whatever gives you meaning....

Is Roger right? Well he for sure believe he is...

"Believe in whatever is good for you".

 That is a common advice in a postmodern time.

 It's a very broad view, and a relativistic one.

 Let people believe in what they want,  don't argue. 

 Even Buddha had that advice; dont be hooked on a view. 

 But he even meant; don't stick to anything, not even to yourself.

 I guess that in the light of reincarnation. 

 Let's say that there no right view...

 Anyway no one that we can discover. 

 It's probably good to have many views or perspectives.

 Will that not be like schizophrenia? 

 Well not if you don't have many of them at the same time. 

 But who would trust you? 

 Maybe its a view to be compassionate. 

 It seems that that behavior make you glad. 

 But will it make you survive? 

 Is aggression and violence not a part of life, produced by evolution? 

 Every specie seem to fight each other. 

 Lets say that you have a very angry boss, isn't it good if you tell him or her that you and your colleagues are hurted. 

 Maybe, but if the boss is like Trump or Putin? 

 Maybe there aren't no easy answers to my questions. 

 But Aristoteles answer is very clever. 

 To be skilful you have to act in a mature way that differs in different situation; that is practical wisdom. Wisdom in life, not as Buddha meant a different approach to the trouble in life. 

 Aristoteles called i Phroenis. 

 Its included in eudaimonia, the highest good according to Aristoteles; 
  • Being of "great soul" (magnanimity), the virtue where someone would be truly deserving of the highest praise and have a correct attitude towards the honor this may involve. This is the first such case mentioned in the Nicomachean Ethics.[16]
  • Being just in the true sense. This is the type of justice or fairness of a good ruler in a good community.[17]
  • Phronesis or practical wisdom, as shown by good leaders.[18]
  • The virtue of being a truly good friend.[19]
  • Having the nobility kalokagathia of a gentleman  


But for a soldier the four virtues was needed;

  1. Prudence, also known as practical wisdom, is the most important virtue for Aristotle. In war, soldiers must fight with prudence by making judgments through practical wisdom. This virtue is a must to obtain because courage requires judgments to be made.
  2. Temperance, or self-control, simply means moderation. Soldiers must display moderation with their enjoyment while at war in the midst of violent activities. Temperance concerning courage gives one moderation in private which leads to moderation in public.
  3. Courage, the one we will focus on in this article, is “moderation or observance of the mean with respect to feelings of fear and confidence.” Courage is “observance of the mean with regard to things that excite confidence or fear, under the circumstances which we have specified, and chooses its course and sticks to its post because it is noble to do so, or because it is disgraceful not to do so.” Concerning warfare, Aristotle believes soldiers are morally significant and are military and political heroes. War is simply a stage for soldiers to display courage, and is the only way courage can be exemplified. Any other action by a human is simply them copying a soldier’s ways; they are not actually courageous.
  4. Justice means giving the enemy what is due to them in the proper ways; being just toward them. In other words, one must recognize what is good for the community and one must undertake a good course of action. (from Wikipedia)

           
Here you can see that also Aristoteles was, as Buddha, a man of his time. 
War was so natural in those days. 

Our days are quite peaceful if we compare.... 

But we can learn from both Buddha and Aristoteles. 

What they had in common was the middle way, not too much or too less of anything. 

The Meetoo - movement may learn from that too - recently a leader of a big Theater took his life because of accusations of cruelty to his colleagues.

But his was also employed by the Stockholm city and the leaders there could have stopped him earlier. 

All guilt fell on him....

Maybe the many views model would have been needed. 

Though, I confess, that model is a child of our postmodern time.  

The changing time seem to be the only constant. 

But anyway, philosophers from far away times can learn us things. 

I would like to add something to the advice I started with; Believe in whatever is good for you and for all other living beings.





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more