Go Your Own Way

[RoyDalParticipant]

Alan Watts is one of my favorite philosophers.

What is the ultimate of going your own way? This seems to fit:

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

So the idea is that Lao Tsu was the first MGTOW right?

Probably. But I don’t agree with this fella’s interpretation of the Tao Te Ching.

I don’t think the sage prefers the lack of order. The sage does not interfere and so the natural order arises.

Or something like that. I heart Taoism.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[Krab_AssParticipant 267]

I am a Christian but Asian religions have always intrigued me.  I don’t pretend to understand the difference / similarity between Taoism, Shinto, Buddhism (and many others..).   I respect them all nonetheless.    They are religions that are focused more on peace and inner-harmony, rather than killing and war.

 

"I care not what others think of what I do, but I care very much about what I think of what I do! That is character!"
~ Theodore Roosevelt

[RoyDalParticipant]

@unencumbered;
Let me recommend this video on YouTube. If you watch nothing else, fast forward to the Dali Lama’s remarks on Christianity and compassion. It’s in the first half hour somewhere.
The Buddha / Richard Gere https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIfXlfsbYOw

@H.R. Pufnstuf;
I also heart Taoism. It seems like every translation of the original text comes out differently. The web has many translations, too many to list; however, the price is right.

My favorite book version is: Tao Te Ching by Lao Tsu. Translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English. Vintage Books, 1972
The text has a poetic flow, and each page of text is faced by black & white photos.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Krab_Ass wrote:

They are religions that are focused more on peace and inner-harmony, rather than killing and war.

This may seem like a matter of semantics to some of you but I would say there is an important distinction between religion and philosophy here.

When I think of religion, I think of Judeo-Christian monotheism whereas the typically Eastern poly or pantheistic systems I see as philosophies. To my mind, the difference is between agrarian cultures on the one hand and shepherding cultures on the other.

In cultures where farming was the dominant system of sustenance production, it was paramount for people to understand the forces of nature… to mark the passage of time and know the cycles of birth, growth, death, decay and rebirth which enabled successful working of the land. These cultures developed belief systems wherein values were ascribed personality and people treated the forces of nature with spiritual reverence but where understanding and balance were required for things to work.

Shepherding cultures, on the other hand, valued the leadership of an individual (the shepherd) and the loyalty and cohesion of the flock to weather adversities as they trek about in search of the “promised land” which is a place of safety and good grazing.

Agrarian cultures produce value (food and community) through understanding of nature and balanced, cooperative effort, whereas shepherding cultures regard strong individual leadership and mass obedience in order to secure resources before they are claimed by others.

The former tends to produce philosophies and colectivist societies whereas the latter tends to produce demagogues and competitive societies. Of course, all cultures engage in war over resources (farmland, coastlines, water rights, mineral deposits, etc) but I believe that shepherding cultures believe more deeply in the fundamental scarcity of natural resources (due to the environments in which they developed) than do agrarian cultures.

So my point is that eastern “religions” aren’t just not religions in the same way that shepherd/book religions are, but that there is nothing particularly special about them save for the natural environments out which they grew.

You can adopt a belief system that came from another time and situation if you like but to me that seems dogmatic and superficial… better to evolve a system of beliefs on your own that suit the time and conditions in which you live. If you think the concept of DIY philosophy is absurd, talk to any student of Jeet Kune Do and see what they have to say about it.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Interesting post Doc.

I think your point is close to being true but off by a little.

People seem to adopt beliefs due to economic circumstances.  I have seen statistics where religions with an after life are adopted more amongst the lower rungs of society, while those on the uppermiddle/upper rungs seem to favor reincarnation.

In regards to the shepherd vs farming,  Geo-political Judeo-Christianity has applied both at one point or another.  Farming and shepherding were both used historically in one respect or another.

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

I think religion is about knowing that life doesn’t just end. It’s a scary thought, in my opinion.

The plethora of religions points to the creative nature of humans.
But ultimately, whether they will admit it or not, they are all polytheistic.

I think philosophy is about how to think. A philosopher doesn’t ask, is there a god? According to
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm he asks “what are my pre-judgments”

Then there are ethics/morals. Morals imply a good and evil. I believe in ethics not morals.
Those 12 rules Moses found in those rocks seem like a pretty good list.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

John Doe wrote:

People seem to adopt beliefs due to economic circumstances.

This is an interesting perspective which I have never considered. Do people whose lives are going well believe they will be renewed at a higher plane of existence whereas people whose lives suck by comparison are waiting for their eternal reward in heaven? I’d be curious to see some writings where these points are asserted.

As for agrarian versus herding, I don’t mean to say that any culture uses one or the other exclusively… but rather to point out the primary mode of sustenance in these cultures during the period of time when their respective religions coalesced. Of course, I’m not a cultural anthropologist so I’m just going on my own observations here, but I do think when you’re talking about the apparent differences between “eastern” and “western” religions, it’s hard to not take geography and cultural origin stories into account.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

 

The plethora of religions points to the creative nature of humans.

I think philosophy is about how to think. A philosopher doesn’t ask, is there a god?

Religion and philosophy can go hand in hand.  It was Socrates, if I am correct, that credited the Athenians for the acknowledgement of the “mysteries”.  When dealing with religion, one has to deal with mystery.  Mystery is a natural part of not only being human, but also the reasoning process of philosophy.   To acknowledge mystery is just as important as acknowledging concrete and absolute truths.  Mystery can be a driving and ending force in a philosophical discussion.

Dealing with the “paradox” is also an important part of philosophy.  The observation of the “mystery” and the “paradox” are important parts in philosophical discussion because in them we observe abstractness.  Abstract thought is pure in the fact that it exists on its own terms, but is difficult for the scientifically minded because it cannot be observed through the senses or measured.

Religion can be creative yes, but men create.  To create a building is one thing, but to create an idea or belief, that is divine.  A building can be built and may last for a few hundred years at most.  A few structure, such as the pyramids, will last a few thousand.  However all these things decay.  An idea can exist for multiple millenia without decay.  The ability to construct through abstract thought is probably the highest form of architecture there is.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Just an aside…

I use the word “morals” to refer to how an individual treats themselves. In this context, eating healthy, exercising, reading and working toward ones dreams and values is moral whereas indulging in self destructive behaviors or being lazy and letting yourself go to s~~~ is immoral. There’s no objective standard here aside from self preservation and improvement. Only you can judge your own morality.

“Ethics”, on the other hand, is how you treat other people with regard to your own survival. If you are fair, trustworthy, kind and positive, you are ethical and you will prosper just as those around you do. Again, nobody can judge your ethics… your outcomes will be the judge.

Anyone echo claims to be able to judge you morally OR ethically is just trying to sell you something. Reality is the final arbiter of our behavior. Just my humble opinion.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Only you can judge your own morality

However if I do not follow that version of morality I would be immoral according to you.  Because, if I did not decide morality I would be immoral.  Also if I followed your advice, and decide to judge my own morality, I really could not because I would be doing what you told me to do, therefore not being the judge.

Again, nobody can judge your ethics… your outcomes will be the judge.

If I did not follow that version of ethics, I would be unethical according to you.  If outcomes decide ethics, than we have two issues:

First being the end’s justify the means, and in that respect fairness/trust/etc. are not required since the outcome surpasses the means to it.  Acts of ethics would be subject to the outcome and therefore unethical.

Second, the term “outcome” is very subjective in the fact that it can mean anything.  One could say ethics, in this regard is justified if it helps me get what I want as long as it upsets noone.  But one can decieve so noone is upset, in that case deception would be ethical.  However if the person found out and was upset over the deceptive act, then it would be unethical.  I can treat people anyway I wanted, as long as I got away with it, or found their approval.

This version of ethics seems to be about people pleasing and/or manipulation.

Anyone echo claims to be able to judge you morally OR ethically is just trying to sell you something.

So, what am I being sold?

 

 

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

John, somehow you took everything I said and turned it into the exact opposite of what I was saying. I will reiterate.

Morality is how you treat yourself according to your natural imperative for self preservation. If the things you do to yourself support and advance your health, wealth and happiness over the long term, you are acting morally.

Ethics is how you treat other people according to your natural imperative for self preservation. Given that no man is an island, we require the involvement of other people to sustain ourselves over the long term. If you treat other people in such a way as to support them so that they can assist in advancing your health, wealth and happiness over the long term, you are being ethical.

Your outcomes are evident in whether or not your health, wealth and happiness increase or decrease over time. If these factors are increasing, then your outcomes are desirable ones. If they are declining, your outcomes are undesirable ones and you should probably re-evaluate your behaviors toward yourself and others,

This is all based on the fundamental assumption that your primary purpose (ne, ONLY purpose) as a living being is to survive and prosper. It has nothing to do with being “nice” or trying to please others, getting away with something, receiving some eternal reward or avoiding some eternal punishment. If that doesn’t make sense to you, go back and read it again until it does.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

I do not think you understand what I am saying.  I did not invert them but made very simple observations and basically followed your advice to its logical conclusion.

But for the sake of argument lets say I did “invert” them.  Well I would be creating a set of morals and ethics that were subject to my desire for health, wealth, and happiness in one manner or another.  My perogative for self preservation would require me to evolve past your ethics and morality in order to achieve my desired ends.   I am not inverting anything just improving upon something so I can possess it for myself.  Because it is about me and my survival.

Why stop at health, wealth and happiness, when I can own an idea too?  That is a personal advancement.

After all if it is about self preservation, I can determine who fits the requirements and who doesn’t.  No man is an island, you are correct doc.  We need people.  We just don’t need all people.  Nor all their ideas about what is right or wrong, health, wealth, or happiness.  Some must be gotten rid of for the sake of advancement of health, wealth, and happiness of those who can make the most of it.   Do I need people to trust me?  Yes, just not all of them.  Do I need to be fair?  Only to those who help my self preservation.  Do I need to be kind and positive?  Yes, just to those that will benefit me.

If someone else’s idea gets in my way of selfpreservation (in regards to health, wealth, happiness) then I burn it down and build something upon the ashes.  You call it “inversion”.  I call it self improvement and mastery.  Why stop advancing myself?  Those who lack health, wealth, and happiness must not be practicing the correct morality/ethics either.  The poor and sick would have to be disposed of if they start affecting the preservation of others.

Morality/ethics, if I understand you correct, are basically about outcome.  The ends justify the means.

But fortunately I do not think that way, which is why I pointed out the contradictions.

 

[alberta_westParticipant 21]

For me going your own way entails, making cash for my bank, travel, buy that dream truck, boat whatever and never get married, Treat girl for the very sex objects they dish out and do this you will be rich buy the time your 33 lol.

[Author]

Posts