Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whitsun and rainy days (03/06/01 19:56:11)
as you might suspect i have given this some consideration, i.e., regarding certain "necessities" - employment _perhaps_ numbering among them. i tend to think that working is only unpleasant when it is not connected to a sense of duty, i.e., under country or god. leisure on the other hand is perhaps best
suited to those who do not need money (sounds strange doesn't it). since even the gentleman of leisure - unless decadent - are occupied with certain duties which require the admittance of wealth; one can only grasp this if one understand's the difference between the gentleman and philosopher as such.
and certainly, no one likes to admit that they are motivated primarily by money and power. Its true! many people are like this: they are unwilling to just say they take part in an art for the sake of the money or for the power (or if they do, they rarely really mean it secretly). Take lawyers, for example: They all
admit that the law all boils down to who ever has the best lawyer and is the best deceiver (i.e., whoever wins had the advantage of the stronger), whose consequence leaves no dignity for their art since all is reduced to chance of being the one who had the advantage. Yet, those who partake in lawyering rarely want to say this applies to them; they assert that they somehow partake in justice or "help the poor,"etc. They never want to see themselves as a part of an order consisting of only power and will. And this is like, eh, the problem, because they instinctively have a respect for their minds (which does not seem to be a source of power or reducible to just body or material), however
uncultivated or subject to self-reflection. I think this confirms a respect for the mind - but the problem is that most prefer in the face of this problem to go the route of convention; prostituting themselves on the basis of what is essentially arbritrary. iow, acquiring great wealth depends on chance - ALL such advantages depend on chance. Most are only able to quit their dignity for the sake of chance - they cannot properly account for the mind in terms of the conventional order of power and money. the problem is in part thus: Does one take the route of convention and say that all things boil down to power or money or does one break with convention altogether and attempt, then, to ground the mind or what is noble in nature? (assuming, of course, there
is a ground for man's mind -- that is, it's activity is supported in nature
rather than a vain activity)???
anyway i should try and make a point: a few hours alone is not leisure I'm afraid. if you must work you have not leisure. the question of the dignity of the mind (rather than the "self") is no longer relevant inasmuch as the cultivation of the mind requires great rigor. an activity which cannot go depending on rain or sun - since rain or sun are also matters of chance... it simply means that your hapiness is not grounded... should it depend on such viccitudes.
|back to main board||expand thread|
|This board has been visited 34417 times||Current time is 25/03/19 09:34:18|