The political is based upon the philosophical, isn't it?//A mark of ethical health is the ability to feel emotions for other humans and their suffering though removed by time or geography/space. It depends on what values a culture promotes so some are indifferent to the wars and disasters of others- indeed, some cheer these events- while others are reminded of the fragile web of humanity.
On Oct 1, 8:43 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Chan Buddhism has a rather excellent rejection of conventional ethical > values as blinkering and distorting (see Hui Neng, Liuxu tanjing, and > The Recorded Conversations of I-Hsüan), and also a sense that one can > become attuned to the world so as to move with its grain I am less > sure about. The special emphasis on the elimination of suffering and > on the way it explains suffering by referring to the human attachment > to self as fixed ego entity challenges Western orthodoxy. Realization > that the self is not a bounded and discrete entity may encourage a > much more impersonal view of oneself and one's projects and desires. > One's concern widens to all of life, and one dampens one's desires so > as to lessen attachment to the self's cares and concerns. This may > seem to drain all passion from life, and it requires that we dampen > the attachment we have not only to our selves but also to special > others. Western ethics tend to uphold only a limited altruism that > allows one a private sphere of life free from moral demands and in > which one gives much more weight to the cares and concerns of the self > and those close to the self. There are themes in Western philosophy > that parallel the kind of impersonal altruism urged upon us by > Buddhism. Some utilitarians have strongly held to the theme that each > counts for one in calculating what produces the greatest good, and > they have derived challenging consequences from that theme for the > question of what one should be prepared to give to alleviate the > suffering of strangers, arguing that the way many in affluent nations > indulge themselves and their own is simply insupportable in a world of > widespread and severe suffering. Some have seen the sort of impersonal > concern that utilitarianism may demand as an indication that it > unsuitable for human beings, who are so strongly partial to themselves > and their own. Buddhism presses for the possibility that impersonal > concern is humanly possible, and the fact that it is a vibrant and > long-lived tradition with many committed practitioners provides some > support for the viability of impersonal concern as a ideal that is > capable of claiming allegiance and influencing how people try to live > their lives. A barbarian such as myself, of course, only prefers this > because I just can't stand wailing women! > The problem really is that what is offered as 'success' is so naff, > yet we are frightened to move to the delights of peace because this > will only let others develop power, including the power to exert their > ethical judgement on us. None of this matters as long as most of the > world is consumed by idiot economics and almost no ability to tolerate > peaceful diversity based on minimal rules within practical security. > The issue is political and not philosophical and we know the answer is > secular democracy based on improvements of what we have managed around > the world. The best for me will be the moment when we laugh at and > ridicule any notion raised by parochial politicians of our great, > noble history in the recognition this is a future we need to build by > recognising the past as myth. > > On 1 Oct, 19:56, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the laugh. In the context of Conan, this makes sense: > > > 'To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the > > lamentation of their women' > > > No doubt, the world has its barbarians and what they see as the best > > in life may differ than the viewpoint of the worlds mystics. The > > barbaric love of conflict will only take Conan so far, as it is > > limited to the lower states of consciousness. So what is best, is > > relative and ever changing with the emergence of greater possibility > > and awareness. > > > On Oct 1, 1:32 pm, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Don't mean to derail the conversation, but as far deep quotes from > > > Conan the Barbarian, I found a different one more impressive. I can't > > > find it online, but I did find its analog in the written REH stories: > > > > [The] chief [of the gods of Cimmeria] is Crom. He dwells on a great > > > mountain. What use to call on him? Little he cares if men live or die. > > > Better to be silent than to call his attention to you; he will send > > > you dooms, not fortune! He is grim and loveless, but at birth he > > > breathes power to strive and slay into a man's soul. What else shall > > > men ask of the gods? ... There is no hope here or hereafter in the > > > cult of my people. In this world men struggle and suffer vainly, > > > finding pleasure only in the bright madness of battle; dying, their > > > souls enter a gray misty realm of clouds and icy winds, to wander > > > cheerlessly throughout eternity. > > > > Conan, first fictional prehistorial proto-athiest?? > > > > What's best in life for me depends on my mood, at the moment it is to > > > sit in a quiet corner and read a book with some beverage laced with > > > caffene.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
