Immortal said:
Dr.Grass said:
"you're being far too cynical about modern human culture. I mean, surely you realize that this idea of newer generations being too irresponsible and not thinking enough is also as ancient as they come?"
I would like to suggest that I'm not being cynical at all, but merely that the human being has complete ignorance of his own potential. Significantly, my position is that the human being has systematically forgotten his position. I don't want to debate your points here, because that will inevitably go into an infinite digress. What you have done is used my claim that our other friend here was being an absolutist towards his own culture whilst claiming to subscribe to a relativistic world and turned it against my implicit evolved man that I haven't specifically pin pointed.
If I tried to debate that now then we would traverse the field of Anthropology heavily (and it is usually a fruitless task to even begin that) and I loathe it so much anyway. My world view of history and yours is no doubt radically different. The linear timelines accepted nowadays is a far cry from my "we have always existed" understanding. I don't want to debate that point, because then evolution, the British empire, India, Hinduism, the Maya, and a lot of archeaology would become involved.
Point being my shift has ended and our beam is back online and the apprentice nuclear physicist here has now been informed of the modus operandi.
:)
But you like to debate for debate's sake, and (if my memory serves me correctly) then you are rather adept at it...
So, even though it's 4 hours past my bedtime and I'm getting up in 3, I'm going to go ahead (since I can't resist) and use the exact same point as you used on me:
"I don't think watching TV and commenting online a lot are necessarily opposed to thinking and self control at all"
How would you know something is hindering you're progress in a certain direction if that very thing is all you've ever known? When was the last time you've spent a significant amount of days away from a 'i flash 50 times per second' one-eyed-guru? Have you experimented with real self control? Control of the tongue, stomach and genitals? How about observing your own thoughts consciously for an entire day - what about always doing so? Too much strain? Too difficult? Or is it just such a foreign idea that it is much easier to dismiss it?
" think that they always have and you're attributing a causal relationship to this lack of thinking and an increase in these modern indulgences because you've just taken note of them at the same time."
Whilst I like this argument (it's ethos has surfaced a few times now), can it not almost always be applied? Blaming (not used in the derogetory sense here) the accused (ditto ;) ) of simply being caught up in his own world?
^ We have now reached the very limits of our Western philosophy with this point. To crack these walls one needs to venture far beyond the walls of the academic west. There where the professor scrutinizes without become one with the teachings. There where the teacher isn't fundamentally required. There where I just take tax payers money and observe one of the biggest shams in the world. Oh peasants, you need not look to the ground in shame for your lack of papers hanging on the wall. These intellectual giants can hardly move pebbles in the real world.
I might be digressing, or even avoiding the points, but I've just done physics for the last obscene-amount-of-hours and I need some relief for my mind. I'm sure you don't mind.
:)
|
I doubt our views are that different at all, given that I'm an Indian being raised in a Hindu household whose only real inputs are his (very religious) mother's lectures and his mind. Well, online forums and school, too, but these places are really just where I go when I want to argue. :P
I guess I should've seen it coming that you're not against the "enlightened human" idea in and of itself and just don't agree that modern "scientists" are the right people. I still think that you're being far too harsh on far too many people by doing this, though. I'm sure if you looked hard enough (well, I'm grasping at straws here since you probably have), you'd find as much meaning in the Old Testament and even modern TV shows as you do in Indian philosophy.
Don't see why you're specifically against TV and the internet then, though. Your statement implied that post-internet society is worse than pre-internet society. That makes your overall historical worldview irrelevant since only this recent period of time matters.
Anyway, for your first point, you're right, I don't have much experience in self control at all. Of course, I have the excuse that I'm a teenager and at the point in life at which people are generally most driven by impulse so I'm sure I'll be wise enough to manage it in the future. Basically, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. :P To be honest, this part is what's really annoying about my philosophy. It's perfectly alright to indulge without feeling guilty and yet meditation and forsaking all things real are important for attaining higher self? ...I guess it has to be coherent. Somehow.
Nevertheless, I think my point about self control not being affected by modern indulgences isn't diminished by this at all. The fact that I can't manage it myself doesn't detract from my ability to recognize it in others, surely? I make that point with regard to the fact that I know very many people who enjoy the things that you claim and are still capable of meditation and profound thought.
Take yourself, even. Aren't you here, discussing something on a video game forum? I can take this your mere registration here mean that you care/cared quite a bit about video games. Unless video games are on a completely different plane from and more intellectual than TV shows, this should impede upon your ability to meditate quite a bit. And has it?
And it's true that the argument I used could be applied pretty much everywhere. That's hardly a sufficient rebuttal, though. Tell me why it doesn't apply in your case.
Also, while I'd love to join you in looking down upon Western philosophy, you're not being dispassionate at all. I know it's probably not the point right now, but still. You sound as spiteful as I do when talking about modern atheists (which ultimately ends up criticizing the West anyway).
It's fine that you're not really answering what I said. What's more annoying is that you're phrasing everything in a manner that is either very eloquent or outright bizarre. I had to read most of those paragraphs like three times before I got what you were saying. And I'm in one of my more mentally active parts of the day. Forgive me I've completely missed what you were saying and just responded to something else.
|
