What should I say about myself? What should I do to this "stranger" whom has been within me, with me, talking to me, pushing me to this or that direction?
I want above all a reconstruction of my life. Why do I want it I don't know. Reconstruction for what purpose? Isn't it just another tyrannical move of my desire for greater material success?
Should I be bothered about, for example, my own morality? What can philosophers do about their own morality? Analyse it? Or to use analysis as a means to rebel against their deeper miscomfort about their life situations?
- The Pretension of Philosophy: You analyse as if you are above things and shallow feelings, as if you are above tradition, and dominant social views of ethics. You are telling yourself that this feeling sorry itself is only a product of particular historical condition. You try to get away from the uneasiness of your poor performance in social ethics and values. Through philosophy, your own weakness in character has become something else. - There are social explanations, psychological explanations, capitalist ideologies, etc. They can be anything but YOUR OWN PROBLEM.
Philosophical analysis becomes a means to evade responsibility. It enables you to escape from your feeling. - But now, what am I doing? Analysis of philosophical analysis? Am I just getting further and further away from the truth of my personality? - What is philosophy to me? Something worse than Christianity.
How is it worse than Christianity?
回覆刪除Christians tend to have frank sharing among themselves. And they might be less hypocritical - or less schizophrenic - while handling their moral sentiments.
回覆刪除"Christians tend to have frank sharing among themselves. And they might be less hypocritical - or less schizophrenic - while handling their moral sentiments."
回覆刪除- My experiences of interacting with Christians tell me the opposite! Many of the Christians I know (and I know a lot of them) are unreflective, self-deceptive, self-righteous, and hypocritical; some of them even have serious psychological/mental problems.
In any case, your original claim is that philosophy (to you) is worse than Christianity, not that philosophers are worse than Christians.
Don't you think that philosophy tends to distort the image that people have about themselves?
回覆刪除Or, don't you think that philosophy tends to distort people's self-reflection?
- I may agree with what you say about Christianity. I think sometimes the awareness of original sin may unnecessarily debase the person in his/her own self-reflection.
- But I don't know how far this awareness may affect typical Christians. Many of them may just disregard it and go straight to sharing their feelings with other Christians in practice. This may be healthier than what analytic philosophers do with their moral sentiments.
"philosophy tends to distort the image that people have about themselves"
回覆刪除- People's image of themselves may be inaccurate. Anyway, there is good philosophy and there is bad philosophy. Good philosophy can help us understand ourselves better.
"philosophy tends to distort people's self-reflection"
- Not sure what you mean by "distort people's self-refection". Most people are not self-reflective, and philosophy in fact helps people become self-reflective. Anyway, suppose you had accurate self-reflection before you were exposed to philosophy. Now you have studied philosophy, can philosophy "distort" your original self-reflection. Maybe, but there is no reason to believe that philosophy always does that.
"sharing their feelings with other Christians in practice"
- The practice of sharing feelings does not guarantee that the feelings shared are real. Most Christians may not intentionally lie to one another or make things up when they share their feelings, but they may see their feelings through the lens of their religious understanding and distort them.
假如有個基督徒見色起淫念，進而偷拍裙底照，事後罪惡感太大，便決定向弟兄姊妹坦白認罪（其實這絕少會發生）。他會怎說呢？他大多會誇大自己行事前的掙扎，把部分或全部責任歸咎於魔鬼的引誘，強調如何身不由己，再引一句新約的「立志行善由得我，行出來卻由不得我」，然後便高高興興地得到神的寬恕。這其中有多少是真情實感呢？天曉得！
仿犯淫褻罪嘅弟兄嘅祈禱：
回覆刪除神呀！好感謝主耶穌喺十字架上嘅犧牲，為咗成全神嘅旨意，以便我哋可以得救。感謝神饒恕我嘅罪，唔單只係阿當夏娃所犯嘅罪，仲有我昨天被魔鬼引誘所犯嘅罪。我軟弱，所以先至受唔住引誘，但係藉著神嘅恩典同大能，我明白到人係如何嘅軟弱，明白到點解我哋需要主耶穌嘅恩典，明白到神嘅愛係如何嘅偉大。神呀，好感謝你嘅愛同眷顧，令弟兄姊妹明白我嘅痛苦同掙扎，讓我哋可以一同頌讚神嘅榮耀。奉主耶穌嘅名，阿門！
個人認為哲學只是一種教導大家去作認知的一種方法。懂得世界的正和負 / 黑和白，以及所有的真理之後，才可以真正自主地選擇自己真正想做的事。
回覆刪除自由選擇往返是和非 / 正和邪。甚至於自由選擇去認知甚麼，不認知甚麼。
若果已經知道這不是自己想去認知的，可以選擇不作認知。這也可算是哲學的其中一好處。
你若想回應腦裡對哲學的反感，那哲學就是教你不要向反感的地方鑽下去。何不抽身，這便可有時候間鑽些能令你腦裡感到滿足的事情。至於反感與滿足，哲學也就是教你可以作出選擇：滿足腦袋，不要故意為自己製造反感；同時，你也可以不為滿足腦袋，只為自己製造更多反感。
小弟愚見：中庸之道，就可兼顧後前。
It has nothing to do with what you're discussing here, this is about 左翼佛教:
回覆刪除http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1004343
An alternative to Western philosophy and Christianity?