I don't really have the headspace to focus on replies right now—I'll get back to things eventually—but I have to say, your avatar looks almost exactly like that guy from *Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse*; you know, that classic romantic hero archetype, always dealing with all those intense internal struggles. It's actually kind of cute.
He’s similar, I suppose, but not quite him. His era was probably a bit more recent. Just reply whenever you find the time. (If you think there's even any point in responding; I've already shared my thoughts on whether anything matters—margaritas before the storm, as William Gonzalez3 would say)
Don't these cypress trees have anything to do with those music clans? Or am I wrong—is it just a graveyard thing, nothing more?
Cypress... A portmanteau of gloom and depression, I guess. It's pretty much my default setting, alongside anger, hatred, blindness, an alcoholic haze of cypress, and pure resentment.
I have this nagging fear that all my attempts to truly grasp anything are essentially doomed from the start. I suppose, if one were to actually understand the intersection of genius and madness, they would probably need to be both—and I’m certainly not.
I feel like I've been flirting with madness for quite some time now, but true genius? That remains an entirely foreign concept to me. So, I worry that any answers offered to my confused little self might just be futile—because even if I manage to grasp the definitions (which, looking at things, might not even happen), I doubt I'll ever actually comprehend the substance. It's simply because I'm not a complete lunatic; I'm merely brushing against the edges of madness, whereas I've never even had the chance to touch genius—even though there have been brilliant women in my life... though I haven't exactly laid hands on their brilliance 😳.
Anyway, I'm feeling rather melancholy again. 😢 With these thoughts and a certain sense of resignation regarding my own inability to truly reach out and grab hold of anything, I think I'll just retreat into solitude, or something to that effect.
Where does truth exist outside of testimony? Can a statement actually reveal what remains hidden from my most careful scrutiny? How does one even begin to conceptualize something existing beyond what is spoken? What are we left with, then? Or are we simply extruding testimonies from within ourselves? If that's the case—what actually stays inside us? Why don't you post more often? (you little coward 😬)
they’re approaching the truth by saying the point is—well, screw it, dear viewers...
That foreign expression really threw me for a loop. "Point"—it could mean a dot, a peak, an indication, a detail, a purpose, a question, a mark, a tip... There are just so many meanings... I’m feeling completely lost right now. Which of these interpretations actually fits that sentence? Are they approaching the truth by saying the question is—screw it? That the indication is—screw it? That the purpose is—screw it?
Could someone please explain this to me? Or is "pointing things out" truly just—screw it?
paranoid schizophrenia is a common occurrence among schizophrenias, so your first premise doesn't hold up.
But is it necessarily a bad thing? I suppose paranoid schizophrenia itself isn't quite as terrifying as the reality of such strict isolation between individuals. If those people were able to collaborate—each bringing their own point of view, their specific skills, and their unique way of acting—they would enrich anyone who might otherwise be left poor and limited by having only a single point of view.
Is it really necessary for someone with a strong character to be paranoid? Could that paranoia actually be corrected by schizophrenia? That sounds like a legitimate path to me. Instead of having one singular, powerful individual who is struggling with paranoia, you essentially split them into several weaker versions that cooperate with one another. For instance—you could have the executioner philosopher, the executioner alcoholic, the executioner son, the executioner brother, the executioner friend, the executioner boyfriend, and even the executioner himself—all working together toward the single goal of preserving and maximizing the life of that person. In this scenario, does schizophrenia strengthen the man and make him more capable, or does it just weaken him and leave him scattered? I suspect it’s probably the latter.😢
Anyway, this stuff Sloterdijk is saying is quite fascinating...
Why does he claim that depressed people are the ones closest to the truth? And in what sense, or even what context, is "truth" being mentioned here? (Does it even exist outside of mere statements?) Also, why is it specifically the depressed who sink into meaninglessness? So many questions... honestly, my head is spinning again.
What exactly is this truth that depressed people are drifting toward?
Bradley Fisher20 said:When something starts self-referencing, I feel like it’s a sign that context has essentially ceased to exist—it just sort of collapses in on itself.
Have you ever actually traveled just for the sake of traveling? I mean—not for work, not to visit family, but purely for the experience itself? I guess I’ve wondered about that lately.
Let me try looking at it this way—I guess if someone is traveling with a specific destination in mind, they naturally end up tailoring their entire journey to fit that goal. I suppose the best way to go about this is by taking the quickest, easiest, and most straightforward route possible—just keeping things simple and efficient. I suppose philosophy is a bit like a journey—one where the actual traveling is the whole point. It’s more like a journey without a specific destination—a path where the movement itself is the whole point. When you don't have a specific goal in mind, you don't really have a fixed path either—which, I suppose, isn't necessarily a bad thing. You’re liberated from that single objective, and in a way, every direction you decide to take becomes equally valid and meaningful. Since there's no preordained destination, every choice you make is truly yours—it's a path you actually selected for yourself. When you're traveling like that, you aren't just moving from point A to point B—you’re actually taking everything in. You start looking around, really observing the details, and I guess you end up learning quite a bit along the way. When you have a truly specific learning objective in mind—something concrete and clearly defined—it feels like your mind starts to shift gears. I guess you could say you’re essentially subordinating your focus and recalibrating your entire cognitive process to serve that one goal. It’s almost as if everything else just falls away to make room for what you're actually trying to master. Even at this very moment, I suspect your mind isn't truly free—which makes it almost impossible to observe anything with any real clarity.
Bradley Fisher20 said:For what purpose? And honestly, what guarantee do I have that you aren't acting out of some underlying intention or bias—one that you simply haven't bothered to address until now?
I suppose true philosophy only really begins once you start questioning your own biases. It’s that moment when those preconceived notions get wiped away—leaving you feeling a bit exposed, out of your comfort zone, and doubting everything you thought you knew. I mean, look at how Microsoft approached it—they even questioned the very existence of the self. When you're in that kind of deep, radical doubt, it feels like there isn't any room left for old prejudices to take root. If someone approaches philosophy armed with nothing but prejudices—especially if they possess that unshakable, unwavering certainty in themselves and everything around them—then I guess they have no business being in this field at all. Philosophy isn't really about hunting down certainties; after all, it doesn't promise to deliver knowledge, nor does it actually provide it. Philosophy is really about teaching us how to think—truly engage with ideas. I suppose there’s an argument to be made that once someone actually *knows* something, they don't need to spend time thinking through it anymore—because the understanding is already there. Or maybe that's just a simplification, but it's an interesting thought.
Bradley Fisher20 said:I've been wondering lately—is motivation actually that important? I mean, does it really drive everything, or is it just one of those things we talk about too much? I guess there isn't a simple answer, but I'd love to hear what you all think.
I'm not really sure, to be honest. I’ve been thinking quite a bit about what actually drives a philosopher—and I mean the real, deep-seated motivation behind the work. Personally, I think it really boils down to two things: uncertainty and wonder. It’s that honest admission that you don't have all the answers—that sense of being genuinely puzzled by the world—combined with this persistent, almost restless desire to actually find them out. To me, that is where true motivation lives. As for how one should actually relate to wisdom itself? I’d say it should be a sense of *filia*—a kind of friendly, affectionate love. Not some distant, cold pursuit, but something much more intimate and warm. And we all know exactly what kind of "friendship" we're dealing with. At least those who have actual, true friends—you know, the kind that stick by you—will understand what I mean. Sometimes, I think there's a certain value in just spending time with someone simply because of who they are—purely for their own sake. It’s not about having some hidden agenda or intense passion, and certainly not about trying to influence them or get something out of the relationship. It's more about that quiet, intentional connection where you aren't looking for any kind of leverage or benefit. Just... being there. That’s really how I think the relationship between a philosopher and wisdom should work—more like a genuine friendship. It shouldn't be about some desperate urge to possess it—though, I guess, every friendship and every human connection inherently struggles against that desire to own or control one another.
Bradley Fisher20 mistyfox812 said:So, what exactly is he even doing then? I mean, does he just lack the backbone to even stop and ask himself what his actual motivation is here? Honestly—it might be better if he just went out and worked a manual labor job or something. At least that would actually make sense.
At first, I think—if I’m being honest—it might just be about regaining a sense of security. And so he carries on—mostly because he’s finally realized that the sense of security he used to feel, back before he started questioning everything, is gone for good. He knows he’ll never get that feeling back, I suppose. But in the process of losing it, he ended up finding a certain kind of wisdom instead.
Bradley Fisher20 said:It’s easy precisely because it doesn’t lead anywhere.
But based on what? How is a path that leads nowhere inherently easier than one that actually goes somewhere?
I should probably point out—though I didn't explicitly say it before—that I wasn't claiming the path leads nowhere. It’s more that we haven't actually defined a destination yet. Still, I'm fairly certain it's headed somewhere and moving toward some sort of goal. If I recall correctly, I think the esteemed Pacific Coast user mentioned what that goal might be in their signature.
mistyscout2 said:I have to admit, I didn't feel even a hint of negativity while I was writing that.
Of course you didn't. I think I was misled by the fact that you're trying to justify yourself—even though (I suspect you told yourself at least five times) you have absolutely nothing to apologize for. It’s the way you’re doing it, and honestly, the arguments you've chosen, that gives it away. It seems I'm quite easy to fool, I suppose.
mistyscout2 said:You clearly weren't reading carefully again. You're just interpreting things however you want them to be—which I guess everyone does to some extent, but you seem to have a real knack for it.
Well, maybe I'm not quite as skilled as you are at using ad hominem attacks, but I'm certainly trying...
mistyscout2 said:How on earth am I supposed to tell others what philosophy is? Where would I even get the right to do that??! You're basically handing me an authority that I don't possess—and frankly, I don't even want it, because no one should claim that kind of "authority."
But you claimed that right yourself. If you've forgotten what you actually said, maybe take a look back at the quote in the opening post.
mistyscout2 said:Did you even read the part where N & N wrote that "a philosopher must constantly re-define what philosophy is"? Because if you did, it doesn't seem like it really registered with you.
I did. And I actually agree with them. Then again, I'm not entirely convinced that you do. On paper, perhaps you do, but your actions and your words suggest otherwise.
mistyscout2 said:Taking something out of context is still taking it out of context.
Air is air. Water is water. Fire is fire. And a tautology is a tautology. The meaning of your sentence remains identical whether it's in context or out of it.
mistyscout2 said:I wrote that post as a user.
And that's exactly how I called you out—as a user. Did I say a single word against you in your capacity as a moderator?
mistyscout2 said:The fact that you just don't get certain things—or rather, you refuse to understand them because you're too busy playing the tough guy and acting offended by a simple phrase like "kindhearted"—is really no longer my concern...
It isn't the phrase itself that bothers me, I guess; it's more that you've become so tangled up in poetic language and these deep allegories meant to paint you as the "kindhearted victim," while casting me as some rude, broken maniac with a problem with authority. In all that maneuvering, you somehow—perhaps unintentionally, I suppose—managed to dodge the actual questions I asked. Generally speaking, it seems like you spend more time analyzing my character than actually addressing the serious points raised. I suppose that’s just how you subtle types operate.
mistyscout2 said:I'm not offended, and honestly, no one can offend me unless I allow it. But I do feel a sense of distaste when someone doesn't try, when they take things out of context, or when they're generally inconsistent—not in their principles, mind you, but because they aren't even attempting to reach the truth. They seem more concerned with trivialities like "authority," image, or what others think. Well, given that we're dealing with someone who enjoys American teen movies, I won't judge you too harshly 🙂.
Every time I think you couldn't possibly sink any lower, you manage to surprise me. In what way, exactly, am I being inconsistent? And how could you possibly know what matters to me or what I'm trying to achieve? It’s always easiest to blame the other person in hopes that no one notices your own flaws. It’s never your fault, right? And if it is, you just quickly cover it up by calling the other person an alcoholic, a bureaucrat, or saying they like American teen movies (though that last comment about the movies shows you didn't quite grasp what I was actually trying to convey in our previous discussion)
mistyscout2 said:And so you continue to play the saint, defending this sub-forum against those overwhelmingly dominant moderators (just look at the post counts) who insist on imposing their views on everyone else.
Excuse me? Do you seriously think I'm waging some kind of crusade against the moderators? I have never attacked you personally as a moderator, nor have I ever complained about your performance in that role. However, I will certainly speak up whenever I encounter posts that drip with snobbish elitism, patronizing tones, or a sense of looking down on others. Most of the comments directed at me fall into that category. As for this supposed "crusade" against the moderators (which was mostly aimed at the Lead Mod), it was just a joke—a bit of good-natured teasing without any deeper meaning, which he understood as such. I'm not sure if that concept is too presumptuous for you, or perhaps just not subtle enough.
mistyscout2 said:I would prefer to call it pseudo-critical and unoriginally cynical.
Whatever. You were the one who said your opinion doesn't carry any weight here anyway.
mistyscout2 said:If you're getting this worked up over THAT, it really just speaks to your own character. I don't know what kind of hang-ups you have—and honestly, that's not my business—but if you keep "criticizing" me like this, picking apart my specific points just to twist them for your own ends, then we’re going to have a problem.
It’s almost as if I have anything better to do than spend my time justifying myself to someone who spends every single little pause in a conversation just to rush out and grab a drink at the local pub because they need to celebrate the last Thursday of the month.
And I suppose this is also meant to be a counterargument...
mistyscout2 said:I've made my position clear, and how things proceed from here is entirely up to you. And no, I don't have a personal issue with you—don't go projecting extra insecurities onto this—but I do have an issue with that specific approach... I'm not sure where the line for philosophical debate lies, but I certainly know where the limit of my tolerance is 😉.
I'm not sure if you've realized it, but I am calling you out strictly based on what you've actually written. You, on the other hand, seem to jump at every chance to make some deep, psychological commentary about me as a person.
So, that’s enough said about who actually has the issue here.
If the intent behind that quote was significantly different, then maybe be kind enough to explain the actual context of what you wrote.
I've already mentioned that I think the issue is simply that you didn't find the topic "philosophical" enough to engage with—at least not as a user. Which you essentially confirmed with that insulting post of yours. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to apologize. But I suspect that's not the case—that you're using these messy ad hominem attacks as a defense mechanism, trying to claim instead that the subject matter just didn't suit your "philosophical sensibilities."
mistyscout2 said:If I were you, I’d stick to the basics and leave the philosophy alone. Seriously. Either find a job in some government bureaucracy where you can spend all day following strict rules—where at least you'll know exactly what the criteria are—but they don't exactly love drinkers over there because it disrupts the system's efficiency, so people like you are better off hiding behind philosophy.
I'm honestly not sure how to take this... whether it's meant as a brilliant counterargument to my post or just a dirty, condescending ad hominem disguised as "well-meaning" advice.
I'll choose to assume it was intended as a clever rebuttal.
That said, could you please explain which rigid rules or criteria I actually introduced?
All I said was that philosophy doesn't have one specific, predefined goal—that the act of philosophizing is its own purpose. I suppose even that might seem like too much of a rigid, bureaucratic standard for you...
Bradley Fisher20 said:Until you actually have context, you aren't really philosophizing—you're just throwing out slogans. That’s usually what people mistake for philosophy, rather than actual philosophical inquiry. Now, if your main goal is just to toss around catchy phrases, I might suggest stepping away from philosophy altogether and finding something much more entertaining.
Maybe try hip-hop. 👍
Yo, what kind of phrases, man? What kind of context, man? We've got no cash, social welfare's screwing us all.
Everything is broken. We're just living day to day. Our bank accounts are empty.
But we're still smoking and drinking and picking up good women so don't get cocky, man I'm rolling with a Magnum just like Kalahan Heri
If you look at me wrong, I'll blow you away. But I gotta head out now because there's a cold beer waiting for me.
(Now that I've tried my hand at hip-hop, I have to admit—I don't really see what's so fun about it.)
What exactly do you mean by the term "context"? Did I ever claim that philosophy doesn't have its own context? My point was simply that a thought should be free from intent and prejudice. I suppose when someone tries to philosophize about society, they shouldn't aim to achieve something specific with that society—like trying to engineer an ideal utopia—because it won't work (in the process of trying to create one, they'd likely be forced to correct existing injustices with new ones, which just leads to a cycle of more injustice, and so on).
So, how does one properly philosophize about society? By observing it. By asking the right questions through which that society can then be correctly interpreted. For instance, a good question might be—how is it possible that people in America have a newer transit fleet than a Frenchman? And why is that? Is that an example of lacking context or just tossing out slogans?
Druid said:I don't really feel any need to justify myself to anyone who thinks an explanation is required, though topics that haven't been properly shifted are clearly still hovering on the edge of that famous philosophical realm which William Gonzalez3 talks about with such cynical undertones.
Sure, so why don't you be a dear and explain what exactly constitutes something "philosophical" and what those boundaries actually are?
Regarding the whole issue of taking things out of context—I suspect that the emojis you posted wouldn't actually change the core of the matter much. I mean, if the topic simply didn't align with your own philosophical sensibilities, it would have been much nicer to just say, "this doesn't suit my philosophical outlook." Instead, you didn't do that; rather, you claimed this wasn't "real" philosophy while asserting that you, specifically, are the one doing the philosophizing 😁 😉 (which feels quite offensive, demeaning, and patronizing, regardless of how many emojis you hide behind or what tone you adopt) So, I am politely asking you—what defines philosophy, and how does one actually engage in it?
And I would ask that you please drop this superior attitude of an insulted prima donna and try to explain yourself—without all the grand apologies, without questioning my ethics, and without all that talk of pure hearts, innocent lambs, and similar tactics used to shift the blame back onto me in some fruitless bickering—what does this actually mean to you? So, please, try to let go of these negative emotions you've gathered and be kind enough to give us an explanation.
Also, I’d prefer if you responded here rather than in a private message, because I believe everyone on this forum has a right to know what qualifies as philosophical. That way, we can all use those criteria when starting new threads, ensuring no one accidentally appears "unphilosophical" by picking topics that aren't deep enough. Doing so would significantly improve the overall quality of this forum.
P.S. My opening post wasn't intended to be hostile at all. It was more... well, more resigned and perhaps a bit sad.
Bradley Fisher20 said:I’d argue that nothing truly exists just for its own sake—not even philosophy. What is philosophy actually for? To organize our thoughts, I suppose. But why bother organizing them? I’m not entirely sure. Personally, I tend to use that mental organization when I'm trying to justify my own emotions. And, well, my emotions tend to be somewhat revolutionary in nature.
I don't think it works quite like that.
Philosophy serves itself, really—because the moment you try to make it serve some other purpose, you start imposing limits on it. It gains a specific goal, and at that point, it stops being philosophy altogether.
I see philosophy as being a bit like friendship. A friendship based purely on utility isn't a true friendship. It only lasts as long as the benefit remains. It has a beginning, and an inevitable end.
Real friendship—the kind that develops because someone is simply who they are, or perhaps despite who they are—exists without any ulterior motive regarding what we might gain from them. That kind of friendship, much like philosophy, does bring certain benefits. But those benefits aren't the purpose or the foundation of the relationship; they are more of an unavoidable byproduct.
The same applies to philosophy. One of the side effects of philosophy is a better alignment of one's thoughts. But that... well, that isn't the actual purpose of philosophy.
Galatea said:revenge requires courage and hatred, while forgiveness demands understanding and love
I suppose we shouldn't go looking for love and understanding, nor should we try to force them upon others. People just aren't really capable of it, I think. If they can't even begin to understand themselves—how could they ever hope to understand someone else? And honestly, most people struggle to accept love, too. Let alone give it. So, why bother searching for it? Why demand it from ourselves or from those around us, when such a thing is essentially asking for the impossible? It just leads to inevitable disappointment, I guess.
Galatea said:revenge leads to destruction, while forgiveness leads to creation
Destruction and creation are, in many ways, two sides of the same coin. They're really just different ways of describing change, I think. Perhaps revenge is its own kind of lesson—if the one delivering it manages to explain it clearly, then maybe that's where the cycle ends. But if they don't, well, the whole thing just repeats itself. The lessons really need to be made clear.
Galatea said:a world ruled by revenge...
...is the very world we find ourselves living in. What do you think actually governs this world? Is it forgiveness?
It’s about seeking justice—not offering forgiveness.
To me, retribution is a sign of strength.
Forgiveness... well, that feels more like a sign of weakness—as if people only forgive because they simply don't have the capacity to settle the score.
So, what’s the conclusion then—we shouldn't expect anything from anyone, which means we won't have to deal with the whole business of forgiving? I also have another somewhat foolish question here.
What does it actually mean, fundamentally, to forgive someone?
And why is there this widespread belief that forgiveness is the only way to purge anger, hatred, and all that—as if revenge wouldn't be just as therapeutic for your soul? In my view, getting even is much easier than forgiving, and perhaps even more effective in its own way. Plus, let's be honest—revenge is significantly more entertaining.
I could go big with my retaliation, or I could keep it subtle. I could settle the score all at once, or I could do it in small increments—maybe ten little doses over time. I could slowly simmer someone over a low flame, dragging out the process indefinitely—or at least until I simply lose interest. I can certainly find a certain satisfaction in righteous indignation. But with forgiveness, the dynamic is entirely different. You forgive them in one single moment, and that’s it. Gone. It's finished. You aren't even supposed to bring it up later during an argument as leverage—because apparently, if you do, it means you haven't truly forgiven them in the first place. Where is the fun in that?
To me seems like a much more viable option than this idea of forgiveness you all seem to be discussing.
At the end of the day, everyone is flawed—it’s just human nature.
Even those closest to us tend to stumble—whether they mean to or not, I suppose.
And if someone crosses a line once, there's a fair chance they'll do it again.
The most effective thing we can actually do—if I'm being honest—is to pursue a cold, calculated kind of retribution. It ensures they’ll think twice next time, because they'll finally understand that their actions carry consequences—pain and hardship they hadn't even considered before.
That’s at least how I handle things. Does anyone here actually have experience with forgiving?
Has any of it actually turned out to be a positive thing? How many times have you truly felt glad that you let something go, versus how many times have you deeply regretted being too lenient? When you forgive someone, do you ever actually manage to trust them again—or is that trust gone for good? And if you did decide to trust them, did they actually prove themselves worthy of it?
Druid said:Regarding the topic itself—I don't really feel like writing much about it because, for me, philosophizing isn't just some casual sort of philosophy.
Prompted by this post, I’ve started doing some thinking of my own. My head was already aching from earlier—I took quite a hard hit yesterday (there was a lot of blood, which ended up mixing with the blood from an older, deep wound on my chest)—so I was actually able to reflect without that constant, nagging anxiety about the inevitable headache that usually clouds my thoughts whenever I try to think clearly.
Here are my rather headache-inducing questions, which will undoubtedly be met with lukewarm interest, witless comments, awkward replies, mutual suspicion, accusations, intrigue, double standards, anger, disbelief, uncertainty, longing, sadness, laughter, and, of course, the watchful eye of the moderators.
Basically—what exactly constitutes "some kind of philosophy," and what does it even mean to philosophize? In other words, are there certain topics that are inherently more philosophical than others? Is philosophy a hierarchical thing—meaning some subjects are "more" philosophical while others are "less"—or can absolutely anything be turned into a philosophical inquiry if you approach it correctly?
What does a true philosophical approach even look like, and what criteria must a subject meet to be considered worthy of philosophical study?
And what was Heraclitus getting at when he suggested that one must dig through vast amounts of earth just to find crumbs of wisdom? Can we perhaps seek wisdom somewhere beyond the earth?
The post is interesting, I suppose, but I can’t say I really agree with it.
It feels a bit like arguing that light drugs inevitably lead to heavy addiction—it just isn't necessarily true.
Sure, there are people who will get hooked. There are those who might neglect their actual lives for a virtual one, but they really are in the minority.
And even if they weren't a minority—if they somehow became the majority—what’s the harm in that? Maybe the human population would shrink just a tiny bit, but honestly, we already have more than enough people on this planet anyway.
In any case, I think parents should just focus on encouraging their kids toward healthy activities. That would probably solve most of the issues. Of course, for some people, there’s just no saving them—they’ll end up glued to a computer regardless of how much their parents encourage outdoor life—but those individuals would likely struggle with something else entirely.
As for the decline in deep communication and things like that, I don't think games or chat rooms are to blame. I mean, anyone who actually wants to can engage in long, deep discussions online—though longer doesn't always mean better, since I know plenty of women who can spend hours debating nothing more than a pair of shoes. People often choose not to because they’re afraid they won't have anything meaningful to contribute. That puts the responsibility on the people who *do* engage in those types of discussions; they shouldn't intimidate newcomers with intense rhetoric, but instead try to foster constructive, substantive dialogue.
Or rather, they should help pull them out of their shells 😬 or maybe just give them the tools to step out of their shells themselves. That’s what those self-proclaimed philanthropists ought to be doing. Luckily, I'm no philanthropist—otherwise, I'd probably be expected to do that too.
Flirting and all that... honestly, that feels like something for women. I mean, I’m pretty old-school—definitely not my style at all. For me, it’s just about getting in the shower and getting it over with. And even then, maybe once a week if I actually find the time.
Anyway, enough about my struggles with meditation.
Let’s get back to intelligence, wisdom, and those people who think they know everything—those self-proclaimed geniuses and everyone else caught in between. It might be helpful to put this idea of "intelligence" into some kind of context. Perhaps we should look at how it relates to other virtues. Specifically, what is the actual relationship between wisdom and being smart? Is a wise person necessarily an intelligent one? Or are wisdom and intelligence essentially the same thing—assuming, of course, that being intelligent means knowing your own limits and actually acting accordingly?
arna said:You were talking about intelligence, not luck.
And regarding the idea that money doesn't necessarily make a person happy—I agree, though I might add that having money certainly helps a person stay happy.
Oh, I know.... but lately, I’ve been feeling pretty confused. It's like I'm at war with my own brain. It just jumps around so much that even I have trouble keeping up sometimes. One minute it's logic, then it's pure emotion—switching from love to hate, from joy to sadness, from a total binge to complete sobriety... I feel like I go through twenty different moods in twenty seconds. So, I've actually isolated myself for a bit, because right now, it feels impossible for anyone to keep up with me.
I think it might be about time I start doing some sort of meditation. But, you know, more like a Christian-style reflection—nothing too "Eastern" or anything. What do you think? Would it actually be smart to start meditating now, and would it really be any better than just trying to survive this constant state of mental chaos?