Doctrine of No Words

Grantywanty said:
No. Stoicism to me is a system of not reacting emotionally, or getting caught up in emotions that comes with those reactions. That part shares something with Buddhism. But desire, which is forward looking/seeking is not a problem for a stoic. If what you desire does not come to you, then the Stoic and the Buddhist are fairly aligned, but the Buddhist goes further as in that quote, but trying to root out desires. I could imagine some Stoics seeing this as cowardly. A true Stoic can keep his or her desires AND STILL keep cool when disappointed or thwarted.

(I find both philosophies demand one be split against yourself, so they are not appealing to me personally, but for slightly different reasons.)
Click to expand...

Granty, for the record that quote I attributed to Buddha was actually by Epictetus, a stoic. So...you might want to rethink your stance a little bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism (see quotes at bottom of page).
 
Last edited:
What you are saying boils down to this: Because some people do not act morally that is proof that there are no moral laws.

Whereas, what I am arguing, is not that all people are moral, but that when people act morally they are following the same absolute moral law (which essentially boils down to the golden rule).
 
What I'm saying is that there are no Absolute or Universal moral rules as soon as one person alive cannot access them. I'm not saying 'as soon as one person chooses not to act morally', but when a person is not able, by the design of thier being, to know those rules, then my claim follows.

They may still exist for every other living person, but they can not longer be truthfully given either of those titles.
 
I don't think we know that.
But anything, which is going to be described as truth, won't, because human perception and expression is limited by the subjectivity of that person.
 
Well, what I was getting at is just because someone is too stupid to realize a truth it doens't prove the truth doesn't exist. The same way if someone is too morally retarded.
 
Must the person be stupid?

It could be said that a defining characteristic of humanity is our lanaguage. Do we call a person unable to speak "stupid"? Can we call language universal when there are people who physically cannot speak?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top