Why turn your back on the wisdom of the ages?

[mindseye]

I agree 100% with Horse.

Sorry gotta run. It's time to check on the humunculus Im growing in the terrarium.

[Jon Miller]

your post was thought provoking

not sure if I completely agree (not saying I disagree, just saying I am not sure)

but I do think it is stupid to do things with no knowledge of what has come before

Jon Miller

[Skanky Burns]

I agree with Horsey, you need to learn from the mistakes others have made. But you also need to sift through the ideas they had, and only use the ones that apply to you.

[Alexander's Horse]

Did I say follow a particular philosophy or religion? No

Did I say not to explore, expand knowledge, to find new ways of seeing the world? No

Did I say a self centred philosophy and moral system is meaningless, worthless, foolish and makes you unhappy? Yes

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Seeker
Personally, I like what the Buddhists say about this:

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, KILL HIM!!" (famous saying)

The 'road' being the road to enlightenment, the 'Buddha' being the great teacher/philosophy/religion/book or whatever that has become your idol.

Hmm, ahhhh, the context seems to be not quite right.

[cia]

The context is right Urban Ranger. It means to let go of the ways of thinking which bind you to a singular mode of thought and try to expand from there.

[Aeson]

Why? Because even if you make the most cursory study of religion or philosophy or politics or history you will find so many great people who have gone before you and blazed the trails to better ways of living and thinking. People who are much wiser than you, that came to some understandings after many years of struggle and study, that made all the mistakes and can tell you how to avoid them.

You also seemed to imply that wisdom is reserved for those in the past, or relatively so.

To quote Leviticus, there is nothing new under the sun.

I agree completely, and there never was anything new under the sun. Any thought process has to draw on experience or developed function, and as such cannot be original in itself. Even these 'self-crafted' philosophies you're talking about draw upon principles and morals that have been rehashed over and over again. Every once in a while someone mixes the ideas together in a better way, and that's where advancement comes from.

Concerning the first point, it is entirely possible that someone can put together a new compilation of ideas that achieves their own personal desires far better than any previous compilation could. The fact that they feel the need to come up with their 'own' philosophy would suggest that they had found something lacking in those they were familiar with.

I personally have read quite a lot of different views, and don't completely agree with any of them. I try to take those things which are valuable within any philosophical system and add them to my own. My own personal compilation of ideas I've found of worth is constantly being revised as I am exposed to new sources.

I agree that to disregard history is foolish, for the reasons you stated, as well as because it isn't possible to do. Original thought is an illusion. If that was the only point you were making I wouldn't have responded.

Now, concerning selfishness. Every motivation is selfish in nature. Our motives can be to improve or degrade our environment, but the reason it is a motive remains the same; self-gratification of some sort. This self-gratification doesn't have to be happiness, comfort, pleasure, or anything specifically, rather anything which serves as a reason for action. Noble motivations are usually termed selfless, but they aren't. They just improve circumstance outside the individual driven by them.

Now this whole line of thought should be considered self-centered, and doesn't claim to be otherwise. I don't think it makes it particularly meaningless, worthless, or foolish. It also doesn't have a direct effect on individual happiness. Understanding why we do things can only help us better motivate ourselves to do the 'proper' things. How we apply that understanding, and what we consider 'proper', determines happiness or lack thereof.

At the same time, a 'selfless' philosophy can often be one which causes great personal unhappiness. I'm not saying the individual's motivations are not fulfilled, but rather their motivations are to place other's happiness before their own. Because happiness (personal or otherwise) is not the only possible motivation this still allows for 'selfless' actions to be selfish in nature. The happiness caused by this action is not the goal, just an effect of the desired end or a catalyst for it. Many of the great stories (fiction and non-fiction) draw upon this, Christ in the New Testament, Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, and I'm sure you can think of many others. Personal happiness, or at least in a contemperary sense, was put aside to help others. These actions, while ultimately selfish, were still noble and deserving of respect.

We are not perfect in our actions or knowlege. If we were, our goals would always be achieved. Then our philosophical positions could be judge entirely upon the results they achieve. As it is, we usually end up somewhere other than we've aimed for. Even with a perfected philosophy we would still make mistakes. That combined with effects outside our control could make even a perfect philosophy lead to disaster, or a flawed one to lead to success. To judge a philosophy only on whether it brings happiness or not is rather short-sighted.

To make unqualified generalizations is dangerous.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Aeson

To make unqualified generalizations is dangerous.

Yes - and you just made an unqualified generalisation

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Seeker
Also see Hesse, Hermann...ALL his 'Bildungsrommel' type books have this common theme, that in order to achieve any real enlightenment the student MUST 'kill the teacher'.

I guess only to learn that this was a mistake he wouldn´t have made with a little bit of wisdom....

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Aeson
Now, concerning selfishness. Every motivation is selfish in nature. Our motives can be to improve or degrade our environment, but the reason it is a motive remains the same; self-gratification of some sort. This self-gratification doesn't have to be happiness, comfort, pleasure, or anything specifically, rather anything which serves as a reason for action. Noble motivations are usually termed selfless, but they aren't. They just improve circumstance outside the individual driven by them.

Well, I just have the question:
Is clearly everything somehow "selfish" - without doubt?

[Urban Ranger]

That's debatable.

[Skanky Burns]

No, its true. If you give money to the poor, you get the feeling that you are helping others less fortunate than yourself, for example.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
No, its true. If you give money to the poor, you get the feeling that you are helping others less fortunate than yourself, for example.

AND IT MAKES YOU FORGET YOUR OWN PROBLEMS AND FEEL HAPPY - that's my freaking point

[Skanky Burns]

Glad to help you make your point.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
No, its true. If you give money to the poor, you get the feeling that you are helping others less fortunate than yourself, for example.

Maybe I can say this about my own actions/motivations, but OTOH, how can I say this definately about other (or even all) actions?
And even if I can say this about everything - if the money objectively helps someone, is this action/motivation then only selfish?