From: Destination Quality (planetquality@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Jun 14 2003 - 12:53:01 BST
Hi Sam,
"Phaedrus is fascinated too by the description of the motive of 'duty toward
self' which is an
almost exact translation of the Sanskrit word 'dharma', sometimes described
as
the 'one' of the
Hindus. Can the 'dharma' of the Hindus and the 'virtue' of the Ancient
Greeks be
identical?" - The
Eudaimonic MoQ says yes. "Lightning hits!"
Your eudaimonic MOQ says yes, I have my doubts. Though my knowledge of
Hinduism and the ancient Greeks is quite limited. Virtue(arete) was the
highest goal in Greece but virtue comes in many shapes, Aristotelian virtue
as means of extremes, Platonic virtue fourfolded in state or person("Wisdom
is the chief and leader: next follows temperance; and from the union of
these two with courage springs justice. These four virtues take precedence
in the class of divine goods".), Socratic virtue as one single absolute
virtue, the good? Very confusing, is there any consensus about this? I think
there is consensus about virtue being part of the so called vita
contemplativa(in Greek bios theoretikos), not? If so it cannot be identical
with dharma, while dharma(righteousness) is more associated with the vita
activa(in Greek bios praktikos). In Indian terms pravritti. Maybe
interesting to dig in a littlle deeper; the scheme that is used in classical
Hinduism is called Purushartha and comes in four goals(Platonic?) that is;
Dharma(rigtheousness), Artha(economic life!!!!!!!), Kama(aesthetic
pleasure), Moksha(deliverance from the bondage of karmic cycle). Moksha
obviously is the highest value, not dharma, dharma prescribes how to achieve
empirical goals. The pursuit of these goals in accordance to dharma is
called abhyudaya, wordly attainments. Similar to Plato the Indians had a
general description of how society should be constituted(Purushartha) and a
straficication of the life cycle of the individual(ashrama). This ashrama
consist of a educational stage(celibacy) called brahmacharya ashrama. A
stage of married family life called grihathya ashrama. A retirement stage
that bridges the vita activa and the vita contemplativa, vanaprastha
ashrama. Finally the stage of contemplation, the individual equivalent of
moksha, the sanyas ashrama, the final abnegation of the empirical life, the
self absorbing stage of contemplation.
It seems that both dharma and artha, do not have the importance that both
you ans RMP subscribe to these concepts. They belong in the lower echelons
of the human life. Hmmm, I feel like I am telling Tiger Woods how to play
golf(....well after that first round he probably can use some advice).
a little bit on your eudaimonic moq....
The root of my or your misunderstanding is in your eudaimonic MOQ. I have
not had time for reading much posts lately so I completely missed out on the
discussion about it, so pardon me if I repeat what already has been
discussed. I did not discover a systematic approach to the virtues in the
work of Aristotle, though as said my knowlege is limited, and if you can
proof me wrong please do so. Whether Aristotle did or did not systematize
the virtues is of great importance I think. Phronesis an important virtue,
is not the key virtue!!!! It is the third virtue and not the fourth, I
assume you have based your Eudaimonic level on the virtue of phronesis did
you not?( your words; 'It is this ability to discriminate as an individual,
and not just as a social unit, which I see as the essence of the fourth
level") But there is a special virtue not belonging in the hierarchy but
being detached from it, something else from the three, the justice from the
republic as a result from the virtues. This is not an Aristotelian but a
Platonic idea. Now there is the key of the flaw of your eudaimonic MOQ(with
respect). I would choose the Platonic version where the harmony of of the
virtues results in a righteous state, which may sound weird but important is
that it is not an individualised conception of the highest virtue. The
intellectual level or the eudaimonic does include the individualising of the
virtue while (Dynamic)Quality or the intellectual level should not be
considered as an attribute or accomplishment of individual subject but as a
product of an harmonized equillibrum of static and dynamic forces
established by the opennes of a culture as a whole. The fact that you give
rise to the importance of phronesis that allows an individual to judge
objectively to the extent that it is possibly is a heritage of Aristotelian,
Hellenistic and theological distortion of Platonic systematized virtues.
Well that is enough for now, from what i have read so far from you you
probably going to proof that I am wrong on all this but maybe you and I can
learn something from it as well and that is for me the most important
virtue.
thank you in advance,
Davor
while 'dharma'
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Zoeken, voor duidelijke zoekresultaten! http://search.msn.nl
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 14 2003 - 12:54:05 BST