Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 10:13 am, by: Glen Muller(Doom_and_gloom)
Anybody familiar with this text? The Upanishad I am looking at in particular is the Katha Upanishad, and I have been burdened with the task of separating the distinction between pleasure and joy. My philosophy lecturer wants us to use examples from our everyday lives in our answer...
So, assuming someone here knows the text, is the distinction pertinent to earthly selfish desires (pleasure) and the liberation of moksha (joy)?
Monday, August 16, 2010 - 07:39 pm, by: Ben Kelly(Ace)
I know it is a hindu text (correct me if im wrong) but i think its a premise that there is a difference between joy as in ecstasy or a pleasure that might also be considered a conceited(?) satisfaction. I say this because while i am no philosopher I do think that there still exists a culture in the west that anything of eastern value is somehow more inherentely good,intelligent and worthwhile than other types of modern thought. Personally I hate the western fascination with buddhism (as an example) and its forced integration into philosophy and psychology. maybe you agree?. (btw i dont pretend to know what im talking about - im guessing im wrong but i do like playing devils advocate).
Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 07:28 am, by: Matthew Sharpe(Madmatt)
Yes, I'm not a fan of Westernised Eastern Mysticism either Ben - its so fake and explotive. Some of my family members got into Sidha Meditation - what a cash rort that is!
Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 08:21 pm, by: Ben Kelly(Ace)
Matthew thanks for your support - i feel like im often seen as a cynic on this issue: my brother in his former job as a CFMEU official (construction union in aus)found a load of chinese workers recruited to build the nan tien(sp)temple in wollongong south of sydney. The union 'rescued' these guys that were being paid way less than the australian wage, had no work permits, etc. Its a rort. the same temple has so many westerners visiting for some kind of divine insight into their own lives its not funny. The thing is that all religious entities are usually takers and most guys that sit around contemplating their own navels need to be fed so what better than a horde of devotees to support them. I would assume if you want real philosophical insight ask the working man who has read a few books, but not made a career out of doing so?
Friday, August 20, 2010 - 08:30 pm, by: Glen Muller(Doom_and_gloom)
Matthew Sharpe wrote on Friday, August 20, 2010 - 10:03 am:
Yup, I'm with Mel Brooks - professional philosophers and priests are better labeled as bullshit artists. :-)
I beg to differ. It more goes as follows:
"Poets, priests, philosophers and politicians: thank your words for your positions!"
But, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche, if they were still alive today, would tear intellectual strips off Mel Brooks. Kant's Categorical Imperative is the best thing I've ever learned in my life!
Thanks Ben, you helped me out. I've written my answer and hopefully I get a chunky mark!