So Zoroastrianism is basically a metaphysical version of Pragmatism.
It is not concerned with claiming "The Truth" as in the Abrahamic faiths. It does not consider Language and therefore not Text as capable of producing The Truth (and why should it be, we are after all mind- and not text-worshippers, as opposed to the Abrahamic faiths which are all text-centric rather than mind-centric like us).
Rather we are concerned with the CONDITIONS for producing TRUTHS which of course starts with a SACRED ATTITUDE towards Nature as "that which is" (Ahura) and "how it works" (Asha) which WE then contemplate and enjoy as minds (Mazda).
Ushta
Alexander
2011/3/14 Daniel Samani
Dear Alex and Zaneta,
So you call the ability to gather and INNVENT values that works for you and others. And the ability to put these values into action in effect metavirtues?
I have a radical idea, if we all agree on that the world including mazda (mind in plain English) is one substance. Would it not be possible given present and future advancements in neuroscience to distinguish valutes depending how they WORK? What WORKS for us humans for example, there could be many right answers on what ought to be. My argument is that we could know what values are more likley to be vices.
As by knowing what is we can predict what will be, or the odds of how likley it is. On the same merits we should be able to know what ought to be from what is. But this is maybe an consicvense of modern advancements and not somthing Zharatustra spoke about? Does the Gathas for example give guidelines on a meta level on how to accomplish this? I'm talking about the concept of Asha for example, is it explained in the Gathas?
To me morals is further then just fixed virtues, its making concrete statements on what should be done (virtues does not). Doing this with LIMITED KNOWLEAGE!!! And then calling them absolute, rendering the statements untouchable.
Noblesse oblige,
Daniel
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar