• schopenhauer1
    1.4k
    That's why we laugh with real pleasure at Louis C. K.0af

    True.
  • Agustino
    8.4k
    Nope, this is all romanticization. It's layers upon layers of obfuscation. It obfuscates the Real. The Real is the survival and boredom. All desires are essentially to run from one of the other.schopenhauer1
    Nope, you're merely asserting this now. That doesn't hold water with me. There's no argumentation at all. Nor have you shown how eros can be reduced to survival and boredom.

    producing works of intricate art is one of the most engrossing activities you can do.schopenhauer1
    Sure.

    Why wouldn't one want to find the best way to alleviate boredom?schopenhauer1
    Does the person who creates great art do it to "alleviate boredom"? Ask them - I think you'll be surprised by what they tell you.

    No one wants to hear survival and boredom. That just depresses people, so you can go on with your rhetorical romanticizations and throw more pleasant sounding buzz words, I just don't buy it.schopenhauer1
    It's not about what you want or don't want to hear. It's about the truth.

    It covers up the pretty simple idea that we are not content just existingschopenhauer1
    Being content just to exist (doing nothing) sounds like some form of mental illness to me. That's not eudaimonia.
  • schopenhauer1
    1.4k
    Nope, you're merely asserting this now. That doesn't hold water with me. There's no argumentation at all. Nor have you shown how eros can be reduced to survival and boredom.Agustino

    So, we are goal-seeking creatures. Goals come from our ability to use language to construct meaning in the world. The underlying angst of boredom manifests in our linguistic brains as the myriad of intricate goals we can pursue to alleviate this angsty dissatisfaction of just being. We can't just "be" in the world like a rock, we must "do". So what does doing require? Well, it requires goals of all sorts- goals that come from one's own personality shaped by experience/genetics/contingent circumstances of events in ones life. So one is exposed to certain people, experiences which provide a framework for building on interests and goals, etc.. Reasons my be secondary or tertiary, but the ultimate underlying motivation behind the linguistically-based, goal-driven pursuits, is the survival, boredom, discomfort factor. All together it is a general angst of just "being". If we were content in and of itself, we would not need to pursue any goals. You buy into the end product of some of the goals (beautiful works of art, etc.) but not the underlying causes.

    "This emptiness finds its expression in the whole form of existence, in the infiniteness of Time and Space as opposed to the finiteness of the individual in both; in the flitting present as the only manner of real existence; in the dependence and relativity of all things; in constantly Becoming without Being; in continually wishing without being satisfied; in an incessant thwarting of one’s efforts, which go to make up life, until victory is won. — Schopenhauer
  • Agustino
    8.4k
    So, we are goal-seeking creatures. Goals come from our ability to use language to construct meaning in the world. The underlying angst of boredom manifests in our linguistic brains as the myriad of intricate goals we can pursue to alleviate this angsty dissatisfaction of just being. We can't just "be" in the world like a rock, we must "do". So what does doing require? Well, it requires goals of all sorts- goals that come from one's own personality shaped by experience/genetics/contingent circumstances of events in ones life. So one is exposed to certain people, experiences which provide a framework for building on interests and goals, etc.. Reasons my be secondary or tertiary, but the ultimate underlying motivation behind the linguistically-based, goal-driven pursuits, is the survival, boredom, discomfort factor. All together it is a general angst of just "being". If we were content in and of itself, we would not need to pursue any goals. You buy into the end product of some of the goals (beautiful works of art, etc.) but not the underlying causes.schopenhauer1
    Again, the problem with this is that it doesn't reflect reality.

    Beethoven doesn't write the 5th Symphony because in the absence of writing it he would get bored. Rather, he takes positive pleasure in doing it. I don't get out of bed in the morning because I'd get bored if I stayed there. I get out of bed because I take positive pleasure in doing some of the things at least that I have to do every day. Desire plays a positive role, not just a negative role motivated by boredom. I don't desire just because I'd be bored otherwise.

    "This emptiness finds its expression in the whole form of existence, in the infiniteness of Time and Space as opposed to the finiteness of the individual in both; in the flitting present as the only manner of real existence; in the dependence and relativity of all things; in constantly Becoming without Being; in continually wishing without being satisfied; in an incessant thwarting of one’s efforts, which go to make up life, until victory is won. — Schopenhauer
    You should read my post here.Agustino
  • schopenhauer1
    1.4k
    Beethoven doesn't write the 5th Symphony because in the absence of writing it he would get bored. Rather, he takes positive pleasure in doing it. I don't get out of bed in the morning because I'd get bored if I stayed there. I get out of bed because I take positive pleasure in doing some of the things at least that I have to do every day. Desire plays a positive role, not just a negative role motivated by boredom. I don't desire just because I'd be bored otherwise.Agustino

    But again, this doesn't reflect the underlying reality, just the intermediate causes. I already stated, and you ignored: Reasons my be secondary or tertiary, but the ultimate underlying motivation behind the linguistically-based, goal-driven pursuits, is the survival, boredom, discomfort factor. So please pay attention closely. The intermediary goal-seeking that we find pleasure in from our own personalities that create these linguistically based goals, has an underlying cause. You jumped from the intermediary right to the root. We are barely conscious of the root underlying cause, because the goal-seeking is usually the most present in our minds as we go through the day. It takes a bit more digging to get to the root of the goals themselves.
  • Agustino
    8.4k
    Reasons my be secondary or tertiary, but the ultimate underlying motivation behind the linguistically-based, goal-driven pursuits, is the survival, boredom, discomfort factor.schopenhauer1
    How do you know this is the ultimate underlying motivation? By what criteria have you established that? Why do you discount the answers people generally give? What reasons do you have to doubt those answers?

    The intermediary goal-seeking that we find pleasure in from our own personalities that create these linguistically based goals, has an underlying cause. You jumped from the intermediary right to the root. We are barely conscious of the root underlying cause, because the goal-seeking is usually the most present in our minds as we go through the day. It takes a bit more digging to get to the root of the goals themselves.schopenhauer1
    You do realize that this presupposes its own anthropological conception of man, which is the one given by materialistic evolutionary biology of the 60s-80s right? Things have moved on from back then.

    You create the concept of "intermediary goal-seeking", "linguistic goals", etc. and then attribute to them an underlying cause. And not only that, you also tell us that that underlying cause is boredom, and not, for example, pleasure, self-affirmation, or love. What reasons does anyone have to believe you? :s
  • Agustino
    8.4k
    A priori a goal just is a sustained effort to approach an object of desire. What makes something an object of desire?! Certainly not boredom and survival in many instances, but rather things like self-affirmation, love, pleasure and the like. I buy a rose for the woman I love not because I'm bored, but because I love her and enjoy seeing her happy due to my act. And you yourself recognise this. If my friend asks you why did Agustino buy her a rose, you won't say because he's bored! To say I buy her a gift because I want to survive or I'm bored is ridiculous! It doesn't explain why I buy HER out of everyone else a rose, nor does it explain the way I feel towards her. It's something only Camus' hero, Meursault, would say >:O
  • schopenhauer1
    1.4k
    How do you know this is the ultimate underlying motivation? By what criteria have you established that? Why do you discount the answers people generally give? What reasons do you have to doubt those answers?Agustino

    Oh boy.. you've put your little pragmatic hat on. It's a nice change from the high-falutin Plato, aesthetic stuff I've been seeing. I'll answer these in a bit.

    You do realize that this presupposes its own anthropological conception of man, which is the one given by materialistic evolutionary biology of the 60s-80s right? Things have moved on from back then.

    You create the concept of "intermediary goal-seeking", "linguistic goals", etc. and then attribute to them an underlying cause. And not only that, you also tell us that that underlying cause is boredom, and not, for example, pleasure, self-affirmation, or love. What reasons does anyone have to believe you? :s
    Agustino

    Hold on, I have to do some intermediate goals now (for survival's sake) so I'll let you know in a bit ;)!
  • Agustino
    8.4k
    Hold on, I have to do some intermediate goals now (for survival's sake) so I'll let you know in a bit ;)!schopenhauer1
    Why do you bother to survive? ;) ;) ;)
  • schopenhauer1
    1.4k
    How do you know this is the ultimate underlying motivation? By what criteria have you established that? Why do you discount the answers people generally give? What reasons do you have to doubt those answers?Agustino

    First, I find it ironic you are presuming an empirical approach in this particular post based on your preference for Plato who was arguably one of the best examples of non-empirical philosopher. But, that is an aside not a response..

    I don't know this is the ultimate underlying motivation. This is just my attempt at a theory based on my own experience, analyzing other's experiences, and a priori conception analysis and synthesis of what it means to be a linguistically-based, self-reflective animal-being. Existential-based questions get existential-based answers.. that is to say, existential problems are in the realm of subjective/inner experience not, for example the neural cortex or hypothalamus, or neural connections. In other words, it is squarely in the frame of everyday, socially-constructed, linguistic-based immediate life that we inhabit. If we were discussing the evolution or causation of these experiences, that would be a different realm that would very much involve those types of concepts. (Even then, the hard problem of consciousness would be a bit thornier than just causative answers..gets deep with metaphysical stuff).

    Anyways, part of existentially-based questions is what motivates us (this self-reflective, linguistically-based animal). We are an animal that deliberates. That is to say, we can make conscious decisions on what to pursue, and we do this much of the time. We choose a goal and seek out ways to achieve that goal, creating smaller goals along the way. The natural question is causes us to seek goals? Well, this is a different question than what causes us to prefer one goal over another. This is not to be confused. For example, we usually prefer what is most pleasurable. So, creating works of art may be more pleasurable than watching tv, thus goals are taken to pursue this goal over the other. Anyways, that is not the question though. The question is why do we seek goals in the first place? That is not why we choose some goals over others, or why we should choose some goals over others (for some longer term pleasure or sense of satisfaction). Well, we are angsty creature. We do not sit there like a rock. We are linguistic-based, self-reflective creatures that must survive in a certain contingent world of a historical-cultural setting. In this cultural setting, we must make goals related to survival and goals related to entertaining ourselves as to not get bored..

    That is the real short answer.. Again, I have some intermediate goals of survival based on my cultural setting's set-up that I must now pursue.. I will be back to explain further..

    Either way, if your attention is engrossed fully or not, it is a way to alleviate that initial need to pursue something to focus your attention in a way that seems most pleasurable to you based on your personality.
  • CasKev
    269
    I tend to agree with @schopenhauer1 here, based on my life experience. For me, the drive to pursue goals has been more akin to @Bitter Crank's concept of 'impermanent meaningfulness', where we take on temporary pursuits to survive or thrive (maximize net pleasure), and to feel like we have some sort of grander purpose, compared to twiddling our thumbs, or sitting around like cats.

    I think we're fooled by our intelligence into believing that our purpose is to work toward self-fulfillment. The problem is that it's an ever-changing target, a never-ending ego-based striving; and once you realize that, it kind of takes some of the romanticism out of it. I still make choices that I expect will bring the highest net pleasure to my life (taking into account the trade-off of short-term suffering for long-term gain, and vice versa), but I seem to have given up on the thinking that if I achieve a certain something, my life will have been worthwhile. I feel like self-fulfillment and higher purpose have followed God into the box of things I still hope for, but can't quite believe in any more.

    I'm at a point where I'm focusing on meeting life's basic needs (which I think includes maintaining important relationships with others), and taking part in different things to make life as interesting as possible, alleviating that sense of boredom that always seems to be hanging around the corner.
  • Agustino
    8.4k
    First, I find it ironic you are presuming an empirical approach in this particular post based on your preference for Plato who was arguably one of the best examples of non-empirical philosopher. But, that is an aside not a response..schopenhauer1
    What you're saying is nothing but the popular conception of Plato.

    I don't know this is the ultimate underlying motivation.schopenhauer1
    Okay, so we've settled that you don't know about it.

    This is just my attempt at a theory based on my own experience, analyzing other's experiences, and a priori conception analysis and synthesis of what it means to be a linguistically-based, self-reflective animal-being.schopenhauer1
    Fine, why should I (or anyone else) believe your theory? You're still not answering my questions. I've asked for what justifies your theory. Now, you're telling me that it's other people's experiences :s . What about those many experiences which contradict what you're saying? Here is one:

    A priori a goal just is a sustained effort to approach an object of desire. What makes something an object of desire?! Certainly not boredom and survival in many instances, but rather things like self-affirmation, love, pleasure and the like. I buy a rose for the woman I love not because I'm bored, but because I love her and enjoy seeing her happy due to my act. And you yourself recognise this. If my friend asks you why did Agustino buy her a rose, you won't say because he's bored! To say I buy her a gift because I want to survive or I'm bored is ridiculous! It doesn't explain why I buy HER out of everyone else a rose, nor does it explain the way I feel towards her. It's something only Camus' hero, Meursault, would say >:OAgustino

    The question is why do we seek goals in the first place?schopenhauer1
    Why do birds sing? Because they're angsty? :s

    We do not sit there like a rock.schopenhauer1
    Neither does a dog. What makes you think we ought to sit there like a rock?

    Either way, if your attention is engrossed fully or not, it is a way to alleviate that initial need to pursue something to focus your attention in a way that seems most pleasurable to you based on your personality.schopenhauer1
    No, that's totally false. For example. If I look at my life, everything I do is pretty much focused around one major goal, which is so large it will take my entire lifetime to try and achieve. I want to change the way society, culture and the world are organised for the better, and hopefully bring about a spiritual renovation of the world.

    That means I need health, wealth, power, knowledge, wisdom, and all the rest. Almost every single action I do - exercising, gym, running, shaving, studying philosophy, writing on this forum, working, making money, even things that I will probably do in the future like forming a family, getting married etc. will be directed towards my larger goal - mere steps towards that goal. For an ambitious person such as myself, your theory makes zero sense. You talk about the need to be entertained... what is that? I have no idea what entertainment is, apart from the few things I do while resting and not working or studying. Even things like listening to music or playing music - I enjoy them because of the insights they provide into myself and the world. They sharpen my skills, my sensitivity to the world, and my sensitivity to myself. I rarely experience boredom, because there's so much for me to do. Survival, I'm only concerned about it because I'm concerned about my bigger goal.

    Now why do I have such a goal? I wanted to change the world ever since I was a small child. It's almost my very first memory. It's nothing else than the pure expression of my inner being, the way a bird expresses itself by singing its beautiful song in the morning. I have this utter sense of purpose, that I have a mission in the world, and it's my duty to achieve it. That God will hold me accountable for it. And my ultimate failure and success is of course not in my hands, but I have to do my best. I too am just a pawn in God's plan and nothing more. But we each have to do our duty. We also have to leave the people we encounter better off than they were before they met us. That is the minimum from everyone.

    Now, not everyone experiences a sense of purpose that is given the way I experience mine. So perhaps for such people, they experience life differently. They have to seek out entertainment, etc.

    For me, the drive to pursue goals has been more akin to Bitter Crank's concept of 'impermanent meaningfulness', where we take on temporary pursuits to survive or thrive (maximize net pleasure), and to feel like we have some sort of grander purpose, compared to twiddling our thumbs, or sitting around like cats.CasKev
    For you, but I experience my purpose as given, not as chosen. I also choose to pursue it, but I experience it as given first, and chosen later.
  • MPen89
    18
    It feels that if I don't live forever then everything I do is just a waste of effort.intrapersona

    What would be the point in doing anything if you lived forever? You'd eventually get around to doing it... at some point... maybe tomorrow... or the day after that.. or next week... or next year...

    With a time limit, you kind of have to get on with doing stuff before you can't.
  • schopenhauer1
    1.4k
    What you're saying is nothing but the popular conception of Plato.Agustino

    So where did Plato come up with the tripartate soul? The latest scientific research? Statistical data? No, his own conceptions or just the traditions of those who may have had ideas previously.

    Okay, so we've settled that you don't know about it.Agustino

    And either do you! Or does god talk to Agustino and he speaks to the world? At least I admit that this is all speculative philosophy. In fact, much of metaphysical and ethical philosophy is speculative or simply conceptual analysis.

    Fine, why should I (or anyone else) believe your theory? You're still not answering my questions. I've asked for what justifies your theory. Now, you're telling me that it's other people's experiences :s . What about those many experiences which contradict what you're saying? Here is one:Agustino

    I didn't say I take what they say at face value for their underlying motivations. It takes a bit of digging. You don't have to believe anything anyone says.

    Why do birds sing? Because they're angsty? :sAgustino

    Are you just trying to troll me? Does this even deserve an answer? Did I not go at lengths to explain that we are a self-reflective, linguistic animal- the only one to deal with existential questions? Or are you still not paying close attention?

    Neither does a dog. What makes you think we ought to sit there like a rock?Agustino

    That's not even my point. I didn't say we ought to sit there like a rock, but simply that it is our nature to not just be, but become. In other words, we need to always be doing. Just existing isn't enough. We have to make and achieve goals- goals that are ultimately motivated from an angst.

    No, that's totally false. For example. If I look at my life, everything I do is pretty much focused around one major goal, which is so large it will take my entire lifetime to try and achieve. I want to change the way society, culture and the world are organised for the better, and hopefully bring about a spiritual renovation of the world.

    That means I need health, wealth, power, knowledge, wisdom, and all the rest. Almost every single action I do - exercising, gym, running, shaving, studying philosophy, writing on this forum, working, making money, even things that I will probably do in the future like forming a family, getting married etc. will be directed towards my larger goal - mere steps towards that goal. For an ambitious person such as myself, your theory makes zero sense. You talk about the need to be entertained... what is that? I have no idea what entertainment is, apart from the few things I do while resting and not working or studying. Even things like listening to music or playing music - I enjoy them because of the insights they provide into myself and the world. They sharpen my skills, my sensitivity to the world, and my sensitivity to myself. I rarely experience boredom, because there's so much for me to do. Survival, I'm only concerned about it because I'm concerned about my bigger goal.

    Now why do I have such a goal? I wanted to change the world ever since I was a small child. It's almost my very first memory. It's nothing else than the pure expression of my inner being, the way a bird expresses itself by singing its beautiful song in the morning. I have this utter sense of purpose, that I have a mission in the world, and it's my duty to achieve it. That God will hold me accountable for it. And my ultimate failure and success is of course not in my hands, but I have to do my best. I too am just a pawn in God's plan and nothing more. But we each have to do our duty. We also have to leave the people we encounter better off than they were before they met us. That is the minimum from everyone.

    Now, not everyone experiences a sense of purpose that is given the way I experience mine. So perhaps for such people, they experience life differently. They have to seek out entertainment, etc.
    Agustino

    You've had a sense of purpose. That's great. You want to leave people you encounter better off.. You seem to aggravate me with what appears to be trolling. But after reading this, I perhaps see why this might cause some distress as you see your life. I don't want to go in a back-and-forth flame war with you over who is right or what justification we have for this or that. This will not produce much for anyone.

    My theory is simply that there is a vague angst at the bottom of our motivations. We have an urge to strive. Our linguistic brains put this constant striving into some goals. This vague angst can be broadly categorized in three main categories- survival, boredom, discomfort. Now, based on these main categories we create goals based to achieve some related to these categories. Often times, goals build upon each other to the point that the underlying factors are not even seen. However, every once in a while, you may see that indeed, most goals do lie in a certain emptiness of boredom, or desire for survival needs (obtained through cultural structures).
  • Agustino
    8.4k
    So where did Plato come up with the tripartate soul?schopenhauer1
    No, Plato didn't actually sit on a chair and dream up the tripartite soul. Rather he (and others) based this conception off experience and then verified it by ensuring it is applicable to all sorts of different cases encountered.

    I didn't say I take what they say at face value for their underlying motivations. It takes a bit of digging. You don't have to believe anything anyone says.schopenhauer1
    Yeah, you failed to illustrate how this digging leads you to conclude to boredom and survival as the only motivators of human behavior.

    Are you just trying to troll me? Does this even deserve an answer? Did I not go at lengths to explain that we are a self-reflective, linguistic animal- the only one to deal with existential questions? Or are you still not paying close attention?schopenhauer1
    Yes it does deserve an answer. Goal-seeking, on your own terms, is to humans what singing is to birds. Birds don't sing because they're angsty, what makes you think humans seek goals because they're angsty?

    In other words, we need to always be doing.schopenhauer1
    Not 'need'. We choose to.

    motivated from an angst.schopenhauer1
    You have not shown this to be the case.

    I perhaps seeschopenhauer1
    Yes, you perhaps see red herrings, but you don't see that your theory claims to explain human motivators, but it clearly doesn't explain my motivations at all. It fails, because it is too narrow and dogmatic.

    or what justification we haveschopenhauer1
    Well, what's wrong with asking you what justification you have for believing what you believe?

    My theory is simply that there is a vague angst at the bottom of our motivations. We have an urge to strive. Our linguistic brains put this constant striving into some goals. This vague angst can be broadly categorized in three main categories- survival, boredom, discomfort. Now, based on these main categories we create goals based to achieve some related to these categories. Often times, goals build upon each other to the point that the underlying factors are not even seen. However, every once in a while, you may see that indeed, most goals do lie in a certain emptiness of boredom, or desire for survival needs (obtained through cultural structures).schopenhauer1
    I do understand what your theory states, but just look around you! There's an abundance of evidence that it is too narrow and simply fails to explain many cases, like for example mine.
  • Janus
    3.8k
    Again, we are born into the world and we cannot stand boredom.schopenhauer1

    Contrary to Schopenhauer's assertion, boredom does not ensue upon the satisfaction of desire, but exists where there simply is no desire, no interest, no sense of valuing anything enough to strive for it. The greatest pleasures consist in striving after mastery.

    So the aim should not be to eliminate desire and will but to cultivate it until it becomes a most potent force, one that is able sustain a creatively rich and interesting life.
  • Agustino
    8.4k
    Contrary to Schopenhauer's assertion, boredom doesn't not ensue upon the satisfaction of desire, but exists where there simply is no desire, no interest, no sense of valuing anything enough to strive for it.Janus
    Hmmm yes, I think this is correct. Someone who cares deeply about something or someone else cannot be bored, because caring moves him to do things. The whole German tradition after Kant - Hegel, Schopenhauer, Heidegger - have emphasised the role played by will / care / self-affirmation as a primary source of motivation.

    Personally, I have found boredom to be attached to apathy, and apathy itself to be a move that my mind makes in self-defense when life/situations become too difficult and I lose self-confidence. At that time, and usually momentarily until I recover my strength, I become apathetic and lose interest in what I previously cared about. But it's just a defence mechanism, temporary. It enables one not to suffer from not being able to care.

    The greatest pleasures consist in striving after mastery.Janus
    I think those pleasures emerging from self-affirmaton are up there, but they are inferior to pleasures emerging out of erotic longing for someone/something.
  • Pollywalls
    16
    one reason we cling to life is that there is no reason to stay dead either. If something has no reason to do anything, it won't. we are mahines after all. we just have hundreds of reasons. It's the human nature.
  • Janus
    3.8k
    The whole German tradition after Kant - Hegel, Schopenhauer, Heidegger - have emphasised the role played by will / care / self-affirmation as a primary source of motivation.Agustino

    That's true, but it is only Schopenhauer who advocates negation of the will. If this negation of self-will is not replaced by affirmation of a greater will, it, ironically for Schopenhauer, leads to boredom, the very state that he had postulated comes about through satisfaction of desire; that was really my point.

    Personally, I have found boredom to be attached to apathy; and apathy itself to be a move that my mind makes in self-defense when life/situations become too difficult and I lose self-confidence.Agustino

    Yes, I think it's true that a-pathy or negation of affect may often be associated with fear. A generalized disposition of fear of life often seems to be a breeding ground for negative attitudes towards it ; pessimism, nihilism, anti-natalism and the like.

    I think those pleasures emerging from self-affirmaton are up there, but they are inferior to pleasures emerging out of erotic longing for someone/something.Agustino

    Yes, I probably should have said "greatest satisfactions" not "greatest pleasures". It's not clear whether you are saying that the pleasure comes from the erotic longing or its satisfaction, though.

    Also, I wasn't so much thinking in terms of "self-affirmation" as "self-cultivation".
  • Agustino
    8.4k
    That's true, but it is only Schopenhauer who advocates negation of the will. If this negation of self-will is not replaced by affirmation of a greater will, it, ironically for Schopenhauer, leads to boredom, the very state that he had postulated comes about through satisfaction of desire; that was really my point.Janus
    Hmmm... Not under Schopenhauer's own system though. Since boredom still would count merely as a manifestation of will, so that would mean that will hasn't been completely negated.

    However, I do agree with your larger point. The individual's will needs to be negated and God's will needs to be affirmed.

    Yes, I think it's true that a-pathy or negation of affect may often be associated with fear.Janus
    Yes. It's a defense mechanism.

    It's not clear whether you are saying that the pleasure comes from the erotic longing or its satisfaction, though.Janus
    I would say both.

    Also, I wasn't so much thinking in terms of "self-affirmation" as "self-cultivation".Janus
    But self-cultivation cannot act as end-in-itself. It must be directed towards some other, selfless end. To what end are you cultivating your self? This is what I mean when I critique these "programs of self-cultivation". I agree with Plato that in the final analysis, parts of our being shouldn't be rejected (our will, for example, shouldn't be rejected) but integrated within the greater whole harmoniously.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.