Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by PhaserLightShow, Apr 29, 2016.
I can't imagine why anyone but a dreary pedant would have thought so.
Wow, where did that come from?
Nice to meet you too!
Funny, he even says "Make it so." in other roles. What is he playing? Lenin? He kinda looks like Lenin!
"Make it so! Kill all these Kulaks!"
Patrick Stewart as Lenin: "I am the captain of this country. Together we'll warp speed toward communism!"
Director: 'Cut!!! What are you doing? That isn't your line!"
PS: "It's not?"
D: "No, it isn't! And for the last time, you're not JEAN LUC PICARD!!!"
PS: "I am not?"
PS: "To be, or not to be--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a fleet of starships."
PS:" My name is Picard, Jean Luc Picard and I have a license... to captain a starship."
PS: "Call me Picard."
PS (voice acting): "I want to be a real boy... and captain the Enterprise!"
D:"Enoooouuuuugh!!! Give him that part, please, give him the part!!!"
Emotions are an interesting point. Is there any religion that frowns upon strong emotions? Buddhists believe that one should be as balanced and unemotional as possible, but there is an ongoing quarrel among experts whether Buddhism counts as religion or as philosophy. (On the one hand, there is no god, just reincarnations and improvement until the NIrvana, on the other hand, exatly those points reincarnation and a final place to go to do meet the criteria for religions.) It's propably a link between both.
But does any of the 'official' religions give guidelines as to the strength and desirability of emotions?
Quarrels among people who promote unemotionalism? That's kinda self-defeating, isn't it?
no, just quarrels among those people who set the definitions for religion and philosophy.
Christianity is pretty big on curbing what are perceived as negative emotions: wrath, lust, envy, and so on. I think what such a view fails to understand is that when you limit so-called negative emotions, you also limit your ability to feel and experience joy and connection.
Well, Christianity, as you said so yourself, is big on culpability, self-loathing and self-flagellation the latter being a real thing not just a figure of speech. They actually have small whips with which people can hit themselves while they say how bad they have been and how wrong just about everything.
But all of this is IMO just a facade, decorum, deep down it's in fact very narcissistic. I've seen Christians looking down their noses on other religions for not having all that in them. Do anything no matter how crazy every day of your life and someday it will seem the most natural thing to do.
It is only a very tiny, VERY tiny number of Christians who self-flagellate. Among most, that is seen as aberrant behavior. I've made no bones that overall I'm not a fan of the religion, but I see no need to mischaracterize the majority based on a tiny minority. (Yes, I know that historically, more people practiced self-castigation, but even then it was a small minority and to pretend that hasn't been out of vogue for hundreds of years is pretty disingenuous.)
----Emotions are an interesting point. Is there any religion that frowns upon strong emotions?
Buddhists believe that one should be as balanced and unemotional as possible, but there is an ongoing quarrel among experts whether
Buddhism counts as religion or as philosophy. (On the one hand, there is no god, just reincarnations and improvement until the NIrvana, on the other hand, exatly those points reincarnation and a final place to go to do meet the criteria for religions.) It's propably a link between both.
Philosophy is supposed to have a certain rationality about it and Buddhism IMO fails that test and it's not even a close call.
There is an old French expression: "Battre sa coulpe" , literally beating your guilt, and "coulpe" was also the name of the cloth you put on while doing so. People would hit themselves in public while repeating continuously (as only religious people can do) "Mea culpa"... for a very long time until they dropped of exhaustion. So yes people no longer do that but it's still in their religious genes. Christians still like people who accuse themselves in public.
"The Stranger" an emblematic book by Albert Camus is about someone condemned to death for not showing any guilt and it is right on point.
There are certain tenets of Buddhism that are very rational, living in the moment, being aware that your actions have consequences, taking personal responsibility for yourself and your desires, and the idea that the desire for ephemeral things brings suffering. I think any life could be improved by applying these concepts.
There are a lot of other parts to it, however, that are religious for sure, like the existence of all sorts of hells for bad behavior. Also, depending upon where it's practiced it can have more or fewer connotations of religion. I think it's kind of interesting that there is any sort of argument about whether it's a philosophy or religion when most people looking at it will easily identify it as the latter.
I think this is more like ethics or morality than philosophy. Philosophy is IMO a discipline that explains things not just a set of principles. It's like science. What's science? It's not just a way to describe reality with method, accuracy, precision and rationality it also has to be predictive. Without the latter, you don't have science.
Being a member of the "people of poets and thinkers" I beg to differ. What you define as philosophy is "Rationalism", only one of several dozen philosophical schools. Philosophy literally translates of the love of thinking and that's indeed the best description for it. Philosophy needn't be rational, only logical and both are two very different beasts. All you require for being a philosopher is an idea and the ability to explain it to others who will then discuss it with you. What counts in the process is not whether it is rational or even proovable but solely the fact that you use your brain and argue logically. Consider it a sort of intellectual callisthenics
Coincidentially (or maybe not?), in this aspect - i.e. not being rational but often surprisingly logical - it is like religion.
My personal philosophy is that feeling strong emotions is good, so long as you do not allow them to manifest in actions that cause harm to others.
Stoicism is a philosophy, and not an entirely bad one.
That was a result of the choke point of Toba. There weren't that many bipeds that lived through that event--so when the survivors rose from the muck--the legends started.
Separate names with a comma.