Equanimity

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Equanimity

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:19 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Re my view on equanimity between Buddhism and Christianity is not based on research but based on my knowledge of the two religions.
Right but nowhere below do support the idea that you can measure (that is compare) the equanimity produced by Buddhism and that produced by Christianity. This is not something you can simply deduce, not that you manage this below.

There are verses* in the Bible that denote a sense of equanimity but they are kindergarten stuff compared the state of equanimity to cultivated within Buddhism.

    *
    Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They don't toil, neither do they spin. Two verses earlier at Matthew 6:26 Jesus told his followers not to worry about food, because even the birds are provided for by God.

Generally the equanimity if any is leverage on the God exists. If there is any threat to theism, then theists is shaken and lost their very flimsy state of equanimity. [more like assurance, security].
These are just assertions. Try stepping on an image of the Buddha in a temple anywhere in the world. See what happens if you express strong emotions in front of most Buddhists. I see nothing here but speculation based personal experience.

Buddhism in essence is non-theistic in the sense of not believing in any ontological God.
There is no room for any ontological God within the core principles of Buddhism.
Except this is not true and many Buddhists are theistic, many buddhists use the term Buddha very much like the Term God is used. In fact mystical Christianity is often very close to Buddhism. I don't know if you are a Westerner, but my impression is you have little experience of lived Buddhism. It seems like you have read some works, perhaps meditated a bit and now think you can make claims about what Buddhism and is not. I've lived in the East and I can tell you many Buddhists are theists, many are quasitheists.

But the main point is I see nothing to support your claim that Buddhism fosters equanimity in greater degree than Xtianity.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Equanimity

Postby Pandora » Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:27 am

Prismatic567 wrote:For example how can I accept the statement 'Buddhism promote politics within its doctrine' when I know from extensive reading and research it is not true.
See what I mean? To you, objectivity = written text. Let me ask you, how did Dalai Lama (and Catholic Pope), end up on a throne in their palaces, and lording over others as spiritual authority? I’ll tell you how I think it happened (without any texts), and the key lies in a small nagging matter that won’t seem to go away, and that is “how to survive in this world”, a world that is based on action and accompanying violence. For those who cannot or will not accept it, parasitism is the only solution left, begging/ seeking alms from the others (or alternatively, trickery). And that’s how it started, because that is their default position. The only leverage (based on a lie) they had was a promotion of a fairy tale of so-called spiritual worlds (possibly backed by magic tricks) that only they had direct access to. An elaborate circus trick, really.

And look what came out of it, both religions now have a spiritual leader, one ordained by the son of God, the other a reincarnation of Buddha (both of which are considered infallible), and whose positions are hinged on properties of this illusive spirit world itself. Not bad. From begging bowls to legitimized “spiritual” authority over others. They should put it on the list of best hustles in history.

Shyster #1 and Shyster #2 sitting on their thrones:
ImageImage
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4187
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Equanimity

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:51 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Re my view on equanimity between Buddhism and Christianity is not based on research but based on my knowledge of the two religions.
Right but nowhere below do support the idea that you can measure (that is compare) the equanimity produced by Buddhism and that produced by Christianity. This is not something you can simply deduce, not that you manage this below.
I don't expect your to agree, but for information sake, I know I did not pick my views from the air but from the extensive reading of Buddhism and also sufficient knowledge of Christianity.

Note, based on the fact that equanimity [theory and practice] is inherent in the doctrines of Buddhism there are lots of research on the correlation between Buddhism and equanimity, e.g.


The impact of the above can also be inferred by the acts of the average Buddhists as compared those of Christians throughout their history.

You are challenging my claim based on your own ignorance of the subject. But if you were to read up all the necessary information available, I am sure based on the justifications you will agree with my claims. In the meantime, while you are ignorant on the subject, I cannot force you to agree with my point.


There are verses* in the Bible that denote a sense of equanimity but they are kindergarten stuff compared the state of equanimity to cultivated within Buddhism.

    *
    Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They don't toil, neither do they spin. Two verses earlier at Matthew 6:26 Jesus told his followers not to worry about food, because even the birds are provided for by God.

Generally the equanimity if any is leverage on the God exists. If there is any threat to theism, then theists is shaken and lost their very flimsy state of equanimity. [more like assurance, security].
These are just assertions. Try stepping on an image of the Buddha in a temple anywhere in the world. See what happens if you express strong emotions in front of most Buddhists. I see nothing here but speculation based personal experience.
Note one of the most famous statue of the Buddha was bombed to pieces in Bamiyan, Afghanistan,

Image

Did the Buddhists start riots all over the world and kill Muslims?

I don't deny there are exceptions [the evil prone] to any group of people but if any Buddhist were to commit evil acts [there are] it has nothing to do with Buddhism per se.

As I had stated earlier, to make an accurate comparison, one has to compare a reasonable number of acts by Buddhists and Christians over their history.



Buddhism in essence is non-theistic in the sense of not believing in any ontological God.
There is no room for any ontological God within the core principles of Buddhism.


Except this is not true and many Buddhists are theistic, many buddhists use the term Buddha very much like the Term God is used. In fact mystical Christianity is often very close to Buddhism. I don't know if you are a Westerner, but my impression is you have little experience of lived Buddhism. It seems like you have read some works, perhaps meditated a bit and now think you can make claims about what Buddhism and is not. I've lived in the East and I can tell you many Buddhists are theists, many are quasitheists.

But the main point is I see nothing to support your claim that Buddhism fosters equanimity in greater degree than Xtianity.
I am from the East and many of my ancestors were lay-Buddhists and I am sure many of them believed the Buddha is a 'God'. Buddhism is a pragmatic religion and it goes with the flow while trying to guide believers to the true beliefs. The true doctrine of Buddhism is fundamentally non-theistic.

Based on essence and main doctrines of the respective religion, Buddhism [non-theistic] is contrastingly different from Christianity.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Equanimity

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:10 am

Pandora wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:For example how can I accept the statement 'Buddhism promote politics within its doctrine' when I know from extensive reading and research it is not true.
See what I mean? To you, objectivity = written text.
Buddhism and Christianity are grounded on their respective founders who handed down their doctrines [from God or otherwise] which are subsequently compiled into written texts.
These texts are like the 'constitution' of the respective religion, without which the religion do not exist.

Thus to justify objectively whatever claim is attributable to a religion, it has to come from their 'constitution' i.e. their written texts.

Thus your insistence to make your own personal claims without reference to the relevant written texts is very baseless, groundless and ridiculous.

Let me ask you, how did Dalai Lama (and Catholic Pope), end up on a throne in their palaces, and lording over others as spiritual authority? I’ll tell you how I think it happened (without any texts), and the key lies in a small nagging matter that won’t seem to go away, and that is “how to survive in this world”, a world that is based on action and accompanying violence. For those who cannot or will not accept it, parasitism is the only solution left, begging/ seeking alms from the others (or alternatively, trickery). And that’s how it started, because that is their default position. The only leverage (based on a lie) they had was a promotion of a fairy tale of so-called spiritual worlds (possibly backed by magic tricks) that only they had direct access to. An elaborate circus trick, really.

And look what came out of it, both religions now have a spiritual leader, one ordained by the son of God, the other a reincarnation of Buddha (both of which are considered infallible), and whose positions are hinged on properties of this illusive spirit world itself. Not bad. From begging bowls to legitimized “spiritual” authority over others. They should put it on the list of best hustles in history.
Without any objective references, your above views are merely personal opinions which cannot be credible.

The Pope and Dalai Lama are human-made institutions and has nothing to do with Christianity or Buddhism per se because their authority are not supported by objective authority from the respective authorized texts of each religion, Buddhism [relevant sutras - Buddha] and Christianity [Bible-NT - from God].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Equanimity

Postby Pandora » Thu Feb 08, 2018 4:58 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Buddhism is a pragmatic religion and it goes with the flow while trying to guide believers to the true beliefs.
Go with the flow? Yes, that’s exactly what the dying West needs right now, more self annihilating ideas. And more going with the flow. Like we don’t have enough crazy liberals, gender fluid freaks, and other emerging jabberwackies to worry about as it is.
Those texts should be read as political treatsies on how to be subversive while appearing innocent.
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4187
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Equanimity

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:55 am

Pandora wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Buddhism is a pragmatic religion and it goes with the flow while trying to guide believers to the true beliefs.
Go with the flow? Yes, that’s exactly what the dying West needs right now, more self annihilating ideas. And more going with the flow. Like we don’t have enough crazy liberals, gender fluid freaks, and other emerging jabberwackies to worry about as it is.
Those texts should be read as political treatsies on how to be subversive while appearing innocent.

As usual you think of the worst.

'Flow' do not mean 'flown' blindly by uncontrollable forces.

Note Aristotle on anger,

Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
    with the right person and
    to the right degree and
    at the right time and
    for the right purpose, and
    in the right way -
- that is not within everybody's power and is not easy. - Aristotle


Similarly with a 'flow' situation the critical actions of the person must conform to the above most of the time.

To achieve the above one requires the right knowledge and practices to acquire a reasonable state and skills which are provided in the various Buddhist sutras.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Equanimity

Postby Pandora » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:14 am

On the hypocrisy and Tibetan Buddhism and Dalai Lama. He certainly seems to go with the flow, particularly the flow of money and power.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dBH0ywUUx5k
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4187
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Equanimity

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 5:26 am

Pandora wrote:On the hypocrisy and Tibetan Buddhism and Dalai Lama. He certainly seems to go with the flow, particularly the flow of money and power.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dBH0ywUUx5k
That video too long for me to listen through.

The Dalai Lama is supposed to be the head of government [in exile] of the Tibetans, thus he has to perform within his defined responsibilities.

However based on what is read of the Dalai Lama, and going with the flow inherent in Buddhism, there are no evidence he was and is power-crazy, an ego-maniac, a narcissistic, authoritarian like many current world leaders. Despite Tibet being occupied by China, the Dalai Lama had never promoted nor encouraged violence against the Chinese government like those Muslims in Xinjiang. That is going with the flow of maintaining peace and not promoting evil and violence.

There were violence in Tibetan monks and others but that was not condoned by the Dalai Lama nor inspired by Buddhist sutras.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Equanimity

Postby Pandora » Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:41 am

Prismatic567 wrote:There were violence in Tibetan monks and others but that was not condoned by the Dalai Lama nor inspired by Buddhist sutras.

Because if they do it, it’s not violence.
He said it himself, if a forceful action (verbal or physical) is made out of compassion it is not violence. Violence, he says, is determined by one’s intent, and if one’s intent is driven by compassion then his actions are essentially non-violent.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lQxp7dZWlHI
(0:54:55-1:01:04)
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4187
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Equanimity

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:37 am

Pandora wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:There were violence in Tibetan monks and others but that was not condoned by the Dalai Lama nor inspired by Buddhist sutras.

Because if they do it, it’s not violence.
He said it himself, if a forceful action (verbal or physical) is made out of compassion it is not violence. Violence, he says, is determined by one’s intent, and if one’s intent is driven by compassion then his actions are essentially non-violent.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lQxp7dZWlHI
(0:54:55-1:01:04)
I wonder you had listen to the above (0:54:55-1:01:04).
The DL stated the concept of violence is totally out of question within Buddhism.

What is critical is whether the act is driven by compassion to ensure the safety of victims or the act is based on negativity/hatred to hurt the victims.

Thus if a mother/father has to defend a child [when attacked] the defensive actions resulted in fatality or physical damage, that is not consider to be violent.

In the above, the DL was describing a general principle re violence.

What is notable re violence was the riots in Tibet and this is the DL's view on the acts of those monks and Tibetans.

So my point above still stand, i.e.
"There were violence by Tibetan monks and others but that was not condoned by the Dalai Lama nor inspired by Buddhist sutras."

My main point is,
With equanimity, compassion as virtues of Buddhism, there is no way you will be able to nail Buddhism per se with any acts of evil. OTOH the Abrahamic religions are inherently toxic and malignantly evil -the worst is Islam.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Equanimity

Postby Pandora » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:47 am

He redefined the concept of violence itself to be a subjective term, so one can preserve his inner peace while still being able to engage in violence. The emphasis is on inner peace (as he himself pointed out). And the way to immunize himself from violence/mental disturbance is to essentially become psychotic. Violence simply does not exist in Buddhist brainwashed mindset (because it’s “free” from hate), in the same way as reality and their own self does not exist in their own mind. It is a form of delusion, as is clearly seen from the actions of his friend Shoko Asahara, who orchestrated sarin attacks in Tokyo. I can only imagine what atrocities they commit in their secluded monasteries/cults in the name of compassion and while still maintaining their inner peace. They are incapable of “violence” because they are insane.
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4187
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Equanimity

Postby Pandora » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:50 am

The Buddhist mindset: if it’s done not out of hate, but out of compassion it’s not violence.
Image
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4187
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Equanimity

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:03 am

Pandora wrote:He redefined the concept of violence itself to be a subjective term, so one can preserve his inner peace while still being able to engage in violence. The emphasis is on inner peace (as he himself pointed out). And the way to immunize himself from violence/mental disturbance is to essentially become psychotic. Violence simply does not exist in Buddhist brainwashed mindset (because it’s “free” from hate), in the same way as reality and their own self does not exist in their own mind. It is a form of delusion, as is clearly seen from the actions of his friend Shoko Asahara, who orchestrated sarin attacks in Tokyo. I can only imagine what atrocities they commit in their secluded monasteries/cults in the name of compassion and while still maintaining their inner peace. They are incapable of “violence” because they are insane.
I don't think the DL was describing the point with reference to Buddhism is particular rather it is with reference to general knowledge.
Note the DL title and authority is based on theocracy i.e. religion mixed with politics.

Shoko Asahara is from a fringe sect and cult involving various religious doctrines including Christianity.
As far as his evil acts are concern it has nothing to do with Buddhism per se because Buddhism overriding maxim and ethos is that of pacifism.

"seen from the actions of his friend Shoko Asahara"
Come on, maintain some intellectual honesty and avoid the above sort of blatant lies.

Violence simply does not exist in Buddhist brainwashed mindset (because it’s “free” from hate), in the same way as reality and their own self does not exist in their own mind.
You got it wrong in the above.
The concept of violence do not exists in Buddhism.
But there Buddhists who are evil prone and commit evil acts from their own inherent nature which has nothing to do with the Buddhist sutras and doctrines.

Show me one case or reference where Buddhists commit evil acts and violence in the name of the Buddha or quoting verses from any Buddhist sutras?
Note the comparison to evil prone Muslims who hold up the Quran, shout Allahu Akbar and quoting verses from the Quran to justify their evil acts and violence.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Equanimity

Postby Pandora » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:18 am

Shoko Asahara and Dalai Lama

Image

Image

Dalai Lama himself admitted to Japanese news service that Asahra was his friend (although, as he said, not a perfect one).
http://www.arebuddhistsracist.com/shoko ... _lama.html
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4187
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Equanimity

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:01 am

Pandora wrote:Shoko Asahara and Dalai Lama
...
Dalai Lama himself admitted to Japanese news service that Asahra was his friend (although, as he said, not a perfect one).
http://www.arebuddhistsracist.com/shoko ... _lama.html
Ok, noted the point.

But I believe this is the common and typical 'friend' thing until something obvious happens. This happens all the time everywhere. It is not easy to detect human potentials of evil that are hidden within the mind/brain of individual[s] until they state their beliefs openly or commit evil acts and violence.
The various known cults, e.g. Jim Jones, Scientology, David Koresh, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh , etc. who has many friends and supporters from all over when they first emerged as very positive to society but many abandoned them when the cults later turned out to commit terrible evils and violence.

What is critical is whether they share the same evil potentials in person or beliefs.

Btw, I don't idolize the Dalai Lama and I think he is drunk with compassion to be very blind and stupid not to understand the evils and violent potential of Islam.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Equanimity

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:25 pm

Pandora wrote:
Magnus wrote:What I focus on is what I see to be the good thing about Buddhism. I focus on the potential.
Bacause you cannot find a solution by yourself?


Right, when you cannot find a solution on your own, or at least, when you're used to relying on others for solutions, you look for other people's guidance. Everyone does that from time to time but some people do it more frequently than others. No doubt about that. There is also no doubt that it is superior to do everything on your own than to rely on others for help; but in reality noone does everything on their own. That's just an ideal. With that out of our way, I have to say, and probably repeat, that I have no interest in Buddhism. Therefore, I am not looking for a solution in it. Instead, what I am doing, and only in this thread, is focusing on what is good in Buddhism. Not because I am looking for a solution but because someone brought the subject of Buddhism in this thread. In other words, I am merely socially interacting. Other than that, I do not care about Buddhism and in many ways I am repulsed by Eastern thought (and what goes under the name of holism in general.)

My holism is of personal kind rather than of universal kind. In this regard, I think I differ from Prismatic. Prismatic thinks that the universe is a oneness, a whole, a unity, a singleness, etc. He constantly repeats that the ultimate goal is the good of humanity. I don't care about humanity. He's a monist on a universal level. I am not. I do not think that "all is one". I am a pluralist and I am more inclined to take the position that unity is an indication of blindness rather than of objective reality; and I am certainly disinclined to take the position that the opposite, the disunity, is merely an appearance. I am more sympathetic to the position that the more you are engaged with reality the more change you perceive (but that, at the same time, you never stop perceiving stasis since that's how our minds work.) So I follow the footsteps of Heraclitus, or at the very least, I am more sympathetic to Heraclitean and Nietzschean position, than that of dialectical monism (which acknowledges antagonism but subsumes it to oneness.)

Let's not confuse what is real with what is ideal. High-energy is an ideal. It is not what is real even in the strongest organism. Every organism goes through periods of high-energy and low-energy. Those who are constantly on high-energy die very quickly. We all have to sleep, right? Sleep is a low energy state. Without sleep, we die. My point is merely that there must be a balance between engagement with and disengagement from reality. You need both and not only one. Short-term weakness is long-term strength. And vice versa. Short-term strength is long-term weakness. Appearances can be deceptive.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Equanimity

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:17 pm

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, a time to reap that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.



The above is my slant on what true equanimity is all about.
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15278
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Equanimity

Postby fuse » Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:46 am

I know I'm late here, but this is a good topic and I have thoughts.

phyllo wrote:A rational person may want to 'surf' the ups and downs of life. He/she can see this as a more authentic life than one based on equanimity.

Equanimity involves a loss of extremes of emotion. In compensation one gets "stability and composure".

Is that a good trade?

Not every person will think so. Not everyone needs to strive for equanimity.

Put that way, the question being asked is whether one should base their life on equanimity. To make it *the* organizing principle.

I generally think of equanimity as the positive moment when self-control and emotional/psychological wisdom prevails in a tough situation. This is a virtue in particular contexts, but I would not universalize it. If I understand the question being asked in this OP, then I find equanimity, like most other singular principles, too limited to be a lone ruling principle. Probably better to have many gods.



This also comes to mind..

N. wrote:All passions have a phase when they are merely disastrous, when they drag down their victim with the weight of stupidity--and a later, very much later phase when they wed the spirit, when they "spiritualize" themselves. Formerly, in view of the element of stupidity in passion, war was declared on passion itself, its destruction was plotted; all the old moral monsters are agreed on this: il faut tuer les passions. The most famous formula for this is to be found in the New Testament, in that Sermon on the Mount, where, incidentally, things are by no means looked at from a height. There it is said, for example, with particular reference to sexuality: "If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out." Fortunately, no Christian acts in accordance with this precept. Destroying the passions and cravings, merely as a preventive measure against their stupidity and the unpleasant consequences of this stupidity--today this itself strikes us as merely another acute form of stupidity. We no longer admire dentists who "pluck out" teeth so that they will not hurt any more.

To be fair, it should be admitted, however, that on the ground out of which Christianity grew, the concept of the "spiritualization of passion" could never have been formed. After all, the first church, as is well known, fought against the "intelligent" in favor of the "poor in spirit." How could one expect from it an intelligent war against passion? The church fights passion with excision in every sense: its practice, its "cure," is castratism. It never asks: "How can one spiritualize, beautify, deify a craving?" It has at all times laid the stress of discipline on extirpation (of sensuality, of pride, of the lust to rule, of avarice, of vengefulness). But an attack on the roots of passion means an attack on the roots of life: the practice of the church is hostile to life.

The same means in the fight against a craving--castration, extirpation--is instinctively chosen by those who are too weak-willed, too degenerate, to be able to impose moderation on themselves; by those who are so constituted that they require La Trappe, to use a figure of speech, or (without any figure of speech) some kind of definitive declaration of hostility, a cleft between themselves and the passion. Radical means are indispensable only for the degenerate; the weakness of the will--or, to speak more definitely, the inability not to respond to a stimulus--is itself merely another form of degeneration. The radical hostility, the deadly hostility against sensuality, is always a symptom to reflect on: it entitles us to suppositions concerning the total state of one who is excessive in this manner.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4539
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Equanimity

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:12 pm

fuse wrote:Put that way, the question being asked is whether one should base their life on equanimity. To make it *the* organizing principle.

I generally think of equanimity as the positive moment when self-control and emotional/psychological wisdom prevails in a tough situation. This is a virtue in particular contexts, but I would not universalize it. If I understand the question being asked in this OP, then I find equanimity, like most other singular principles, too limited to be a lone ruling principle. Probably better to have many gods.
Agreed. Once it is universalized, it is problematic. There are crises when it is good to remain calm despite the stakes. The stakes might make one want to scream - an escaped tiger is running at you and your child - but it better to not flip out, but rather to use the adrenalin to act, decisively. I think actually these situations are fairly rare. Here's the trick: since society - let's say Western right now, so Europe and the US, despite the wide variations involved in subcultures and even at national level - dislikes and punishes emotional expression except in certain situations - you can cry publically at moves (at least if you are woman), you can scream with rage at soccer games, etc. Given that people judge emotions harshlyl, equanimity can be a good strategy, in a more general way when dealing with others expecially strangers. But that is a sad compromise. Because there is a problem in society where hiding emotions is culturally valued and deviations punished, then, yes, it is often the wise move to stifle emotions. But we shouldn't confuse this with some essential good.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Equanimity

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:16 am

It's always better to be in charge of your emotions than to be under their control.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Equanimity

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:39 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:It's always better to be in charge of your emotions than to be under their control.
They are you, a part of you. Who is this other you you trust to rule over that part of you and why is that part in charge? Why not be a team? Or really one person?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Equanimity

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:03 am

That's what it means to be "one person". That's what "local holism" is all about. You are a unity to the extent you are in control of your emotions. You should be the one deciding when you will express this or that emotion and not your circumstances. Just because you feel like doing something doesn't mean you should do that something. There must be a clean internal yes signalling it's safe for the emotion to be expressed.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Equanimity

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:09 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:That's what it means to be "one person". That's what "local holism" is all about. You are a unity to the extent you are in control of your emotions. You should be the one deciding when you will express this or that emotion and not your circumstances. Just because you feel like doing something doesn't mean you should do that something. There must be a clean internal yes signalling it's safe for the emotion to be expressed.

Sure, I explained above that GIVEN how much society tends to punish and be afraid of emotions, one should be careful. It's a sad compromise, but it is not one with any essential value. I am a unity to the extent I do not need to control my emotions. To have one part control another part, in fact to have parts at all, is by definition not to be unity.

Just because I think I should do something does not mean that I should. I see people with ideals, self-hatred, images from media guiding their thoughts, fashion, 'noble' dreams, telling their emotions how to feel, telling themselves what to do - even though it feels wrong, and so on.

You don't have to choose between thought and feeling, but since we are so trained to see this as a duality and to control our emotions and to disidentify with our emotions - see the way you worded the last two posts - we are split. They are ways to move towards unity.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Equanimity

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:48 am

Sure, I explained above that GIVEN how much society tends to punish and be afraid of emotions, one should be careful.


It's very sad that you think that there is only one reason to regulate our emotions -- fear of being punished by society.

What about self-motivated individuals?

I am a unity to the extent I do not need to control my emotions.


The problem is that the universe does not work according to our expectations, desires, needs, etc. So adaptation is required if you want to maintain unity.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Equanimity

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:22 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:It's very sad that you think that there is only one reason to regulate our emotions -- fear of being punished by society.
I mentioned earlier in this thread that there are situations, generally rare in modern society, where, regulating emotions is necessary. Generally when there is an immediate physical threat, but here's the thing. You are used to the split. You are used to having your emotions judged and shut down. The emotions, when split off like this seem disruptive, essentially, rather than because of the jailer/regulator ---> jailed regulated dynamic. This is clear in the following...

What about self-motivated individuals?
Emotions are the prime motivators.

I am a unity to the extent I do not need to control my emotions.


The problem is that the universe does not work according to our expectations, desires, needs, etc. So adaptation is required if you want to maintain unity.
My emotional reactions pick up hte nature of the universe all the time. You are assuming something. LIke if I feel and express my emotions I am a baby in the corner with no intellectual understanding. That's because you have the split and even venerate it. When the split is not present the emotions are informed by what the thinky parts of the mind are aware of, and the mind is free to fully notice the world since it does not have the role of controller. I know this is hard for people to get because they are so used to the split and what this has done to both the intellectual and emotional parts of the mind - both are damaged by this.

If I maximize my time with people who do not judge emotions, form friendships with people who are not afraid of passion, not afraid to be honest about how things make them feel, both good and bad, get a partner, which I have, who also is open, then I do not have to shut down my emotions as much as the average person. Work is of course the trickiest, but even there it can be done.

Allow those portions to express freely and they are not like how you experience yours.

But if you are sure you would become the irrational disconnected person you seem to think you would if you expressed emotions and allowed full integrations, then perhaps you are right. Do what you want. But when you talk about how I must be, you are not describing me at all.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users