Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5608277" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think I'm the only person who looks at bog standard D&D and sees a rich palette for thematically rich depictions!I don't really find their views all that clear or coherent, especially in light of the contrasts that are meant to be set up. In several cases - especially the solipsist ones (I can't remember what they're called) it puzzle me that a significant number of people would group together to - do what? - I want to say "pursue that doctrine", but the notion of collective pursuit of solipsism is contradictory! (I'm reminded of an episode related by Bertrand Russell - after publishing that solipsism could not be demonstrably proved false, Russell received a letter from a woman expressing her pleasure that someone else took solipsism seriously, at which point Russell himself ceased to do so!)The bit about getting powers just puzzles me - where does the power come from? How are the factions different from wizards guilds, or churches?Diogenes is not pre-Socratic.That to one side, yes, Diogenes lived his philosophy. So did the Buddha, at least according to the received histories. It's not clear how many followers Diogenes had, but it's highly arguable that to the extent that later stoicism differs from Diogenes' own cynicism, this is in part to make it more digestible to the post-Alexandrian elite. Marcus Aurelius certainly didn't live in a barrel! (A similar argument can be made in respect of the evolution of Buddhism, although it also has a doctrine of rebirth to help explain why different members of society have different roles to play consistent with their overall pursuit of enlightenment.)But in any event, Diogenes and Buddha and Marcus Aurelius all teach at least conceivable accounts of human flourishing, based on the relationship between human and natural order, and the attitude that humans should take towards the vicissitudes of the natural world.This is what is missing, for me, from the factions.See, this bears no connection to any pre-Socratic, Socratic or Hellenistic philosophy that I can think of - none of them contend that the world is shaped by belief, and certainly not by wishful thinking. They all insist that belief and behaviour has to be brought into conformity with the world's demands, although they differ in their accounts of what exactly those demands are, and what conformity with them might require.And even the more idealist schools of Buddhism, like Yogacara, don't regard the character of the world or the content of belief as chosen. And they emphasise the necessity of practice in order to cultivate beliefs consistent with flourishing. They don't suggest that, having formed from the get-go a belief about how the world is (which is also how it ought to be), one then goes out into the world and starts acting on that belief as if it were true.</blockquote>

Verification