- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Here is some good advice to live by…I saw this and it describes where I’ve come to rest in my own belief system. Open the file below to read it.
That sounds exactly where I’ve landed as well. Thanks for sharing that. Just curious, do you know for sure if the source of the quote is accurate. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Great quote – and, yes, the source is accurate. This falls into the orthoprax school of thought, does it not Ray? Also, what do you think he means by the term “being devout”? I would venture he means the habits of a religion that aren’t directly connected to living a good life. I would consider these certain rituals, cultural norms, or habits that are peculiar to a particular religion to show loyalty, without necessarily inspiring virtue or right living directly. Comments?
The world of Rome was full of gods. There were minor gods of the pantry to keep your food from premature spoilage. Showing devotion to the Roman god of war often meant doing things that would today be seen as atrocities or war crimes.
The concept of a benign God who would have us “do unto others as unto yourself” was hardly known.
Being devout had almost nothing to do with being virtuous. In many cases the two could be seen to be in conflict.
Roy wrote:The world of Rome was full of gods. There were minor gods of the pantry to keep your food from premature spoilage.
Showing devotion to the Roman god of war often meant doing things that would today be seen as atrocities or war crimes.
The concept of a benign God who would have us “do unto others as unto yourself” was hardly known.
Being devout had almost nothing to do with being virtuous. In many cases the two could be seen to be in conflict.
Your analysis may be correct but I still think the quote has relevance for our current sensibilities.The key to this quotation, in my opinion, is the meaning of the word “devout”. Free dictionary definition: Devoted to religion or to the fulfillment of religious obligations.
I think that quote in the OP applies to Mormonism. There is a lot we are expected to do that would be considered “tending to religious obligations” or even devotion, and which have only a remote connection to virtue or character-building. Such as full obedience to local leaders, always accepting callings, never asking to be released, even storing a year’s supply of food. I think paying tithing, with the requirement that it goes entirely to the LDS church is a form of devotion that is not fully connected to character building either.
I’m sure others could add to the list of items that are considered devotion.
It is long been many philosophers that held that a god(s) are not worthy of being worshiped by merely being a god. or declaring themselves righteous and needing complete devotion(obedience). to demonstrate loyalty to that god(s) irregardless of what they ask. At the heart it is doing right regardless of what your god(s) ask. That you can see if it is doing right of your own free will and have the capacity to see right from wrong without the god(s) saying so by virtue of the fruit it causes.
That any number of god(s) will decry obedience and prove your loyalty asking to do any number of things from righteous to any number of things that do nothing prove your loyalty and number if things which harm yourself or others but are called good because that god(s) declares it good and necessary.
At the heart I think it declaring that the act of creating something doesn’t by rights give dominion over it. Creation doesn’t give rights to obligation. As seen from a long time as parents having dominion over the children by act of creation.
Has been a long time theme of philosophy by debating both accounts of what does the act of creation give rights to, the creator or the creation or both. Those they take(took) the creator give rights to subjugation of the child to parents, man(women) to god, cultivated earth and Animals to the owners(creators).
Anyways, it’s a philosophy that because a gods a god and has power are self declared righteousness doesn’t mean everything is righteous or owed to that god(s). In old term for do what is right and let the consequence follow.
Living without moral regret your life in this earth by doing what bears fruit to be right rather then arbitrary commends of a god.
There are to many things to list in all fundamental religions and cultures to list. We are no exception. Outward obedience being a larger whole of many smaller rules and commands. Ignoring empirical evidence on something that’s proven harmful to show obedience nevertheless is it’s application today in our culture I think. Live that you do not regret your decision no matter what the future holds(the senecio unfolds in any case he quoted).
I have been listening to a podcast about philosophy lately (“Philisophize This,” highly recommended) and it so happened that a recent episode talked a lot about Marcus Aurelius. He was a Stoic. Stoics believed that the universe was God, and God was the universe. They believed that virtue consisted of living a life of reason in harmony with nature (meaning reality). See how that changes the meaning of the quote. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you are looking at it from a stoic point if view then the quote is contradictory, especially the end sense stoics were religious fanatics with god(s) veneration and ritual. If you look at it from a western philosophy point if view, it’s quite common and means different things to different philosophers. If you look at it from a late generational time point of view, it doesn’t matter who said, weather it was said that way or what it means from the source point of view. It just matters that it’s a good quote and something that gives a personal point of view and personal meaning in that persons life.
The actual quote and the actual picture or not quite authentic.
The closest quote in the various books that relates to that attributed to him is
Quote:Undertake each action as one aware he may next moment depart out of life. To depart from men, if there be really Gods, can have nothing terrible in it. The Gods will involve you in no evil. If there are no Gods, or, if they have no regard to human affairs, why should I desire to live in a world without Gods, and without providence? But Gods there are, undoubtedly, and they regard human affairs; and have put it wholly in our power, that we should not fall into what is * truly evil.
The actual picture of him on that picture is Caracalla. Caracallas’ name was changed at age 7 to Marcus Aurelius Septimius Bassianus Antoninus to create a connection to the family of the late emperor. So technically, it is a picture of Marcus Aurelius. Just the wrong Marcus Aurelius.
It doesn’t really matter who said it or was accredited with it. It’s a great way of looking at life. That’s my point of view with this.
Forgotten_Charity wrote:If you are looking at it from a stoic point if view then the quote is contradictory, especially the end sense stoics were religious fanatics with god(s) veneration and ritual.
If you look at it from a western philosophy point if view, it’s quite common and means different things to different philosophers. If you look at it from a late generational time point of view, it doesn’t matter who said, weather it was said that way or what it means from the source point of view. It just matters that it’s a good quote and something that gives a personal point of view and personal meaning in that persons life.
The actual quote and the actual picture or not quite authentic.
The closest quote in the various books that relates to that attributed to him is
Quote:Undertake each action as one aware he may next moment depart out of life. To depart from men, if there be really Gods, can have nothing terrible in it. The Gods will involve you in no evil. If there are no Gods, or, if they have no regard to human affairs, why should I desire to live in a world without Gods, and without providence? But Gods there are, undoubtedly, and they regard human affairs; and have put it wholly in our power, that we should not fall into what is * truly evil.
The actual picture of him on that picture is Caracalla. Caracallas’ name was changed at age 7 to Marcus Aurelius Septimius Bassianus Antoninus to create a connection to the family of the late emperor. So technically, it is a picture of Marcus Aurelius. Just the wrong Marcus Aurelius.
It doesn’t really matter who said it or was accredited with it. It’s a great way of looking at life. That’s my point of view with this.
Pure Awsomeness. I love this forum
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.