Not true. Those who fear their own capabilities (and I’ve seen this too many times to count) have not that power to gain, cause they just can’t, not having faith in their own capabilities to attain what power is available. Yet they are only eager, and continue to pursue, learning and accumulating more knowledge to have that capable faculty.
Which is well on the road to authoritarianism.
Presumably that would determine what we should do? Why not just say it directly? Otherwise, it would require examination.
But if you agree that a life without investigation into the deeper metaphysics of one’s being can still be full, then how is it not worth living?
Right, 'cause that would convince them that mind is more than just matter. The point isn’t what you would argue, the point is that such a question doesn’t need examination. You shouldn’t have to argue anything.
Is true. Have you never met those who fear what they are capable of? Those who are pending further notice who feign weakness just to sidestep destiny? Tricky, tricky business it 'tis.
UUUuuuhhh… Well I did say no… It’s not enforcing any obedience into what is acceptable. Philosophers allowed us to think freely on our own self-will. Again, philosophers aren’t at all authoritarian in my views.
Once over this is a reason we really shouldn’t presume things. See here, if you’re confused on this, I will clarify and instill. Now, “The noblest of all studies is the study of what man/women is”. This obviously entails that (i.e. man/women) no matter what form or shape, they become changed developing and adopting new ways of thinking and knowledge, by constant learning. So, whatever they be and their entire consistency of having learned from life, this is what is the noblest of all studies.
LIKE I SAID, it’s more of just a metaphor in my eyes…In other words it’s not literal.
First off is the mind not more than matter anyhow?
Secondly, your questions are having to go over examination extensively. 
Argumentation is just another “Authoritarian” or “Philosophical” discipline. There are rules to relativism. Further-more how does monism not hinder dualism. In this, allow me to ask, is not idealism and physicalism conflicted of one another being self-contradictory? With this I’d remain as pluralistic with all matter of life.
As I’ve stated… “Have not the power to gain” Are we speaking of the incapable or of the capable here, come on???
The overly capable, the too qualified, prowess-based gifts galore in all lifetimes. The chosen. Ones who knew, remembered, this early on.
I didn’t mean authoritarian in the political sense; I meant it in the pedagogic sense. You are treating them as authoritarian by saying their quotes need no examination or questioning–like they are the authorities on the matter and what they say is infallible.
You’re explaining what the quote means but not that it’s true (let alone self-evidently true).
And like I asked: what is it a metaphor for?
Awe, well I understand what you mean here. So by that, it’s just that they were gifted in the teaching that were surrounded entirely on scientific facts and indisputable evidence. So…
Well from what it actually means, isn’t self-evident at all? Now if it’s true isn’t my whole thesis. Yet I was trying to clarify that for you my apologies. “Presumably that would determine what we should do? Why not just say it directly? Otherwise, it would require examination.” Yet, you did only want it directly otherwise it would require examination.
Are you trying to exacerbate this? “it appropriates that a life not researched is just that, a life unknown and totally void of investigation, isn’t worth living…”
Well that’s what i thought, I thought we were speaking of philosophers as being authoritarian. All that need to be clarified as well I guess . Yet Argumentation is just another study or discipline am I wrong??
Self-contradictory in that they totally contradict each self. It’s more of them not being to exist without the other in life, both being an understatement of the other in other words. So, forgive me here, but i think I explained this just now… [-o<
Also to suggest you Sir Gib didn’t answer the question accordingly
It’s intelligent to ask questions though… That’s from where I obtain all my best material.
I’m sticking to this…
What’s your alternative? 
To have NOT identified an unclear or not understandable enough conclusion of honest validity.
joyful » I’m pretty positive by nature, goofy and ecstatic, and it shows when I feel comfortable
sensitive » in the social and psychological sense, I pick up on a lot and am acutely aware
a total aesthete » I love the subtleties of experience and art
competitive » thrown into any game or challenge, I’ll almost always rise to the occasion
perfectionist » high standards and am loathe to make mistakes
guarded » discouragement and disappointment raise a lot of caution and barriers within me
curious » I was a very curious kid, but I think I have become jaded with age, school, and social conditioning
For the OP, I interpret essence as “identity.” I don’t believe in a metaphysical soul, but I am keenly aware of spirit.
Spirit and soul are meaningful to me as abstractions, signifying an essential form to things and times.
I don’t think one should put too much stock in defining his nature once and for all. One’s nature (spirit) is proved in the arc of her life.
Essential Emerson:
Plus, as I see it, a person’s nature is really bound up with his/her body. This is something I’ve said before:
The body is not just a vehicle. It is what makes perception - and all of experience - possible. We do not become who we are as isolated whisps of consciousness. We are not merely attached to or hosted by the body, but the body is in fact part of what makes us -us. You are you because of your biological idiosyncrasies, because you are sighted, because you have a nervous system, because of the way you feel pleasure, and of course because of the way you feel pain. One does not enter the body like a corporeal suit. The complex and spirited consciousness emerges necessarily as one embodied. The soul, or the spirit, exists in the momentum of a person and his impact.
fuse wrote
Fine tuned by the arc, yes. We are looking at this from oceans apart. I really appreciate your views, a lovely read. Thank you.
A debate would be apropos if you stick around.
I’ll be around, what do you want to debate?
fuse wrote
One lifetime of a spirit vs. the eternal soul
fuse wrote
Hosted vs. not
soul is epicenter of experience vs. body is the epicenter of experience
I have yet to formally debate anything. Ah ha, welcome guinea pig! 
Comments…concerns? 
fuse wrote
While this sentence above may mean ‘in this lifetime’, what is interesting is the momentum of a person in relation to other people and how can that be measured? The momentum of a person is very relevant in terms of all of their assets and how they use them, whether simply now or into infinity.
See, here you are asking the old question, of differentiating the old triad, Being, essence, existence, which was laid down by Arab philosophers, where the essence, is layered meaning for the Soul. Aristoteles took it up in De Anima, it is a prefigured notion, just as self knowledge later, a developmental successor to a more ‘scientific way’ of looking at it.
You are asking the question of requiring levels of knowledge to correlate with each other, in this case old textual ideas such as the soul, with developing ‘scientific’ ways of thinking about them.
We may be much more alike then different, except in contexts where it is more advantageous to differentiate.
It is kind of like a Moebious Strip, where you’d never know where the essential and the real meet, because it’s hard to see it unless the ends are separated in the first place.
It only means “in this lifetime” by default since I’m not aware of any additional lifetimes. The question of lasting influence is still very interesting to me. A person’s influence is broadly the continued affect he/she has on others, even after death, like an afterimage: an impression of a vivid sensation (especially a visual image) retained after the stimulus has ceased.