a philosophy – one cannot be expected to exemplify it as well." Nonetheless, the question still arises: How much should we know about a philosopher’s personal life (if anything) in evaluating his or her philosophical views? The uproar over Victor Farias’s book Heidegger and Nazism is demonstration enough that this remains a live issue. Can one write about Heidegger’s philosophy now without grappling with the matter of his Nazi membership? Zeig heil!

* Does the fact that homosexual acts cannot lead to reproduction make them immoral? That would be a particularly bizarre ground for prohibiting sodomy in a densely populated country like India, which encourages contraception and sterilization. If a form of sexual activity brings satisfaction to those who take part in it, and harms no one, what can be immoral about it? Those who practice it, may also be considered 'wise...'

*Therese ("who could do for him things animals could not: operate the catheter to relieve his stricture, for instance"); Marx’s atrocious bathroom habits, bad smells and carbuncles ("the boils varied in numbers, size and intensity but at one time or another they appeared on all parts of his body, including his cheeks, the bridge of his nose, his bottom, which meant he could not write, and his penis"); Russell’s inability to perform the simplest mechanical tasks ("He loved tea but could not make it"); and Sartre’s amazing ingestion of mind-altering substances ("The book on dialectical reason, indeed, appears to have been written under the influence of both drinks and drugs"). Right on!!!

* As a philosophical biography, Wittgenstein is important not so much because of its revelations of the subject’s sexual life, but because it deals with ‘the forgotten decade’. By interviewing former students of Wittgenstein’s, and relating the philosopher’s failed careers as an elementary school teacher, gardener and architect, Bartley truly added a new dimension to understanding this enigmatic figure. And Bartley does see one aspect of Wittgenstein’s homosexuality which connects the man and his influence. "The connection that I see" , he writes, "relates to the fact that Wittgenstein, although not a thinker of great originality, exerted, and continues to exert, immense influence." Bartley ascribes this to the religious aura surrounding Wittgenstein, an aura he compares to that of mystical figures of the past like Saint Francis or Buddhist saints.
Om!!!

* Common knowledge: Nietzsche embodied the OPPOSITE of what he wrote about...

British Philosophers, John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham established the fundamental principles of hedonism through the ethical theory of utilitarianism. The hedonistic idea argues that all actions can be measured on the basis of how much pleasure and how little pain they produce: a simple ratio belief system of pleasure over pain. Now in relation to certain philosophers, whose high moral ground - in theory at least - forbids they participate in carnal delights which give pleasure to ordinary mortals, it could be said that they too derive pleasure from the act of 'denial'...it turns 'em on!! What do you think Trev

zzz