The Stoic teachings concerning passion and apatheia bear a remarkable similarity to the ethical teaching of Siddhartha Gautama who lived more than a century before Zeno of Citium. The noble truths state that: 1) All life has suffering (Dukkha); 2) Suffering is rooted in passion and desire (Samudaya); 3) Happiness is freedom from the passions (ie. when they have ceased - Nirodha); 4) Moral restraint and self-discipline (Marga) is the means by which one becomes free from suffering.
Similar parallels could be drawn with certain of the teachings of Confucius, who also lived more than a century before Zeno, however the correspondence is not as central as in the case of Buddhism, and the primary parallel is between these two figures and Socrates, all of whom were rough contemporaries.
One also finds analogous teachings in the Bhagavad Gita, a Hindu scripture, which stresses rising above the dualities such as pleasure-pain, win-lose, to perform one's duties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutronjon
I have no clue why you have said my thinking is limited, or that I am pushing a limited point of view on anyone?
I think it is a noble goal to understand these traditions and philosophies. I do not think it is useless or insignificant to modern life. However:
I believe it is not only useless, but unhelpful to sermonize them or proselytize them to other people. I mentioned this before because it often looks like you are trying to persuade people into a theological point of view. I realize you may not see it that way.
I would humbly suggest you attempt to learn what you can about the ancient philosophies you are interested in without advocating their usefulness to other people. If you took that approach you may find yourself in a better frame of mind as a simple result of learning without so much conflict.
I think it is a noble goal to understand these traditions and philosophies. I do not think it is useless or insignificant to modern life. However:
I believe it is not only useless, but unhelpful to sermonize them or proselytize them to other people. I mentioned this before because it often looks like you are trying to persuade people into a theological point of view. I realize you may not see it that way.
I would humbly suggest you attempt to learn what you can about the ancient philosophies you are interested in without advocating their usefulness to other people. If you took that approach you may find yourself in a better frame of mind as a simple result of learning without so much conflict.
I have said, understanding the reasoning of, "reason, is the controlling force of the universe", is essential to understanding democracy. This is what I really want to discuss, and unfortunately, no one has anything to say about this, unless the word God is mentioned and it is treated a theology issue. The reason I want to discuss such is, with the understanding we can resolve more human problems, and crease liberty and justice, because all of this is about good reasoning. As creatures of capable of reason, we can do this. Now I am having difficulty in understanding the objection to what I am saying. Sincerely, I can not comprehend the objection.
Nutron, we've already discussed this "technological correctness" accusation that you keep throwing my way. I will repeat, *this a science site*. It comes with the territory. Deal with it.
Reason, is the controlling force of the universe is a sceintific point of view. What is the problem?
Reason, is the controlling force of the universe is a sceintific point of view. What is the problem?
Reason is tool we use to understand how things happen in the universe not what makes things happen in the universe. Your use of the word Reason puzzles me. I'm not sure I have ever heard it used in this manner, as though it was something apart from the mind and not simply a tool of thought.
Reason is tool we use to understand how things happen in the universe not what makes things happen in the universe. Your use of the word Reason puzzles me. I'm not sure I have ever heard it used in this manner, as though it was something apart from the mind and not simply a tool of thought.
Wow, I can't believe all the confusion and how simple you made correcting it.
Of course the reason is separate from the mind. Gravity isn't in your mind, and it is the reason things fall to earth. While our brains certainly do conserve energy, conservation of energy doesn't come from our brain, only our understanding of it is in our minds. We can understand the reason for things, but the of things is not in our brains, the reason for things is out there in the of realm matter doing what matter does.
I returned to the forums for just a moment. I wanted to say, I am not telling anyone what to think. Religion tells people what to think. Democracy teachings them how to think. Democracy is about learning the reason for things, and then basing our laws on reason. This is a totally awesome concept developed from ancient times. I guess my desire to talk about this has made a lot of enemies, and perhaps I should not have intruded where I do not belong. I love science. It excites me. But I don't know science. I just believe it is very important to self government, and an understanding of God, and world peace, the New Age.
Democracy is about learning the reason for things, and then basing our laws on reason.
Democracy is about learning the reason for things? Can you clarify this?
Quote:
I love science. It excites me. But I don't know science. I just believe it is very important to self government, and an understanding of God, and world peace, the New Age.
I love science too!
There's lots of science to be found here. After reading a couple hundred threads here, it became obvious to me that reason is the controlling force of...Hypography!
__________________ Hypography Science Forums Moderator
--- "There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth. We are all crew." - Marshall McLuhan
"We must not forget that when radium was discovered no one knew that it would prove useful in hospitals. The work was one of pure science. And this is a proof that scientific work must not be considered from the point of view of the direct usefulness of it." - Marie Curie
Wow, I can't believe all the confusion and how simple you made correcting it.
Of course the reason is separate from the mind. Gravity isn't in your mind, and it is the reason things fall to earth. While our brains certainly do conserve energy, conservation of energy doesn't come from our brain, only our understanding of it is in our minds. We can understand the reason for things, but the of things is not in our brains, the reason for things is out there in the of realm matter doing what matter does.
I returned to the forums for just a moment. I wanted to say, I am not telling anyone what to think. Religion tells people what to think. Democracy teachings them how to think. Democracy is about learning the reason for things, and then basing our laws on reason. This is a totally awesome concept developed from ancient times. I guess my desire to talk about this has made a lot of enemies, and perhaps I should not have intruded where I do not belong. I love science. It excites me. But I don't know science. I just believe it is very important to self government, and an understanding of God, and world peace, the New Age.
Again your use of the word reason puzzles me, you use it as though it is a force or law of the universe, reason is simply a construct of the mind used to understand or to figure out things around us. Reason is not a force seperate and from the mind nor is it basic to the universe. Can you give any real world evidence that reason is a basic part of the universe?
There is an importance difference between policing someone's thinking and policing someone's behavior. Posting an insulting picture, is not picking up an argument made and responding with a logical argument, so that the discussion can progress and advance reasoning. Burning the flag is not freedom of speech, but a behavior. Speech, means words, and the words need to serve reasoning. Not just, "you are wrong"- but "you are wrong because--------------". If that countering argument isn't there, it is an insult not a reasonable argument.
Our freedom of speech is not the freedom to say whatever we want, whenever we want, because this could be immoral. That means the words cause harm. This is a matter of cause and effect. If people say things that harm the forums, the forums must be protected, by preventing the harm.
However, making a reasonable argument, is not immoral, and does not cause harm. How we determine the difference is, with knowledge of argumentation, not our feelings. Either a person is making a reasonable argument or not. This doesn't mean we agree with what the person says! It means the form of the thought expressed in words, can be identified as an attempt to make reasoned argument, no matter how much we disagree with what was said. It can be faulty logic, it can be reason based on error, or misunderstanding, but if there is an attempt to make a reasonable argument, that is what it is, and it is not bad behavior, such as deliberate attempts to insult someone- are bad behavior.
I don't think it should be so hard to judge between the difference between possible bad reasoning and bad behavior. Is the person speaking to a point made in the argument, or is the person attacking the person who posted?
Again your use of the word reason puzzles me, you use it as though it is a force or law of the universe, reason is simply a construct of the mind used to understand or to figure out things around us. Reason is not a force seperate and from the mind nor is it basic to the universe. Can you give any real world evidence that reason is a basic part of the universe?
I love you. My emotional reaction to what have said may be irrational, but you are participating in the process of reasoning so well.
Yes, that is exactly what I mean, a force or law of the universe. Doesn't that make sense? Reason, is the controlling force of the universe, speaks of the forces or laws of the universe. This reasoning of reason, appears to have begun in Athens, with men like Pathagoras and Aristotle, and is what Cicero and Jefferson mean by the Laws of Nature and the God of Nature. I am so accustom to thinking from the philosophical understanding of reason, as the controlling force of the universe, I have been totally confounded by all the arguing.
Our minds precieve the reason, but the reason is out there. The reason is something we can observe and expereince. We say, the gravity is the reason things fall to earth. The reason things fall to earth is not in our brains. Gravity is out there and our brains precieve it. We precieve the reason and our brains think about the reason, but it is all out there. Hum, this leading to several philosophical argument, which I assume few are ready to grasp.
Oops, it was my intensions to go buy plants and avoid the forums- you stinker you, you got me hooked by into the discussion. The slugs keep eating my plants and if I don't replace them until something produces food, I will loose my huge investment of time, energy and money.
Speech, means words, and the words need to serve reasoning. Not just, "you are wrong"- but "you are wrong because--------------". If that countering argument isn't there, it is an insult not a reasonable argument.
Fine, then.
You are wrong because you continue to make assertions, presenting them as truths and maxims, then expect others to accept them without giving any substantiation to them.
For example, you said:
Quote:
Of course the reason is separate from the mind.
...and also:
Quote:
Reason is the controlling force of the universe
I disagree with both. I've told you this. You still, however, instead of explaining why this should be accepted, instead of showing studies which support the notion, instead of offering your definitions of the words you are using, instead of addressing the very articulate and poignant challenges presented to you.... You still continue making the same assertion and nothing more (sometimes relying on little more than appeal to authority by quoting cicero and/or jefferson).
Further, I wish to address this now:
Quote:
Reason, is the controlling force of the universe is a sceintific point of view. What is the problem?
The problem is that this is NOT a scientific point of view. It is a personal opinion, an assertion, a conjecture. If it were scientific, you'd be able to show studies and equations and experiments in support of it, but you cannot.
Also, where in physics can we study reason? Surely, if it is a controlling force of the universe it can be measured?
Sometimes, when words fail, a picture can be worth a thousand words.
Astronauts on board the International Space Station have recently photographed strange electric-blue clouds hovering at the edge of space. Read » | 0 comments
