Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Philosophy: A Way of Life Or Opinion?

MrProfound
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 8:06:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
During my studies on Taoism, I have come to realize that it is highly accurate in terms of balance. Everyone most act in according in order to achieve such balance (i.e. balance of health, balance of emotion, etc). While there may be some controversy on this subject, I myself do believe in universal/spiritual balance but would like to know what you all think.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 2:05:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Better to live an unbalanced life. It leads to greater creativity and innovation because you are always having to devise ways to deal with the messes you've made, like getting to fat and having to become thin again, or becoming sober after years of alcoholism.

You experience greater depths of pleasure and pain, and thus have more experience to draw on - you can relate to other people better who are in different situations than your own. Life is lived more broadly so your vision and mentality aren't confined.

Those who've lived lives deprived of spirituality appreciate the utility of the spiritual path better than those who were forced into it from birth.

Most importantly though, it's better to live in hostility with others. Harmony is incapable of producing the syntheses required by civilisation.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 4:31:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It doesn't need to be "spiritual" per say.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:54:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 2:05:49 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Better to live an unbalanced life. It leads to greater creativity and innovation because you are always having to devise ways to deal with the messes you've made, like getting to fat and having to become thin again, or becoming sober after years of alcoholism.

The messes themselves are bad. Balance the messes with the creativity.

You experience greater depths of pleasure and pain, and thus have more experience to draw on - you can relate to other people better who are in different situations than your own. Life is lived more broadly so your vision and mentality aren't confined.

The above says balance pleasure with pain.

Those who've lived lives deprived of spirituality appreciate the utility of the spiritual path better than those who were forced into it from birth.

That's balancing a lack of spirituality with spirituality.

Most importantly though, it's better to live in hostility with others. Harmony is incapable of producing the syntheses required by civilisation.

That's balancing harmony with hostility.

Balance =/= Neither, it means a bit of both. It is the Hovis philosophy.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 6:06:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 5:54:21 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/1/2013 2:05:49 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Better to live an unbalanced life. It leads to greater creativity and innovation because you are always having to devise ways to deal with the messes you've made, like getting to fat and having to become thin again, or becoming sober after years of alcoholism.

The messes themselves are bad. Balance the messes with the creativity.

You experience greater depths of pleasure and pain, and thus have more experience to draw on - you can relate to other people better who are in different situations than your own. Life is lived more broadly so your vision and mentality aren't confined.

The above says balance pleasure with pain.

Those who've lived lives deprived of spirituality appreciate the utility of the spiritual path better than those who were forced into it from birth.

That's balancing a lack of spirituality with spirituality.

Most importantly though, it's better to live in hostility with others. Harmony is incapable of producing the syntheses required by civilisation.

That's balancing harmony with hostility.


Balance =/= Neither, it means a bit of both. It is the Hovis philosophy.
Well the last one was not really balance but I see what you mean.
Balance usually would imply having both at once though, rather than see sawing from one to the other which appears to be what vbaculum is suggesting.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 3:50:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 8:06:18 AM, MrProfound wrote:
During my studies on Taoism, I have come to realize that it is highly accurate in terms of balance. Everyone most act in according in order to achieve such balance (i.e. balance of health, balance of emotion, etc). While there may be some controversy on this subject, I myself do believe in universal/spiritual balance but would like to know what you all think.

You'll need to be more specific than that, since there are many of us who may not be clear on what 'balance' means in this sense. Personally I veer from one end of the spectrum to the other and it helps keep things interesting and create opportunities. So to me, 'balance' sounds a lot like 'boring'.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 5:25:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Everything in moderation, including moderation."
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Alen97
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:27:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm new here, so, is it really require to 'cross the line' of balance to get experience in return. Like I'm now to get drunk to see what is looks like , tell my friends about it , and I will be better sober after inebriation, then I was sober without drinking ? I think that balance is doing something what you like ( sporting, eating , sleeping etc. ) moderately, in order not to mess up someone else's balance. What is really purpose of any other living creature, but to live their life - their own life the best they can. Balance is key to it. You cannot take something from someone just for your cause, and make you feel better. Then on the other side, the anger was borned, 'Why he can have it, and be happy , and I'm here without that my 'thing' and I'm beaing sad.' That's the problem with people who actually use their brains, but for misfortune of others. You can take , only if you give something in return, and if that person is satisfied as you are. I think that is the core of balanced life.
Please continue with topic, and feel free to comment my statement.