Words of Aristotle

"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self."

"Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit."

"Quality is not an act, it is a habit."

"All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsions, habit, reason, passion, desire."

"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst."

"The ultimate value of life depends upon awareness and the power of contemplation rather than upon mere survival."

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

"Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy."

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."

" No excellent soul is exempt from a mixture of madness."

"The wise man does not expose himself needlessly to danger, since there are few things for which he cares sufficiently; but he is willing, in great crises, to give even his life - knowing that under certain conditions it is not worthwhile to live."

"The energy of the mind is the essence of life."

"The soul never thinks without a picture."

"Youth is easily deceived because it is quick to hope."

"If one way be better than another, that you may be sure is nature's way."

"The greatest virtues are those which are most useful to other persons."

[Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/aristotle.html]

"..; for the hardest victory is over self."

How can ones' "self" have "victory" over ones' "self"?

If the "self" is flawed to the degree that "self" needs victory over ones' "self", then the "self" is unequipped to perform whatever task is necessary to achieve victory over ones' "self" by ones' "self".

Just sayin'. 😉

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"..; for the hardest victory is over self."

How can ones' "self" have "victory" over ones' "self"?

If the "self" is flawed to the degree that "self" needs victory over ones' "self", then the "self" is unequipped to perform whatever task is necessary to achieve victory over ones' "self" by ones' "self".

Just sayin'. 😉[/b]

How is that different from Jesus saying, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself..."? The first step is to deny ones "self". The first step is to win that victory.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"..; for the hardest victory is over self."

How can ones' "self" have "victory" over ones' "self"?

If the "self" is flawed to the degree that "self" needs victory over ones' "self", then the "self" is unequipped to perform whatever task is necessary to achieve victory over ones' "self" by ones' "self".

Just sayin'. 😉[/b]

I am looking at this as a possible response to your question:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

excerpts:

" First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life?"

..."So instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
How is that different from Jesus saying, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself..."? The first step is to deny ones "self". The first step is to win that victory.

The difference is that one is relying on oneself to achieve the victory, while the other denies oneself and puts his faith and trust in Jesus to achieve the victory.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by JS357
I am looking at this as a possible response to your question:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

excerpts:

" First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Sec ...[text shortened]... erconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self."

It appears that the Buddha was deceived by Satan the devil. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
The difference is that one is relying on oneself to achieve the victory, while the other denies oneself and puts his faith and trust in Jesus to achieve the victory.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The journey cannot begin until the first step is taken - deny yourself. From what I've seen Christians are no better at taking that step than non-Christians. In fact, if anything Christians are less likely to deny themselves. Christianity is a religion of the self, by the self, for the self - at least those factions that believe in "salvation by grace".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The journey cannot begin until the first step is taken - deny yourself. From what I've seen Christians are no better at taking that step than non-Christians. In fact, if anything Christians are less likely to deny themselves. Christianity is a religion of the self, by the self, for the self - at least those factions that believe in "salvation by grace".

Apparently you are also deceived by Satan the devil.

Re: the discussions as to the 'self', I expect Aristotle would immediately look at what we are referring to and seek to define the term in its context.

On the face value, and in the light of his historical context, it looks to me like he is talking about being able to control one's urges, ie self-control. He would also be speaking from his view of the high role of reason. Irrationality and uncontrolled capitulation to the emotions along with the the need to establish facts and consequences of one's actions are part of the context of his thinking. He appears to me to be quite the pragmatist, quite a grounded man.

Comments as to the 'self' in Buddhism are an interesting contrast (one that I will explore - Aristotle's view on the metaphysics of a 'self" ?) but 'self control' is not unknown in Buddhism. There is a functional 'self' acknowledged in Buddhism.

How does one control the self with the very self one is trying to control?
Our functional self is not monolithic but complex and with many aspects.
Words and shifting definitions can set us a merry dance.

Anyway, I just liked the site of quotes for reflection. I am not well read on Aristotle. Perhaps I'll make a New Year's resolution to correct that this year. Aristotle plays no small part in the foundations of Western civilisation.

Pity it all got a bit derailed with the religio-political emergence of the Christian Church and its censorship and fight against human freedom of thought, which sadly led to the many stalling centuries of the Dark Ages. I guess history is just like that, like us, not perfect at all. Eventually with the Enlightenment, the flame of reason and fact-based thinking began to leap again, which started to free from the tight bonds of 'infallible' Mother Church, with its guilt and power peddling.

Originally posted by Taoman
"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self."

"Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but ...[text shortened]... e: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/aristotle.html]

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

(9+)

"The soul never thinks without a picture"

The "soul" concept was strong then. A Buddhist may well posit that the pictures that arise in the mind as it thinks, the totality of thought, picture and response is the "soul" or the appearance of one. I think there is role for the concept of 'soul' as we use it to refer to conscience and psyche of man. Buddhists talk of 'mind streams' as they struggle with the concept of reincarnation (what reincarnates if there is no "soul" or "self"?)

People seem to use the term to refer to our higher thinking, or our sense of the mental part of us as separate from our physiology. But modern science causes the boundaries between mind and body to not be so distinct these days.

Being one who thinks our 'mind experience' is not limited to our physical brain, our 'soul' or 'spirit' could also link to the "Oversoul" as some have put it. Jung may call it the Collective Unconscious. Some physicists now refer to a holographic, mind-like quantum field. I don't see the soul as existing apart from our moment to moment of encountering our life, death and mind experience - sort of like a shifting 'ID' as various boundaries are crossed - the 'passport' for our ongoing living experience.

To me it's not a finally separate distinct "thing", but I am open to such a passing "configuration" extending beyond physical death, part of a changing and ongoing "mindstream", like the deep singular currents or streams within the ocean maintained for a period, changing, transmuting, disappearing reappearing. The boundaries of such a "soul" in this instance a very blurred and changing, not a static thing.

Our lives, and life itself appears never to be concreted in place, and thank you very much for that. A soul could be a sort of "flag" to facilitate return to our current center as we are experiencing things at present. The experience of a soul doesn't appear to be apart from the evoking events that confront us in life.

Just my musings.
I wonder what others' concept of the soul may be, if they give it 'room' in their thinking. Many of course dismiss it immediately, asking for evidence. Fair enough too.

Originally posted by Taoman
"The soul never thinks without a picture"

The "soul" concept was strong then. A Buddhist may well posit that the pictures that arise in the mind as it thinks, the totality of thought, picture and response is the "soul" or the appearance of one. I think there is role for the concept of 'soul' as we use it to refer to conscience and psyche of man. Buddhists ...[text shortened]... it immediately, asking for evidence. Fair enough too.

My now deceased sister was taught to think of the soul as a marble coat hanger (of all things) that sin puts pits into, that can grow until the coat hanger falls apart and does not do its intended job. It is left to us to think about what its intended job is. Holding something up keeping it from falling, seems likely.

OTOH, I was taught to think of is as a glowing white orb. Sins darken patches of it and can obliterate the light, and thus obscure that which it illuminates -- which is the proper path of life. So the soul has an intended job here, too, that is hampered or prevented by sin.

I haven't come across other such graphic depictions but would like to.