On Passion, On Teachability

Passion is a drive that provide the energy to keep on doing a thing, pursuing an idea, when we have no clear rational reason to pursue. Well we may have a reason. It may be a belief that the subject is worth pursuing. I may just need to pursue it, I do not know why. Many religions are that way. There are forms of logical argument that are that way, they are just compelling.

We need a definition that all agree on before an philosophical argument can be conducted. God requires an definition. If we consider it to be something that conduct super-national things, since it is supernatural it can only exist as a concept, not in reality. It is therefore a belief that may make you feel better, but will not make you better by intervention, but make make you correct your own life. That is better than nothing. What would be even better is the truth and your own self correction. These are passion driven subjects for many people. Understanding this may be the foundation to unity of peaceful people who 'accept you can believe whatever you want, but you may not force it onto anyone, even your children.' We need to cooperate to survive. That is the starting point of making peace in this world. It is those who think their beliefs are more important than survival that are the problem.

It is probable that there is no supernatural, and therefore no god. All religions people must tolerate my (our) beliefs if there is to be world peace, just as we must tolerate their beliefs in the supernatural. There is nothing after death, the mind probably stops on death. I am no more, but I cannot know death. For when I am, there is no death; when death occurs, there is no me, we cannot coexist. Simple. All that I learn in this lifetime must be written to be transferred to others and the next generation, when they are ready to learn and they have become teachable.

Teachability requires the prerequisite knowledge, the interest to understand the subject, and the tolerance of the language to drag out the underlying meaning, if there is one. It is my opinion that the underlying concept is the important part, not the words. To illustrate this point, consider that in Stoicism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and likely others the same group of concepts can be found, explained so differently that until the effect of the concepts are explored, these concepts appear different. It is only the effect that is the same. It is the effect that we humans need to survive. So which concept is right? Likely the simplest that does not depend on the supernatural.

Teachability also depends on a attitude of 'I may need the knowledge'. Those who's mind is shut cannot hear what is being said. This may be termed humility; however that word is defined as a modest or low view of one's own importance, not greater than others. That is a negative definition, and the real value should be equality of all peoples.  In Stoic terms, the view from above, distant, where we are ant like.  Equality does not mean right. We can all be balmy on some subjects. Teachability is more about being willing to listen, here and understand. We then need to test the view or concept against our version of reality, our belief system, and either adopt, hold in abeyance, or reject. We may not understand there view or concept either as we may not have the prerequisite knowledge.