Drug users are Modernists who despise Classicism

[dopesmoker]

this thread is going to amuse me for quite some time even after Dante is banned.

[Binzhoubum]

Stoicism is flawed for many reasons...if I remember correctly from Epistemology class.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/#Log

Read the logic portion of that link....

Here is some more reading... :smokin:

Flaws in Stoic thought

If all human events and actions are predetermined how are human freedoms and free will to be addressed? Universal causation is the bedrock of Stoic philosophy. If human attitudes and beliefs are within an individual's power or sphere of influence, is this truly congruent with Stoic determinism?
Robert L. Arrington illustrates the human attitude towards sickness as a foible in Stoic thought [14]. Illness can be a misfortune or an " indifference". The Stoics seem to hint that we should see illness as an "indifference" and a misfortune and then choose. If we apply universal causation in this matter there must be a cause for us to view illness one way or another. Arrington's interpretation of this dilemma in Stoic philosophy is illuminating,

"And if the causes that exist prior to our forming the attitude lead us to perceive the illness as misfortune, it is not possible for us to perceive it as a matter of indifference. If, on the contrary, the causes lead us to assume the attitude of indifference, then it becomes impossible for us to see the illness as misfortune. Either one of the sets of courses or the other must exist, from which it follows that it is either impossible for us to feel misfortune or impossible for us to feel indifference. If one of these options is impossible, the attitude we take is necessary in which case we really didn't have any options at all. And without options or choices, there is no thing as freedom or voluntary behavior. And, so it seems, our attitudes and beliefs are not in our power".

This argument regarding whether universal causation and determinism is consistent with a free will has been debated for over 20 centuries. Today there are philosophers on both sides of the issue.

Another flaw is the Stoic approach to evil. Stoics simply tell us it does not exist; events may seem evil, but they are not. Stoics teach that only the human perspective allows the interpretation that evil exists. Religions of the world, many philosophers, and people who have viewed and/or endured suffering cannot agree with the Stoics.

A further distortion in Stoic thought involves the idea that the life of virtue is the only "good" life. What about the "preferred" things that we as humans know make our lives better? What is wrong with "attaining the goals of impulse" [14]? There was a gradual progression in the evolution of later Stoic philosophy to allow the acceptance of the "preferable" things and this erosion of principle led to many attacks on Stoicism from other philosophical quarters.

And, finally, the Stoics felt the universe was rational and in unity. A divine thread ran through the cosmos connecting everything and everybody. Many philosophers cannot accept this concept. However, as we see the progression of this line of reasoning as it regards the study of the "string" theory in physics and the further work and modification of Einstein's views of relativity, we realize that there may be a mathematical basis to existence. The Stoics may be criticized about their "thread" through the cosmos, but when we discuss how time "bends" and describe gravity as "curved space" the critics of Stoicism may be tightrope-walking this same thread.

[dopesmoker]

Why would he be banned?

things are bound to get out of hand...someone insults him and then a flame war will start then things go crazy. It might not happen but things like this have happened in the past. So i suppose one could omit the banned part

[birdgirl73]

Thanks for the compliment Birdgirl! Don't get me wrong...I respect the classics...I just don't have much respect for people who put all of their energy, intellect, faith, etc. into one "-ism". Especially when they start off the day as an asshole.

Plus, sometimes I just like to argue irregardless of my actual personal beliefs.
:thumbsup:

I hear that about arguing, Binzhouboum.
Great line about starting off the day!

[likemclever]

Since we are all clearly too stupid to talk to youâ?¦why bother.

A smart man can talk to other smart men.

A brilliant man focuses on his ideas and conveys them simply.


You are a smart man.

[Breukelen advocaat]

Stoicism is flawed for many reasons...if I remember correctly from Epistemology class.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/#Log

Read the logic portion of that link....

Here is some more reading... :smokin:

He is a Deist, and I pegged him for the things that your Stanford article criticizes the Stoics for*- and I also mentioned Einstein, who is credited with the theory of relativity, as mentioned in Stanford's essay on stoicism and it's incompatability with modern science.

Geez, I'm smarter than I thought. :dance:

*post number 22 on this thread

[BloodAngel]

The roman empire happens to be one of my favorite subjects in history, you ass

[graph]

Your name is funny to me. Has anyone already pointed out that Dante was in favor of modernism?

[Binzhoubum]

Drug users are well known for their hatred of Classicism, some of the worst excesses of the 1960's can be laid directly at their feet. Drug users have an extremist hatred for anything classical...

Where did you come up with this statement or information? Was a study conducted? Was it approved by the appropriate institutions and scholars?

:smokin:

[JerryGarcia]

First of all, how dare you use such a universal stereotype founded on nothing. Second of all, anti-intellectual? Are you kidding me? People use drugs to expand their minds, not close them. Reading The Odyssey stoned is one of the best experiences of my life.

And anyway, who the fuck are you to say classical is any better than modern? I mean you say we're unflinchingly stubborn in these opinions that you've designated for us and uet you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the artistic validity of Morrison or Lennon.