Viewing Thread:
"Stoicism vs. Hedonism"

Where is the flaw in developing one's mind and subordinating the trivialities of physical existence?
Isn't it this identification of the mind which attests to our existence, helps us to perceive the world and find a true equilibrium, a balance between our physical needs and mental tranquillity?
If this is so, then why is stoicism not readily recognised as the best starting point (method) in life? Or is destructive hedonism all that most are capable of…
any thoughts?

I think Christianity (and, indeed, most organised religions) can be completely discounted knowing what we know today.

However, that is not to say there is no God - surely, logically, God, Zeus, Allah etc etc are all the exact same thing. A concept around which (wrongly, in my opinion) these religions were built - because, of couse, faith is a personal thing, not a strict set of rules shared among thousands.

And I personally prefer to go along a more personal route altogether - that God is nothing but a explaination for great personal belief. Hence why God never appears to save the masses, he never comes to assure us non-believers of his existance.

Utter self-belief is a very powerful thing. And the only religion you can perscribe to it one centered wholly around yourself.

It's not so much swotting up on publications as just following what's happening on a near daily basis... if FT doesn't take your fancy, then BBC Business Online, Bloomberg, CNBC etc.

The economic knowledge required for some parts is A-Level standard, for others about year 2 of an economics degree, but you're provided with material to catch up.

And if someone would care to explain what Stoicism and Hedonism is then i'll join in this oh so rivviting (Sp?) debate.

J Nash wrote:
> A theory about the devil writing gods works as a test.

While this theory is very plausable you could also having fears about actually going to hell therefore creating a fantasy that deep down you're pretty sure isn't true to satisfy yourself.

In a word, yes. There are lots of career paths where it doesn't really matter what your academic discipline is - for example marketing, law (provided you do a conversion course, obviously), consultancy to some extent... investment/finance is not one of them. And it's quite obvious why - when you have thousands of people applying for limited positions its easy to sift out those deceptively deemed as unqualified.

On this internship there's 44 of us. 41 do Economics/Maths or related, 1 does Law (specialising in M&A), 1 Historian who's going to do a Masters in Economics, and me, the Geographer. Those proportions definitely don't meet the application ratios. If you're not doing a relevant discipline then you're OK if you have a sound knowledge of the economic world - what's happening with the financial markets, and why. But it will put you at an initial disadvantage if you're up against thousands who's degrees are of some direct relevance to the job.

When I was applying for university I was just told to do whatever subject I find most interesting, and it won't make any difference regarding career opportunities since 80% of industries accept applicants from all disciplines. Little did I know that "I study Geography" would be mocked at on a daily basis by every other new person I met. My advice is if at 17/18 you think that a finance-related occupation is your cup of tea, then definitely go for Economics/Maths. If you're not sure then you'll be at a disadvantage which can be overcome if you push the right buttons.

I personally think that some religious people seek a relationship with God out of their own underlying insecurities, ie maybe people in prison who turn religious, people with very non-Christian pasts, or even just weak individuals who need reassurance that they're a good person.

But on the other hand, I think that the large amount of Christians do not seek it because of their insecurities.

What do others think on this issue?

The point is, there is just as much reason to believe that invisible fairies living at the bottom of the garden as there is a god - that is, none whatsoever. However, are you 'agnostic' about the existence of the former, or indeed of the existence of anything I may dream up? If not, you cannot justify your agnostic position in the latter.

It's as simple as pointing out that no one can claim to know that god does not exist. Concepts are worth bearing in mind even if they appear to one as being without evidence, especially with such a huge amount of believers in the world today (not that this alone works as evidence), and it being an entirely plausible answer to an as yet unanswered question (cosmologically speaking). We may claim to believe there is no God but never to know that there is none, whether or not we reject it as a concept.

The thing about agnostics is, they apparantly accept that belief in a god or gods is a sensible thing to argue the first place, before saying "well we just don't know" - care to justify this position?

The intellectual point of view would be to say, there is no evidence for god therefore we will give the concept of god no quarter - we will reject god as a concept.

If this describes your version of 'agnosticism', my apologies. I know it as 'weak atheism'.

Yes, I admit that I would have to agree with your logic in some ways. Rejecting the concept of faith is one of the silliest things you can do. Intellectually everyone should be an agnostic, we're not going against reason by becoming an atheist or theist: we believe based on what we know, which while not a matter of certainty or decisive reason is a matter we may want to make our minds up about.

I disagree with the wager. What God considers faith raised not from religious experience, not from love of ideals or altruism, or whatever, but from some equation or selfish guess? Speaking of what god, what god are we talking about? So many supposedly conflicting gods to choose between, the wager doesn't help us decide between them. That and, of course, intellectual integrity.