Oh, by the way, good catch on the 'hand on the brow' requirement for the study of philosophy. However, I want to point out, that should you place BOTH hands on the brow, with exactly the same admirable, intense countenance, the effect is completely different, and you are likely to earn yourself a very tight-fitting jacket and a long, unplanned rest.
Hi, Roger - Still read all your writings faithfully. Didn't have anything to say on long series about stoicism. Except by the last entry, I was wondering if you weren't a bit smitten with this new philosophy, so, I thought I'd play Devil's advocate and ask, "What DON'T you like about stoicism" There must be something about it you find intellectually or emotionally lacking or unfulfilling.
But I did not ask, and by your next writing, you were back to a Christian theme, maybe because it was near Easter.
Which was fortuitous, because it gave me confidence that I was maybe thinking in the right direction.
For example, there are times of great or lesser despair and confusion, when no earthly being seems capable of providing a satisfying answer, that deep communication with God or Jesus, if you believe in him, provides the only relief possible. So, though I disagree wth Christianity intellectually on quite a few points, it, at its heart and at its best, always offers kindness and hope to the hopeless.
I am fond of many ideas in Buddhism, but, the source and idea of compassion and hope in Buddhism is far different than the Christian one. I find it lacking.
Do you find Stoicism lacking in this respect? I find Christian faith can be emotionally satisfying, but an often unreasonable guidebook for everyday life. Stoicism is probably a much saner philosophy for everyday life, but is it emotionally satisfying?
Then, thank God (pun intended), you posted your latest entry. I liked it. I think what you said- I'll have to read it again - to summarize, is that you can only hope to be a GOOD (I like the word righteous) person and a WISE person. I agree wholeheartedly. I think if one is old enough, and has thought hard enough, this is the conclusion one reaches.
It is the one I have reached. Hence, I don't follow any one -ism, and pick and choose from all. But most importantly, I meditate (that's the one Buddhist practice I value) and poke and prod and run through 'what ifs', and make up my own mind. That is, in my opinion, the best teacher of all.
Look forward to seeing you again soon and hope you are well.
Good thought. I will get back on your longer message. Thanks for the support!!
Oh, by the way, good catch on the 'hand on the brow' requirement for the study of philosophy. However, I want to point out, that should you place BOTH hands on the brow, with exactly the same admirable, intense countenance, the effect is completely different, and you are likely to earn yourself a very tight-fitting jacket and a long, unplanned rest.
Hi, Roger - Still read all your writings faithfully. Didn't have anything to say on long series about stoicism. Except by the last entry, I was wondering if you weren't a bit smitten with this new philosophy, so, I thought I'd play Devil's advocate and ask, "What DON'T you like about stoicism" There must be something about it you find intellectually or emotionally lacking or unfulfilling.
But I did not ask, and by your next writing, you were back to a Christian theme, maybe because it was near Easter.
Which was fortuitous, because it gave me confidence that I was maybe thinking in the right direction.
For example, there are times of great or lesser despair and confusion, when no earthly being seems capable of providing a satisfying answer, that deep communication with God or Jesus, if you believe in him, provides the only relief possible. So, though I disagree wth Christianity intellectually on quite a few points, it, at its heart and at its best, always offers kindness and hope to the hopeless.
I am fond of many ideas in Buddhism, but, the source and idea of compassion and hope in Buddhism is far different than the Christian one. I find it lacking.
Do you find Stoicism lacking in this respect? I find Christian faith can be emotionally satisfying, but an often unreasonable guidebook for everyday life. Stoicism is probably a much saner philosophy for everyday life, but is it emotionally satisfying?
Then, thank God (pun intended), you posted your latest entry. I liked it. I think what you said- I'll have to read it again - to summarize, is that you can only hope to be a GOOD (I like the word righteous) person and a WISE person. I agree wholeheartedly. I think if one is old enough, and has thought hard enough, this is the conclusion one reaches.
It is the one I have reached. Hence, I don't follow any one -ism, and pick and choose from all. But most importantly, I meditate (that's the one Buddhist practice I value) and poke and prod and run through 'what ifs', and make up my own mind. That is, in my opinion, the best teacher of all.
Look forward to seeing you again soon and hope you are well.