• Rafaella Leon
    59
    Anyone whose goal in life is exclusively material, economic or social, does not serve you, and you should summarily distance yourself from these people. Why? There are a number of things in life that, although they are necessary for us, simply because they are necessary, they cannot be goals.

    For example, you need a home, you need to eat and drink, you need to rest, you need to get married and have children, you need a job. These are all necessary things for subsistence. Now, what is necessary for subsistence cannot be, at the same time, the goal of existence. The goal must be far above all of this. And all these things — these other elements — come to us as things that sometimes help us, sometimes they hinder us; but, from the moment that the individual has placed them as the goal of existence, he has already cut off any connection he may have and that happens between him and the meaning of existence.

    The human being is the animal that has the capacity to perceive the universal in the particular. His mission, his role is determined by this. Man is the animal created to discover what is beyond him, what is beyond the sensitive world and for him to realize his destiny in this sphere. Nobody has the right not to want this. If the subject says “Ah, I want to get married and have a child, I want to have a good job, I want to have this, have that”, all of these are means for existence. So, if you notice that the individual's objective is placed in this sphere, even if he says “I want to be a writer”, “I want to be a poet”, “I want to be a painter”; the name of what he is saying is a socially relevant thing, but even there, he is in the purely material sphere.

    It reminds me of that piece of “Túnica e os Dados”, that the boy runs away from home, and leaves the message to his mother: “Mother, I ran away to Rio de Janeiro, I feel the bubbling of genius in me”. If a person does not feel the bubbling of genius in him — genius does not mean that he is going to be a great painter — no, it means that he will discover that he is facing the mystery of existence; he wants to know what's there.

    If the person does not have this, you should in a word distance yourself from these people. And treat them, of course, with respect, with deference, but with the proper distance. Because they are below what is structurally required of human beings. This is the principle of the distinction of the varieties. Although, in India, the notion of caste has crystallized in a social compartmentalization, we have to understand that caste exist as individual human differentiations, mixed in all social classes. The subject may have been born in the greatest poverty, have nothing, and be focused on the highest goal of existence; and the other may have been born in a golden cradle and be a goof who is turned only to the stomach, to sex, to this kind of nonsense.

    When you meet someone, see if there is that flame within the subject that lifts him above the ordinary social world. Get to know him if he has that call from God to the highest things; if he doesn’t, move away from that person, he’s a fool, it’s worth nothing. If there is a principle that justifies a hierarchical separation between human beings, it is this one. Not social, economic, racial separation, this is all materialism. You will rank people for the money they have in their pocket when, in general, the money was not even earned by them, it was the father who gave it, it was a great-grandfather; sometimes the family had a man of genius four generations ago and left money for a bunch of vagabonds and the guys think they are something because they received money from their great grandfather. The other who thinks he is better than the other because one is black and the other is white, this is all materialism, this is a dog thing: it is not a human criterion, it is a canine criterion. Do not accept any of this, but judge people and rank for it: “Ah, you do not have the flame of the spirit burning in you, so I do not want to talk to you, because who put yourself down was yourself; I'm not the one who's classifying you, it is you who didn't want to, you didn't answer God's call, you denied the human vocation, you threw it in the trash, so you're already trash.

    So, do not hesitate to select your friends, because if not, these people who only have really worldly interests, will only disrupt your life, will live by blackmailing: “Oh, you don't like us anymore”, you have to say “I really don’t. So? If you want me to like you, try to improve, occupy the post of intellectual and spiritual dignity given to you by God, do not despise what is superior to you and you will not be despised either”. This is a missing element in American culture. Well, then people only conceive of two things: as everyone only thinks with their bellies, then they imagine the following: either you will have a social hierarchy based on money, or you will have egalitarianism also based on money. These are two absolutely indecent things, one as indecent as the other. Do not hesitate, even, to clearly express your disapproval of the conduct of these people. Say “Look, from the time you are there, you have nothing to judge what I'm doing. For me the abnormal is you, because the human being was made to be as I am, I am following what God sent. God has made me a spiritual creature, so I am able to ask the highest questions and hope to find the answer. Now you don't, you just want to know about your money, your damn sexual pleasure, your house, your little things. You are acting like an animal.
  • creativesoul
    12k
    If you want me to like you, try to improve, occupy the post of intellectual and spiritual dignity given to you by God, do not despise what is superior to you and you will not be despised either”. This is a missing element in American culture.Rafaella Leon

    To quite the contrary, it's an overwhelmingly popular element in American culture to judge(devalue) another based upon one's own religious beliefs. Problems readily occur when the judge discriminates based upon their own religious belief, particularly in cases where they wield some sort of power over the others' lives and/or livelihoods, or when the judge is otherwise supposed to be providing some good or service to them...

    It's not missing at all. Rather, it's resulted in deeply embedded discrimination practices.
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    Man is judge, jury and executioner in all courts. You can in your heart of hearts be convinced of your righteousness. I admire this, it allows the intellect to elevate themselves in a hierarchical sense that they can't help but care for. Be proud, strong, happy and think well of yourself, love yourself and do this by establishing a worldview which celebrates who you are and condemn those whose views threaten you.
    You will be viciously condemned in the worldview of others so why not do the same, hang around likeminded people and be appreciated and allowed to simply exist happily within your sphere.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    You can't have friends; you can only be a friend.
  • Hanover
    12.9k
    Your post seemed to be a conversation with a certain someone. I'm not sure who it is or that it's terribly relevant, but it seems there is someone in particular in mind you are rejecting.

    Regardless, the friends you choose are your choice to make, and if they seem too base for your liking, then they should be avoided. Ideally, you would want someone who would elevate you and not debase you. So I do agree with you to this point, but you starkly present this dilemma moralistically and dichotomously, by condemning the hedonistic and praising the monastic, and then submitting that those are the only two choices. If God, as you say, made you as you are, then you're to celebrate the fact that you're both materialistic and spiritual, with both sides being worthy of praise. You can have your moments of debauchery without the need to seek forgiveness. The choice is in living the life to your standards, which you needn't apologize for or modify for those around you. It is possible though that those with standards in variance from your own are not beneath you.

    In choosing which friends you should keep, apply the basic "accept, don't expect" formula. If you cannot accept them for who they are (or they you), then they aren't going to be your friend, no matter how high your expectations are for them to change.
  • Leghorn
    577
    Ms. Leon,

    You say, “The human being is the animal that has the capacity to perceive the universal in the particular. His mission, his role is determined by this. Man is the animal created to discover what is beyond him, what is beyond the sensitive [sensible] world and for him to realize his destiny in this sphere. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO WANT THIS (emphasis mine).”

    I agree with you concerning the general statement. But do you really expect all examples of mankind, all individual human beings, to have the capacity to fulfill this edict? to have the RIGHT to adhere to it, which amounts to the NECESSITY to do so?

    Rights are things granted, by supposed authority of governments based on natural law, to each separate individual...but your edict seems to go against reality, a world, which has existed since antiquity, in which the great majority of individuals have chosen, for lack of greater capacity, bodily goods over spiritual or psychological ones.
  • The Questioning Bookworm
    109


    Anyone whose goal in life is exclusively material, economic or social, does not serve you, and you should summarily distance yourself from these people. Why? There are a number of things in life that, although they are necessary for us, simply because they are necessary, they cannot be goals.Rafaella Leon

    This view is interesting but potentially problematic, in my humble opinion. People are different. People have different goals. People have different philosophies. People have different experiences. People have different views and act in and out of those views. Life is too absurd and complex to live within what you are prescribing. Distancing yourself from people with exclusively material, economic, and social goals that don't serve you will create more problems than not. Why? Because although it may make you feel good or be better for you and your purpose in life, that does not necessarily mean that it should be done. Alienating yourself into a group of one or few with the same goal--going off the implications of your statement--would most likely lead one to a limited state of consciousness. Narrowmindedness, seriousness, lack of experience may be the results for people that subscribe to this.

    The human being is the animal that has the capacity to perceive the universal in the particular. His mission, his role is determined by this. Man is the animal created to discover what is beyond him, what is beyond the sensitive world, and for him to realize his destiny in this sphere.Rafaella Leon

    Says who? How do you know this for certain? What is your basis for claiming that man's mission and the role is determined by man being an animal that has the capacity to perceive the universal in the particular? Provide some premises and maybe this would be more clear? This is still a view or opinion. There is no way for us to 'know' that this is man's mission/role/purpose/meaning. And even if it is, if people act against it that is okay. Why should I distance myself from anyone who is against this even if it is true? You can learn a lot about people from experiencing people themselves. Some of the most interesting philosophical conversations have been with people who aren't educated, don't actively read philosophy or act within it directly, and only cared about making a dime to drink on the weekends. Distancing yourself from people like this and hearing what they have to say based on your view and opinion would not be prudent unless that is your primary goal in life, but even then probably not the best move as you may regret it later in life.

    If the person does not have this, you should in a word distance yourself from these people. And treat them, of course, with respect, with deference, but with the proper distance. Because they are below what is structurally required of human beings.Rafaella Leon

    What is structurally required of human beings and who is to say that people are below it based on their different views? Again, this appears to be another haughty statement that could lead to alienation and lack of life without much fruitful experience. Also, where is the basis for this claim again? Just because you have read it somewhere doesn't mean that reality is that way. The God presumption comes to mind here, mainly because you are using these philosophical positions to judge and caste different humans and claiming that we should distance ourselves based on this. Interesting yet problematic.

    So, do not hesitate to select your friends, because if not, these people who only have really worldly interests, will only disrupt your life, will live by blackmailing: “Oh, you don't like us anymore”, you have to say “I really don’t. So? If you want me to like you, try to improve, occupy the post of intellectual and spiritual dignity given to you by God, do not despise what is superior to you and you will not be despised either”.Rafaella Leon

    Again, I disagree because rather than distancing I think one should embrace the way people are and try to learn from it. Question it, learn about it, think about it, and reflect. Read philosophy and experience humans for what they are. Why distance and protect yourself from how absurd things are? Don't build up walls, knock them down, and embrace what is to come from that...

    My position in life is that it is meaningless unless you make your own meaning or subscribe to something through 'faith' that gives you that meaning. Absurdities and contradictions are everywhere, especially when dealing with friends and people. Basing who I select to be around me based on the information you provided came off as we should turn our heads to the absurd and keep ourselves distanced from a part of the human experience: people and their absurd ways. Even if there is or isn't meaning to life, you still miss out on some sort of experience with different kinds of people and interesting characters, which also may lead to narrowmindedness, hermit mentality, and an inexperienced state of mind. A state of mind, that is, mostly knowledge of your own view of the human's meaning/purpose/mission and no having much experience with other individuals that could provide differing goals, opinions, and information that your own. Why not embrace life's absurdities, learn about them, and experience them, especially experience the people in it?
  • Anthony
    197
    Friends don't serve you. If you are looking for something in return from them, reciprocally, say entertainment, you might be bringing your own stipulations to your relationships which are doomed to fail. Being a true friend requires getting outside exchange value. Shine like the sun (or be as receptive as a black hole), in either case it isn't about reciprocity. An individuated person has friends but won't partake in the inevitable downfall of the relationship where tabs are kept. Self-respect precedes friendship. If self-respect depends on other people, you're thralled to them, you'll never have the right relationship with yourself, and there's probably insecurity all around (a shaky ground for all relations).
  • Christy
    2
    This seems like a projection to me onto a preconceived idea of what worth a friendship has or should have, so I agree with Anthony on the stipulations being a barrier to openly receiving any person into your world. I also agree with Rafaella on the gift of being receptive to all and every being for what they can teach us. What I think she is referring to is more of an imbalanced relationship where she feels no growth or satisfaction in the exchange, in whatever way that may be balanced, so yes, it would be in her best interest to not be friends with such a person. We all undoubtedly have a spark within us, it's just some lights are dimmer than others, so there is a lack of resonance in energetic frequency, so the imbalance may be perceived as a drain on the other, and so there, yes, the friendship would probably not last. Shine your own light, and the right people will find you, and through your self worth you'll instinctually know who is or isn't good for you.
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    Anyone whose goal in life is exclusively material, economic or social, does not serve you, and you should summarily distance yourself from these people.Rafaella Leon

    That literally covers all human activity. So no one is good enough to be a friend?
  • RolandTyme
    53
    Jesus ... I don't really think I've chosen a friend in my life. They've just kind of come along, we've got on, and you get the feeling they'll be on your side when it counts. There are a few people I've decided I couldn't stay friends with, but it's not like I think I've had to shun them in order to maintain some kind ideal for myself. It's just that being friends with them was doing my head in - I don't see that as something to be proud of, but it happens.

    I don't think God is going to judge you for having friends who aren't perfect. If he does - he's a twat, and not a friend himself.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Who are we kidding? We're monkeys I mean apes! Tutankhamen, Megan Fox, Vladimir Putin, Joe Biden, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Ted Bundy, Jack the Ripper, Xi Jinping, you, me, all monkeys...er...apes. Loose language, pardon me.

    Jokes aside, friendship is one of the perks of living in a community. It's like The Arabian Nights or the Panchatantra - a story within another story (nesting). I don't think these subplots are critical to the main narrative, but they do make for interesting reading.
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    Isn't this just a way to justify snobbery and reinforcing intellectual separation?

    The goal must be far above all of this.Rafaella Leon

    You use the word "must" when you should replace it with, "in my opinion". Status is a survival need as well in a species with a strong society. The need for status at the cost of disparaging your fellow man, is a misuse of a basic survival need.

    Healthy status is supposed to be a way to determine who should be in charge of particular jobs for the benefit of society, not to be consumed and spat out on others for our own gratification and sense of superiority.

    Anyone who uses status as their single drive and motivator for life, would be a primitive failure under your essay, and should be shunned from society. And yet, I didn't do that did I? I spoke with you. I gave you another perspective. I did not consider you an inferior, just your argument and view point in how to live life. And if you rejected my argument? I still would associate with you. Maybe you would be inspired by future conversations. Maybe I would learn something else from you, instead of judging you based on one interaction.

    Between that attitude and yours, what do you think is better for the rise of humanity? Shouldn't our different skills and attributes mix together to create something more than our isolated selves? Or should we separate from the rest, self-confident and smug in our ability to go forth alone in the world, and do nothing but gratify our own selves?
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.