literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

http://www.egroups.com/group/Sitaram

http://www.sitaram.0catch.com

http://sulekha.com/chpost.asp?for...ilosophy&cid=83002&show=0

You may find this foolish, but it was an eye opener for me when I had
a conversation recently in their 30's, and I naievely mentioned
something about Locke and Hobbes, and she apologized that she had
never heard of them, and only knew of the cartoon "Calvin and
Hobbes",... I sometimes loose sight of the fact that those authors
and topics which most interest me are relative unknown (and
uninteresting) to a majority of people

not an eyeopener really, i knew deep down that most are not
interested, but I guess i am in denial about it, or forget, or
associate only with a small circle of people who are familiar with
and interested in such things

I had not realized that Russel died in 1971, and it was the summer of
1967 when I read his "History of Philosophy" cover to cover, prior to
entering St. Johns, Annapolis (great books program), and to think he
was still alive when i read his book

It is good to be around people who are unaware and represent the
majority...

Yet, i agree, we must try never to forget the nature and condition of
the majority of humanity, otherwise we loose touch with humanity
itself, and the needs of the world as a whole, (my posts have been
sparked by Skepts post on intellectuality as an asset or liability,
if i might recast the thought in such terms)

Zen writings have a way of addressing the mundane tasks (e.g. "have
you eaten breakfast", "yes", "then go wash your bowl")... plato and
aristotle do not seem to spend much time addressing the everyday ho-
hum of lifes chores

I am reminded of a zen account of an ancient scholar who specialized
in the diamond sutra, and during his journey, he meets a humble
janitor who makes a profound comment/question to him which leaves him
speechless"

One Taoist/neo-Confucian scholar circa 300ce (i think), wrote
regarding the topic of orthodoxy/heresy of doctrines : "That which
may easily be understood and practiced by ordinary people is true
doctrine, while that which is obscure/elitist/esoteric is false
doctrine-teaching"

In college, i read everything that hegel wrote which was in english
translation, and then wrote my senior essay on it ("The history of
philosophy and the philosophy of History") ... but it took me several
years of educational experiences before I was able to find the
appetite for reading all of hegel, and also have some foundation to
find a meaning in it which i could "make my own" (i think that
process of "making it your own" is something essential in education)

Plato's republic SEEMS like the sort of thing that any highschool
student might find interesting (but I know so many who absolutely
cannot get into the Republic), ... now the parables of the New
Testament are possibly the greatest example of something that any
illiterate farmer or nomad might understand which conveys some
profound message (yet so many young people do not have an appetite or
ability to dig into something like parrables)

It is either in Proverbs or Ecclesiastes : A word of wisdom fitly
spoken is like an apple of gold in a silver fitting (filagree or
screen encasing)... i.e. there is an outer explicit silver meaning
for the majority, and an inner gold implicit meaning for the minority
(Leo Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing)

Back to Zen, we read: "Before enlightenment, mountains are mountains,
rivers are rivers. During enlightenment, mountains are not mountains,
rivers are not rivers. After enlightenment, once again, mountains are
mountains and rivers are rivers." (i suppose the higher educational
experience is like this, in a way)

The more we read and learn, the broader a foundation we create for
ourselves, gives us a vantage point to see farther, to be less
provincial and narrow minded (and less petty and nit-picking i
suppose)

Gandhi admired the beatitudes (sermon on the mount), and embodied it
in his life, though he personally rejected christianity as a
religion, and gandhi said "non-violence (ahimsa) is the highest form
of virtue (dharma)"

Einstein wrote a glowing praise of Gandhi, saying that future
generations would read about him and
scarcely believe that such a person actually walked the earth in the
flesh

People should really ask themselves WHY they set such a high value on
agreement or disagreement, and ask themselves how they actually
profit from contentious argument and heated dispute.... do any of you
REALLY feel it is a tool or touchstone to reveal "the truth", since
humanity has been arguing for millenia, and no great consensus has
been reached on any significant questions (outside of
math/physics/chemistry)

Argument is a useful exercise, so is weightlifting (and it does
produce the occasional Schwartznegger), but always remember that the
tools of the weightlifter are called "dumbbells"

Plato did not choose dueling gladiators as a model for the process of
dialectic, but rather a weavers loom, with warp and woof running at
opposite angles, and a shuttle to weave in and out,... and the
purpose of a loom is to produce a fabric, or better yet, a tapestry,
while the goal of gladiators is simply to kill the other gladiator

Rather than engage me in argument and dispute, show me your tapestry

Learning is a journey, not a race

A personal journey, an Australian "walk-about", not a marathon (at
least for me, in my life)

Get your own free IRC Chat room