I have been writing my opinions for awhile now. I think I have just about covered all the basic questions in life. Certainly a wide range of topics has been examined. Some of these writings I recall vividly and others not so much. I try to make an effort to not repeat myself. I do review what I have written from time to time. So far I haven't changed my mind about anything I have written but I still question them. I believe that is a good thing. We shouldn't become too convinced of our own righteousness. It is a difficult process, this changing of opinion. No one likes to be wrong and I am no exception. Still, one shouldn't cling to a statement solely because you made it. If you can not substantiate it, you should consider the abandonment of that idea. The real problem lies in knowing when to do just that. If you just surrender your ground in the face of any opposition soon you will have no ground upon which to stand at all.
There are a number of such opinions that the country, as a whole, is struggling with right now. And make no mistake about it, they are opinions. I have to question myself about the opinions I have formed or support. Why do I support those opinions, or oppose them ? Is it because of what others have said or is it a genuine assessment on my part ? The place to begin that examination is with, why should I care ? Does this affect me ? Really, is it my business at all ? If I decide that it is I have to further explain why that is. What is it that I feel needs defending ? Isn't that what issuing an opinion does, defend ? The defense of our " core " that which defines us is vital to our happiness. A life spent in compromise is not a happy life. Compromise is a component of happiness but compromise ,by its' very definition, requires reciprocity.
The stoic philosophers taught that virtue is the only course to happiness. Epictetus and later Marcus Aurelius believed in this way of life. They all thought that man should live his life in accordance with nature. They also believed that the defining of a person's true character was not in his words, but his actions. There goal was to be clear and unbiased thinkers. That is a noble goal but one I think may be unattainable. That doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for that goal however. The stoics thought that emotions were the cause of our troubles. But it was the extremes in emotion that concerned them the most. Extremes in emotion leads to bad decisions and wrong thinking. I can find no fault in that logic. It is between this philosophy, and the way I live my life everyday, that causes my unrest. On the one hand I search for the truth of things, that unbiased opinion, but on the other I am a man of emotions as well. I try to just remain calm, ( stoic ) but often my emotions win the battle. Some would call that passion, as in, he is a passionate speaker. In that case passionate meaning, convinced of your own opinion. Aristotle took a slightly different approach. There are differences in his teaching than that of the stoics. I can not presume to be enough of a scholar to explain it, but I have read about it. Aristotle was more of a logic guy. That was his approach. In my opinion, not everything is logical and is therefore unexplainable. That is why I lean toward the stoic philosophy The stoic were more concerned with just making an unbiased judgement.
I do find it interesting that this debate, between philosophies, continues till this day. A great deal of us are unaware of the debate at all. It is something that is not taught in school as a general subject. Yes, it is studied in our colleges and universities but is it a part of our everyday lives ? The answer is, yes. We may or may not be aware of it but it certainly is and always has been. There are other philosophies, that is true, but those are the major ones. My only concern is the adaptation of a philosophy that fails to impose accountability on the individual. It is my belief we are each accountable for our actions and outside influences are not to blame. They may force us to act but it is up to us to respond correctly.
That is my thinking anyway. The ancient Greeks discussed all of this for hundreds of years. I've just started to give it serious consideration. Everyone pretty much agrees that happiness is the goal. The defining of happiness ? Well, I'll have to give that a bit more thought.
There are a number of such opinions that the country, as a whole, is struggling with right now. And make no mistake about it, they are opinions. I have to question myself about the opinions I have formed or support. Why do I support those opinions, or oppose them ? Is it because of what others have said or is it a genuine assessment on my part ? The place to begin that examination is with, why should I care ? Does this affect me ? Really, is it my business at all ? If I decide that it is I have to further explain why that is. What is it that I feel needs defending ? Isn't that what issuing an opinion does, defend ? The defense of our " core " that which defines us is vital to our happiness. A life spent in compromise is not a happy life. Compromise is a component of happiness but compromise ,by its' very definition, requires reciprocity.
The stoic philosophers taught that virtue is the only course to happiness. Epictetus and later Marcus Aurelius believed in this way of life. They all thought that man should live his life in accordance with nature. They also believed that the defining of a person's true character was not in his words, but his actions. There goal was to be clear and unbiased thinkers. That is a noble goal but one I think may be unattainable. That doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for that goal however. The stoics thought that emotions were the cause of our troubles. But it was the extremes in emotion that concerned them the most. Extremes in emotion leads to bad decisions and wrong thinking. I can find no fault in that logic. It is between this philosophy, and the way I live my life everyday, that causes my unrest. On the one hand I search for the truth of things, that unbiased opinion, but on the other I am a man of emotions as well. I try to just remain calm, ( stoic ) but often my emotions win the battle. Some would call that passion, as in, he is a passionate speaker. In that case passionate meaning, convinced of your own opinion. Aristotle took a slightly different approach. There are differences in his teaching than that of the stoics. I can not presume to be enough of a scholar to explain it, but I have read about it. Aristotle was more of a logic guy. That was his approach. In my opinion, not everything is logical and is therefore unexplainable. That is why I lean toward the stoic philosophy The stoic were more concerned with just making an unbiased judgement.
I do find it interesting that this debate, between philosophies, continues till this day. A great deal of us are unaware of the debate at all. It is something that is not taught in school as a general subject. Yes, it is studied in our colleges and universities but is it a part of our everyday lives ? The answer is, yes. We may or may not be aware of it but it certainly is and always has been. There are other philosophies, that is true, but those are the major ones. My only concern is the adaptation of a philosophy that fails to impose accountability on the individual. It is my belief we are each accountable for our actions and outside influences are not to blame. They may force us to act but it is up to us to respond correctly.
That is my thinking anyway. The ancient Greeks discussed all of this for hundreds of years. I've just started to give it serious consideration. Everyone pretty much agrees that happiness is the goal. The defining of happiness ? Well, I'll have to give that a bit more thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment