Hacker News Reader

Comment by webwanderings | Hacker News Reader

Watts and Osho were on the same wavelength when it comes to imparting their own definition of religion and philosophy. Both had their human flaws and didn't care. Their message was and is still sound (no wonder they are popular on YouTube).

View on HN

Why is it still sound if they themselves could not live and follow their own philosophy? I am wary of anyone who professes something that sounds technically sound, but which they themselves cannot live up to.

That's an extremely common theme in the world. Teachers, therapists, doctors, etc. Often the instructor is completely fucked up, and is trying to cope with that by teaching/helping others. But they still have insightful and good advice, even if they don't follow it themselves. Don't focus on the instructor as some kind of idol that, if their perfection wanes, so does your attention to their teaching. Instead focus on the message and whether it will work for you. Many people find that it does, and it's that direct result that matters.

Shortsighted people look at a teacher and say "You're only teaching! I should be learning from someone doing." Or a million other excuses.

But when it comes down to it, everyone on this planet could teach at least one useful thing to anyone else.

If you want to learn sword smithing, do you take notes from a sword smith who can barely make a sharp blade? Or a master sword smith who embodies their craft to the highest level? I suppose the former might have some unpracticed insights by stealing them from others, but the latter is where I’d be most interested.

On teachers - I know relationship counselors who can’t even have a functioning relationship themselves, and yes I suppose maybe they have some pithy takes on how to have a relationship and also some theoretical knowledge, but I like taking my lessons from doers.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. It's more like would you want your physical ailments treated by an unfit but talented medical professional or the fittest person at your local gym?

Well to bring in a Christian notion here that is useful: We’re all sinners and therefore destined to fall short, but that isn’t an excuse to not try, and to keep trying.

Or to put it another way: Hypocrites aren’t wrong. They’re just hypocrites.

You are comparing a philosopher and a cult leader. I can't say I find the comparison particularly enlightening.

I wasn’t intending on enlighten anyone, I was merely responding to a comment.

That is not the meaning of the word "enlightening" that I meant. But, given the case at hand, it's understandable that you interpreted it in this way.

I should have used the word "elucidating" instead.

> I am wary of anyone who professes something that sounds technically sound, but which they themselves cannot live up to.

No one would or even could live up to such a purity test.

So a perspective on the nature of the universe is invalidated by having an internal struggle?

Can you explain which part of his philosophy sounds “technically sound” but he clearly isn’t living up to?

And also what does it mean to live up to a philosophy? Do you “live up” to the idea that the universe is a so and so (fill your own beliefs in here)?

If you started drinking more than your friends would like, would that invalidate your opinion about the universe in some way?

Think about music for example. There's plenty of good music made by people with broken lives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com