I think itβs because the mass of men have so little time and energy to spend developing a broad understanding of the world around them, that they commit themselves to any available philosophy to which they are exposed. Men want to be a part of something greater than themselvesβ¦a team, a school, an ideaβ¦. And if they only know a few things, they will defend them to the death.
βOnly fluency across the boundaries can provide a clear view of the world as it really is.β -Edward O. Wilson
I like that idea. What would you attribute the lack of time to?
True intellectual culture and the demand for higher interests in life does not become possible until man has achieved a certain material standard of living
Rudolph Rocker
Plato, in common with most Greek philosophers, took the view that leisure is essential to wisdom, which will therefore not be found among those who have to work for their living, but only among those who have independent means, or who are relieved by the state from anxieties as to their subsistence.
Bertrand Russell
Manβs lack of time and energy is by design. When you work, you work for a system that profits from your labor. When a man labors, he has no time to think and no time to push back on the establishment. Thinkers are a far greater risk to authority than armies
I'm struggling with this because there are examples of both - those with and without time to develop character.
Epictetus, born into slavery, but was able to overcome hardships and develop a virtuous character. Viktor Frankl is another example.
Then, there are others who had their needs met and, as alluded to earlier with Maslow's Hierarchy, were able to reach the level of thought needed - at the actualization and transcendence (new addition) levels.
So you would agree with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs?
