Once again, I see in your work a contribution to integrating (or perhaps pointing out a non-apparent connection that was always there) between east and west. At about 9:00 you refer to "arguments", and this reminds me of syadvada, or the 7-fold Jain "Theory of Maybe" whereby we attempt to analyze appearances. Appearances are often described in Indian thought as shocking or even frightening forms being vomited from the mouth of a monster. The forms keep appearing, and keep *demanding* that we react to them or at least try to make sense of them - inasmuch as that is possible. The "phantasia"of Epictetus seem to correspond to the "forms" flying from the mouth of the monster. And, of course, ultimately the "monster" isn't a monster at all. It simply *is*, as are the forms that it vomits out directly into our path. When I make these comparisons, I often wonder if I'm projecting connections where there are none, but that too may be something of a false equivocation. Thanks again! :-)
+Anekantavad Well, I would say that at times some of the concepts, or the larger structure of one (Western) philosophical approach may be quite similar to that of another (Eastern), but there's significant differences as well -- so, connections of similarity, yes, but not of, say, origin. . . .
Appearances are 4 kinds, Things either are as they appear to be, Or neither are nor appear to be, Or they are but do not appear to be, Or they are not and yet appear to be. Epictetus
Can you make an video about how you annotate stoic books, thank you
I don't annotate, so it would be pretty pointless
If only it were that easy to stop and reflect before taking any action after seeing an appearence. Great material!!!
Yes, it takes discipline, and one doesn't do it with every appearance
Once again, I see in your work a contribution to integrating (or perhaps pointing out a non-apparent connection that was always there) between east and west. At about 9:00 you refer to "arguments", and this reminds me of syadvada, or the 7-fold Jain "Theory of Maybe" whereby we attempt to analyze appearances. Appearances are often described in Indian thought as shocking or even frightening forms being vomited from the mouth of a monster. The forms keep appearing, and keep *demanding* that we react to them or at least try to make sense of them - inasmuch as that is possible. The "phantasia"of Epictetus seem to correspond to the "forms" flying from the mouth of the monster.
And, of course, ultimately the "monster" isn't a monster at all. It simply *is*, as are the forms that it vomits out directly into our path.
When I make these comparisons, I often wonder if I'm projecting connections where there are none, but that too may be something of a false equivocation.
Thanks again!
:-)
+Anekantavad Well, I would say that at times some of the concepts, or the larger structure of one (Western) philosophical approach may be quite similar to that of another (Eastern), but there's significant differences as well -- so, connections of similarity, yes, but not of, say, origin. . . .
Thank you! That translation was always confusing to me
You're welcome!
I think that video is wrongly put into ,,Philosophers in the Midst of History'' channel. Maybe I will write more, when I watch it.
+ZiemniakZKosmosu Playlist, you mean. I'll check it and correct it if need be
Big help!
+Christopher Edwards Glad to read it
Appearances are 4 kinds,
Things either are as they appear to be,
Or neither are nor appear to be,
Or they are but do not appear to be,
Or they are not and yet appear to be.
Epictetus