Bu eğitim üst düzeylere erişince daha aşikar biçimde Pythagorasçı bir hal alır, çünkü artık eğitimin amacı filozofun yetişip, en değerli temaşa nesnesi olan Tanrısallığa benzer hale gelmesidir. Burada Pythagorasçıların yaşamı bir şenliğe ya da panayıra benzetmeleri akla gelebilir: kimisi hayata spor ya da müzik yarışmalarında yer almak için, kimisi alışveriş için gelir, "ama en iyiler seyirci olarak gelir". Yaşamda da, köle ruhlular para ya da ün kazanmaya çalışırken filozof hakikati arar ve bu arayış belli bir amaç uğrunadır. Nasıl evren her tarafa yayılmış Tanrısal bir yaşam ve akılla kuşatıldıkları için düzenli bir yapıya bürünmüş maddi öğelerden oluşuyarsa biz de küçük kosmoslarız, aynı maddeden oluşup aynı düzen ilkelerini yeniden üreten organik yapılarız. Ölümlü bir bedende olduğumuz için ancak kıvılcımına sahip olduğumuz bu Tanrısal akıl öğesini özgürleştirmeye çalışarak ve çevremizde büyük ölçekte sergilenen düzeni inceleyerek, bu ilkeleri hayatımızdaki eylemlere yansıtabiliriz. Kosmos'u temaşa eden filozofun ruhu da kosmios [düzenli] olur. 116
Şenlikteki seyirciler benzetmesi Pythagorasçıların dünya karşısında tamamıyla edilgin bir tutum benimsediklerini düşündürebilir. Elbette tutumları buna indirgenemez: (a) Pythagorasçıların tutumu özellikle sayı kuramı, geometri, müzik ve astronomi alanında etkin entelektüel incelemeyi kapsıyordu, çünkü göklerdeki düzenli
ve süregiden devinimler ve göklerin kapsadığı her şeyin yapısı bu incelemelerle anlaşılabilirdi. (b) Bu tutum filozofun kendi doğasında da gerçek bir değişim gerektiriyordu, çünkü Tanrısal olanla özdeşleşmek [homoiösis theö] ancak bu etkin temaşa hali [theöria] ile mümkün olabilirdi.
116 Burada günümüzle bir koşutluk kurmak belki okura şaşırtıcı gelebilir: krş. Bertrand Russel, The Problems of Philosophy
Bazı hikâyeler tam tahmin ettiğin gibi ilerler. Bazılarıysa son sayfada tüm bildiklerini sorgulatır. 🤯
Ters köşeleri seviyorsan, seni sonuna kadar merakta bırakacak 3 kitap önerisini keşfetmeye hazır ol!
Like God, however, ideology is dead. The bloody excesses of the twentieth century killed it. We should let it go, and begin to address and consider smaller, more precisely defined problems. We should conceptualize them at the scale at which we might begin to solve them, not by blaming others, but by trying to address them personally while simultaneously taking responsibility for the outcome.
Many of the female clients (perhaps even a majority) that I see in my clinical practice have trouble in their jobs and family lives not because they are too aggressive, but because they are not aggressive enough. Cognitive-behavioural therapists call the treatment of such people, generally characterized by the more feminine traits of agreeableness (politeness and compassion) and neuroticism (anxiety and emotional pain), “assertiveness training.” Insufficiently aggressive women—and men, although more rarely—do too much for others. They tend to treat those around them as if they were distressed children. They tend to be naïve. They assume that cooperation should be the basis of all social transactions, and they avoid conflict (which means they avoid confronting problems in their relationships as well as at work). They continually sacrifice for others. This may sound virtuous—and it is definitely an attitude that has certain social advantages—but it can and often does become counterproductively one-sided. Because too-agreeable people bend over backwards for other people, they do not stand up properly for themselves. Assuming that others think as they do, they expect—instead of ensuring—reciprocity for their thoughtful actions. When this does not happen, they don’t speak up. They do not or cannot straightforwardly demand recognition. The dark side of their characters emerges, because of their subjugation, and they become resentful.
I teach excessively agreeable people to note the emergence of such resentment, which is a very important, although very toxic, emotion. There are only two major reasons for resentment: being taken advantage of (or allowing yourself to be taken advantage of), or whiny refusal to adopt responsibility and grow up. If you’re resentful, look for the
I decided instead to listen. I have learned not to steal my clients’ problems from them. I don’t want to be the redeeming hero or the deus ex machina—not in someone else’s story. I don’t want their lives. So, I asked her to tell me what she thought, and I listened. She talked a lot.
He had this odd habit of speaking about the deepest questions to whoever was at this table—most of them new acquaintances—as though he were just making small talk. Or, if he did do small talk, the interval between "How do you know Wodek and Estera?" or "I was a beekeeper once, so I'm used to them" and more serious topics would be nanoseconds.
One might hear such questions discussed at parties where professors and professionals gather, but usually the conversation would remain between two specialists in the topic, off in a corner, or if shared with the whole group it was often not without someone preening. But this Peterson, though erudite, didn't come across as a pedant. He had the enthusiasm of a kid who had just learned something new and had to share it. He seemed to be assuming, as a child would—before learning how dulled adults can become—that if he thought something was interesting, then so might others. There was something boyish in the cowboy, in his broaching of subjects as though we had all grown up together in the same small town, or family, and had all been thinking about the very same problems of human existence all along.