Feral
04-10-2012, 05:55 PM
This is something I wrote few months ago.
I've been inspired by some people, but most of what I try to explain is from what I've experienced by my own. The first part looks a little preachy, but it's because I was a little euforic when I wrote it. :P
__________________________________
Of the virtues and the virtuous...
The one who loves is a virtuous who has sublimed herself/himself to the divine. Its the übermensch of Nietzche, the mature lover of Fromm, the idealist of Ingenerios. Naming only these, because they're the only ones I know, but to giving to understand that all great archetype are a part of the same-- or, rather said, all archetype of greatness parts from the infinite capability of the human being.
They are adove their specie, their race, their culture, above all religion and sciencie, of all social classes and castes. Adove, but not afar nor separated. They are not apart, they are, for excellency, the result of the sum of it all. They rise to the most highest horizonts, and lead the destiny of humanity when it persues their unreachable traces.
All virtues are cosequences of love. For this, only the virtuos are able to truly love. The rest of the human beings --the vicious ones, although they may find love, they aren't able to generate it. They 'love' because others have done it for or before them. For loving is the capacity of loving it all. Because of this, those who had found love but can't generate it by their own, they end up lossing it, or even consume all of it. And when this happens, if they don't find something to hold on, they fall on their solicitude. And they repudiate it, they don't fear it, but they hate it. They hate it because it's a passage to find themselves. And what the vicous fear most, is themselves. Then, I dear to say, cowardice is the worst of all vices, because is the one that prevents to overcome them. The overcoming oneself isn't for everybody, for it's a martyrdom that starts in and from solitude, on the way to find oneself.
(...)
It's our fault our own suffering? We suffer our state but not for what we are nor what had make us what we are. And we suffer because our state prevents us to be what we cappable of being. This suffering is nothing more than the fear to ourselves --to what we are, and that fear can become cowardice. A "virtue person" doesn't stop to suffer, nor suffer more nor less, she/he doesn't even stand it but she/he it dominates it. She/he accept it as a part of her/him self, instead of reject it or deny it and escape it. Suffering it's only fear and cowardice when we aren't being responsibles of our selves.
Once we detached our selves of that daunting suffering, and become responsibles of our selves, we are able to become the best of what we are.
___
"About love, virtues, and hapiness".
I consider love as the connectivity between, not just only sentients beings, but all form of life with life itself, and finally with everything that exists.
I've said that virtues derived from love, because virtuosity is the correspondency, complicity and responsability, of the living being before to life. When a living being lacks of this, it experience and even suffer separativity. However, no living being is really separated from 'everything that exists'; separativity then is just the ilussion of feeling isolated.
Although there's love, i.e. a connectivity, between all that exists, it doesn't mean that there is an active correspondency from all living beings whom are able to feel that connectivity. I.e., there's love, and there's loving in a way or other, but no everyone loves with virtue. Because 'loving with virtue' is 'loving correctly' (properly).
Love has always been related, somehow or another, with connectivity. I.e. (sorry for the redundancy) the connectivity between all living being (not just the sentient ones) and reality (everything that exists) and the relationships that generates from it, and the way that these relationships had been experienced (that finally gave it origin to differents interpretations about love).
Put it a simpler way: Love is the connectivity that there is with all form of life with life and existence itself, and loving it's being part of it (i.e. being able to feel it / being sentient) without experiencing nor suffering any kind of separativity; and loving properly ('with virtuosity') is to be and do in a productive and fruitful way.
__
And what's happiness?
Some say that happiness is not a goal nor a destination, but rather a way.
I, personally, think the same. I disaprove it as an state; for me, it's an actitude. Or it may be an state, but it could be only reached by being apt (i.e., having the aptitudes to change the condition of being, not just the state of it.)
Happiness can be a fruit to that aptitudes. And, for me, those aptitudes are the virtues. To be happy, then, one first must love. Loving is being no-unhappy (one belongs; loves), and this allows it to reach happiness (to produce, generate life and strengthens 'love').
______________________
That's it. Those who are into psychology and neuroscience, I think, are more able to understand my point. Which is a crappy one because my english sucks. :P
I've been inspired by some people, but most of what I try to explain is from what I've experienced by my own. The first part looks a little preachy, but it's because I was a little euforic when I wrote it. :P
__________________________________
Of the virtues and the virtuous...
The one who loves is a virtuous who has sublimed herself/himself to the divine. Its the übermensch of Nietzche, the mature lover of Fromm, the idealist of Ingenerios. Naming only these, because they're the only ones I know, but to giving to understand that all great archetype are a part of the same-- or, rather said, all archetype of greatness parts from the infinite capability of the human being.
They are adove their specie, their race, their culture, above all religion and sciencie, of all social classes and castes. Adove, but not afar nor separated. They are not apart, they are, for excellency, the result of the sum of it all. They rise to the most highest horizonts, and lead the destiny of humanity when it persues their unreachable traces.
All virtues are cosequences of love. For this, only the virtuos are able to truly love. The rest of the human beings --the vicious ones, although they may find love, they aren't able to generate it. They 'love' because others have done it for or before them. For loving is the capacity of loving it all. Because of this, those who had found love but can't generate it by their own, they end up lossing it, or even consume all of it. And when this happens, if they don't find something to hold on, they fall on their solicitude. And they repudiate it, they don't fear it, but they hate it. They hate it because it's a passage to find themselves. And what the vicous fear most, is themselves. Then, I dear to say, cowardice is the worst of all vices, because is the one that prevents to overcome them. The overcoming oneself isn't for everybody, for it's a martyrdom that starts in and from solitude, on the way to find oneself.
(...)
It's our fault our own suffering? We suffer our state but not for what we are nor what had make us what we are. And we suffer because our state prevents us to be what we cappable of being. This suffering is nothing more than the fear to ourselves --to what we are, and that fear can become cowardice. A "virtue person" doesn't stop to suffer, nor suffer more nor less, she/he doesn't even stand it but she/he it dominates it. She/he accept it as a part of her/him self, instead of reject it or deny it and escape it. Suffering it's only fear and cowardice when we aren't being responsibles of our selves.
Once we detached our selves of that daunting suffering, and become responsibles of our selves, we are able to become the best of what we are.
___
"About love, virtues, and hapiness".
I consider love as the connectivity between, not just only sentients beings, but all form of life with life itself, and finally with everything that exists.
I've said that virtues derived from love, because virtuosity is the correspondency, complicity and responsability, of the living being before to life. When a living being lacks of this, it experience and even suffer separativity. However, no living being is really separated from 'everything that exists'; separativity then is just the ilussion of feeling isolated.
Although there's love, i.e. a connectivity, between all that exists, it doesn't mean that there is an active correspondency from all living beings whom are able to feel that connectivity. I.e., there's love, and there's loving in a way or other, but no everyone loves with virtue. Because 'loving with virtue' is 'loving correctly' (properly).
Love has always been related, somehow or another, with connectivity. I.e. (sorry for the redundancy) the connectivity between all living being (not just the sentient ones) and reality (everything that exists) and the relationships that generates from it, and the way that these relationships had been experienced (that finally gave it origin to differents interpretations about love).
Put it a simpler way: Love is the connectivity that there is with all form of life with life and existence itself, and loving it's being part of it (i.e. being able to feel it / being sentient) without experiencing nor suffering any kind of separativity; and loving properly ('with virtuosity') is to be and do in a productive and fruitful way.
__
And what's happiness?
Some say that happiness is not a goal nor a destination, but rather a way.
I, personally, think the same. I disaprove it as an state; for me, it's an actitude. Or it may be an state, but it could be only reached by being apt (i.e., having the aptitudes to change the condition of being, not just the state of it.)
Happiness can be a fruit to that aptitudes. And, for me, those aptitudes are the virtues. To be happy, then, one first must love. Loving is being no-unhappy (one belongs; loves), and this allows it to reach happiness (to produce, generate life and strengthens 'love').
______________________
That's it. Those who are into psychology and neuroscience, I think, are more able to understand my point. Which is a crappy one because my english sucks. :P