Aquinas didn't have any time for private property as I remember Orn. One might better ask questions like 'why has that poor sod got leprosy' as ones about this stuff, which turns so quickly to whining selfishness. It's just testimony to what dogma people will find neat. If you are kicking some jobsworth's butt to save a child whilst I exude the glory of god, which of us is really doing the latter. I think therefore I am, m'lud. Therefore I am not guilty of killing the missus whilst stoned and drunk. This is the fodder of being kept in perpetual childhood.
As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power. Man should not consider his material possession his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. He said all of this. God, it's good to know Molly comes from a defect in the active power when she beats me in argument! He ain't keeping to the third quote in this as it is the Y chromosome that has the bits missing. Aquinas' best phrase for me was 'beware of the man of one book'. We might exist to live in peace and develop ways to expand into the vastness (I have explained elsewhere relativity travel is possible) to advanced forms that might have a clue on the answer to this question. The 'answers' as so fawning and flattering for the question to be forgotten on hearing them. Philosophy has hundreds of answers - Descartes being the easiest to remember, even though one might say 'Your were not there when I murdered you sleeping in your bed. How could you have been. You were not thinking'. Descartes is just another example of how true Johnson's dictionary definition of Monsieur is - a term of rebuke to a Frenchman. Monsieur Descartes indeed! We should face up to the job being up on this planet and our miserable history of war. Our existence should be formed in escaping from it and the 'me mentality'. On 3 Dec, 21:56, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > 'I exist to be deceived' – archy > > As good of a dogma as any posted above, Neil! > > On Dec 3, 1:46 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The general leitmotif of Buddhist teachings, which is also the first > > of the four noble truths, is the realization that unsatisfactoriness > > or suffering (Skt. duḥkha, Pāli dukkha) is a pervasive aspect of > > conditioned existence. With the recognition of this fundamental truth > > about the nature of phenomena comes the realization of the cause of > > discontent and of its finality (the second and third noble truths, > > respectively). Lastly, undertaking the course of action that leads to > > its cessation (the fourth noble truth) forms the basis and the main > > motivating principle of the Buddhist path. > > > 1. Unsatisfactoriness (duḥkha). As the first mark of conditioned > > existence, unsatisfactoriness presents both an opportunity and a > > challenge: as an undesirable condition, unsatisfactoriness itself is a > > motivator for its own overcoming. But without a proper understanding > > of its root cause, unsatisfactoriness can become a source of aversion > > (toward unpleasant states) and of grasping (after pleasant states). > > The cause of this unsatisfactoriness is ignorance (avidyā), understood > > not simply as lacking knowledge about particular states of affairs, > > but rather as a basic misunderstanding about how things truly are. The > > Buddhist Abhidharma traditions break this unsatisfactoriness into > > three categories: > > > unsatisfactoriness proper (duḥkha-duḥkhatā), which comprises such > > common discomforts as aches and pains as well as mental states such as > > sadness and unhappiness; > > the unsatisfactoriness of compounded phenomena due to their > > impermanent nature (saṃskāra-duḥkhatā), which explains why even > > apparently pleasant and desirable states are ultimately a source of > > discontent on account of their conditioned and impermanent nature; > > the unsatisfactoriness inherent in change (vipariṇāma-duḥkhatā), which > > captures the sense of distress that follows the realization that > > pleasant sensations and mental states of delight change as the objects > > upon which they depend change (see also Saṃyutta Nikāya, IV, 259). > > 2. Impermanence (anitya). As the second mark of existence, > > impermanence pervades all compounded phenomena. It forms an integral > > part of the theory of momentariness (kṣaṇikavāda), which asserts that > > phenomena do not endure for more than a moment. In the Shorter > > Discourse to Saccaka (Majjhima Nikāya, I, 230, 35), the Buddha > > explains that all formations (feeling, perception, etc.) and in effect > > all things are to be regarded as impermanent. > > > 3. No-self (anātman). This Buddhist view of the impermanence of all > > phenomena works against the natural tendency to assume that knowledge > > and experience are attributable to a self that is permanent, stable, > > and unchanging. Instead of reifying each moment of existence, and > > operating with the assumption that continuity is the hallmark of our > > lives, the Buddhist view presents a fluid account of experience as an > > ever-changing stream of psycho-physical events. This dynamic model of > > the human existence comprises the five classes of phenomena the Buddha > > referred to as the “aggregates of grasping” (upādāna-skandha), on > > account of our tendency to grasp after and identify with them (see > > §2.3). These classes of phenomena are to be understood purely in > > causal terms, and not as the attributes and activities of a > > substantive self. There is no self or substantive mind that either > > supervenes or exists apart from these aggregates. Rather, as the term > > ‘aggregate’ suggests, the Buddhist tradition introduces a new and > > unique way of talking about human experience by avoiding the > > metaphysical pitfalls of reification. > > > The above from Stanford EP online. I don't hold with it, but these > > lines of thought show just how perspectival all this I, me, self stuff > > is. I go with AN Whitehead that we have occasions of experience in a > > network of events. I was born ignorant and will die not much better. > > More of us might have had a chance to know something of some > > importance if the world was not so screwed by 'capitalism' and > > 'religion'. One might say 'I exist to be deceived'. > > > On 3 Dec, 21:25, e <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Along with why is how? If we can ascertain how we exist then maybe the > > > why becomes clearer or resolves of itself. Changing Descartes a bit > > > too... I think, ‘I exist’, we see that I’s exist within thought > > > bounded contexts. Do I’s exist outside of those thought bounded > > > contexts? I don’t see how we can claim that I’s do. If I’s are then > > > bound to context, then I am is just another thought that arises and > > > passes away with context. That is, I’s really don’t exist the way we > > > think I’s do i.e. permanently and separately. When the I am thought > > > resolves showing there is no separate me, then the infinite totality > > > is realized without an inside or outside.- 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.
