Quote: (07-28-2013 05:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:
...
You cannot separate a moral teaching from the person who makes the teaching, because the person is the only standard by which we can judge a teaching by.
I like your argument, and have used something similar with regards to feminists debating whether dominance/submissive sex is acceptable to a real feminist.
Whoever has the best sex gets to comment on sex. It is about how you are actually living your life that matters - what holds the most truth and AT THE SAME TIME the most pleasure and life satisfaction that wins the argument.
It's not enough to be satisfied and happy with delusions.
It's not enough to be miserable with truth.
Follow mentors who are happy with truth. Whoever is having the best sex wins. What good is adhering to feminist principles and morals if it means your sex life suffers? What good is being an upright moral man if it makes you and those around you miserable? If your morals make you and those around you less happy, change your morals. There are two bottom lines; 1) life satisfaction and 2) truth. Two wings of a bird.
Also, you don't learn how the world works by failure alone. Would you study with street bums to learn how to be an entrepeneur? Really, take a close look. People value commiseration for it's own sake, and thrive on a group pity party, and then call that wisdom.
No.
Wisdom is SUCCEEDING.
NOT pointing out what fails.
Re-evaluate your mentors, and even your companions. Do you want to BE like them? Are they examples of life satisfaction and truth?