|
|
|
veteran
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
|
Hello, everyone. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Please consider this one here as a kind of a "personal study". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> I was just answering a questin in the German area about "what spiritual damage actually is". I had great difficulties explaining and expressing my own opinion on that, but came to the point where I thought it would be highly interesting to get to know that from you, from the view of your cultural background. The question is, how do you actually define "spirit" in your own culture ?And from that point of view you have your on explanation of the term "spiritul damage", because your cultural background defines the "spirit" in its own way. The emphasis lies on your own cultural background. Please consider this ! So, please try to answer my question : From the viewpoint of your cultural background, how do you define "spiritual damage ?. I'm highly interested in your answers. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Alrik.
When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon
"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2005
|
Every creature makes some sort of sound. The sounds that creatures utter are primal and express their feelings. Animals can communicate in this way even though their sounds are not actual conversation.
Humans speak using languages. Language is nothing more than a series of connected sounds that form words. It is necessary to form words because words are a name given to a thing. And, nothing can exist without having a name - this is a law. (Something to remember when you are trying to save a document on your computer without giving it a name!)
Thoughts are of the Spirit and have a form. Their form is pictorial. The language of the Spirit is therefore a picture language. This is why the ancients used a written form that used pictures. The ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs are likely the best known example of this.
As humanity declined Spiritually they lost the ability to read these purely pictorial scripts and began using a phonetic alphabet. Each letter representing a distinct sound. This did not change anything as far as the principles that govern how the spirit itself functions. Therefore the words we use to express our thoughts are a representation in sound of the pictures we see within us.
The pictures we have in our thoughts are themselves creations and so are the corresponding words we use to describe them. If we exchange these created words person to person they recreate a similar picture in the minds of others. This indicates that in the sound of the words there is contained a resonating power capable of recreating the same pictures we had in our mind in another person and thereby we communicate. In spite of our best diction the words are still a very poor approximation of our actual thoughts.
If this is possible casually, then it is also possible that with diligence and intent of producing a much greater effect. Everyone has observed and practiced the ability in human communication to convey feelings that are constructive, destructive or even descriptive. For example, some words are soothing, others, are uplifting, others are humbling, some warm us, others cool us. Some words can actually hurt, some words heal. If there were no inherent power in the sounds of words they would have no effect.
Taking this further, if a word can recreate a picture in someone else's being then it stands to reason that with belief and proper force a word can project that same picture that it represents out in the open, thus recreating it visibly outside of our mind into creation. After all, if in today's world we can artificially create unconscious virtual realties electronically using unconscious and very lifeless machinery, we as human beings made in the image of the Creator who are able to procreate living beings in our own likeness than we must also be capable of creating. We already do this everyday unconsciously in our work and when we speak.
But, let us remember why a physical body exists in the first place. The substance of the Spirit is incompatible with the substance of the physical body. This necessitated the creation of a harbinger between the two. The soul is the harbinger between Spirit and physical body.
The physical body we can readily see and when we wish to speak through it, it utters our desired sounds. Clearly the impetus to utter a sound is not from within the physical body itself. This impetus must come from a higher but still "controlled by our will" source. That source is the Sprit but, in the school that is our life on Earth, the physical matter that makes up the physical body is made up of is impure when compared to the Spirit and it is only a means that we may use to experience life in the physical dimension while purifying its substance. The intermediary body by necessity that is tied to the Spirit and to the physical body is necessary to protect the Spirit and Physical body from each other while permitting the "higher" to work with the lower. Our physical speech without the force of the Spirit and Soul is very dead and cannot influence with much power.
From a less powerful perspective, if you look around you everything that surrounds you in your home or place of work was at one time a mere thought in someone's mind, yet there it is tangible before you in three dimensions. This object was a picture in someone's mind before it became reality through physical manufacturing.
Having the maturity and control we could through the use of consciously uttered sounds create words that actually manifest into reality. The reason why the average person cannot do this is for the protection of the rest of creation. The average person's thoughts are not disciplined, pure or necessarily "good." If their utterances were to manifest they would, for obvious reasons, be the greatest of curses.
Franz Bardon
These words, although not mine or my cultures per say, are my beliefs and they comprise a small tiny portion of my belief system on this topic. I would write more, but I believe this is enough meat to chew on for the time being. From this information I am sure you can infer the answers you seek from it. Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Oloth zhah tuth abbil lueth ogglin
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2003
|
Considering the culture(people way of think, without studies and without follow religion or some concepts) here we would believe at unnatural things(above the material plane) - like myths, legends, and other things like this - supersticions - but analysing what i know about this theme - what isn`t much - if i see all the context - i would say that is something what can "hit" or affect in some way your soul, hurt your spirit - the spirit is ethereal, your constitution is the same what ours bodies are made, but is a different build, cause of this you can`t see the spirit - only that people what have an organic disposition to do it - this is about the universal energy and is from what all things are formed.
spirit (would be like a corpse from a different material plane and constitution - but coming from the same universal energy)
The spiritual damage can be defined of different meanings - what your spirit do when you sleep have consequences in your material body, and what you do here when you are up have consequences in your spirit and your spiritual energy - even more when it comes to feelings.
Who's gonna show you how to fly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Nov 2003
|
Hmm to me it sort of works like this; Spirit = Soul Soul = Inner self Inner self = Confidence Confidence = not much Thus spiritual damage would hurt me a lot as I don't have much of it ....... which is prolly 1 reason I tend to be either very diplomatic or right overboard, since I can't find the balance in my life, which then explains why I am still single after too many hurts in my life, and tend to be fairly reserved (think Brick wall) as I do not want to loose the little bit of spirit that I have left. Phew this introspective stuff is hard <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />
Mea Culpa's Demesne
Note; artwork for Avatar courtesy of NWN and CEP
Old Elven Saying:
"Never say Never if you're gonna live forever!!!"
"I didn't do it, it wasn't my fault"
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2003
|
Mea, only a man of great confidence can be so daring in introspection. & u are. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
my belief on spirit is according to christianity. but not to the man-added dogma. so spiritual damage is something that is very dire, even more than physical as it adversely affects the physiology as well.
![[Linked Image from i3.photobucket.com]](https://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/tingtongtiaw/jang_sig.png) ......a gift from LaFille......
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
|
Hmm to me it sort of works like this; Spirit = Soul Soul = Inner self Inner self = Confidence Confidence = not much Thus spiritual damage would hurt me a lot as I don't have much of it ....... which is prolly 1 reason I tend to be either very diplomatic or right overboard, since I can't find the balance in my life, which then explains why I am still single after too many hurts in my life, and tend to be fairly reserved (think Brick wall) as I do not want to loose the little bit of spirit that I have left. Phew this introspective stuff is hard <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" /> Reminds my of my own self. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon
"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2005
|
Here’s a simple view of Spiritual Damage vs. Damage of the Flesh.
Two people gravely wounded “equally” in the throws of war:
One has made up their mind and says to themselves I’m going to die.
(This one does die)
The other fights inwardly and says to themselves I will NOT die.
(This one does not die)
The first individual was not only physically damaged, but was Spiritually Damaged too.
The second individual was only physically damaged, their Spirit was not.
I realize I have way oversimplified this example, but sometimes the simple things say and show more than those things difficult.
Tsel
Oloth zhah tuth abbil lueth ogglin
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2005
|
AlrikFassbauer > I have a question. Why have you asked this and in other threads similar questions? Are you seeking wisdom or are you simply looking for someone to say something that fits into a decision you have already made. I am not attacking here; let’s say I’m getting to the heart of the matter. In this topic it can touch onto peoples spiritual / religious beliefs. All too often I run into people trying to convert someone to their way of thinking. And all too often people will not read or dismiss wisdom found in particular books simply because they do not believe in that way of thinking. But that way of thinking is a bit short sighted wouldn’t you agree? For example, I am not a follower of Hindu, Wicca, Catholic, Baptist, Buddhist, and so on etc… faiths, but I have read much on these beliefs and have adapted tiny fragments of some of those beliefs into my life. Why, because there is much wisdom between those topic pages. Many people have commented that the wise sayings of Confucius are great and they have adapted some of those sayings into their lives. So why do people toss aside the bible saying, “Oh, I don’t believe in G_D.” Isn’t the wise sayings of Solomon found in the book of Proverbs, just as wise as Confucius. Just because you study and read something does not mean you are of a particular belief. You can apply particular fragments of many beliefs to your own life. Life is similar to climbing a tree and its branches. You start at the trunk and you work your way upward. The branches represent the decisions in life you must make. Yes, some decisions are better than others, but there is no particular way to travel. You have been given the gift of FREE WILL. It is always up to you to choose which branch to climb next and every single branch leads to the same place; the end of the branch. Like the old saying goes, ‘The journey itself is what makes life what it is’, not the end of the journey. If you seek wisdom and knowledge do not purposefully put blinders on your eyes. Take Care and Peace be with you. Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Oloth zhah tuth abbil lueth ogglin
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
|
My intentions were not religious at all, but rather getting to know how it is looked upon from different points of view. I have my own point of view, but it's not easy to explain this - even more in English, my second language. To me, "spiritual damage" is something that hurts the "inner sactum" of the soul - rather indirectly, but nevertheless effective. So I would like to see it portrayed in a game. Or to put it another way : If a game developing studio represents a thing in a specific manner that is influenced by their culture - will peple (here : gamers) from different cultures recognize it as well ? Or even worse : Will they believe that everything is nonsense, senseless stuff, made by nincompoops ? What I ask my self is : Why does a game developing studio influence things like "spiritual damage" ? Does it actually have any impact or is it just like putting some spices into a cooking bowl, no matter whether the cooks belive in the spicy taste if the spice or not ? I wonder whether this makes sense at all ... Today I've written down a story I have tossed around in my head for about half a year. It's about the redemption of a spirit - or a ghost, other people would call it. And it is written down from a very different point of view - from the point of view of the spirit itself. I tried not to follow any clichés - although it is quite possible that I did it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> - but I rather wanted to write it down how it might look like from a different angle - the more different the less the position of the angle is known. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> I'm exploring the world the way I do ... and I'm developing my own beliefs. I think you can get aglimpse of thast if you read my stories I've posted here so far. Alrik. Edit : By the way : I even differ between "psychological damage" and "spiritual damage" ... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
Last edited by AlrikFassbauer; 27/01/05 09:23 PM.
When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon
"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2003
|
great words, Tsel. wisdom can be found anywhere, u're right. the only thing is whether we see it when we are looking at it.
[color:"pink"] In this topic it can touch onto peoples spiritual / religious beliefs.
All too often I run into people trying to convert someone to their way of thinking.
And all too often people will not read or dismiss wisdom found in particular books simply because they do not believe in that way of thinking. [/color] Tsel
i hope i'm not one of them. if i am, please let me know. most of the time i will explain but not to change people. the only time when i seem to do so is when i want that person to think on his/her own capacity & how i normally do it is by challenge. of course, i don't demean nor humiliate.
Tsel, people who are as how u described them above (in pink) are normally those who accept things without thinking & defending values that they don't really understand. all u get is textbook answers with no real conviction behind. sadly many young people i know are like that. for example; they always go to church but it's only because it's what they always do (family traditions, meeting friends) & not there consciously to pray.
discussion as these are good because not only it helps create awareness among us of different views in various religions & beliefs, it also helps those to be more aware of their own beliefs.
......a gift from LaFille......
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
|
Well, imho to include a thing like "spiritual damage" in a game is imho insofar a leap forwards in the sense that it seems to acknoledge the presence of a spirit at all. I know a lot of people who favour a mechanistic, logic-driven view of the world, a view that is heavily supported by science. A human, a plant, an animal is simply an automaton driven by the programming of its DNA or RNA. Spirits, religiousity has there very little to no space to exist within this view of the world. Here in Germany I'm quite concerned by the fact that people leave the christian church alone and tend to become atheists or so. Also, there is - on the other hand - a part (how big or small it is I cannot say) which tends to transfer themselves into other religions than the christian one. I see two things causing this : - The Christian Religion currently not representing here what people believe in (no matter how weird this might sound) - the spreading of a mechanistic point of view like what's described above. In a way, Science has become a new belief-system ( I wouldn't dare to call it an "Religion"). It believes in that everything you can believe in is measurable (is that a word ?) and can be reproduced within a scientific environment. What can be measured and reproduced any time is true. The problem with this is that things that cannot be measured cannot believed in, from this point of view. And that descriprion fits very well with everything spiritual. As I pointed out in a recent, very interesting discussion with Buad in the German RPG Chat, it might well be that our measure systems are not good enough for certain things - so that we simply cannot measure them. Which - as a result - leads into the proposition that if we cannot measure things this does not automatically mean that they are not real. A good example for that is imho one of our youngest sciences : Psychology. Things there are so complex aand often so subtle, tht they simply cannot be measured according to "normal" scientific stabndsrds known from e.g. Chemistry, Geology, Physiscs and some others. The older the science, the better the methods are in it. Psychology is so complex that it still bears heavy signs of the Science it once came from : Philosophy. Yes, Philosophy was - according to what we know from the ancient times - the first science there is, because everything derived from there (although I've read that Tracking is another, yet earlier Science in its own right, but has been neglected, because no-one needs it nowadays. I early times , eralier than the Ancient Times, it was essential for survival.) What we have here in fact is a hiatus between the Science id the Spirituality. At least here in Europe, maybe in the USA as well, I don't know. With this discussion I was particularly (is that a word ?) interested in cultures which might or might not be represented by forum-members here, where this hiatus still doesn't exist. I've heard fragments of asian belief-systems and those of south-america, and in some cases of north-american natives. I fact, Natives no matter where they live don't have such a complicated field of Science like we Europeans have, and therefore I don't think they have such a big hiatus. The Second Principle of Huna is : "There are no limits". Resulting from that, "everything is connected". This is imho a rather non-cientific point of view. Science, therefore leads to the opposite of that : "Everything is divided." Which I tried to show with that hiatus mentioned above. Science divides the human from its spiritual part, simply by negating its existence, because it cannot be measured and reproduced under scientific circumstances as a proof of its existence. From my point of view, people sense this division, but only subconsciously, and therefore are not able to do anything against it. If they even notice it at all. Religion (and Spirituality) has been there as long as the human being exists, and I don't think that this is something someone can tell me about "you don't need it", because I believe that things that are deeply ancient are also things the human simply needs, in one way or another. So, now I've run out of text (so to say <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> ) , I conclude my speech for now. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> Alrik.
When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon
"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2005
|
janggut > No you are not one of those people and all is cool. What I was doing through subtly was drawing attention to the fact that all too often we make excuses for not learning things to expand our spiritual knowledge. I’ll use a Christian and Jewish situation. Basically in a nut shell the Jewish faith, except faiths like Jews for Jesus and others similar, do not believe Jesus is the Messiah. Also, in a nut shell the Christian faiths teach that only through Jesus will you be saved. But what both fail to see is this. The Christian faiths fail to see that the Jewish faith has a Direct Covenant between G_D and Abraham. G_D Promises his covenants HE will never break. What the Jewish faith fails to see is G_D sent Jesus for the goyim (meaning someone who is not Jewish) that through Jesus they are Grafted into the covenant that G_D gave to Abraham. When Jesus read in the Temple a portion of Isaiah about the Messiah, he said he “Filled” a portion of those words. He did not say he “Fulfilled”. In saying “Filled” only that implies there are still parts that needed to be “Filled” before it was “Fulfilled” completely. Jesus’ part was to “Fill” the portion allotted to the goyim. G_D will “Fulfill” the rest and bring His covenant HE made with Abraham to completion. In this completion the Jewish people and Christian people will be shepherded in together. FINAL NOTE: I am talking about Jewish and Christian faiths only here. I realize there are other faiths, but I only touched upon these two this time. Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Oloth zhah tuth abbil lueth ogglin
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2004
|
sorrry Tsel, i absolutly disagree here.
Jesus was speaking to the Jews not to the goyim.
It is only 20 or 30 years after his death that some of his disciples were interested by trying to "save" Gentles. Well and in the beginning it was not without opposition in the first christian "church" (see polemics between James and Saül/Paul, and James and Shimon/Peter, or even between Paul and Peter).
If you have a close look to the 4 traditionnal evangelists for christian faiths
Matthew is a traditional Jew not to open to the Gentles.
John is an esoteric, not to open to Gentles either. And it's about same time that the writing of the major parts of the Talmud... not really an hazard i think.
Luke... well was a Greek so a Gentle. Also Paul's disciples and probably one of the inventors of this idea of "universal salute", but his evangile was one of the later,err no but he was one of those who didn't know Jesus.
Mark...? very little to say about him in this aspect.
But Jesus himshelf was speaking to Jews and to Jews only.
My point is that this distinction between christian faith as "universal" and jewish faith as "nation-based" "elitist" is a posteriori and is born some years, decades after the facts (well for what we can know about the facts, 2000 years later, very little)... Anyway in Ist Century BC- Ist Century AC Jewish (until the destruction of the Temple 70 AC.) Jewish Nation had a tendancy to universal (don't forget proselits... as I'm near sure you know what the word means).
ok maybe i'm just pointing out the danger of a nut shell.
Last edited by MASTER_GUROTH; 28/01/05 02:19 PM.
MG!!! The most infamous member these forums have ever got!
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2005
|
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I was waiting for that MASTER_GUROTH. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> And you are right about the nutshell comment. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> You are totally right, but we could go on, and on, and on, and on, on this topic, but I skipped a lot and jumped ahead so people, mainly Christian beliefs, would stop and think for a moment. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> More of my subtle way of getting people thinking. I hope I made sense. Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Oloth zhah tuth abbil lueth ogglin
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2004
|
@alrik Yes, Philosophy was - according to what we know from the ancient times - the first science there is, because everything derived from there untrue. First science are mathematics and antic physics. Philosophia Regina is an ontological view, not a chronological one. Even Plato was using mathematics to define the idea of science then afterwards he said than philosophy was closer to this idea than mathematics. But it is in a very particular order of things. Before Plato anyways history of philosophy is confused with history of esoteric mathematics (see pythagoricians) or esoteric physics (see Anaxamandros, Heraclit etc...) @ Tsel got me once again... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
MG!!! The most infamous member these forums have ever got!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2004
|
I'm not christian (because I'm not raised that way), and I believe in sience (sort of the way Alrik explained, it's not a religion, I simply just believe in it). But I allso believe that we all have a mind, and it works different for all of us, with different valuations, ethics etc. I don't know if we have such a thing as a soul (and my main beliefe in the spiritualldmg thing is something like "OK, we have firedmg, lightningdmg, poisondmg, we need something more... Well we're ito the divinething, so let's add spirituall dmg"). What we can call a soul is our mind, with the valuatons, ethics etc.
We discussed religion in school today... OK, I just listened and left the discussing to others, but anyway, we discussed if there is a god. We got to discussing the source, why believe there is a god? There isn't really anything saying there IS a god, so why does so many pepole believe there is?
Übereil
Brain: an apparatus with which we think we think.
Ambrose Bierce
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2004
|
why believe there is a god? There isn't really anything saying there IS a god, so why does so many pepole believe there is? some people that were "believer" in science have met God in science... here click on Mandelbrot'set (middle of the page) err... i'm not expecting you understand all üb (and that's not an insult believe me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />) but you may have a look... Well it depends on what you are calling God though. hmm... I agree and i disagree with what said Alrik about the hiatus between science and religion. It is a true in the "popular" view. Not in the scientific view i think. Why? mainly because there are many things that science doesn't pretend explaining... (ok pretend is probably not the right word there but i don't find better). more official link here
Last edited by MASTER_GUROTH; 28/01/05 03:18 PM.
MG!!! The most infamous member these forums have ever got!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2004
|
Scientist always (have to) concede, that there are phenomena that science cannot explain - yet. Scientifically there is no way (not yet?) to prove that there is an almighty being. There is also no way of proving that there is none - scientifically its an open issue. Philosophies fill a gap - because there is a human need to understand, and a distinct discomfort about something "unexplained". Eventually they will be proven or disproven - and in the meantime, argued! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
In times of crisis it is of the utmost importance not to lose your head (Marie Antoinette) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jan 2005
|
Interesting question. You have already answered it using beliefs and moral codes, so I will try to answer it by using the History of Philosophy. Heraclit- "spiritual damage" means a gap in the Universal law- the state of "unconscious reason"- however, it isn't linked to man(who is analyzed only as a number, a simple part of the all-inteligent environment) Plato- he links "spiritual damage" to Gods and the pursuit of Good (the laws- One and The undetermined Diada)- according to his writings, the human beings can surpass this state either by finding their ideal half (The myth of the Androgyn), or by forming a group of disciples ("equals"), that can pass their knowledge (and their spirit, who is identical with their knowledge) to the next generations. Epicur- spiritual damage= an anomaly/error/aberation/ in the atomical ranks ( the spirit is an atom of superior qualities) that leads to the diversity of life and species Spinoza- state of the human mind and soul linked to ignorance, that can "heal" if a certain person dedicates his life to the study of the Divine Laws, entering into the Supreme freedom, by uniting his will with the one of God through knowledge. Rousseau- damage inflicted by the society to the ordinary man, who is "in chains" when in the middle of the civilised world- Rousseau proposes a return to the Primitive state, when man was absolutely happy as his own master (in a hedonistic way),not knowing the meaning of "spirit" and "damage". Pascal- the normal state of man, that acts as his condition. The greatness of the human being resides in his capacity to accept a tragical destiny (being a prey of the "spiritual damage") Nietzsche- state of spiritual decadence belonging to the little man- the one that considers the great one to be guilty of defying the moral law- deficiency of the slaves and of the dogmatic philosophers, of the religious followers that do not believe in the Death of God and the ascension of Man to a state of Divinity Camus- Man can never escape spiritual damage, that is always present in an absurd existence, in which the pursuit of happiness finds limits everywhere- man is (like in Pascal's philosophy) convicted to spiritual decay and suffering Blaga (a Romanian philosopher) - he opposes Charles Darwin's idea of biological progress and Bergson's theories of "Homo Faber", believing that man represents "an ontological mutation", a different essence. He is the only being that can sacrifice its freedom for the sake of creation, the only one that builds for aesthetic reasons, and not only for surviving in an hostile environment. Through culture, man can surpass all the problems of life and death - and, of course, the spiritual damage- I personally agree with Blaga. See you, guys... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
Last edited by Burn; 28/01/05 05:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2005
|
Cool deal Burn. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> And welcome aboard the Larian forum. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" /> Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Oloth zhah tuth abbil lueth ogglin
|
|
|
|
|
