Being vs. doing
There is a legend - which, although of dubious reliability, nevertheless serves as a cautionary tale - that the Greek philosopher Speusippus, son of Potone (who was Plato's sister), was known in his youth for his excessive debauchery. At that time, his mother thought it convenient to leave his upbringing in the hands of his brother and take him to live with him.
Speusippus then continued with his licentious behavior, and people expected Plato to correct the young man. However, Plato did not say a word about it.
After a while, seeing the nephew's behavior, and seeing that he did not correct him, some people began to criticize Plato for his permissiveness. Still, he remained silent.
But as time passed, and even though Plato said nothing to him, Speusippus' attitude slowly began to change. He put aside his excesses and gradually became more and more interested in philosophy. The change was so great that, upon Plato's death, Speusippus became his successor as head of the Academy of Athens.
Plato said nothing to him, yet it drastically influenced him.
Why do I tell this story? Because I think it's a good example of being versus doing.
Somewhere I read, although I cannot find the source, that some Taoists believe that for a kingdom to be in order, all the ruler has to do is to practice virtue in his palace. As long as the ruler practices virtue in his palace, the kingdom will be on the right path. Whether they said this or not, for me it is completely true. In some sense I think there is a quasi-magical factor to this, but there is also a logical one. I can see that if a ruler practices virtue in all his actions, the actions he will take will be the right ones and therefore the whole kingdom will be in order, just to continue with the example. The king who acts in this way will take care to make all his decisions with good as his guide and will even appoint only ministers and officials who are also virtuous, thus generating a chain reaction.
The point is that the king does not have to focus on "doing" anything specifically. It is not necessary for the king to do this or do that, the king just has to focus on whatever he is going to do, he has to do it with virtue. As long as he practices virtue, everything will go well.
This ties in with the story at the beginning in that, Plato did not "react" to the actions of Speusippus, nor did he "react" to the actions of other people, nor to circumstances. He simply focused on doing what he was doing right. On practicing virtue, so to speak. To put the focus, not on others, but on himself. That is what implicitly underlies this story, as I understand it. The way I see it, virtue is excellence. If we do something with virtue, we do it right, and to practice virtue in general, is to live life right, is, in some sense, to be excellent as a human being.
He only focused on his own practice and thus indirectly influenced his nephew.
Now, this advice, to practice virtue "within the four walls", is not just for kings. I think it is for everyone. Many people would like to change the world but feel they lack the power to do so. The truth is, in my opinion, that people have more power than they themselves realize. The problem is that they are too focused on what others are doing, what the rulers are doing, what the rich are doing, and so on. In my opinion, none of this really matters.
In my view, both the rulers have less power than people think, and the people have more power than they themselves realize. And I'm not even talking about "people" as a collective, I'm talking about people as individuals.
The truth is, if you completely forget about what the rulers are doing, if you completely forget about the news, if you forget about all that for a moment and live your life, at least in my experience, you will realize that those people have much less influence on our environment than we usually think. They have an influence, but much less than we use think. And I think you come to realize that, if you stop projecting power onto those people, not only do you realize that they are not as powerful as they would like to be, but you are effectively taking power away from them. They are losing real power if you don't give it to them.
It's like in relationships, there are people who project power to others and allow themselves to be manipulated, used and so on. But if you change and realize it, you will begin to see that this person can no longer control you.
In fact, simply by ceasing to give power to a tyrant, for example, I believe you are helping to bring him down from the throne. You don't have to "do" anything. It's not a matter of doing. It's a matter of "realizing". Of being different. All the actions you do after you become aware of it, in fact, are "dissident" at this point, because you are simply not in harmony with everyone else, and you are not doing what everyone else is doing, and you are going against what is established, even if you are not doing anything specific, yet everything you do is different.
When you stop focusing on others, you stop giving them power over you, and when you start focusing on yourself, you start claiming that power as your own.
As far as I am concerned, if one focuses on practicing virtue in our "four walls," one will indeed change the world in a positive way. Just focusing on what is in our control, and having faith about the rest. This is the responsibility that we do have, it is not necessary that we fix the world I think, it is only necessary that we practice virtue at home.
For me, the universe is gigantic and vast, and yet the details and the little things matter. It's like a good novel. A novel is not good because it has virtues in broad strokes, but because it is neat and well cared for in the small details. That differentiates a good novel from a not so good one. So is the universe. The beauty of the universe as a whole is not simply because of its magnitude, but because even in the smallest details, in the smallest things, we find the highest level of care. Even the ants in the garden play their part in the grand scheme.
So, by practicing virtue inside our home, we are in fact changing the world for the better. We can change our environment just by our presence, just as in Plato's story. It is not a matter of specifically "doing" anything. It is simply a matter of being. Of being different.
I know I'm maybe kind of going back and forth here, but I hope I'm clear.
People, I think, often focus too much on "practice". On doing. But I think a lot of times it's not about doing something specific, it's about being something different. It's like, be compassionate. If you are compassionate you don't ask yourself what action you should do to show compassion, but whatever you do, regardless of the action, you will naturally and spontaneously be compassionate. It is automatic. It is not something artificial or pre-planned.
It is about having an understanding, which makes us different, and consequently, makes everything we do different.
So I think it's a good thing to "practice virtue in our four walls". There is a logical part, as I said, but I also think there is a quasi-magical part to it that I also think is important. The universe, I think, works pretty well.
Image Source: 1
Although I agree with everything you say, I have some questions. Also, I am going to challenge the essentially correct message from the anecdote told, deliberately.
I would start with the question of where Plato got his insights from, i.e. what was his own childhood like? If he had a father who was equally imbued with the insight that less is more, where did the father get his wisdom? And when that father was a young boy himself, who taught him? If you start from a chain of parents and children who all learnt that virtue can be exemplified but not preached, how did it come about in the first place? What life experience turned them into those who know but do not impose their knowledge on anyone?
Even a king is only a man who, because his people observe him, is reflected by the people and is reflected in the people. But where no one observes each other, correction can hardly take place. Wisdom does not come out of nowhere, it is often only achieved when one realises one's own error. But how can you realise that you are mistaken?
As a person born into a family, you will have those who exemplify virtue, but you will also have those who do not. Those who can give eloquent reasons for every vice will find their way to the individual just as much as those who refrain from doing so. How do you know one from the other?
Does a young man who indulges in vices automatically become a virtuous person simply because he has a single male role model who instils confidence through his strong presence and non-interference? I don't rule that out, but I would call it rather the exception to the rule. The given story is from my point of view an exaggeration to get a point across.
Every man, whether king or father of a child, is also a fool. Nobody is always wise, just as nobody is always a fool.
The king who outwardly exemplifies wisdom needs a corrector when he threatens to go in the wrong direction. Because he will. Now the inner world of the king is not visible to the people in every detail. They see the result of a king who takes advice, who deals with a conflict with those who are his partners in the conflict. If he is in doubt and needs to reflect on what and how he intends to do something, who does he turn to in the final instance? Does he accept that his authority is ultimately only on loan? How can he have humility when he is the one whose word counts?
How should the people interpret the king's decisions? Should they see that he does it with ease or should they also be able to recognise that he has struggled with himself?
The family as a unit exists within a structure of other families, which in turn are embedded in a larger community.
A young man who has attitudes and fluff in his head needs a strong challenge, he has to experience boundaries. If he is not given one, he will not find the necessary virtue. He needs strong role models who serve as challengers by confronting him with the consequences of his capers. So if Plato had an influence on his nephew, it was not just because he was the way he was, but because he must have dared to take the young man by the horns.
The idea that strong role models only make an impression on young people through their own actions and omissions is not entirely wrong, but not entirely right either. The world out there is full of temptations, charlatans and amusement. Plato too will have encountered people who contradicted him, he will have had to deal with people in his house with whom he debated. Was the young man able to observe him and what did he learn?
It is possible to teach someone who gains insight by observing their role model, but presumably only if there was already something in that person that made it possible.
I understand that you wrote the text also out of your personal perspective. I would describe you as someone who is exceptionally mature. The given message you grasp in its deeper sense.
Now, someone else, reading this, may think that all one has to do, is to let things happen and be virtuous. The term "correction" may be seen as something bad.
I am curious about your response. Greetings!
I am pleased to receive your comment and I welcome it.
Where Plato got his insights from, is a mystery some people wonder about. I'm not entirely sure, although I would guess that at some point he realized it. I could link it, perhaps superficially, to the fact that he learned of Socrates' fate after trying to change people. But I wouldn't be sure about that either.
I think that after a while one realizes one's own mistakes. For example, one will realize the consequences of one's actions in the long run. Even if I tell someone what's right and what's wrong, that person may not pay attention to me until their own experiences make them realize it. How many times have we heard someone tell us something, only to pay no attention to it and ignore it, and finally, after many experiences, realize that they were right? This happens all the time, in my opinion. I talked about it in a post I made a few months ago.
The first thing is that the one who practices virtue, as in the example given, is not trying to change others. He is accepting others. This makes his example stronger, I think. One may have faith that other people will realize it, just as one realized it.
Moreover, much of what we usually call "arguments" are really justifications. People are usually for or against something, and then justify it with "arguments". It's not the arguments that convince them, it's just a way of masking a decision they've already made with rationality.
So the young man may listen to these arguments, and however rational they may seem, these arguments can only fool the mind, and just for a while. In the end, it is up to the young person to decide what to do. What he feels is right and what sounds real to him. It is not even a conscious or rational decision at this point, but more subtle.
Furthermore, I think that, by example alone, we are naturally attracted to people who lead more virtuous lives. Why? Because virtue, I think, brings better outcomes. Practicing virtue is harder because we don't see the immediate and short-term results, but when we see someone doing it, we really see its fruits. We came to have a tangible proof of it. That's why example can be so powerful.
And I think, if you put the two people face to face, the contrast will be so obvious that one will intuitively know which way to go.
Yes, the story may be an exaggeration, after all, we are not sure if it is completely real. Although, nonetheless, can serve as an anecdote I think. I would say, the influence of the "virtuous" person will depend on how "virtuous" that person is. The more exceptionally "good" he is, the greater the impact he will have upon others.
If he is truly practicing virtue, I expect he will know how to recognize when he needs the help of others. And we probably all have struggles, and if we have a little bit of wisdom we can realize, at least in my opinion, that humility is not something we choose to believe, but a reality that we come to accept.
Yes, I suppose his nephew was exposed to his uncle's thinking because Plato was a very famous and respected philosopher at the time.
Each young person is different and I could not give a general rule. I think it would take discernment to know what and to what extent to do. But at the same time I think he should have the freedom to make his own mistakes and learn from them. Again, it depends on each individual case.
I could agree with it, and this would be true for both the good and the bad.
Again, I truly appreciate your comment. Many thanks to you!
Thank you. I welcome the debate.
I jump right into your responses.
Through what exactly does the realization happen? Can you think of an example out of real life?
So, there are other people involved as the deliverers of such consequences, correct?
What then is the exact experience? Is it a pleasant one?
One can have endless experiences, actually throughout your whole life, but still lacking the insight of having been wrong, hence gaining knowledge about the self. Of what kind exactly must an experience be, in order to reach the individual on that self-realizing level?
I state that it is deliberately exaggerated, it is a conscious attempt through its style to bring forward a certain message. In this sense, it serves as a provocation. It challenges the mind to question it, not to confirm the righteousness of the given message.
Think of, for example, of Buddhist monks. They honor every living creature. They safe a worm from a pathway not to be trampled to death. Now, is this something one shall take literally as a guidance for every day life, or is it an exaggeration in order to think about it?
I am having a clear objection here.
The general rule and experience is that every young person needs some form of discipline. Discipline in this context means that you make him feel the consequences of his actions or omissions. This already includes the freedom to make mistakes that you mentioned. You teach the young person in principle and explicitly about the rules. They must know it beforehand in order to realise it afterwards. If he has been taught and he inevitably makes his first mistakes, then he only recognises them as mistakes because the adults don't simply leave him alone with them.
You wouldn't recognise Plato in this story as an adult who gets his hands dirty, so to speak. He is completely in his noble element of not intervening.
You break a vase, whether it was intentional or unintentional. It is broken by your actions. The consequence of this is to replace it. If you don't have the money to replace it, then you look for a way to earn it. But what you won't be spared is to replace it in one form or the other.
Nothing is more damaging to young people who are left alone with these things. They get worse and more extreme in their actions because the truth is they want to experience a consequence. This is what adults owe them so that they can mature.
Therefore, my objection to the application of Plato's story here is that it is not very suitable for young people to read this story - without starting to question it - because they then run the risk of praising the evening before the day.
There may be exceptions from the rule that young people do not need this form of discipline. But then they are the exception from the rule.
Good.
Yes. Once while working I learned information that could get other people in trouble. I was asked about it and said I didn't know. Although even then I knew it wasn't the best thing to do, in fact I didn't know what to do. It was like a dilemma.
I don't know what I would do today if I were in the same situation but hopefully something better.
I realized it myself. How did the realization happen? Well, I don't know if the example is the best because part of me knew then I should have done better, yet I didn't do so at the time. Then reflecting on it, as introspection, I knew I should have done better.
I can think of other examples as well. I think it's like trial and error, we see the mistakes we make and do our best not to do it again.
Not necessarily. Someone who is addicted to drinking, to give an example, may realize how this impacts their life in general and realize they need a change. We can make a lot of bad decisions and then realize when we are not where we wanted to be in life.
I don't think I understood the question. Silly example here. The other day I had to go somewhere I hadn't been before. I got the advice to go by bus, but I had seen the directions and preferred to walk. The walk was long, much longer than I expected, I lost a lot of time and if it wasn't for the appointment being rescheduled, I would have been late. The next time I went I took the bus.
I wouldn't know exactly. If we have someone who serves as a role model and influences us with their presence, it may happen faster. Otherwise it can vary depending on how aware we are, and in the most extreme case, for some when they hit rock bottom.
I think for them it is a rule that they try to follow on a daily basis, and for a secular person it is simply a role model, which serves as an ideal, even if not rigorously followed.
Now, one can also be an interventionist, but it is always going to depend on the person in question, and one will not always be present. There has to be a willingness to do the right thing on the part of that person. The consequences of our actions are not always artificial and man-made, but are the natural result of our actions.
There is also a difference between the actions we do that fundamentally only generate consequences for us, as in the example in the story, and those that generate consequences for other people as well, in which case, the way of acting would not be the same.
I don't question the objection.
Although I think it is possible that one learns more from example than from words. If I tell a young person to always tell the truth, but then I go and lie, what will he learn? That he has to tell others to tell the truth, but he himself can lie from time to time. The best way to teach someone discipline is, in my opinion, to be self-disciplined oneself.
I'm not saying it's the only way. That can vary and as I said, I think it depends on each specific case. I'm not necessarily advocating non-intervention, that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is, if we focus on being, we will spontaneously do what's right and intervene or not intervene when it's convenient. I think that by example we convey a powerful message, but it is not simply about "not doing".
In your case, you had no involvement and were neither the victim nor the beneficiary.
You had no opportunity in advance to warn these others or to talk to them about the right or wrong of their actions. It already had happened and then you got to know about, as far as I have understood.
In your case, you could only have gone to the people concerned and informed them that you had been questioned and that you had not said anything for the time being to give them the opportunity to tell the truth themselves. It was their actions that had put you in this dilemma. You would therefore have been justified in saying that they should be the ones to resolve the dilemma. In this way, they would realise that if you were questioned a second time, they would have no right to expect you to cover for them. This uncertainty about your decision might have influenced their own behaviour. They might have abstained from further actions.
You are no longer responsible for the actions of others if you have made yourself clear and the others still act against their better judgement and warning.
Now, if you'd have come to another conclusion because you heard their reasoning, that would then be another scenario.
This is a great example of dealing with such questions of actions and consequences. Being confronted with such a dilemma helps to deal with future dilemmas when you become clear about yourself in the aftermath of such an experience.
Why should a drinker care that his drinking has bad effects unless other people confront him about it? Coming to the realisation all by yourself that alcoholism is bad is what I call the exception to the rule. This happens, but would you agree that is rather rare with the issue of drinking addiction?
If you are severely addicted, you become a nuisance to those around you. If those people do not draw any consequences from the fact that the addiction is not only turning his own life for the worse, but also theirs, the drinker will hardly want to find any reason to come to self-awareness. He will simply continue to drink.
For some, the warning that their wife will separate from them may be enough, for others the separation has to happen and for still others an emergency admission to hospital has to be the necessary consequence. Other people play a major role in all of these events.
It is not punishment but the need for one human that he wants to face consequences and that his fellas owe that to him.
It may be rare in this specific case. But in general, I think, a person can come to realize that their actions are not leading them to have the life they would like to and then realize that they need to change.
The consequences may manifest themselves through other people, but they may also manifest themselves through their own inner world. As perhaps in other ways as well.
I see it as a two way street between inner and outer world. I am not hard about it. I find it's the easiest explanation. What one describes as "own" realization, may be something one had experienced long ago but the true insight unfolds in the present. I myself really cannot give any example of an idea or thought I came to formulate on my own, I had it always from other sources. And what I then do is to re-formulate the ideas and to repeat what I think I have understood. That may count as an original idea. You know what I mean?
Well, but if we're all rephrasing what we hear from someone else, who came up with the thought originally? If we are all repeating, we have to repeat what someone said, we cannot be repeating what no one said. There has to be an origin, and that origin is probably someone, unless you think otherwise.
Don't you think you learn more from your own experience than from the words someone else tells you? If I tell you how to play tennis, do you think you'll learn more that way than by actually holding the racquet?
I think most of the things we know we know from experience. Even when others have influenced us, our opinion of something is, I think, mainly influenced by our own experience. For now I think that wisdom comes mainly from experience, that's why we can't easily transmit it to another person.
If we can't remember our own original thoughts, that's completely fine, I think, because most of what we know we haven't put into words. And even the little that does, may not come to mind. But we know more about life having lived, than having listened, I think.
We can do a little experiment, if you feel like it and if you want to do it.
These are the rules: I'm going to ask a question and you can't ask anyone the answer, or look it up in the dictionary or internet or anywhere. The answer you are going to give, you should not try to formulate it in an intelligent way. No. You have to say it in the crudest way, just as you thought it, without the need to over-explain. It doesn't need to be a good answer, it just needs to be an answer that is your own thoughts on the matter. It is also not valid to say "I don't know" or anything like that.
The question is this: what is hair? You can write your own definition, just as you thought of it, regardless of whether it is a good definition or not, and then respond, if you wish.
Maybe the definition is not good, I don't know, it happens to me many times.
But after that I would ask you, where did you get that definition, was it influenced by others? And even if so, which may be likely, is your definition more influenced by what others say, or by your own experience during your life with the word in question?
If you decide not to do the experiment, that's completely fine too.
But, I don't know if I understood you correctly.
In a sense it is, because you added something to it that it didn't have originally.
I have agreed with you that experience is a teacher.
But aren't exchanging words already an experience of a certain kind?
Words in the form of "I'll pass on my knowledge to you" are less effective if they are only informative, I agree.
They are more effective when they come in the form of questions.
So let me rephrase:
Are words more effective if they are directed to you as a question?
Can a question directed at you be therefore be perceived as an experience?
Is a question capable of letting you imagine an experience of any kind in your mind?
If recognition lights up, are you experiencing something inwardly that you can relate to, after having been asked something?
If you could not refer to an experience you already had, it would be hard or even impossible to understand a question, is what I think. But do you fully own it? Is it not the case that you could, if you wanted, put yourself in the shoes of another one, in order to understand his experience, even if you never had that exact experience yourself?
I have given birth to a child. You won't make that exact experience. But what if I ask you about your exact experience of manhood, am I unable to relate to it? I know I am a woman. I have a very unique experience in that regard. I started to bleed when I became a woman. Your body experience was different but it was the same experience as mine, since you entered manhood, while I entered womanhood.
I now do not need to become a man in order to have that same experience, since I already had it. You don't need to become a woman, right?
All experience happens because of me being in touch with not-me. Therefore, I cannot have an experience solely on my "own", since I need "other" to relate to "own".
If you'd live all by yourself on a lonely island, after a while, what would happen to your "own" experiences? What would happen to you?
To answer your question spontaneously: Hair is what grows out of my head.
Well, yeah, we can agree. We can put ourselves in other people's shoes, I think, at least to a degree. That's largely why reading stories, even fictional ones, works. But I think it works more the more similar we are to the person in question, and the easier we can identify with them.
If we see that someone does things that we could do and is either rewarded or punished justly for that action, we can learn from that lesson, for example. It is cathartic.
But again, I think it depends on how similar we are. We can understand each other's experiences because we are similar to some extent. Maybe I have felt pain in my hand, and you have felt pain in your foot. It would be different with someone who has not felt pain.
I think we can learn many things through words, but the greatest learning, I think, probably comes from experience. If you stay alone on an island for a long time, what happens? You will still learn a lot about life. I think.
I like your answer. The goal of the experiment is to give an answer that is your own to the question. It's about saying authentically what we think, and not trying to give a "right answer". If you are forced to say what you think in this way, you will end up giving an original answer that is not based on repeating what someone else said. Even if what you say matches something you have heard, I would ask, are you saying it because it matches what you have heard, or because you truly believe it to be so?
I think your answer stems from you, and it's not something rephrased, is it?
I think we have become accustomed to saying things, not as we think them, but trying to sound right. And I don't know which is better, but I think we learn much more, and grow much more, when we talk about things as we conceive them. The more authentic we are, the better. Sometimes people are afraid to say what they think, because they don't want to be wrong. Sometimes we don't realize how much we would grow if we did. But I digress.
Correct. It's ingrained into language. The origin of thought is expressed in language. All language is offering definition of words. If you go back to the origin of a term, you most likely will end up having it related to something tangible.
LoL, funny example with your walking instead of taking the bus. I wouldn't see it as a particularly serious experience, just a decision of preference: do I prefer to walk, now that I know the real time and distance, or do I prefer to take the bus? As it had no consequences that involved other people, it can be recorded as "I misjudged something".
It would have been something else if you were warned by your father or older brother to not invest your money in a shady enterprise. But you still invest and then you lose. People who are not willing to face the consequences now would ask their father or brother to cover for their loss. As a consequence, they must say "no" and let you work for your loss yourself until you have succeeded in becoming financially stable.
This is at first an unpleasant consequence but then turns itself into a valuable experience. Your father and your brother would have done their due diligence in the act of warning you. But they cannot prevent you in making bad decisions.
Yes, I completely agree with you here.
I agree in principle.
That would require a human being who never fails to act correct. Since such a person does not exist and every human being once in a while fails to act accordingly to a principle, you will be judged by your failure, no matter how often you've been virtuous.
To act as a more experienced and more self disciplined role model, you are not free from errors and the one who observes you in your behavior as a role model, this one needs to also see you taking on the correction of someone else, since it will happen anyway that one fails. The very act of letting a younger one see that the role model is open for being corrected, is to me as valuable as to see the role model in being the corrector. This involves verbal communication as well as acted out behavior.
Yes, but I think that when we make mistakes there is also an opportunity to deal with them in a correct and tolerant way. Thus, despite sometimes making mistakes, we can serve both as an example of how to deal with mistakes, and how to turn errors (which are fundamentally undesirable) into something positive. We can exemplify how mistakes are not the end of the world and how we can pick ourselves up after falling.
I think that many times examples like this can be very valuable.
I agree with this.
I agree with everything. My starting point was to make it clear that the anecdote about Plato does not necessarily call for confirmation, but to analyse the story in detail and ask whether Plato does not stand out as an example of self-discipline and self-knowledge precisely because we have created an ideal from him. Ergo, we recognise that we do not correspond to this ideal ourselves.
Religious ideals such as Jesus or Buddha serve to recognise our own imperfection, in my understanding. That doesn't make the ideals superfluous, on the contrary, it offers orientation. If there were no optimum, it would be lessened and all kinds of excuses to opt for the less optimum would then be justified.
To do spontaneously what is right, I think, does not come naturally but through being challenged.
Congratulations @vieira! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 5250 replies.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
I would like to thank @erh.germany for this award, without her recent comments, I would not have been able to make it. :D
Oh, HaHa :D Thank you for the mention.