Well after a few days of absence I am back. I took a few to gather some thoughts and I got some motivation from a friend and the HBI Navigator site. I am going to hit you with only one of the topics and save the other for tomorrow. My thoughts aren't quite in order or complete yet. I also added a new video of Eric Pepin talking to a group of students in Colorado. It can be found on YouTube but I thought I would put it here for the easy of finding it.
Immanule Kant
An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"
Konigsberg in Prussia, 30th September, 1784.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!"
You can read the whole essay that the quote is from here:
"What is Enlightenment?"
I found this quote in a blog by an old friend from high school. He is currently in London studying Buddhist Ethics. The whole entry has some good stuff in it even if I don't entirely agree with his interpretation. Enlightenment? First Königsburg
I think I am in agreement with Allen W. Wood's thoughts on the subject to a point. We as humans often learn from our mistakes. It is also said that what we dislike in others is what we dislike in ourselves. I would think that this would be amplified in a person that spend a lot of time reflecting on one's self as most philosophers do. So I would say what is more important? The conclusion that someone comes to or the mistakes or personality flaws that they came from. Now I do agree with Justin when he says, "that a philosopher's life must have something to do with his/her philosophy. After all, how can one tell us the nature of the world having never experienced it, or how to live having led a terrible life?" All expect that last part anyway. Experience is vital. It is what this dimension is all about. One cannot teach what one has no experience with. Now I disagree that experience has to be a positive one. An example of not how to to live your life is every bit and informative and an example of how to live your life. It is just the other side of the coin if you ask me.
Just because a good idea comes from a bad person doesn't make the idea bad. Eric Pepin can be quoted saying, "Don't put me on a pedistal because I am going to fall off. Then I will be mad that you put me there in the first place." This comes from a man who has taken on the burden of teaching mystic knowledge to who every is willing to learn. He knows that no one, including himself, is prefect. Everyone has done things that they are not proud of. I think that is what Alleen W. Wood was trying to point out. If we start judging the man we may fall victum to judging his philosophy under the same light and we may miss the forest for the trees.
Namaste,
Chris
1 comment:
Hia Chris - good points about negative experiences being useful for teaching. My worry though is also about people who continue to do bad things throughout their whole life. Do you want to take ethical advice from someone who seems vicious, like diet advice from someone chronically overweight? Sure either of them might have great ideas, but if at some deep level it isn't working for them, then you may see the same problematic results as well.
Kant, for example, had very poor things to say about women. So if we want to follow some of his advice about living we have to ask if his whole philosophy somehow leads us to think less of women. Or can we separate the good parts from the negative and make sense of the negative. Doing this makes us think more deeply about the philosophy itself and how we could apply it today - which, I think Kant would approve of :)
Post a Comment