vicdan wrote:Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Why would embracing them fully be an advantage to you? It's like saying that you better get really drunk than just a bit effectuated.
Yup. you are an idiot.
See, you have just tried to sneak in, on the sly, the assumption that emotions are bad -- and then you claim that if a little emotion is bad, then certainly a lot of emotion is even worse.
No, you didn't get the criticism which was openly put in there, with no attempt to hide. Lets go thought this step by step, who knows, you might still understand:
Me: "This needs more explaining about how your 'passion sets the goals'. "
You: "as long as we embrace emotion, we might as well embrace them fully, and experience passions rather than just the weak, anemic sorts of emotions."
Me: "Why would embracing them fully be an advantage to you? "
You: The usual blabber when you don't know what to say ('idiot', smearing, etc)
This is no explaining since you only claim that embracing fully is better than a weakened down version of it. If that's the extent of your explanation, then I showed you how it doesn't
explain why it would be a good thing to do. And that's
exactly what I asked.
One can just as easily say that emotions refer to basic reflexes and drives that are inherent to the human existence.
Well,
duh. Emotions are the neurochemical tools we evolved to deal with the world. You seem to think this some sort of grasnd counterpoint, when in fact it's simply a fact.
Yes, like all behavior they can be traced back on various neurological mechanisms that facilitate them. It doesn't
validate any of them.
Trying to deny one's emotions is about as fruitful as trying to refuse to eat protein.
Perhaps the comparison could be done with the eating of
meat. There are times and circumstances where it makes sense to eat meat, when available. These days it's mostly done out of pleasure and attachment while putting a heavy strain on resources. In an increasinlgy populated world and diseased bio-industry the option becomes less sane by the minute.
Denying is not an issue when there would be simply none, like a phantom limb.
For example, we can feel hungry and receive impulses to change that situation. But it doesn't have to lead to anxiety, anger, grouchiness, etc.
No, it doesn't -- but the act of satisfying hunger is driven by the
desire to stop the discomfort.
No need for desire in the sense you've defined it (as emotion) unless you want to argue for emotion in lower lifeforms like ants. There's no need for psychological intricate subtleties with ants. Of course a complex mechanism will need complex strategies to get the food and as such more complex drives. But these drives reflect more in subconscious rational calculation than it needs to reflect into some conscious 'want'. We can become aware of what drives us and they are mainly calculations -
evaluations that formulate goals. They manifest as what you call 'passion' when one is dimly aware of it. When looked at more closely under a brighter light the undifferentiated glow has turned into a more clear picture.
To answer inline Shahrazad here: one would still get out of bed since when the body and mind are rested; no need will be present anymore to lie down, unless attached to the comforting, nurturing aspects of a warm bed perhaps. A rational person has outlined his goals quite clearly and will proceed to act upon them. With great determination if needed. He's his own master and slave and he can command and obey his own commands. It's like spontaneous arising of order in Chaos theory in the sense that one doesn't need to calculate all the complexity: it arises out of the initial iterated formula. That's the closest way I can currently describe it.
If it sounds high brow and elevated: then it's misunderstood. The context is very plain and common, like eating rice, washing rice bowl, etc.
Treating religions as dealing with existential questions -- why? for what purpose? etc. -- presupposes that those are meaningful questions int he first place. You can have your idiotic faith, dude. I am better off without it. unlike passions, faith is not an integral aspect of humanity.
Where did you got the impression I got a faith? I've already demonstrated you're full of it yourself for that matter. I only addressed the religious as opposed to the secular when it comes to dealing with existence and life. In the end it's philosophy; things you can test with reason and experience.
I have two millenia of western rational thought behind me. Excuse me for not being particularly impressed with your argumentum ad antiquitatem.
Hahaha! You should have asked them before adding to your behind. I doubt most of them would like your posturing with their accomplishments. You're not
building on them, but just using them as a whip to please your desires in demonstrating lack of knowledge which is always plenty of around.
Me, i find major problem with buddhism from the get-go, the very first noble truth. The world is full of suffering, but also joy and fulfillment, and abandoning passion will rid you of both. I prefer to manage my passions constructively, rather than dampen and suppress them. Not playing at all may be preferable to losing the game, but playing well is better than not playing at all. Buddhism arose in the world where suffering indeed overwhelmed the joys one could have, but that needn't be the case today, at least not in the developed world. My life is certainly full of far more joy and pleasure than suffering, and I see not the slightest reason to be rid of that.
Perhaps you're just denying your suffering, like you're claiming others are denying their emotions. The first task within Buddhism is to become
aware of suffering, understand what it is. And that's not related to the lack of pleasure
at all. You might have known this if you actually took time to study it before burning it to the ground.
You're partly right in that Buddhist thought could easily be abused as comforter, like a believe in the afterlife can. The ironical thing is that the pure religious road embraces suffering, rejection and pain. It doesn't reject or suppress anything. It sees the 'joys' and 'pleasures' as clown masks on top of suffering, a coping mechanism but not capable of addressing the underlying twists - therefore passing it on each generation without even knowing what hides behind.
