I am not mad on philosophy. I think it too, like dodgy beliefs is a root cause of the trouble. S you say the ancient philosophers of Greece were mainly aristocrats and many of them, like Aristotle, supported slavery! Also hand in had as usual would denigrate women, and of course then nature. And the 'philo' meaning 'love' was more so love of their own thinking-process which becomes cut-off from the real world. This was so for Plato of course, and so I cannot look at amazingly earth-spiritual animals like birds and cats as 'philosophers'. They are far deeper than that.
Oh, that's one of the reasons I like Epicurus. He was one of the first feminist thinkers.
However, a lot of people get confused about his comments on homosexuality. He expressed concern about how healthy it could be to spend too much time whoring about, whether it's with women or young boys. Well, some people take his comments to mean that he is speaking against homosexuality, and he is not. He just believes that people get to be too sexually focused, and they don't really have a chance to get the benefit of knowing each other as just friends and neighbors. Well, that's one of the reasons I say I'm not governed by Epicurus. I think it's fine for some people to have a more sexually focused life. I just also understand that it's not for everybody.
But yeah, Aristotle was a misogynist, which is probably one of the reasons that medieval thinkers like Thomas Aquinas liked him. You see, Aristotle was actually revived by Aquinas and his Islamic counterpart, Averroes. Unfortunately, this resulted in them ruining scholasticism by introducing into it an ultra-orthodox mindset in which Aristotle and similar thinkers were raised up on pedestals.
The problem with treating a thinker like a prophet, though, is that you end up destroying any chance of any future progress in the same area of thought they were considered to be masters at. For example, let's take what happened to British mathematics during and after the rise of Isaac Newton. Sure, he brought a lot of progress to the mathematics in his own right, but he was treated so much like a prophet that nobody else was paid any attention. Any student who contradicted Newton or tried to look at a problem in a different way was shot down. Meanwhile, in Germany, they just took their Leibniz to be one of many brilliant men in their history, and they kept the ball rolling. The British still haven't really caught back up.
When thinking is self-referential, and becomes identified with itself--as feeling somehow superior-- to the detriment of the whole organism, senses, and its interrelationship with nature in all of its deep mystery, which is objectified as being inferior-- is when it becomes toxic just like mythology can do.
So you are saying that focusing so much on the inner life as to devalue one's whole self ends up being detrimental.
Well, that is something that the Epicureans tried to address. Their theory was that a good inner life must be supported by a healthy body and tranquil surroundings. By avoiding stress and seeking out relationships with others that were not potentially ridden with drama, like sexual partnerships, they hoped to support clearer inner thoughts. They hoped that, by making sure that their needs were satisfied, they could better enable themselves to behave virtuously.
Now, what you seem to object to is the idea that the body is nothing more than a vessel for holding a mind in, right? Treating the body as if it's not really important at all except in how it's important to the mind? If I am interpreting you correctly, I understand that point well.
There are those spiritualists who say that focusing on the body is somehow shallow. They like to beat the drum that the body is inferior. It is dirty, they say. It is the worldly flesh that keeps us from truly experiencing that which is spiritually sublime, they say. The thing is, I have been there. I have tried the approach of ignoring my worldly needs. I have tried the approach of ignoring my need for human companionship. I have experimented with the idea of taking the inner spiritual existence to the extreme, to the point of degrading the worth of my body. I cultivated that robust and sophisticated inner life, and the things that went on in the world around me seemed so unimportant. They seemed so vain and petty. My body seemed like something that I was loosely tethered to.
Well, that's kind of why I can react to the spiritualist with a sense of "been there, done that, got the t-shirt, and I think I still use it to dust my furniture." You might as well spend all your days whacked-out on marijuana. It's not that the drug itself is bad. For some people, it's wonderful. It's quite useful. Staying whacked-out on it all day every day, though, is a thing for looooooooooooooooooo serrrrrrrrrrrrrrrzzz. However, I feel about spirituality kind of how you feel about LSD: sure, it's pathetic to think it's the only thing in the world there is to live for, but it's kind of sad if someone goes through life and never gets to experience it. Like I said, it's like never truly seeing art, in a sublime way, or never getting a synaesthesia experience off of music.
And I'm going to try that LSD stuff one of these days. I just have to get to where I have the time and the opportunity.
But I have also discovered the earth-spiritual experience you refer to. Rather than putting the focus on the self, you let go of the self. You distribute. You flow out. Your senses grow more acute. You are aware of every particle of dust beneath your fingertips. You are aware of distant sounds. You feel the emotions of those around you, and they are sharply defined rather than muted as they would be with the other. Rather than planning your actions, you let the world around you shape what you do. You react. You express.
However, one thing that I have learned about gods and lovers is that it's not the quarreling you ought to worry about, at least not as long as you see that peculiar twinkle in their eye. It's when they don't quarrel that something is really fucked-up in the relationship. Besides that, there is no fool like the fool who puts himself in the middle of a lover's quarrel. If you just let them sort out their own shit, they will be fucking each other before the day is out.
In any event, I regard Epicureanism to be the delightful nerd of philosophical persuasions. He is hung like a fucking mutant hyperphallic horse, and he is a demented maniac in bed. Practically every decent, worthwhile thing that has happened lately, in history, has been a product of Epicurean-style approaches to the world. That includes American democracy and our realization that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than
vice versa. He's not like those other guys, who used to treat you like shit and always fell asleep the instant they had gotten their jolly. He can actually give. Unlike those men who have superficial charm yet have little to show for it, he actually lives up to their romantic chatter without bothering your ears with it. He is also quite the sugar daddy.
On the other hand, as long as you are still feuding and fuming over your old lover, my dear, you have not truly put him in your past, where ill-fated romances belong. If you want to put him behind you, you ought to learn to understand him in a legitimately sympathetic light. Try to understand what happened to him. In your mind, make peace with him. Realize, deep down, that he cannot control you anymore. Until you have made your peace, deep down, he is not really behind you, and you can't move on.
