6 ms·

Shorter list : - Read the "Epistulæ Morales ad Lucilium" from Seneca - Read the "Bhagavad Gita" to avoid being stuck in a given interpretation. - Shy away fr

by guylhem 14y ago

Shorter list : - Read the "Epistulæ Morales ad Lucilium" from Seneca - Read the "Bhagavad Gita" to avoid being stuck in a given interpretation. - Shy away from religion. Find the truth by yourself And therefore make your own list of how to live your day. Feeling grateful and trying to see the lord in every being you encounter, friend or foe, is is mine. Also "no man does evil knowingly" seems wrong - sorry, but a tiny minority of people really want to see the world burn. Just remember there are very few of them, that by default you should assume people have good intentions but sometimes fail. EDIT: Following the excellent comment of nerdfiles one can only see with "showdead" option, order of reading is important, and my suggestion might not be the best. Not everyone can start with Seneca. You will certainly need a starting point to take advantage of the stoic teachings, ie something to help you see how useful stoicism could be to you. This starting point is Logic for many people, but it can be anything that tries to teach how to look for the truth and to pinpoint problems. I personally found Atlas Shrugged very interesting, others will have different tastes. The Dharma can be useful. Richard Feynman work is great. A vast personal experience could also help, since people who have traveled the world usually develop interesting insights. (BTW nerdfiles, your account has been blacklisted)

blowski 14y ago
> Also "no man does evil knowingly" seems wrong - sorry, but a tiny minority of people really want to see the world burn. I think the point is that those people believe the world deserves to burn, or that by burning, it would be a better place. Hence, they are not doing evil while thinking "Ha ha ha, I'm so evil", but genuinely believe they are doing good. > Shy away from religion. Find the truth by yourself. You can't find the truth by yourself. It's just too big and complicated. Individuals believing that they have discovered some kind of truth is at the root of a lot of suffering. Going after the truth is a good thing, but you cannot and should not do it alone.
- BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
  > Hence, they are not doing evil while thinking "Ha ha ha, I'm so evil", but genuinely believe they are doing good. This is still just as naive, in my opinion. There are plenty of people who knowingly trample others to advance their own selfish goals, who know that it's unfair, and who sincerely don't care.
  - robertk 14y ago
    Yes, but the point is they do not do evil knowingly, in the sense of comprehending how the nature of their soul came about and determining this is the best course of action under reflection over the space of all possible minds; the evolutionary process endowed them with a cognitive structure that primes them to think that way, and we should mourn the deterministic necessity of them spending time living in that mind and body, but we should never condemn them or call them evil.
    - lhnz 14y ago
      Why exactly would you not want to condemn them or call them evil if they are doing things which we believe are bad for society? Is it not a useful judgment?
  - blowski 14y ago
    I agree - it's not that they are doing good, just that they believe it. It's because of this that you can't just trust your own opinions on what's true and good. Without some kind of external moral compass, you're left with moral relativism.
  - tedks 14y ago
    In general, you can fit the motivations for evil into one of four categories: there's evil for instrumental reasons, evil for ideological reasons, evil as a result of threatened egotism, and evil as a result of pure sadism. There are some genuinely sadistic people, but they tend to be few and far between, to the point where once we find one of them, they spawn books and movies and huge long wikipedia pages. There are plenty of people that will trample others to advance their own selfish goals. They know that they're doing something wrong, but they feel they need to in that circumstance, or are just willing to do that. Then there are people who are genuinely thinking that they're doing good, and that the world will be a better place after they do whatever evil thing they do. In this context it's better to think of evil as a social concept rather than a personal one, because these people don't actually think they're doing something evil in a long-term context-included sense. I think conflation between some of the above types of evil is causing a lot of needless dispute in this thread. (This is mostly from the Baumeister chapter in The Social Psychology of Good and Evil, which is a very well-edited collection of notable psychologists discussing this very topic, and I highly recommend it.)
kingmanaz 14y ago
>- Shy away from religion. Find the truth by yourself Keep an open mind. While reading the Stoics take the trouble to read Augustine's Confessions or dip into Aquinus' Summa Theologica. Breeze through the Quran. Spend some time with the Book of Mormon. Drop into a synagog and get to know the worshipers there. Don't dismiss ideas out of hand. Contemplate them, and let your curiosity lead you where you need to be.
- guylhem 14y ago
  Excellent suggestion: religious textbooks are great sources of inspiration. However, they are dangerous, in the fact that while 90% of the content is great, the remaining 10% may damage one's personal progression. These 10% require adequate preparation to be seen as what they are - pitfalls, which is why I suggested to "shy away" from them, at least initially. It is far too easy to get "stuck" in religion and take the whole 100% as perfectly valid thoughts. Swallowing up the full doctrine "fills" the cup of the mind, which is no longer open to further knowledge. The only "safe" reading might be the Dharma, because of it self-criticizing nature and the suggestion to dismiss the teachings if they conflict with reality and experience
  - kingmanaz 14y ago
    Dogma prejudices atheists just as often as theists. For example, Darwin's Origin of Species contains a pitfall in that its readers can be persuaded to believe certain families of mankind are less evolved than others. Similarly, Marx's Capital and Manifesto of the Communist Party can lead one to believe that inequality is purely a function of material possession. A disciple of Smith's Wealth of Nations could reduce the world to merely a place to make money and which is the slave of market forces, etc. All of these works, while potentially "dangerous", stand on their own merits and should be read. "Adequate preparation" is prejudice and should be spelled out as such. Socrates' dialogs stand as examples of the traditional Western method of exploring ideas, wherein one man questions another with the object of mutually understanding the essence of a thing, or, by being prodded toward future learning when having reached an uncomfortable ataraxy. This differs fundamentally from the critical theory taught in modern universities, wherein one is taught, rather than to seek an idea's essence, to tear it down beforehand. Instead of fearing ideas, one should explore them.
jacoblyles 14y ago
Religion has the great advantage of being practiced in community. It may not have the pure wisdom of Seneca, but what good it can offer is more likely to stick. Unfortunately, the Christian community offers more social capital than the Stoic or the atheist in the west.
- cwp 14y ago
  Sure. If you want to be a politician in the West, you can't really avoid participating in a Christian community of one kind or another. But people who are interested in stoicism probably have other goals.
  - onno 14y ago
    This is true only in America, or maybe in the "Anglosaxon" world in general, but certainly not in Europe.
    - barry-cotter 14y ago
      It isn't true of Ireland, Britain, Australia or New Zealand. I don't think it's true of Canada. Among WEIRD [0] nations I think the US is the only one where being openly atheistic would abort any serious political career. [0]Western Educated Industrialised Rich Democracies
      - nikatwork 14y ago
        While being an atheist won't sink you, being christian certainly helps in Australia. For example, John Howard was fond of recording video messages which would get played in christian churches during the service. My guess is that it would be more helpful at a local than a national level, but church influence could definitely swing a few key seats.
      - cpeterso 14y ago
        According to a 2012 Gallup poll, 43% of Americans would not vote for a qualified atheist candidate. For comparison, the numbers for a Muslim candidate or a gay or lesbian candidate were 40% and 30%, respectively. http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/Atheists-Muslims-Bias-Presidential-Candidates.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/Atheists-Muslims-Bias-Pres...

by guylhem 14y ago

blowski 14y ago

> Also "no man does evil knowingly" seems wrong - sorry, but a tiny minority of people really want to see the world burn. I think the point is that those people believe the world deserves to burn, or that by burning, it would be a better place. Hence, they are not doing evil while thinking "Ha ha ha, I'm so evil", but genuinely believe they are doing good. > Shy away from religion. Find the truth by yourself. You can't find the truth by yourself. It's just too big and complicated. Individuals believing that they have discovered some kind of truth is at the root of a lot of suffering. Going after the truth is a good thing, but you cannot and should not do it alone.

BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
> Hence, they are not doing evil while thinking "Ha ha ha, I'm so evil", but genuinely believe they are doing good. This is still just as naive, in my opinion. There are plenty of people who knowingly trample others to advance their own selfish goals, who know that it's unfair, and who sincerely don't care.
- robertk 14y ago
  Yes, but the point is they do not do evil knowingly, in the sense of comprehending how the nature of their soul came about and determining this is the best course of action under reflection over the space of all possible minds; the evolutionary process endowed them with a cognitive structure that primes them to think that way, and we should mourn the deterministic necessity of them spending time living in that mind and body, but we should never condemn them or call them evil.
  - lhnz 14y ago
    Why exactly would you not want to condemn them or call them evil if they are doing things which we believe are bad for society? Is it not a useful judgment?
- blowski 14y ago
  I agree - it's not that they are doing good, just that they believe it. It's because of this that you can't just trust your own opinions on what's true and good. Without some kind of external moral compass, you're left with moral relativism.
- tedks 14y ago
  In general, you can fit the motivations for evil into one of four categories: there's evil for instrumental reasons, evil for ideological reasons, evil as a result of threatened egotism, and evil as a result of pure sadism. There are some genuinely sadistic people, but they tend to be few and far between, to the point where once we find one of them, they spawn books and movies and huge long wikipedia pages. There are plenty of people that will trample others to advance their own selfish goals. They know that they're doing something wrong, but they feel they need to in that circumstance, or are just willing to do that. Then there are people who are genuinely thinking that they're doing good, and that the world will be a better place after they do whatever evil thing they do. In this context it's better to think of evil as a social concept rather than a personal one, because these people don't actually think they're doing something evil in a long-term context-included sense. I think conflation between some of the above types of evil is causing a lot of needless dispute in this thread. (This is mostly from the Baumeister chapter in The Social Psychology of Good and Evil, which is a very well-edited collection of notable psychologists discussing this very topic, and I highly recommend it.)

kingmanaz 14y ago

>- Shy away from religion. Find the truth by yourself Keep an open mind. While reading the Stoics take the trouble to read Augustine's Confessions or dip into Aquinus' Summa Theologica. Breeze through the Quran. Spend some time with the Book of Mormon. Drop into a synagog and get to know the worshipers there. Don't dismiss ideas out of hand. Contemplate them, and let your curiosity lead you where you need to be.

guylhem 14y ago
Excellent suggestion: religious textbooks are great sources of inspiration. However, they are dangerous, in the fact that while 90% of the content is great, the remaining 10% may damage one's personal progression. These 10% require adequate preparation to be seen as what they are - pitfalls, which is why I suggested to "shy away" from them, at least initially. It is far too easy to get "stuck" in religion and take the whole 100% as perfectly valid thoughts. Swallowing up the full doctrine "fills" the cup of the mind, which is no longer open to further knowledge. The only "safe" reading might be the Dharma, because of it self-criticizing nature and the suggestion to dismiss the teachings if they conflict with reality and experience
- kingmanaz 14y ago
  Dogma prejudices atheists just as often as theists. For example, Darwin's Origin of Species contains a pitfall in that its readers can be persuaded to believe certain families of mankind are less evolved than others. Similarly, Marx's Capital and Manifesto of the Communist Party can lead one to believe that inequality is purely a function of material possession. A disciple of Smith's Wealth of Nations could reduce the world to merely a place to make money and which is the slave of market forces, etc. All of these works, while potentially "dangerous", stand on their own merits and should be read. "Adequate preparation" is prejudice and should be spelled out as such. Socrates' dialogs stand as examples of the traditional Western method of exploring ideas, wherein one man questions another with the object of mutually understanding the essence of a thing, or, by being prodded toward future learning when having reached an uncomfortable ataraxy. This differs fundamentally from the critical theory taught in modern universities, wherein one is taught, rather than to seek an idea's essence, to tear it down beforehand. Instead of fearing ideas, one should explore them.

jacoblyles 14y ago

Religion has the great advantage of being practiced in community. It may not have the pure wisdom of Seneca, but what good it can offer is more likely to stick. Unfortunately, the Christian community offers more social capital than the Stoic or the atheist in the west.

cwp 14y ago
Sure. If you want to be a politician in the West, you can't really avoid participating in a Christian community of one kind or another. But people who are interested in stoicism probably have other goals.
- onno 14y ago
  This is true only in America, or maybe in the "Anglosaxon" world in general, but certainly not in Europe.
  - barry-cotter 14y ago
    It isn't true of Ireland, Britain, Australia or New Zealand. I don't think it's true of Canada. Among WEIRD [0] nations I think the US is the only one where being openly atheistic would abort any serious political career. [0]Western Educated Industrialised Rich Democracies
    - nikatwork 14y ago
      While being an atheist won't sink you, being christian certainly helps in Australia. For example, John Howard was fond of recording video messages which would get played in christian churches during the service. My guess is that it would be more helpful at a local than a national level, but church influence could definitely swing a few key seats.
    - cpeterso 14y ago
      According to a 2012 Gallup poll, 43% of Americans would not vote for a qualified atheist candidate. For comparison, the numbers for a Muslim candidate or a gay or lesbian candidate were 40% and 30%, respectively. http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/Atheists-Muslims-Bias-Presidential-Candidates.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/Atheists-Muslims-Bias-Pres...