Thoroughly enjoyed this, very clear and accessible.

An excellent talk offering solid advice on how to deal with the how-do-you-know questions. I advise those interested to read the work of Thomas Reid, starting with his An Enquiry into the Human Mind. Reid was a wonderfully clear thinker and writer. He dealt with many of the difficulties described by Max Black, but he did it in the eighteenth century, in response to the opinions of David Hume. Reid deserves to be much better known.

@JagadguruSvamiVegananda

2 күн бұрын

Excellent and ordinary are RELATIVE. 😉 philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.

Great stuff.

@JagadguruSvamiVegananda

2 күн бұрын

Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱

@pitdog75

2 күн бұрын

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda nope, red blooded

@JagadguruSvamiVegananda

2 күн бұрын

@@pitdog75, do not all mammals have RED blood? ♥️ Incidentally, Mr. Animal-abusing Criminal, did you know that in ancient Bhārata (India), a person who consumed ANY type of animal was known as a “Chandāla” (dog-eater) and was not even included in mainstream society, but was an outcast?🥩

Buy the way….is the character in profile behind Max Black Kim Philby?

I advise that you listen to this fine talk at 1.5 times the speaker's pace.

@briangarrett2427

11 күн бұрын

He’s speaking clearly.

@TheDerstine

11 күн бұрын

I advise that you don’t listen to this fine talk at 1.5… ? Must we all enjoy the same pace?

@no42arak-st-floor44

8 күн бұрын

1.25 is better! At least for an engineer who is listening!

Aristocratic accent.

@TennesseeJed

12 күн бұрын

The academia of the mid twentieth century used this prose, even if they were not well off financially.

@diegorosso9401

12 күн бұрын

@@TennesseeJed What counts is aristocracy of the mind and the soul, which Black I take it not to have to pretend to show.

@TennesseeJed

11 күн бұрын

@@diegorosso9401 I suppose if one wanted to suit the wealthy they'd need to speak their language. Same old game, I'd reckon.