I am unsure of the motives of Alan Watts. He was the reason that I found G.K. Chesterton, so I thank him for that. He was a very good illustrator of certain types of arguments. I find, though, that he was too much a master of the double bind, which does not serve to teach, but only paralyzes the mind. The 'can't know' aspect of Buddhism seems weaponized to me, turning it into an entertaining cul-de-sac, a diversion from ever progressing. He was also heavily connected to culture manipulation intelligence programs., not that this is a new thing in relation to philosophers down through the ages. https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA#-1658
Paralysis of the mind - I like that imagery @lifeworship - I do share all your sentiments there. I always found his followers almost Scientology-like. It scares me!
Some works are good to study to know how NOT to think. I find that reading too much with which I am already inclined to agree makes my mind lazy. It is in the mistakes that the right path is made clear.
'Adversity is the trial of principle. Without it, a man hardly knows whether he is honest or not.' Henry Fielding
Watts is that portal like you say for the everyday man on the street. As I said, I think he's a great orator but he adds nothing of value in his simplifications.
Depends on the teacher and the student interaction...the qualities they bring to the table. When I look for a Buddhist teacher, I know the Dharma very well, I can see when they're fudging, looking for profit and fame, the quality of their Sangha, and how they act...I'm not a Buddha, I can't see ones karma so I must judge a teacher on external qualities. I do did not know Alan but he introduced Buddhism to some awesome people who understand Western conditioning. We don't have Asian or Indian conditioning...
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the first half of Apr 22. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $1.74 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
Wel to put it in your terms of thinking here, then you are also not a philosopher. Nor is anyone who reads others philosophy texts to gain understandings from them. And why did you feel the need to present him as not a philosopher when he as much as you are one. Maybe not a good deep philosopher, but nevertheless he is one. (the sicence of thinking)
But if you want to put it on the edge of how to define a pure philosopher, then youd have to find someone who have not been reading any philosophical texts that others have written. Nor listened to others preach. Then you are left with individuals that have only taken part in sharing viewpoints and discused with others about life. and gained understandings from that. And then you are left with only individuals of the old .
But then you may ask; Cant we have true philosophers then in modern times? I whould say yes, that is based on what philosophy is: Science of thinking. Aslong sa there is some original thought in it, and not only repetitions of what you have read.
In conclution we might say that it is here as many other places an issue of the notion of authority and Idolotry. A need most feel to have others tell us what is.
But as an addon; I remember hearing him saying something to this effect: "im not a philosopher, im a wordsmith. Im very good with words, as to know how to put words on things.."
Cant we have true philosophers then in modern times?
Philosophy is more a love of wisdom rather than just deep thinking. Deep mining must be done to extract these nuggets. Watts is but a mere surface scratcher. He hold no nuggets in his pockets. Yes, he has followers on the surface, but the nuggets remain largely unmined :)
I don't watch memehunter's videos so I extract all my reply material from the comments of people I assume responded after watching these videos, and correct me if I'm wrong because nobody else pointed to it or addressed this aspect in their replies, but is this simply a purityhunter waxing poetically, a la elitism at it's best? The rest of the arguments seem to hinge on that obnoxious quality which is the linchpin of Aryan and Eugenic Philosophy: Purity.
I am unsure of the motives of Alan Watts. He was the reason that I found G.K. Chesterton, so I thank him for that. He was a very good illustrator of certain types of arguments. I find, though, that he was too much a master of the double bind, which does not serve to teach, but only paralyzes the mind. The 'can't know' aspect of Buddhism seems weaponized to me, turning it into an entertaining cul-de-sac, a diversion from ever progressing. He was also heavily connected to culture manipulation intelligence programs., not that this is a new thing in relation to philosophers down through the ages. https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA#-1658
Paralysis of the mind - I like that imagery @lifeworship - I do share all your sentiments there. I always found his followers almost Scientology-like. It scares me!
Some works are good to study to know how NOT to think. I find that reading too much with which I am already inclined to agree makes my mind lazy. It is in the mistakes that the right path is made clear.
'Adversity is the trial of principle. Without it, a man hardly knows whether he is honest or not.' Henry Fielding
Now you know why I'm avoiding Watts at all costs - at the moment it's Proust and Camus before bed.
My fellow sentiments! Disagreement sparks far more fires than it's counterpart!
"I never learned from a man who agreed with me." - Robert A. Heinlein
My current philosophy read:
I don't dislike Watts. But I also like Buddhist philosophy. I think there is some value sometimes in being able to explain things simply. Hence maybe some of the backlash against academia these days is that this often isn't done in a way that is accessible to a lot of people.
http://theconversation.com/academics-can-change-the-world-if-they-stop-talking-only-to-their-peers-55713
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/monkeymind/2009/05/alan-watts-on-how-to-fake-your-way-as-a-spiritual-teacher.html
Watts is that portal like you say for the everyday man on the street. As I said, I think he's a great orator but he adds nothing of value in his simplifications.
I have these two sitting on my dresser waiting to be read....I need more hours in the day.
Just arrived the mail:
Great minds read alike eh ;D ... make time!!
Alan writes great poetry! Edit....Puts her shoe on her head...
Maybe best we just rest him there for now ;)
Alan introduced a certain type of Buddhism to the West, he had lots of wonderful students. I think that is the way to judge a philisopher.
Do more Steemit followers make me contribute any better to the philosophy tag? ;)
Also Western Philosophers have a hard time with prajna, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajñā_(Buddhism)
They all get stuck in the bits and pieces of things ...hehe
'the bits and pieces of things' - great wordage there again @reddust ... Right! Off to your link I goeth ....
Hehe, have fun, thank you for great conversations.
We've certainly been a' mind huntin' alright! :D
Depends on the teacher and the student interaction...the qualities they bring to the table. When I look for a Buddhist teacher, I know the Dharma very well, I can see when they're fudging, looking for profit and fame, the quality of their Sangha, and how they act...I'm not a Buddha, I can't see ones karma so I must judge a teacher on external qualities. I do did not know Alan but he introduced Buddhism to some awesome people who understand Western conditioning. We don't have Asian or Indian conditioning...
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the first half of Apr 22. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $1.74 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Apr 22 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
Wel to put it in your terms of thinking here, then you are also not a philosopher. Nor is anyone who reads others philosophy texts to gain understandings from them. And why did you feel the need to present him as not a philosopher when he as much as you are one. Maybe not a good deep philosopher, but nevertheless he is one. (the sicence of thinking)
But if you want to put it on the edge of how to define a pure philosopher, then youd have to find someone who have not been reading any philosophical texts that others have written. Nor listened to others preach. Then you are left with individuals that have only taken part in sharing viewpoints and discused with others about life. and gained understandings from that. And then you are left with only individuals of the old .
But then you may ask; Cant we have true philosophers then in modern times? I whould say yes, that is based on what philosophy is: Science of thinking. Aslong sa there is some original thought in it, and not only repetitions of what you have read.
In conclution we might say that it is here as many other places an issue of the notion of authority and Idolotry. A need most feel to have others tell us what is.
But as an addon; I remember hearing him saying something to this effect: "im not a philosopher, im a wordsmith. Im very good with words, as to know how to put words on things.."
Cant we have true philosophers then in modern times?
Philosophy is more a love of wisdom rather than just deep thinking. Deep mining must be done to extract these nuggets. Watts is but a mere surface scratcher. He hold no nuggets in his pockets. Yes, he has followers on the surface, but the nuggets remain largely unmined :)
I don't watch memehunter's videos so I extract all my reply material from the comments of people I assume responded after watching these videos, and correct me if I'm wrong because nobody else pointed to it or addressed this aspect in their replies, but is this simply a purityhunter waxing poetically, a la elitism at it's best? The rest of the arguments seem to hinge on that obnoxious quality which is the linchpin of Aryan and Eugenic Philosophy: Purity.