Beware of Greeks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well first I must say that I admire your principles, not only is it refreshing but inspiring. Thank you.

Quote:Can you not see this attitude present here on this forum and in western civilization in general?

Yes I do. I also agree with your assessment of the occidental traditions have thought the same for a very long time now. It's a curse on mankind not a cure, and the assumption that life needs to be cured is something that sends the massess looking for appeasment.
 
This has been one Hellena handbasket for me- Stuff I never knew. My God, it's full of stars. But I went way back and listened well, and all I heard was a lot of familiar "Ooga" accompanied by much "booga". It's like I'm doing the bad karma boogie woogie as I flick my stinking fag in the Seine, bottle-buffered head whirling lights round your eyes, like fantastic big spirals burning life in black vastness blasting mortals their rays until we're lost into "ah", out into awe, out if it's in, or if nothing at all. I think that's all.
 
Lucysnow said:
Well first I must say that I admire your principles, not only is it refreshing but inspiring. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Very occaisionally I would agre, but then if theres a good chance youll end up like WAnderer, then no thanks.
 
Why must one end up like Wanderer? His principles outlined are admirable because they focus on the personal betterment and advancement of the individual. I admire anything that strenghthens the struggle of the individual. I don't agree with Wanderer in respect to the eastern way being superior to the hellenist, I just see them as different. But so what? He is entitled to his opinion. But the basic message he is expounding on is a worthy one indeed. Don't you agree? And if not I would be interested in why?
 
Except that he is hapy with his personal betterment etc coming at anothers expense. The basic message is a very old one, and useful as well, but you have to take it carefully, and looking at the balance.
 
See, I dont like taking the good bits of a message from people whose overall tone, style and personality i dislike, when there are plenty of people with a similar message who I do. And is it possible to separete the basic message from the totality of his outpourings?
 
Its the message itself that is important not the person. What I see happening in the thread are those who do not like him personally not addressing the thread itself (it's specific points etc) but using it as an opportunity to fight the thread starter. Look at it like this, no where in the thread did it mention China or Africa, yet both were immediately brought up without addressing it to specific points in the essay. When someone didn't agree with something there was no attempt to show why and how in any objective way. If we attack someone personally or enter a thread to show the thread starter an idiot it usually escalates into a mini-brawl. (smiles) casualties, casualties everywhere. I have been in three flame wars since I have joined this online community and decided that I did not want to spend my time that way anymore. Now if I post its because I have something to say about the subject, want to learn something about the subject (gain further insight). Other than that I would rather clean my room or do something else. Engaging with personalities directly is pointless because on this forum there is so little respect. Anyway I think Wanderer has an interesting point of view, of course there are others who share these same points of view and in some areas I am one of them. Basically I think he brings up interesting topics and has something to say about them. I understand that others dislike him, but so what? He doesn't care about what others think of him.
 
Lucysnow said:
Its the message itself that is important not the person. What I see happening in the thread are those who do not like him personally not addressing the thread itself (it's specific points etc) but using it as an opportunity to fight the thread starter. Look at it like this, no where in the thread did it mention China or Africa, yet both were immediately brought up without addressing it to specific points in the essay. When someone didn't agree with something there was no attempt to show why and how in any objective way. If we attack someone personally or enter a thread to show the thread starter an idiot it usually escalates into a mini-brawl. (smiles) casualties, casualties everywhere. I have been in three flame wars since I have joined this online community and decided that I did not want to spend my time that way anymore. Now if I post its because I have something to say about the subject, want to learn something about the subject (gain further insight). Other than that I would rather clean my room or do something else. Engaging with personalities directly is pointless because on this forum there is so little respect. Anyway I think Wanderer has an interesting point of view, of course there are others who share these same points of view and in some areas I am one of them. Basically I think he brings up interesting topics and has something to say about them. I understand that others dislike him, but so what? He doesn't care about what others think of him.
Click to expand...
I wholly agree with you.
Envy is a terrible thing.
It’s like when some of us see someone of our gender who is more attractive than us or more successful than us. We avoid the area where we feel insecure and inferior and bring up some hypothetical triviality to diminish them.
So beautiful women are sometimes accused of being dumb by other women or by men that know they cannot have them and beautiful men as well.
It’s called psychology, a subject that interests me.
I’ve been watching human s all my life. Fascinating species.
Now probably I’ll be attacked using the “So are you strategy”.
My answer is: Isn’t someone who is aware of what is going on more able to escape the premises?
For example: Isn’t a dumb-ass who knows he/she is one more likely to become a non dumb-ass?
Isn’t someone who acknowledges that he/she is out of shape more likely to get into shape?
Isn’t someone who knows there’s a fire in the building more likely to escape first and survive?
Awareness is the first step towards enlightenment, the next one is acceptance then, if and only if you possess the right mental and psychological tools can you go to the third step which is action.
It is unfortunate that only few will make it out of the flaming building.
 
Wanderer:
So beautiful women are sometimes accused of being dumb by other women or by men that know they cannot have them and beautiful men as well.
Click to expand...

And prejudice forms for other reasons. Attractive women are percieved as dumb sometimes for the simple reason that they can get other people to do things for them easier. Acting incompetent or lost (I'm not saying they are actually stupid) means that gullible people will help them in an effort to curry favor, or at least be more forgiving.
(Only applies to women; when men are incompetent, attractive or not, it's because they refuse to ask questions)
And sometimes for the simple reason that they intimidate people who thus - overcompensate - by trying to demean them.

guthrie:
See, I dont like taking the good bits of a message from people whose overall tone, style and personality i dislike, when there are plenty of people with a similar message who I do. And is it possible to separete the basic message from the totality of his outpourings?
Click to expand...

So you don't believe in objectivity?
 
Wanderer:

And prejudice forms for other reasons. Attractive women are percieved as dumb sometimes for the simple reason that they can get other people to do things for them easier. Acting incompetent or lost (I'm not saying they are actually stupid) means that gullible people will help them in an effort to curry favor, or at least be more forgiving.
(Only applies to women; when men are incompetent, attractive or not, it's because they refuse to ask questions)
And sometimes for the simple reason that they intimidate people who thus - overcompensate - by trying to demean them.
Click to expand...
Are you a Hellene?
Helen of Troy perhaps?
 
WANDERER said:
Are you a Hellene?
Helen of Troy perhaps?
Click to expand...
gag, er, I mean how nice.

wanderer: "Hellenism teaches man to stand strong and courageous in front of the mysteries of the universe; Christianity teaches shame and humility."
Click to expand...
Covering the mysteries of the universe with an old towel and saying they aren't there is objectivism, which is absolutely NOT a hellenistic perspective, yes. Christianity asks one to look at the unknowable, as well as the unknown; no real opposition there.
wanderer: "Hellenism teaches man to stand in defiance of fate and in opposition to the unknown; Christianity teaches surrender and ignorance."
Click to expand...
The unknown was just about all the Greeks talked about, since they didn't have the tools to get much farther than mechanical physics. Every time they discussed the human body, the universe, or the earth, they were dealing with things that have become somewhat "known", but were unknown then.
As much as I think we moderns have taken a step back in many ways from the hellenistic ideals, I have to admit that thinking about the unknown is hardly a Greek idea - cave people were painting their renditions of "forces unknown" way, way back in the day.
wanderer: "Hellenism proposes a man as a full and equal participant, beautiful in his nature, proud in his being and creator of his destiny; Christianity proposes a man as a blind puppet to a strange puppeteer, hideous in his denial of his spirit, his body, his nature and a slave to chance and superstition."
Click to expand...
Christianity proposes that humans have choices to make regarding their spiritual existence, while the greeks (I'm sure you've read some plays), were VERY big on the power of the hand of fate; to the point where the underlying core of a person was so subject to the throughline of their lifestory (that was waiting for them, i.e. unavoidably), they were really merely puppets. Then again, christianity also teaches that man is predestined, depends on who you talk to.
Which of these perspectives of christianity is the one influenced by the Greeks?
And which of these perspectives is "greek"? I think you oversimplify here.

Big Point Follows - Aquinas and Augustine were hugely influenced by the Greeks, so all in all, if you have a problem with the christianity that was shaped in many ways by those two people, you can BLAME the Greeks.

Nice try though. You had some other things to say about the Greeks during the thread that actually made sense - *applause*

P.S. Also, Sartre was also a Hellenist, and his rendition (philosophically) seems to be a mastery over oneself, or at least a responsibility for oneself (existentialism), that coincides much better with my interpretation of nietzsche than any other mastery ever could. What is important is to define for mankind, properly, "what is beneath him", as you put it.

P.P.S. While it may be unclear as to the absolute "negroidity" of the forgers of the egyptian legacy, we can be very sure that they were NOT the white phenotype a white-supremacist points to when they say "I'm white, like that". The earth is filled with cultures that developed different technologies at different times, or incorporated other's advancements over time - we don't know what the earth's civilizations would look like if we took out the factors of colonialism, slavery, and exploitation; but the distribution of power would be different, guaranteed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top