This was Epictetus’ mantra as well
Oh wow how interesting, thanks for the heads up!
If you’re willing to teach me, I’d love to get more of your thoughts on that. I think I remember hearing something about his teaching consisting of something about that it’s not external things — things beyond our control that govern over our choices but how we choose to react to them that really do. If so, then I find it incredibly similar to what Jesus said that it’s not what goes in a man’s mouth that defiles it, it’s only what comes out. Therefore, it’s only what a person chooses to think that truly has the potential of defiling them, as Tolstoy would put it.
Epictetus was making a point about Stoic philosophy: we don’t control external events, but we do have some control over how we respond to them. It’s a worthwhile idea regardless of anyone’s religious beliefs.
I’m not religious, but I do find the history of these ideas interesting. Christianity didn’t develop in a vacuum. A lot of the moral and philosophical concepts found in the Bible existed long before Christianity, and we know that earlier religious and philosophical traditions influenced its development.
I think it’s interesting how often humanity arrives at similar conclusions about morality and human nature, with or without religion attached. Personally, I find the philosophy more compelling than the theology.
Oh yeah, I wouldn’t consider myself religious either, and I’m not sure if Tolstoy would too. Though I like how Gandhi defines the word “in its broadest sense”: self-realization or knowledge of self. So that would even include things like what we now call “psychology” and “sociology.”
Oh absolutely. The creators of things like the story of the Garden of Eden would’ve, of course, taken into account that Abraham was Mesotopation. So I see it more as their evolution of Mesopotamian philosophy.
Yes exactly! Applying a more allegorical lens to what we now call “religion” makes it infinitly more interesting to me. It’s as if within our knowledge of morality, we can find potentially timeless, even universal truths despite how much more subjective it is in contrast to math or science. What Tolstoy would call, the “law of love,” for example.
And yet, when the masters said they want to break apart India into many nations, Gandhi just rolled over and took it. Willingly gave his obedience.
He was just a vehicle of this great principle, as he would say himself. He did the best he could, and experimented with our capacity for selflessness as humans to its extremes.
