Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
What is this?
Less
More

Memberships

Middle Way Mastery

Private • 91 • Free

The Academy

Public • 7 • Free

2 contributions to The Academy
Why Philosophy should be studied
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous" - David Hume. Obviously we have to consider who is saying this - David Hume is easily the most famous atheist. Being an Atheist he took a dull view of religion. There is something to be said for this idea though. Countless wars and bloodshed has been spilt over religious differences - they still are, you can't really think of any philosophy which has caused the suffering. Although one must be careful not to allow a philosophy to become your religion. I'd argue, Marx had a philosophy and this philosophy has become a religion for many. Taking this view, maybe this is the difference between philosophy and religion. Religion is dogmatic and doesn't allow room for real discussion, but a philosophy is simply a set of ideas, which are there to be discussed and exchanged. Each person can adhere to his individual philosophy without corrupting another's. This is me just playing with an idea. What do you guys think?
1
1
New comment Jul 28
1 like • Jul 28
Interesting! My first thought would be that philosophy has the capacity to be just as dangerous as religion, but it simply doesn't have the capacity to gain power in the same way that a religion does. While philosophies can certainly be simplified, they lack a mass appeal socializing aspect. People give up their power and authority to religion because there are more socializing or perhaps "hypnotizing" factors of rituals and rites and community building etc. I think Marx is a good example of where one philosophy did find a way to transition. I guess Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great, but that could hardly be said to be an application of Aristotle's philosophy. Anyway, interesting thing to think about, Charles.
Rhetoric
The fear which is most commonly cited as being peoples worst is public speaking. Is it yours? Here is Aristotles guide to good Rhetoric: He was fundamentally concerned with the art of persuasion. When you are speaking, you are trying to persuade. There are three divisions of this persuasion. Political (future looking), Legal (past looking) and ceremonial (present looking). There are three things you must do: Logos. This is the logical, rational part of the audience. To appeal to this, you must give your audience as much understanding on the topic as you have. Get them up to speed with as much evidence as you have, then they can start to think. Ethos concerns YOUR reputation. It is about who is speaking to them. Are you trustworthy? Are your motives clear? Why should you be listened too? You are selling yourself to the audience. So sell yourself well. Pathos is the story. It is the emotional connection you can forge between the audience and what you're trying to tell them. You must emotionally connect them to the message, to yourself to properly convince them. He goes as far to say anger is the easiest to elicit. These are all things I am trying to do while making these courses!
1
2
New comment Jul 23
0 likes • Jul 23
all of those things are important! The thing that really stuck with me from Aristotle's persuasion is "The incomplete syllogism." I really like that idea because it recognizes that we are all active constructors of our reality. If we want to persuade someone of our reality (belief, viewpoint etc.) we can't just give them all our logic, we need to leave it somewhat incomplete so they are prompted to actively construct the rest of it. Then they are, in fact, persuading themselves from the inside.
1-2 of 2
Byron H
1
4points to level up
@byron-h-3382
I'm an educator, husband, father and writer. I'm interested in spirituality, philosophy, psychology and comedy. My primary practice is contemplation.

Active 111d ago
Joined Jul 20, 2024
INTP
powered by