Interpret and Comment on Philosophical Quotes

There is no more destructive force in human affairs — not greed, not hatred — than the desire to have been right. Non-attachment to possessions is trivial when compared with non-attachment to opinions.
- Mark Kleiman -

I agree. The desire to do anything is destructive, and including proving oneself right.
However, I do not believe greed and hatred can be put as a lesser destructive force than the desire. Greed and hateret and ignorance can be easely put as distructive as any other force on this planet.
As for the non attachment comment, again, attachment to anything is a destructive force, be it to opinions or things.

But I guess, Kleiman's point might have been that, people would go through horrendous things, do things they otherwise would deem wrong, in order to be proven right.
In such respect it is very true. Then again, people would go through terrible things, and do things they otherwise would never, even if they desire a thing or a person.

How about this -

''All human errors are impatience, a premature breaking off of methodical procedure, an apparent fencing-in of what is apparently at issue.''

-Kafka

Originally posted by Storm
There is no more destructive force in human affairs — not greed, not hatred — than the desire to have been right. Non-attachment to possessions is trivial when compared with non-attachment to opinions.
- Mark Kleiman -

I don't think it's as instantly destructive as vices like greed etc. It's more self-disappointing than anything.

After you've been right at a drastic cost, is it really worth it? You can often end up being wrong in many ways as a result of being right.

-AC

what about fear?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How about this -

''All human errors are impatience, a premature breaking off of methodical procedure, an apparent fencing-in of what is apparently at issue.''

-Kafka

I think somethings cannot be solved methodically and must be solved through instinct and intuition, but probably everything we do wrong results from dodging a direct answer in one way or another.

Originally posted by Storm
There is no more destructive force in human affairs — not greed, not hatred — than the desire to have been right. Non-attachment to possessions is trivial when compared with non-attachment to opinions.
- Mark Kleiman -

Yes, Buddha was a genious! ...and Kleiman must have known that...

Attachment to opinions holds the potential to grow into greed, hatred and eventually war, because if one becomes attached or self-identifies with an idea, thought, or opinion, one wants to defend that self-identifying stance with everything you've got, and such defence of views and the potential forcing of views onto other people may lead to war.

We should not even be attached to Truth.

I tend to agree that the need to be right at the cost of proving another wrong is at the source of war and suffering.

Along with religion?

Although religion plays a role, so do a variety of cultural, political and historical factors.

While war is never good, it is sometimes necessary, unfortunately. So if one of those negative aspects happens to be the catalyst for a war in which the greater good is achieved, is it really a negative?

-AC

The ever-clear Heidegger:

We said that ontology is the science of being. But being is always the being of a being. Being is essentially different from a being, from beings. How is the distinction between being and beings to be grasped? How can its possibility be explained? If being is not itself a being, how then does it nevertheless belong to beings, since, after all, being and only beings are? What does it mean to say that being belongs to beings?

Originally posted by Storm
There is no more destructive force in human affairs — not greed, not hatred — than the desire to have been right. Non-attachment to possessions is trivial when compared with non-attachment to opinions.
- Mark Kleiman -

Some people want to be right so bad (only because of their high expectancies of themselves and pride) that they'll become prejudiced and shortsighted unintentionaly..
Why is it so hard for people to judge conflicting views just neutrally?
You'll learn much more from that.. 🙁

I think we all want to be right, if we are really honest about it, and this is because we all are right. As simple as that.

I don't really believe in "Good things come to those who wait." or "Patience is a virtue."

I believe if you want something you should immediately go for it. Hesitations can kill, directly and indirectly. It may work for a few but in the business world and in life in general. I myself wouldn't follow this quote in the majority of life cases.

There's this story I heard about a lady waiting on a dock for a ship to arrive and upon seeing the ship approach from afar she became excited, jumping up and down, breaking the dock and falling into the cold waters below and drowning herself.

The smarter person would've swam out to meet the ship, and i'm not saying it literally but figuratively. Do not hesitate to get what you want, go out and get it is what i'm saying.

The beginning of thought is in disagreement — not only with others but also with ourselves.
- Eric Hoffer -

I think that's quite a trivial statement.

Disagreement with others seems rather self-evident. But what about disagreement with oneself? Does it make any sense?

Originally posted by Storm
Disagreement with others seems rather self-evident. But what about disagreement with oneself? Does it make any sense?

A lot of philosophical progress is enacted by means of the dialectic, which necessitates the need to challenge held views.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
A lot of philosophical progress is enacted by means of the dialectic, which necessitates the need to challenge held views.

I think that's quite a trivial statement dressed-up in nice words.