Cult Icon
2585 replies · 37631 views
- Education is in a way, a form of ignorance. Every diploma is an award for developing a more sophisticated form of ignorance.
-Education tends to channel the mind into particular views. We can be very precise in our misunderstanding.
Choice distinguishes us from both beasts and gods, for the former lack deliberation, while the latter lack desire.
great monk Thich Nhat Hanh returned home to die:
https://plumvillage.org/about/thich-nhat-hanh/thich-nhat-hanhs-health/
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/11/18196457/thich-nhat-hanh-health-mindfulness-plum-village
"once you become calm, the moon of the truth becomes reflected within you"
Aristotle does say that bad men experience regret and self-loathing. He says, [ J] Those who have done many terrible deeds and are hated for their wickedness even shrink from life and destroy themselves. And wicked men seek for people with whom to spend their days, and shun themselves . . . [T]heir soul is rent by faction, and one element in it by reason of its wickedness grieves when it abstains from certain acts, while the other part is pleased . . . ad men are laden with regrets. (1166b11–25)
n. That is, even if the vicious are discontent with the way things have turned out in their lives, they do not make moral progress, because they do not believe that they have acted wrongly. They blame their lack of friends, their drinking problems, their consumer debt, etc. on other people or on misfortune rather than on their own bad actions. Thus, when they look around for things to change in their lives, they do not change their actions. What makes them vicious (rather than merely members of the many) is that their minds are closed to the possibility that acting virtuously would improve their lives. As for passage , the context of the passage is that Aristotle is using bad and good character, along with sickness and health, as examples of contraries that can change from one into the other. Just as the sick can become healthy, so the bad can become good. Now I suggest that in passage Aristotle is again not using “bad men” to refer to the vicious. Here he is using the term broadly to refer to all sorts of bad character types, some of which (e.g. the incontinent) can become good, others (e.g. the vicious) cannot, just as “sickness” includes both curable and irreversible disease. So both passage and passage [ J] can be rendered compatible with the thesis that moral progress is impossible for the vicious. We can now begin to construct a taxonomy of the non-virtuous. The vicious are incorrigible because they have entrenched habits of vicious action arising from (1) vicious passion, (2) vicious beliefs, and (3) strong-headedness. They have (1) feelings that are not in accord with virtue, (2) false beliefs about virtue, and (3) they will not listen to reason even enough to be deterred by punishment.
Tragic heroes Only one other permutation of these three faults is possible. Are there people lucky enough to have virtuous passions and right beliefs, but stubborn enough to refuse to heed calls for change even when threatened with harm? The protagonists of Sophoclean tragedies fit this niche. They do not have vicious habits, but they persist in following their chosen course of action whatever the cost, deaf to rational argument.
The assault on the hero’s will usually takes the form of argument, of an appeal, not to emotion, but to reason. . . . The hero, as his friends and enemies see him, needs to hear, to be taught. . . . t is difficult to tell him anything at all; he will not listen. . . . To friends and enemies the hero’s mood appears as overboldness, rashness, insolence, audacity. . . . There is no dealing with such incorrigible natures.12
Aristotle thinks that the protagonists in tragedies have a flaw or mistaken belief (hamartia) that somehow is part of the explanation of why the catastrophe occurs.
Perhaps Aristotle’s view is that tragic heroes are very stubborn people with right moral beliefs and good habits of passion and action. They do not improve, both because they are already virtuous and because they are strong-headed. Being unwilling to change one’s course of action even to avoid severe penalty, might plausibly be construed as a flaw or mistake, but not a vice.
Aristotle thinks that the protagonists in tragedies have a flaw or mistaken belief (hamartia) that somehow is part of the explanation of why the catastrophe occurs. On the other hand, Aristotle seems quite insistent that the flaw or mistake be something other than a vice (Poetics 1452b35–1453a18).13 Perhaps Aristotle’s view is that tragic heroes are very stubborn people with right moral beliefs and good habits of passion and action. They do not improve, both because they are already virtuous and because they are strong-headed. Being unwilling to change one’s course of action even to avoid severe penalty, might plausibly be construed as a flaw or mistake, but not a vice.
"as Sophocles shows, this sort of inflexibility is admirable in one way, yet terrible in another"
"s tragic heroes who have the complementary deficiency of being able to reason for themselves, without being open to the reasoning of others.'
Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[72]
Light for my father
His grave close
His soul distant
The strength we need is all around us
The mighty fall at last
To be no more than dust before the wind
Unbreakable walls
Endlessly flowing water
Life flows onto death
Soaring ambition
But the works of men are frail
Life flows onto death