The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
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?
If a believer can only cite “faith” as their support for god’s existence, then a reasonable person cannot accept this. The entire notion of faith rests upon and presupposes the inadequacy of reason.
Personally, I think the ONLY piece of sound reasoning is to adopt a stance of non belief until there are grounds for accepting the claim (that a god exists) to be true.
"If God exists, the believer gains everything (Heaven) and the unbeliever loses everything (Hell). If God doesn't exist, the believer loses nothing and the unbeliever gains nothing. There is therefore everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God."
(c) J nash 2005 ;)
> It is my belief that there is no such thing as 'the human
> condition'... a mature human is sufficiently equipped to form his/her
> own condition (i.e. there are several human conditions).
Although you could say that everyone will, eventually, reach the same conclusion - in a controlled environment, anyway, which will never happen. But wouldn't most people arrive at the same, logical, condition? As best for themselves?
> Accurate objectivity is always more beneficial (to the individual and
> wider society) than partiality to emotions and pleasure. In fact, it
> is this very partiality that is the cause of most of society's
> troubles, no?
But objectifying stuff goes some way to deindividualising it - people become numbers and, as such, almost void of value.
Applying objective reason to everything undermines the higher emotions contributing to a largely civillised culture.
See: Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" - most hilarious satire to the Age of Reason.
Pain and pleasure are two extremes experienced by those living in tune with pure physicality and without much insight; the stoic (the rational man/woman) evaluates the existence of pleasure and pain and chooses a balance (with which he/she continues to achieve a chosen purpose).
By your argument, if I am not 'happy' I must be 'sad'. Yet, with greater insight and categorisation one may find a more rational 'alternative', in this case that alternative would be expressed best by the words 'simple contentment'; the same is true of the above ‘pleasure/pain’ theory.
Objectivity and stoicism are not easily within the reach of those completely subject to their animalistic whims (children and youths being the principle examples)- I will not deny this. However, the concept of stoicism is practical; many have lived their lives by its tenets.
Despite objectivity and stoicism being more desirable in creating a disciplined and highly structured world (and creating more perfected individuals), it is not easily within the capabilities of a human.
Accurate objectivity is always more beneficial (to the individual and wider society) than partiality to emotions and pleasure. In fact, it is this very partiality that is the cause of most of society's troubles, no?