Plutarch says Plato compared human life to a game at dice. He advises we ought to throw according to our requirements, and, having thrown, to make the best use of whatever turns up.
It is not in our power indeed to determine what the throw will be, but it is our part, if we are wise, to accept in a right spirit whatever fortune sends, and so contrive matters that we wish should do us most good, and what we do not wish should do us least harm.
Before you speak, reflect on the following
- what is this word that is so eager for utterance
- to what is this tongue marching
- what good will come of speaking now or what harm of silence
He proceeds to ask
if words are neither useful to the speaker, nor necessary for the hearer, nor contain any pleasure or charm, why are they spoken?
The philosophers tell us that some bodies are composed of distinct parts,as a fleet or army; others of connected parts, as a house or ship; others united and growing together, as every other animal is. the marriage of lovers is like this last class, that of those who marry for dowry or children is like the second class, and that of those who only sleep together is like the first class, who may be said to live in the same house, but in no other sense to live together. but just as doctors tell us that liquids are the only things that thoroughly mix, so in married people there must be a complete union of bodies, wealth, friends and relations. And thus the Roman legislator forbade married people to exchange presents with another, not that they should not go shares with one another, but that they should consider everything as common property.
I think that is sound advice.
I need guidance on a matter that confuses me daily.
There has been this twitter hashtag and I want to know if it is in order to contend that there is a problem with this blanket statement?
Does questioning the veracity of that statement equate to offering tacit support for misogyny, gender violence especially directed at women or is it possible to have this debate that there is a problem in society and acknowledge that men or women for that matter are not trash?
To add some context to why I am asking,
and my response
So now, is this a case of what about the menz? Is by disagreeing with such blanket statements mean I don’t recognize the problem?
GC has written about it, so I will not.
However this comment, by he that will not be named, has got me thinking
Christian Western Civilization is proof that the Bible is of divine nature.
Authentic human rights are a product of Christian Western Civilization.
I’m studying a course on the Middle Ages by Dr. Daileader who got his Ph D. in history from Harvard University.
Even secular studies of the Middle Ages include instruction on the profound influence of Christianity.
How does one get here, really?
Are they the soldiers sent to die in battlefields and actually do so?
Are those men and women who object drafting?
Who are they?
Many if not all human societies have origin myths and they differ greatly.
Several years ago a San Francisco-born-and-raised woman told me she is a materialist.
An hour ago a woman who was raised a Jehovah Witness and has left that faith told me the Big Bang story grew from a human need for a beginning. I agreed.
Can you wholeheartedly accept that the universe had no beginning, that it has always existed?(copied from AU)