A Response to Yvonne's Post

So you say that the heart and mind should be balnced, but what are the extreme's of either argument?

Alrighty, this is an interesting set of statements that I want to talk about. For starters, I agree, life must consist of balance, for balance is what lets us survive most peacefully as a whole. The Heart and the Mind are an amazing example of this, for the two of them separately are each one extreme, but together, they create one flourishing system of complete understanding.

The benefit to living in the extreme of the heart is that you will endure the life of a character, as if your actual life is that of a play. For the heart is the center of all that is love and giving, and thus you will experience great happiness, and great sadness. Some people are absolutely in love with this style of life, for it leaves the idea of epic free to explore within one's personal life, which is something that should not be ignored. But be warned that great sadness is a powerful thing to deal with, and not everyone is ready to handle it.

The life of extreme knowledge is the exact opposite. You are that of a computer, one who must weigh out every decision as if it would end your life if you chose wrong. This ideal of life is beneficial since you appreciate the things that are potentially dangerous, and thus live a long safe life. But alternatively, this life will leave you with an empty feeling in the bottom of what you will think is your stomach (but it’s really your heart). You will never fully appreciate all of the stupid things that other people have done and got away with, the adventures that you could have had. But these things are also not for everyone, and cannot be forced, so let them be.

In the end, the wise warrior will appreciate what things are truly too dangerous, but will leave themselves up to take advantage of all aspects life has to offer that won't kill them. They will be fulfilled with adventure and knowledge, and thus live a happy life for the life that they have actually lived.

Only Enough Room for One

In class this week one thing that we had talked about briefly was that of where philosophers get their true ideas. It had been mentioned that "No great philosopher gets his ideas by himself, that there must always be some stealing."

When this was mentioned, I really had to think about the way that it was worded. After giving it some thought, I think that this is an inappropriate statement. The way that I look at it, philosophers are descriptors and pattern seekers of things that are happening and created by other people whom they happen to be surrounded by while alive. This lead to some round about thinking, but in the end I came to this conclusion:

One cannot be a Philosopher without taking the ideas and thoughts as a collection from the people whom they are surrounded, for it is those things that influence and establish their observations. Without people to sit down and interpret and observe, then there would be nothing for the philosopher to describe and appreciate. The real issue is that there cannot be more than one person who is famous for the works that get published within their lifetime, as is similar to the idea that no two people can be singularly famous for the same piece of art.

What are your thoughts?