Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

Cypress said:
Righteous anger, properly channeled, is perfectly understandable.

The righteous anger of Ukranians towards the invaders is completely warranted.

Per Aristotle, there is always a sweet spot, a golden mean between the spectrum of justified anger, wrath, and passivity.
Click to expand...
Anger can be positive as a motivator, but can easily cross over into irrationality. Hate is simply chronic anger. Hate blinds people to reason.

Yes, Ukrainians have a right to be angry with the Russian invaders and war criminals, but to maximize their ability to throw out the invaders takes cold-blooded reason.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Anger can be positive as a motivator, but can easily cross over into irrationality. Hate is simply chronic anger. Hate blinds people to reason.

Yes, Ukrainians have a right to be angry with the Russian invaders and war criminals, but to maximize their ability to throw out the invaders takes cold-blooded reason.
Click to expand...

Agree
 
Doc Dutch said:
Anger can be positive as a motivator, but can easily cross over into irrationality. Hate is simply chronic anger. Hate blinds people to reason.

Yes, Ukrainians have a right to be angry with the Russian invaders and war criminals, but to maximize their ability to throw out the invaders takes cold-blooded reason.
Click to expand...
That sentiment could be straight out of Sun Tzu.

Unrestrained and uncontrolled anger is self defeating.

Confucious had good insights on anger and wrath.

Analects of Confucius, Chapter XVI-10:
Confucius said, “There are nine things upon which a gentleman focuses his attention: in regard to using his eyes, he is anxious to see clearly; when listening, he focuses on being discerning; in his countenance, he is anxious to be amiable; in his demeanor, he focuses on being reverent; in his speech, he focuses on being dutiful; in his actions, he focuses on being respectful; when in doubt, he focuses on asking questions; when angry, he focuses on thinking about the the difficulties he may cause others ; and when he sees gain to be had, he focuses upon righteousness
Click to expand...
 
Telocollinite said:
And one can master how they respond to their anger by accepting apologies. Or one can stew in their hatred and call it a virtue.

One can cite Jesus as a moral teacher while urinating on his message simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Cypress looks at Jesus as a prophet at best,rejects he is YHWH incarnated in the flesh ,the Son of God.
And he rejects the Holy Spirit and anyone with the Holy Spirit ,he labels as insane.
 
Margot said:
Cypress looks at Jesus as a prophet at best,rejects he is YHWH incarnated in the flesh ,the Son of God.
And he rejects the Holy Spirit and anyone with the Holy Spirit ,he labels as insane.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm an atheist so I don't have a lot of complaint about that. But Cypress did mention Christ as a "moral teacher" along with many others he has read and sounds like he respects. But given that a significant portion of Christ's message was of forgiveness (or at least not maintaining a grudge) I would think he would be more familiar with that aspect.
 
Telocollinite said:
Well, I'm an atheist so I don't have a lot of complaint about that. But Cypress did mention Christ as a "moral teacher" along with many others he has read and sounds like he respects. But given that a significant portion of Christ's message was of forgiveness (or at least not maintaining a grudge) I would think he would be more familiar with that aspect.
Click to expand...

Jesus was either
I. Liar
2. Lunatic
3.LORD

Thomas Aquinas
 
Cypress said:
That sentiment could be straight out of Sun Tzu.

Unrestrained and uncontrolled anger is self defeating.

Confucious had good insights on anger and wrath.
Click to expand...

The Art of War is an excellent book and can be applied to any human conflict or competition.

Good insight from Confucious.
 
Margot said:
Jesus was either
I. Liar
2. Lunatic
3.LORD

Thomas Aquinas
Click to expand...

That was C.S. Lewis....and he didn't even come up with the idea.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...lewiss-liar-lord-or-lunatic-argument-unsound/
C. S. Lewis popularized the argument that Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic or the Lord. But, as Kyle Barton has shown, he didn’t invent it.

In the mid-nineteenth century the Scottish Christian preacher “Rabbi” John Duncan (1796-1870) formulated what he called a “trilemma.” In Colloquia Peripatetica (p. 109) we see Duncan’s argument from 1859-1860, with my numbering added:

Christ either [1] deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or [2] He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or [3] He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top