Saturday, May 5, 2012
Recurrent Features
In Thursday's class, we discussed the objection that some traditionalist Muslim families make to their daughters' ideas of going off to college or coed workplaces - namely, that they do not want their daughters to spend time around men. One possible (and likely, I think) reason for this might be that they believe men are simply primitive, uncontrollable type creatures when in the presence of women. This is essentially the same as one of the many justifications for mandatory veil-wearing. I wonder if there was any particular event or societal tendency in ancient Middle Eastern (perhaps Bedouin) history to prompt such a view. Does anyone have any ideas?
One Potential Upside
The perception of veil-wearing women by Americans seems to be primarily negative, but with a significant minority opinion which is neutral. It does not, however, appear that many (if any) people think that anything about veil-wearing could be positive. In spite of this, and in spite of the many possible negative causes or effects of veil-wearing, I can think of at least one effect which is (in my opinion) positive. This is the idea that veil-wearing, due to the fact that it often conceals much of women's bodies, may encourage potential romantic partners to focus on the women's personalities rather than their looks. In modern American culture, and in many modern first-world cultures, the media and society place an inordinate amount of emphasis on the importance of body image. This is particularly true in regards to women, although it does affect men as well, and is doing so with increasing frequency and severity. The idea of women wearing veils (and men wearing similarly modest and concealing garb) might help offset this probably unwise focus. Obviously, it does not always do so, and may not do it terribly often, but it could be one out of numerous positive results of veil-wearing.
Response: Human Variation
In response to Martha Bruso's post on May 5, 2012:
It depends on what you mean by misconceptions. Certainly, many Middle Eastern nations are quite sexist, and much of the discrimination that the American media loves to portray does occur. However, I do not think it is nearly as widespread, or in many cases as severe, as the media implies. This is largely because the media implies universality, a concept which rarely exists in regards to humans. Humans are quite variable; even within one nation, or one state, or even one county or town people's outlooks on life and various social, religious, and ethical views vary. In one single, Massachusetts town you might find people who are radical, vegan, LGBT-friendly, atheistic liberals, and other people who are strict, patriarchal, homo-and-trans-phobic, highly religious conservatives. There is no reason to think that Middle Eastern countries cannot contain similar variability, although perhaps not quite to the extent found in America (due to the heterogeneous nature of American society).
It depends on what you mean by misconceptions. Certainly, many Middle Eastern nations are quite sexist, and much of the discrimination that the American media loves to portray does occur. However, I do not think it is nearly as widespread, or in many cases as severe, as the media implies. This is largely because the media implies universality, a concept which rarely exists in regards to humans. Humans are quite variable; even within one nation, or one state, or even one county or town people's outlooks on life and various social, religious, and ethical views vary. In one single, Massachusetts town you might find people who are radical, vegan, LGBT-friendly, atheistic liberals, and other people who are strict, patriarchal, homo-and-trans-phobic, highly religious conservatives. There is no reason to think that Middle Eastern countries cannot contain similar variability, although perhaps not quite to the extent found in America (due to the heterogeneous nature of American society).
Response: Finding Balance
In response to Lauren Feeney's post "Response to "Where have all the prophets gone?"" (May 4, 2012):
I think that people often go too far in another way, as well; namely, they go too far for the supporters of the standing system to allow. With the current state of society, it is sometimes very easy for the rich or powerful to regulate what information the public can access. Thus, if someone writes a book presenting potentially revolutionary ideals, publishers may not publish the book, or schools may not hire the author to make presentations. Jesus and Muhammad, of course, faced similar problems, although in a far more direct manner; they were both at risk of assassination or execution. While I doubt that things go that far very frequently in modern American society, I think that messages which would pose too much of a challenge to an existing power or economic structure still often end up failing to reach their intended audience; namely, the majority of the public. As such, those who wish to communicate their ideas may have to censor them somewhat, toning them down for the sake of accessibility.
I think that people often go too far in another way, as well; namely, they go too far for the supporters of the standing system to allow. With the current state of society, it is sometimes very easy for the rich or powerful to regulate what information the public can access. Thus, if someone writes a book presenting potentially revolutionary ideals, publishers may not publish the book, or schools may not hire the author to make presentations. Jesus and Muhammad, of course, faced similar problems, although in a far more direct manner; they were both at risk of assassination or execution. While I doubt that things go that far very frequently in modern American society, I think that messages which would pose too much of a challenge to an existing power or economic structure still often end up failing to reach their intended audience; namely, the majority of the public. As such, those who wish to communicate their ideas may have to censor them somewhat, toning them down for the sake of accessibility.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Fuzzy Memories
When reading the book on Muhammad, I found the idea of the Qur'an's version of Hell being vague and undetailed quite interesting. I wonder if the Bedouin's belief that being forgotten is the worst thing which can happen to a person might have prompted this vagueness; if people do not even know much about the details of Hell, then of course they will not remember the names or lives of those who end up there. In this way, the worst part of Hell might not be the various tortures which Hell's denizens would presumably force one to endure, but instead the lack of remembrance in the minds of those still living. This may seem strange to modern readers of the Qur'an, particularly those in the United States, with its focus on punishment and reward which comes with capitalism and a retributive justice system. It reminds me somewhat of the apparent strangeness of the attitude people in Jesus' time would have had to crucifixion, with the worst part being the destruction of the body rather than the pain. However, the Bedouin were not the only ancient culture to emphasize remembrance; Viking culture, which may be more familiar to the contemporary American or European reader, also placed far more value on fame and memorable deeds than on physical comfort.
Response: Realism
In response to Lauren Feeney's post "Protected Love" (April 28, 2012):
The question of whether it is better for women in Islamic countries (both historically and today) to marry for protection or to live without that protection requires something of a two-sided answer. While in an ideal situation, or even a situation close to ideal, of course women should choose for themselves who and when (if ever) to marry, the dangerous and sexist societal circumstances in Muhammad's time meant that women were frequently better off marrying for protection. Most people, and therefore most women, prefer living in less-than-ideal circumstances to dying or living in totally miserable circumstances, so marrying for protection would have been a preferable alternative one's enemies, or simply unscrupulous people, killing or taking advantage of one. The societal circumstances of today's world, however, are in many cases less harsh than those of Muhammad's time. This opens up the possibility of reforming the remaining sexist aspects of society, and therefore making it possible for women not to marry for protection out of necessity.
The question of whether it is better for women in Islamic countries (both historically and today) to marry for protection or to live without that protection requires something of a two-sided answer. While in an ideal situation, or even a situation close to ideal, of course women should choose for themselves who and when (if ever) to marry, the dangerous and sexist societal circumstances in Muhammad's time meant that women were frequently better off marrying for protection. Most people, and therefore most women, prefer living in less-than-ideal circumstances to dying or living in totally miserable circumstances, so marrying for protection would have been a preferable alternative one's enemies, or simply unscrupulous people, killing or taking advantage of one. The societal circumstances of today's world, however, are in many cases less harsh than those of Muhammad's time. This opens up the possibility of reforming the remaining sexist aspects of society, and therefore making it possible for women not to marry for protection out of necessity.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Evangelism
Is the idea of evangelism a good one? It is true that many religious texts (and some non-religious documents) advise readers to go out and attempt to convert others to a given belief system. Obviously, it is possible to take evangelism too far and try converting people by coercion, but that is not the kind of evangelism I am referring to; that sort is clearly wrong, and I don't feel any need to elaborate upon it. What, though, of more day-to-day evangelism?
In some cases, I do not think that there is anything wrong with it. Sure, it can be annoying to have someone pushing a pamphlet on you describing their religion, but it does you no great harm, and may make them feel better about themself. However, in other situations it can cause harm. For example, a father telling his young daughter that she will go to Hell if she does not subscribe to his religion can cause emotional distress to the daughter. Even if she does as her father recommends and follows his religion, it will be out of fear rather than clear-headed voluntarism. In such cases, I think that even purely verbal evangelism is unacceptable.
In some cases, I do not think that there is anything wrong with it. Sure, it can be annoying to have someone pushing a pamphlet on you describing their religion, but it does you no great harm, and may make them feel better about themself. However, in other situations it can cause harm. For example, a father telling his young daughter that she will go to Hell if she does not subscribe to his religion can cause emotional distress to the daughter. Even if she does as her father recommends and follows his religion, it will be out of fear rather than clear-headed voluntarism. In such cases, I think that even purely verbal evangelism is unacceptable.
Response: Widespread Extremism
In response to Lauren Feeney's post "Koran by Heart" (April 21, 2012):
The concept that there are both conservative and more laid-back or liberal Muslims is certainly worth taking note of, as it is both true and woefully unknown amongst many Americans today. Additionally, it raises the idea of extremism in other belief systems. While almost all religions (and lack thereof), I believe, contain valuable advice and information about human nature and how to live one's life, all of them tend to become more negative than positive when followers take them too far. Numerous examples of this pepper contemporary society: Christians who follow Jesus' teachings versus the Westboro Baptist Church, atheists who hold their views due to lack of evidence versus anti-theists disguised as atheists, Muslims who follow Muhammad's teachings versus the 9/11 bombers, agnostics versus... agnostics who claim all other belief systems are silly, perhaps? I'm not certain about the last one, but it seems likely that even agnosticism can go too far. Ultimately, I think that there are very few beliefs which are inherently bad; it is simply fanatic adherents who commit atrocities, falsely, in the name of the belief.
The concept that there are both conservative and more laid-back or liberal Muslims is certainly worth taking note of, as it is both true and woefully unknown amongst many Americans today. Additionally, it raises the idea of extremism in other belief systems. While almost all religions (and lack thereof), I believe, contain valuable advice and information about human nature and how to live one's life, all of them tend to become more negative than positive when followers take them too far. Numerous examples of this pepper contemporary society: Christians who follow Jesus' teachings versus the Westboro Baptist Church, atheists who hold their views due to lack of evidence versus anti-theists disguised as atheists, Muslims who follow Muhammad's teachings versus the 9/11 bombers, agnostics versus... agnostics who claim all other belief systems are silly, perhaps? I'm not certain about the last one, but it seems likely that even agnosticism can go too far. Ultimately, I think that there are very few beliefs which are inherently bad; it is simply fanatic adherents who commit atrocities, falsely, in the name of the belief.
Response: Deliberate Lack of Understanding
In response to Adam Tobin's post "The Western Bias" (April 21, 2012):
I agree that the American educational system strongly encourages students to remain ignorant about and prejudiced against other cultures and religions. However, I do not think that curriculum makers do this to shelter the youth of the United States; instead, I think that they do it to ensure that adult Americans will possess a strong, and probably unjustified, sense of patriotism which enables them to ignore the atrocities that America may commit against other nations, often in order to procure resources to boost the economy. As an example: if most Americans believe that all Muslims, and all people in the Middle East (if they are ignorant enough, they may assume that the two are synonymous) are evil fanatics who want to bomb America until no one there is alive, they will not object when the government sends troops over to the Middle East. They will assume that the troops are there to fight the evil, American-hating, backwards, and ultimately fictional people who live there, rather than realising that the war may instead be primarily for economic reasons. Furthermore, if in the process of 'winning the war' in the Middle East, America acquires access to large amounts of fossil fuels, they will simply claim that these are just spoils of war, and that America has every right to them.
I agree that the American educational system strongly encourages students to remain ignorant about and prejudiced against other cultures and religions. However, I do not think that curriculum makers do this to shelter the youth of the United States; instead, I think that they do it to ensure that adult Americans will possess a strong, and probably unjustified, sense of patriotism which enables them to ignore the atrocities that America may commit against other nations, often in order to procure resources to boost the economy. As an example: if most Americans believe that all Muslims, and all people in the Middle East (if they are ignorant enough, they may assume that the two are synonymous) are evil fanatics who want to bomb America until no one there is alive, they will not object when the government sends troops over to the Middle East. They will assume that the troops are there to fight the evil, American-hating, backwards, and ultimately fictional people who live there, rather than realising that the war may instead be primarily for economic reasons. Furthermore, if in the process of 'winning the war' in the Middle East, America acquires access to large amounts of fossil fuels, they will simply claim that these are just spoils of war, and that America has every right to them.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Off Topic: Good Company
(This is not directly related to the topic of Islam, but I thought it merited a blog post.)
Of late, I have been communicating with an individual who follows a very strict version of Christianity. Some of the things he has to say are reasonable (i.e., don't drink or do drugs), others blatantly offensive (even thinking about self-harm or suicide will get one sent to Hell, homosexuality is a sin, etc.), and still others quite interesting. One of these was the idea that one should not associate with those who do not conform to one's own system of religious beliefs. Personally, I am quite opposed to this idea. If one refuses to investigate alternate theological viewpoints, one is far more prone to be intolerant, confused, or even violent towards people who do not follow one's belief system. Furthermore, by failing to so much as spend time with people of different or no faiths, one will undoubtedly miss out on many valuable relationships - as evidence, most of the people I know are of different faiths than their best friends.
Of late, I have been communicating with an individual who follows a very strict version of Christianity. Some of the things he has to say are reasonable (i.e., don't drink or do drugs), others blatantly offensive (even thinking about self-harm or suicide will get one sent to Hell, homosexuality is a sin, etc.), and still others quite interesting. One of these was the idea that one should not associate with those who do not conform to one's own system of religious beliefs. Personally, I am quite opposed to this idea. If one refuses to investigate alternate theological viewpoints, one is far more prone to be intolerant, confused, or even violent towards people who do not follow one's belief system. Furthermore, by failing to so much as spend time with people of different or no faiths, one will undoubtedly miss out on many valuable relationships - as evidence, most of the people I know are of different faiths than their best friends.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Balancing Religion and Secular Life
While I am not opposed to atheism, I think that religion can be a worthwhile and positive aspect to people's lives. However, this tends to be true only in moderation. Devoting oneself wholly to one's religion is admirable, but only tends to work if one takes measures to remove oneself from the regular world, by joining a monastic order or by secluding oneself away from mainstream civilisation. Attempting to practice one's religion in an extreme way while remaining an active part of mainstream society usually results in unhappiness both for one, and for the people around one.
As most people are not interested in joining a monastic order, they usually attempt to balance their religion with their secular life - although of course, the degrees to which they succeed vary widely. If anyone reading this would like to share their experiences balancing religion with secular life, I'd appreciate it!
As most people are not interested in joining a monastic order, they usually attempt to balance their religion with their secular life - although of course, the degrees to which they succeed vary widely. If anyone reading this would like to share their experiences balancing religion with secular life, I'd appreciate it!
A Different Level
In class, we discussed the difference between the popular conception of Buddhism's regulation of emotions and the reality - the former that it simply removes the highs and lows of emotion, and the latter that it causes one's emotions to exist on a totally different level. I still wonder, however, how much actual joy is involved in achieving a disconnect from all attachment. It seems to me (and I could be wrong, of course) that the most significant joys in life are connected to attachment - stargazing with a good friend, for example. If one was not attached to such a friend, I would imagine that one would appreciate their company less; not to say that one could not appreciate them, but that a significant element of the appreciation would be gone.
Perhaps a middle ground between attachment and disconnection would be the ideal state for emotions. If one does develop attachments, and thus does feel loss when those attachments fail, but then learns to eventually let go of that loss, one can experience the best of both worlds.
I am not certain of my ideas here, so if anyone has comments I'd appreciate the input!
Perhaps a middle ground between attachment and disconnection would be the ideal state for emotions. If one does develop attachments, and thus does feel loss when those attachments fail, but then learns to eventually let go of that loss, one can experience the best of both worlds.
I am not certain of my ideas here, so if anyone has comments I'd appreciate the input!
Response: Extremism and Visibility
In response to Lauren Feeney's post "The Thing About Christians" (April 14, 2012):
Very interesting article! I agree that many people are obsessed with Christianity, probably because it has become such a visible force in politics today. It does seem as though the most extreme Christians are the ones making policy these days - for example, the Vatican has some ridiculously strict doctrines, but most people I know who identify as Catholic are much more moderate in their views. This extremism, I think, is not only detrimental to atheists, agnostics, and non-Christian theists, but to any Christians who have less extreme views than those visible few. In fact, it may do more damage to such moderate Christians, because it may cause many non-Christians to assume that every Christian is a fanatical extremist (like Fred Phelps, or someone similarly awful).
A quick side note - I could have missed it, but reading the article, I didn't notice Seven mention Catholicism. It seems like he was commenting on Christianity in general, not Catholicism specifically.
Very interesting article! I agree that many people are obsessed with Christianity, probably because it has become such a visible force in politics today. It does seem as though the most extreme Christians are the ones making policy these days - for example, the Vatican has some ridiculously strict doctrines, but most people I know who identify as Catholic are much more moderate in their views. This extremism, I think, is not only detrimental to atheists, agnostics, and non-Christian theists, but to any Christians who have less extreme views than those visible few. In fact, it may do more damage to such moderate Christians, because it may cause many non-Christians to assume that every Christian is a fanatical extremist (like Fred Phelps, or someone similarly awful).
A quick side note - I could have missed it, but reading the article, I didn't notice Seven mention Catholicism. It seems like he was commenting on Christianity in general, not Catholicism specifically.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Response: Theological Curiosity
In response to Ryan Walters' post "Respect" (April 8, 2012):
I do not think that attending a church, and/or participating in its activities, without belonging to that church's denomination is disrespectful at all. Unless the church states that only members of the religion are allowed within, you are simply taking advantage of an open invitation. In fact, I think that many churches would probably welcome visitors, due to the chance of gaining new members of the faith. Curiosity about other systems of belief is an indication of an admirable sort of open-mindedness, I think. As long as you do not take the opportunity of being in a church to cause disruption amongst the other attendees (for example, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church shouting and throwing rotten fruit in a Unitarian Universalist church), there is no reason not to attend churches (or other places of worship) for all the religions you wish to investigate.
I do not think that attending a church, and/or participating in its activities, without belonging to that church's denomination is disrespectful at all. Unless the church states that only members of the religion are allowed within, you are simply taking advantage of an open invitation. In fact, I think that many churches would probably welcome visitors, due to the chance of gaining new members of the faith. Curiosity about other systems of belief is an indication of an admirable sort of open-mindedness, I think. As long as you do not take the opportunity of being in a church to cause disruption amongst the other attendees (for example, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church shouting and throwing rotten fruit in a Unitarian Universalist church), there is no reason not to attend churches (or other places of worship) for all the religions you wish to investigate.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Descartes and Buddhism
I find it interesting that one of the central ideas in Buddhism is the non-existence of the self. This is in direct contrast with Descartes' famous 'cogito ergo sum' idea, which states that the existence of the self is the only thing that one can be certain of. I wonder how a Buddhist would respond to Descartes' reasoning - would they say that the apparent self is actually just a collection of attributes which can under certain circumstance break apart? Would they say that the consciousness perceiving the (possibly illusionary, by both theories) world is not the self, but a universal consciousness that is simply manifested in parts?
Not being sufficiently well-versed in Buddhist doctrine myself, I cannot make any assertions about the answer with any confidence. If anyone would like to suggest ideas, I would very much appreciate it!
Not being sufficiently well-versed in Buddhist doctrine myself, I cannot make any assertions about the answer with any confidence. If anyone would like to suggest ideas, I would very much appreciate it!
Response: Buddhism's Compatibility
In response to Brian Fitzpatrick's post "On Rerererererereading the Dhammapada" (April 5, 2012):
The non-mystical, detectable results of practising Buddhism are, I think, a very large part of its appeal. Particularly to those who grew up with traditions such as Christianity (wherein the results of belief and practice do not become manifest until after death), getting actual results within this lifetime may seem like a refreshing change. Furthermore, I think that the compatibility of Buddhism with other religions may also seem welcoming to many, as they do not have to abandon their previous religious affiliation in order to practice at least a large portion of the advice of the Buddha.
While Buddhism does contain some metaphysical and spiritual elements which contradict the doctrines of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and so on, the actual practices (meditation, letting go of attachments, etc.) do not clash at all with these religions. As such, it is possible for someone who is, for example, Muslim, to also practice Buddhism as part of their daily life.
The non-mystical, detectable results of practising Buddhism are, I think, a very large part of its appeal. Particularly to those who grew up with traditions such as Christianity (wherein the results of belief and practice do not become manifest until after death), getting actual results within this lifetime may seem like a refreshing change. Furthermore, I think that the compatibility of Buddhism with other religions may also seem welcoming to many, as they do not have to abandon their previous religious affiliation in order to practice at least a large portion of the advice of the Buddha.
While Buddhism does contain some metaphysical and spiritual elements which contradict the doctrines of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and so on, the actual practices (meditation, letting go of attachments, etc.) do not clash at all with these religions. As such, it is possible for someone who is, for example, Muslim, to also practice Buddhism as part of their daily life.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Response: Antiquated Style
In response to Rebecca Ryan's post "Dhammapada" (April 5, 2012):
The verses of the Dhammapada are indeed quite repetitive in form. However, I do not think that this is at all a result of bad writing or bad translation. In ancient times, when oral tradition was much more prominent in many cultures, people would frequently set stories or advice in poetic or chanted form, because poems and songs are typically easier to remember than straight prose. I do not know a whole lot about Indian poetry, or about the oral tradition there, but I would guess that it was not totally dissimilar to that in Europe and the Middle East.
As for the contradictory nature of juxtaposed verses, it makes sense in the context of a poetic collection of sayings. Because the Dhammapada's format is so structured, it typically has one verse describing bad actions or traits and the negative results thereof, and then positive actions or traits and the corresponding results of those. It may seem unnecessary, but if one thinks about it like the lyrics to a song, or the verses in a poem, it seems less strange.
The verses of the Dhammapada are indeed quite repetitive in form. However, I do not think that this is at all a result of bad writing or bad translation. In ancient times, when oral tradition was much more prominent in many cultures, people would frequently set stories or advice in poetic or chanted form, because poems and songs are typically easier to remember than straight prose. I do not know a whole lot about Indian poetry, or about the oral tradition there, but I would guess that it was not totally dissimilar to that in Europe and the Middle East.
As for the contradictory nature of juxtaposed verses, it makes sense in the context of a poetic collection of sayings. Because the Dhammapada's format is so structured, it typically has one verse describing bad actions or traits and the negative results thereof, and then positive actions or traits and the corresponding results of those. It may seem unnecessary, but if one thinks about it like the lyrics to a song, or the verses in a poem, it seems less strange.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Temporary States of Inequality
During Tuesday's class, we briefly touched upon the topic of teen pregnancy being partially a product of the larger issue of legal and societal discrimination against teens. I have thought about this issue before, and concluded that it is almost uniquely difficult to address. This is because, unlike other forms of discrimination, it has no permanent victims. The status of being a teen is temporary; and as the firmest advocates (and indeed, the majority of advocates) for a cause are typically those most affected by it, there is no long-lasting pool of firm advocates for teen rights.
To illustrate this more clearly, let us use the example of gay rights. Someone who is gay will always be gay, regardless of whether or not they actively take part in homosexual actions. As such, a gay advocate for gay rights will continually feel the injustice directed towards them, and thus will continue to work towards eradicating that injustice. Over time, they may build up a reputation among political or intellectual groups, and as a result will be able to have a greater influence on the social situation which is causing or allowing the injustice.
In contrast, people are only teens (defined here as being between the ages of thirteen and eighteen - the period during which social inequality is most pronounced) for a short while. After they reach legal adulthood, the feelings of injustice which they previously possessed may begin to fade, removing their motivation to continue working to achieve teen rights. In fact, as members of the privileged majority (adults) they may condemn their earlier views as immature. As a result of this temporariness, most advocates for teen rights have no time in which to build up a reputation in influential circles.
A last note - perhaps the only group which is (slightly) comparable to teens in terms of temporary discrimination is the transgendered community, due to the fact that after transitioning, transgendered people (rightly or not) often no longer consider themselves part of the community. However, as many areas do not allow people to transition completely (legally as well as physically) and because even after transitioning many people still have trouble being perceived as members of their actual gender, even this issue has more chance of resolution than teen rights.
To illustrate this more clearly, let us use the example of gay rights. Someone who is gay will always be gay, regardless of whether or not they actively take part in homosexual actions. As such, a gay advocate for gay rights will continually feel the injustice directed towards them, and thus will continue to work towards eradicating that injustice. Over time, they may build up a reputation among political or intellectual groups, and as a result will be able to have a greater influence on the social situation which is causing or allowing the injustice.
In contrast, people are only teens (defined here as being between the ages of thirteen and eighteen - the period during which social inequality is most pronounced) for a short while. After they reach legal adulthood, the feelings of injustice which they previously possessed may begin to fade, removing their motivation to continue working to achieve teen rights. In fact, as members of the privileged majority (adults) they may condemn their earlier views as immature. As a result of this temporariness, most advocates for teen rights have no time in which to build up a reputation in influential circles.
A last note - perhaps the only group which is (slightly) comparable to teens in terms of temporary discrimination is the transgendered community, due to the fact that after transitioning, transgendered people (rightly or not) often no longer consider themselves part of the community. However, as many areas do not allow people to transition completely (legally as well as physically) and because even after transitioning many people still have trouble being perceived as members of their actual gender, even this issue has more chance of resolution than teen rights.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Response: Peace and Progress
In response to Elena Noummano's post "If Everyone was Buddhist" (March 31, 2012):
While I agree that the world would likely be much more peaceful if all people practiced Buddhism, I think that there could also be negative effects of the situation. Most problematically, I think that universal Buddhism might well slow progress in many areas, from science to technological development to space exploration. This is because Buddhism advocates a life of self-reflection and meditation. While it is true that such a life can lead to increased happiness for the individual, it also causes stagnation in the progress of society as a whole.
Perhaps Buddhism does not have to be this extreme in such an ideal society; certainly, not all practitioners of current Buddhism are particularly strict. It certainly seems as though Buddhism is less likely to cause conflict than many other religions.
While I agree that the world would likely be much more peaceful if all people practiced Buddhism, I think that there could also be negative effects of the situation. Most problematically, I think that universal Buddhism might well slow progress in many areas, from science to technological development to space exploration. This is because Buddhism advocates a life of self-reflection and meditation. While it is true that such a life can lead to increased happiness for the individual, it also causes stagnation in the progress of society as a whole.
Perhaps Buddhism does not have to be this extreme in such an ideal society; certainly, not all practitioners of current Buddhism are particularly strict. It certainly seems as though Buddhism is less likely to cause conflict than many other religions.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Mortality Rate and Attachment
Buddhism is not the only religion or philosophy which advocates eliminating attachment from one's life in order to minimise suffering. Many philosophies which developed in ancient times advised their followers to either attempt to love without attachment (a difficult accomplishment to be sure) or to restrict themselves entirely from developing emotional bonds with people, animals, or objects.
This type of thinking seems quite strange in the context of contemporary society, where attachment is not only commonplace, but often viewed as an admirable display of trust in another person (in interpersonal relationships, that is, not in person-to-object relationships). What has changed between then and now?
One of the most significant factors, I think, might be the difference in mortality rates. In many ancient societies, the mortality rate was comparatively high; death was commonplace, a part of life for effectively everyone. As such, loss was frequent, and eliminating attachment might indeed have been the best way to maintain a healthy psyche. In modern society, the mortality rate is much lower, so loss has become a relatively rare occurrence for most people. Thus, attachment is a much smaller risk, and so has become more popular and less dangerous.
This type of thinking seems quite strange in the context of contemporary society, where attachment is not only commonplace, but often viewed as an admirable display of trust in another person (in interpersonal relationships, that is, not in person-to-object relationships). What has changed between then and now?
One of the most significant factors, I think, might be the difference in mortality rates. In many ancient societies, the mortality rate was comparatively high; death was commonplace, a part of life for effectively everyone. As such, loss was frequent, and eliminating attachment might indeed have been the best way to maintain a healthy psyche. In modern society, the mortality rate is much lower, so loss has become a relatively rare occurrence for most people. Thus, attachment is a much smaller risk, and so has become more popular and less dangerous.
Response: Inevitable Boredom?
In response to Brandon Gaudet's post "Life and Death: Two Sides of the Same Coin?" (March 29, 2012):
So far as humanity has discovered, no immortal, sentient entities exist at the current moment. However, the popularity of the concept of immortality in literature has exhibited that human perception of the idea tends to take on one of two general views. The first of these is that immortality only takes place in ideal settings (heaven, etc.) or as a form of eternal punishment (i.e. hell), and in the context of divine power. This is likely a simple manifestation of humanity's virtually unanimous fear of death, by incorporating a lack of death into any ideal reality. The second view is that immortality, while initially pleasant, eventually becomes tedious, and immortal beings end up seeking a way to terminate their existences.
Whether this latter view would hold true in reality is less than clear - after all, as humans do not have any experience with immortal beings, any human views on the subject (no matter how common) are purely hypothetical. It seems possible that, as the universe is constantly in a state of change, an immortal being would not become fatally bored. This is not to say that such a being might not decide to terminate their existence for some other reason - frustration with other beings, continual grief over the deaths of other beings, curiosity about the possibility of an afterlife - but merely that boredom alone might well not be enough to cause such a decision.
So far as humanity has discovered, no immortal, sentient entities exist at the current moment. However, the popularity of the concept of immortality in literature has exhibited that human perception of the idea tends to take on one of two general views. The first of these is that immortality only takes place in ideal settings (heaven, etc.) or as a form of eternal punishment (i.e. hell), and in the context of divine power. This is likely a simple manifestation of humanity's virtually unanimous fear of death, by incorporating a lack of death into any ideal reality. The second view is that immortality, while initially pleasant, eventually becomes tedious, and immortal beings end up seeking a way to terminate their existences.
Whether this latter view would hold true in reality is less than clear - after all, as humans do not have any experience with immortal beings, any human views on the subject (no matter how common) are purely hypothetical. It seems possible that, as the universe is constantly in a state of change, an immortal being would not become fatally bored. This is not to say that such a being might not decide to terminate their existence for some other reason - frustration with other beings, continual grief over the deaths of other beings, curiosity about the possibility of an afterlife - but merely that boredom alone might well not be enough to cause such a decision.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Karma and the Problem of Evil
The Problem of Evil is a long-debated obstacle to many religions' rationality. In short, it asks how, if a god is both all-good and all-powerful, evil can exist in the world. In the case of Christianity, of many similar monotheistic religions (Judaism and Islam, for example) the only viable solution so far appears to be that an all-powerful god might have plans that are beyond human comprehension, and as such allow the seeming impossibility of evil to exist. Some variations on the concept of karma (or on the concept of divine justice), however, circumvent the entire problem by claiming that people bring evil on themselves by their own immoral actions.
This outlook, unfortunately, can lead to many problems. For example, when a natural disaster occurs, leaving many people injured or otherwise in need of assistance, anyone who possesses such an outlook might well say that the victims deserve their fates, and refuse to assist them.
This outlook, unfortunately, can lead to many problems. For example, when a natural disaster occurs, leaving many people injured or otherwise in need of assistance, anyone who possesses such an outlook might well say that the victims deserve their fates, and refuse to assist them.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Response: Doubts Are Not Bad
In response to Jess Gamari's post "Knowledge is Not a Sin" (March 23, 2012):
I agree that expecting people to accept religious doctrines on 'blind faith' is unreasonable. Furthermore, I think it is actually bad, and can lead to deterioration of actual belief. If one's belief is built solely on stubborn, blind acceptance of things one's teachers, parents, or other authority figures taught one, without any real understanding, that belief is easy to undermine by a simple change in circumstances. It also will not bend or fail when perhaps it should.
Doubting one's religious beliefs, investigating them, and deciding whether or not to continue with them based on real information can lead to a firmer, more confident type of belief without niggling doubts or discomfort. If one finds out all one can about Christianity, and makes an informed decision that they will believe in that particular religion, then one can rationally defend one's choice against critics - as opposed to stumble around blindly and end up looking like a stubborn fool who refuses to accept an alternative belief system in spite of overwhelming evidence in its favour. I do think that following Christian doctrine, or indeed almost any religious doctrine, can be just as rational a choice as atheism or agnosticism - but that it rarely seems so because people are afraid to doubt or question their beliefs.
I agree that expecting people to accept religious doctrines on 'blind faith' is unreasonable. Furthermore, I think it is actually bad, and can lead to deterioration of actual belief. If one's belief is built solely on stubborn, blind acceptance of things one's teachers, parents, or other authority figures taught one, without any real understanding, that belief is easy to undermine by a simple change in circumstances. It also will not bend or fail when perhaps it should.
Doubting one's religious beliefs, investigating them, and deciding whether or not to continue with them based on real information can lead to a firmer, more confident type of belief without niggling doubts or discomfort. If one finds out all one can about Christianity, and makes an informed decision that they will believe in that particular religion, then one can rationally defend one's choice against critics - as opposed to stumble around blindly and end up looking like a stubborn fool who refuses to accept an alternative belief system in spite of overwhelming evidence in its favour. I do think that following Christian doctrine, or indeed almost any religious doctrine, can be just as rational a choice as atheism or agnosticism - but that it rarely seems so because people are afraid to doubt or question their beliefs.
Past Changes?
After reading Crossan's book, I think the idea that Christians must adapt the Bible to suit a new era is a very good one. It also seems as though Jesus interpreted the Old Testament in somewhat nontraditional ways in order to suit the era in which he lived. Furthermore, this concept of interpreting religious texts appears to have been far more accepted in the past.
Learning all of this has caused me to wonder if Jews who lived prior to Jesus' time actually revised the Old Testament textually. As new situations arose, it seems as though rewriting outdated sections of the Old Testament would have been very useful for the ancient Jews. While it may be impossible to prove whether or not such adaptation of text occurred, hypothesising about the possibility is interesting and may help some to understand the flexible and metaphorical nature of the Bible today.
Learning all of this has caused me to wonder if Jews who lived prior to Jesus' time actually revised the Old Testament textually. As new situations arose, it seems as though rewriting outdated sections of the Old Testament would have been very useful for the ancient Jews. While it may be impossible to prove whether or not such adaptation of text occurred, hypothesising about the possibility is interesting and may help some to understand the flexible and metaphorical nature of the Bible today.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Response: Multiple Options
In response to Martha Bruso's post on March 23, 2012:
I think that belief in God is not required in order to believe in Jesus' social views, although obviously the two often go together. One can support Jesus' vision of an egalitarian society without being religious at all, or one can believe that he was a (human) revolutionary with very strong and valid religious faith, or one can believe he was actually the son of God. God was certainly not just a feature of the story added in by later historians; Jesus himself was Jewish, and the Jews of his time did believe that God existed. Whether or not one believes in God, the fact that many people in Jesus' time (most probably including Jesus) did believe is hard to dispute. However, the idea of Jesus being the son of God was likely added in later. While of course I cannot prove this, I seriously doubt that Jesus himself thought that he was the son of God (unless, of course, he actually was.)
I think that belief in God is not required in order to believe in Jesus' social views, although obviously the two often go together. One can support Jesus' vision of an egalitarian society without being religious at all, or one can believe that he was a (human) revolutionary with very strong and valid religious faith, or one can believe he was actually the son of God. God was certainly not just a feature of the story added in by later historians; Jesus himself was Jewish, and the Jews of his time did believe that God existed. Whether or not one believes in God, the fact that many people in Jesus' time (most probably including Jesus) did believe is hard to dispute. However, the idea of Jesus being the son of God was likely added in later. While of course I cannot prove this, I seriously doubt that Jesus himself thought that he was the son of God (unless, of course, he actually was.)
Response: No Absolutes
In response to Lily O'Neill's post "Tearing the Family Apart" (March 22, 2012):
In Jesus' time, the structure of the family was not the same as it typically is in modern-day America. The hierarchy was far more pronounced, in keeping with the patriarchal nature of the society. As such, the relationships between husbands and wives, parents and children, and between siblings were far less amiable than they may have been in the families of many of us bloggers. Furthermore, there was little or no legal regulation on how to treat family members; as such, when abuse of power occurred, the victimised party or parties would have had much less ability to change their situations.
Even today, abuse of power within family structure persists, albeit in a rather stealthier form, due to the laws affecting treatment of family members. Without a far more substantial sample than simply one's own experiences with family structure, it is probably unwise to support the sort of hierarchy that even modern families usually contain. Jesus was almost certainly aware that not all heads of families abused their power; his objection to family structures was therefore likely based on the potential for such abuse. By destroying the framework that made the problems possible, he probably hoped to eliminate the problems. If it is still difficult to understand his rationale, consider; no matter how good a job your parents or parent may have done at raising you, what would have happened if they had used their authority (as sanctioned by society and, to some extent, by the law) to treat you in an overall negative fashion?
In Jesus' time, the structure of the family was not the same as it typically is in modern-day America. The hierarchy was far more pronounced, in keeping with the patriarchal nature of the society. As such, the relationships between husbands and wives, parents and children, and between siblings were far less amiable than they may have been in the families of many of us bloggers. Furthermore, there was little or no legal regulation on how to treat family members; as such, when abuse of power occurred, the victimised party or parties would have had much less ability to change their situations.
Even today, abuse of power within family structure persists, albeit in a rather stealthier form, due to the laws affecting treatment of family members. Without a far more substantial sample than simply one's own experiences with family structure, it is probably unwise to support the sort of hierarchy that even modern families usually contain. Jesus was almost certainly aware that not all heads of families abused their power; his objection to family structures was therefore likely based on the potential for such abuse. By destroying the framework that made the problems possible, he probably hoped to eliminate the problems. If it is still difficult to understand his rationale, consider; no matter how good a job your parents or parent may have done at raising you, what would have happened if they had used their authority (as sanctioned by society and, to some extent, by the law) to treat you in an overall negative fashion?
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Response: Reputation Build-Up
In response to Julia Monturo's post "There Is, There Is Not a God" (March 10, 2012):
I absolutely agree that stubborn atheism and stubborn theism can be equally bad. However, it seems that stubborn theism has a worse reputation in general among agnostics and others who choose not to take sides; its reputation also seems to be based more in its dogmaticism than in its 'blasphemous nature' or other spiritual flaws. When dogmatic atheists criticise theists, the criticism seems to be primarily towards the theists' supposed idiocy and blind faith, whereas when dogmatic theists criticise atheists, the criticism seems to be directed more at the atheists' evil or ungodly world-views. The latter sort of criticism is, I think, relatively easy to dismiss if one adopts a viewpoint of religious relativity; the former is more difficult to dispel. However, I think that the former can also be applied to stubborn atheists; as such, even if we cannot dismiss it, we can at least distribute our criticism more fairly. I would guess that the currently common idea that only theists can be guilty of faulty, blind dogma comes from the fact that there have been, historically, many more wars and other tragedies due to theistic blind dogma than to atheistic blind dogma, but that is not due to atheism's inherently greater rationality (which does not, I think, exist); it is instead due to atheism's far smaller historical following.
I absolutely agree that stubborn atheism and stubborn theism can be equally bad. However, it seems that stubborn theism has a worse reputation in general among agnostics and others who choose not to take sides; its reputation also seems to be based more in its dogmaticism than in its 'blasphemous nature' or other spiritual flaws. When dogmatic atheists criticise theists, the criticism seems to be primarily towards the theists' supposed idiocy and blind faith, whereas when dogmatic theists criticise atheists, the criticism seems to be directed more at the atheists' evil or ungodly world-views. The latter sort of criticism is, I think, relatively easy to dismiss if one adopts a viewpoint of religious relativity; the former is more difficult to dispel. However, I think that the former can also be applied to stubborn atheists; as such, even if we cannot dismiss it, we can at least distribute our criticism more fairly. I would guess that the currently common idea that only theists can be guilty of faulty, blind dogma comes from the fact that there have been, historically, many more wars and other tragedies due to theistic blind dogma than to atheistic blind dogma, but that is not due to atheism's inherently greater rationality (which does not, I think, exist); it is instead due to atheism's far smaller historical following.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Response: Not Religious???
In response to Dania Guadalupe's post "Is There Something Wrong Here?" (March 3, 2012):
I can't say that I quite understand how this chap can say that he hates religion. It seems quite, quite clear that his assertions about Jesus fall under the category of religion - in fact, he even mentions his belief that various supernatural happenings involved Jesus literally occurred. It seems to me that his objection is not against religion, but rather against some particular religious denomination, or perhaps against organised religion in general. Religion, however, does not have to be organised, and his freestyle sort of belief in Jesus does fit the description of religion rather nicely.
I can't say that I quite understand how this chap can say that he hates religion. It seems quite, quite clear that his assertions about Jesus fall under the category of religion - in fact, he even mentions his belief that various supernatural happenings involved Jesus literally occurred. It seems to me that his objection is not against religion, but rather against some particular religious denomination, or perhaps against organised religion in general. Religion, however, does not have to be organised, and his freestyle sort of belief in Jesus does fit the description of religion rather nicely.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Skewed Perspectives
When, in Thursday's class, we briefly discussed Ganhi and his apparently brutally honest autobiography, I thought about the nature of actual honesty. In modern society, 'honesty' seems to imply admitting your faults to others, exposing the darkest parts of your history and nature for public perusal. People who admit their lack of proficiency at various activities, tell stories about the unpleasant or immoral things they have done in the past, and generally act in a manner usually considered modest or self-effacing are often lauded as being brutally honest.
However, being modest is not the same thing as being honest. Going on about all of one's failings while neglecting to mention, or perhaps denying the worth of, one's achievements is no more truthful than focusing only on the good side of things. While I haven't read Gandhi's autobiography and as such am in no position to gauge how honest or dishonest he might have been about his life, I do know that putting oneself down and focusing only on one's negative traits seems to be far more admired than is probably wise. In order to be fully and actually honest, people must focus on their negative and positive traits to the same degree, exhibiting an impartial attitude dedicated only to the truth.
However, being modest is not the same thing as being honest. Going on about all of one's failings while neglecting to mention, or perhaps denying the worth of, one's achievements is no more truthful than focusing only on the good side of things. While I haven't read Gandhi's autobiography and as such am in no position to gauge how honest or dishonest he might have been about his life, I do know that putting oneself down and focusing only on one's negative traits seems to be far more admired than is probably wise. In order to be fully and actually honest, people must focus on their negative and positive traits to the same degree, exhibiting an impartial attitude dedicated only to the truth.
Future Interpretations?
Since beginning the Crossan book, we have discussed numerous times the concept of the gospels being metaphorical in nature rather than literal. If one takes the stories in the Bible as just that, stories, one can draw meanings and messages from within them rather than simply understanding them at surface value.
However, in recent times especially, many people have begun to interpret the Bible literally, probably due to the primarily literal, scientific nature of modern society. Clearly this is a problem unique to our era, as people who lived around Jesus' time were familiar with the idea of mythology providing non-literal guidelines.
If this is so, then how might people in the future interpret the Bible? As we do not currently know the future configuration of society, this is hard to predict. However, we can guess based on current trends. At the moment, many of the more progressive countries have been losing touch with religion and focusing instead on technology and the environment. As such, I would guess that in the future either religion will die out (which, I think, would not destroy society, but would be a great shame) or it will adapt dramatically to meet the needs of a new society. It seems likely that such an adaptation would lead to people interpreting religion in a more metaphorical way - so Christianity might end up being much closer to what it was supposed to be in the years directly following Jesus' death.
However, in recent times especially, many people have begun to interpret the Bible literally, probably due to the primarily literal, scientific nature of modern society. Clearly this is a problem unique to our era, as people who lived around Jesus' time were familiar with the idea of mythology providing non-literal guidelines.
If this is so, then how might people in the future interpret the Bible? As we do not currently know the future configuration of society, this is hard to predict. However, we can guess based on current trends. At the moment, many of the more progressive countries have been losing touch with religion and focusing instead on technology and the environment. As such, I would guess that in the future either religion will die out (which, I think, would not destroy society, but would be a great shame) or it will adapt dramatically to meet the needs of a new society. It seems likely that such an adaptation would lead to people interpreting religion in a more metaphorical way - so Christianity might end up being much closer to what it was supposed to be in the years directly following Jesus' death.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Response: Enabling Society
In response to Ryan Walters' post "Why..." (March 1, 2012):
While it is true that religion is not necessary for people to act morally, not every person thinks critically and determines what is right and what is wrong. This is the reason that societies have laws. However, laws are external rules; religion, by tapping into a person's internalised beliefs, can become internal.
Furthermore, this question assumes that religion has no basis in reality, which is a very difficult claim to prove. Some religions, certainly, can be disputed by appealing to empirical evidence which contradicts their doctrines; others, though, take this into account and add the idea of unknowability into the very definition of their deities. Such religions can be neither proven nor disproved.
While it is true that religion is not necessary for people to act morally, not every person thinks critically and determines what is right and what is wrong. This is the reason that societies have laws. However, laws are external rules; religion, by tapping into a person's internalised beliefs, can become internal.
Furthermore, this question assumes that religion has no basis in reality, which is a very difficult claim to prove. Some religions, certainly, can be disputed by appealing to empirical evidence which contradicts their doctrines; others, though, take this into account and add the idea of unknowability into the very definition of their deities. Such religions can be neither proven nor disproved.
Response: Safety in Numbers
In response to Lily O'Neill's post "Traveling in Twos" (March 1, 2012):
I think the fact that female disciples traveled only in the company of male disciples had less to do with inequality and more to do with safety. Jesus' time and society were, in fact, patriarchal; so any movement towards equality had to take place within a patriarchal context. As in the main part of society women did not have access to weapons or any sort of self-defense training, they were simply less able to defend themselves from those who might attack a traveling disciple than were the male disciples. Furthermore, again because of the state of most of the society, bandits or other groups of possibly dangerous people on the road would have been more inclined to attack a woman traveling alone than a man. Traveling in twos was among only the first steps on a very long road to gaining equality for women in a society such as Jesus'.
I think the fact that female disciples traveled only in the company of male disciples had less to do with inequality and more to do with safety. Jesus' time and society were, in fact, patriarchal; so any movement towards equality had to take place within a patriarchal context. As in the main part of society women did not have access to weapons or any sort of self-defense training, they were simply less able to defend themselves from those who might attack a traveling disciple than were the male disciples. Furthermore, again because of the state of most of the society, bandits or other groups of possibly dangerous people on the road would have been more inclined to attack a woman traveling alone than a man. Traveling in twos was among only the first steps on a very long road to gaining equality for women in a society such as Jesus'.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Response: Divine Relationships
In response to JonDavid's post "Monotheism, Demigods, and Mary Magdalene" (February 29, 2012):
The idea that Jesus could not have been in a relationship with Mary Magdalene due to his purported divinity is an interesting one. It seems that in many monotheistic religions, deities never engage in romantic relationships. This is in stark contrast to many polytheistic religions, wherein deities develop relationships with one another, but frequently with mortals as well - this is true of fully-fledged gods as well as demigods. Considering the stance that some fairly large denominations of Christianity hold on various sexual orientations - that heterosexuality is the only one approved by God - it seems strange that these same people would believe that Jesus, if he was divine, could not have a sexuality. It is true that numerous groups of Christians believe celibacy is also a valid choice, but some do not share this view, perhaps due to the Bible's advice of "be fruitful, and multiply." If so, then might it not be more in line with God's views if Jesus was in fact married to Mary?
The idea that Jesus could not have been in a relationship with Mary Magdalene due to his purported divinity is an interesting one. It seems that in many monotheistic religions, deities never engage in romantic relationships. This is in stark contrast to many polytheistic religions, wherein deities develop relationships with one another, but frequently with mortals as well - this is true of fully-fledged gods as well as demigods. Considering the stance that some fairly large denominations of Christianity hold on various sexual orientations - that heterosexuality is the only one approved by God - it seems strange that these same people would believe that Jesus, if he was divine, could not have a sexuality. It is true that numerous groups of Christians believe celibacy is also a valid choice, but some do not share this view, perhaps due to the Bible's advice of "be fruitful, and multiply." If so, then might it not be more in line with God's views if Jesus was in fact married to Mary?
Decaying Boundaries and Stigma
Crossan writes about the body as a representation of society. In class on Tuesday, we briefly discussed the modern American attitude towards body modification, which is primarily tolerant. However, this has not always been so. In the relatively recent past, a person who chose to pierce her nose (without cultural or religious justification) was typically seen as a deviant, undesirable in polite company. Even today, some of that stigma endures - if someone applies for a job as a teacher, and has visible tattoos, he will most likely not get the job even if he is otherwise quite well qualified.
One thing that I find particularly interesting about this attitude towards body modification is that it is more negative as a rule in areas which are typically more conservative in a political and social sense. This would strengthen Crossan's assertion that attitudes toward the body represent attitudes in society as a whole; conservative ideology emphasises maintaining traditional values and rejecting outside influence on the structure of society.
However, there are some societies which, while mostly quite conservative, do endorse some manner of body modification. This is not necessarily evidence against Crossan's assertions; such societies usually only approve of very specific types of body modification. In a society wherein, let us say, eyebrow piercing was common and approved of, a person who pierced zir ears might well attract the same negative attention as zhe would in a society which endorsed absolutely no body modification.
One thing that I find particularly interesting about this attitude towards body modification is that it is more negative as a rule in areas which are typically more conservative in a political and social sense. This would strengthen Crossan's assertion that attitudes toward the body represent attitudes in society as a whole; conservative ideology emphasises maintaining traditional values and rejecting outside influence on the structure of society.
However, there are some societies which, while mostly quite conservative, do endorse some manner of body modification. This is not necessarily evidence against Crossan's assertions; such societies usually only approve of very specific types of body modification. In a society wherein, let us say, eyebrow piercing was common and approved of, a person who pierced zir ears might well attract the same negative attention as zhe would in a society which endorsed absolutely no body modification.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Flexible Definitions
In class, we discussed the way in which some important historical and political figures (such as Gandhi or Jesus) have rejected certain words because of their negative connotations. I wonder, though, how effective this is in the long run and in terms of influencing a population. If a single person chooses to use the word 'opponent' rather than 'enemy', it will stand out, and people will likely recognize the significance of the choice. However, if a population decides to follow the example of this person and discard the term 'enemy', using 'opponent' instead, it may be that the meaning of 'opponent' will change over time (possibly a very short time) to match the meaning of 'enemy', thus rendering pointless the original term choice.
Response: Political Traditions
In response to Dania Guadalupe's post "What Would Jesus Do?" (February 23, 2012):
I would agree that Jesus would have supported discrimination on the basis of baptism or anything else. However, it is helpful to remember that just because Jesus would not have supported it, it is not necessarily bad. Many religions have changed over time to reflect changing political and social situations, and many of the changes are good things. This one practice in particular, I think, may not be a good thing, but this is not true of all changes. In fact, I doubt that Jesus would have wanted people to keep Christianity (or a modified form of Judaism, as it was when he was alive) in a static state just in order to strictly follow what he said; he probably would have recognized that changing times call for changing practices if one hopes to keep a religion alive.
I would agree that Jesus would have supported discrimination on the basis of baptism or anything else. However, it is helpful to remember that just because Jesus would not have supported it, it is not necessarily bad. Many religions have changed over time to reflect changing political and social situations, and many of the changes are good things. This one practice in particular, I think, may not be a good thing, but this is not true of all changes. In fact, I doubt that Jesus would have wanted people to keep Christianity (or a modified form of Judaism, as it was when he was alive) in a static state just in order to strictly follow what he said; he probably would have recognized that changing times call for changing practices if one hopes to keep a religion alive.
Response: Unverifiability and Religion
In response to Jess Gamari's post "Revolution Through the Filter" (February 23, 2012):
In regards to wanting to know the truth, I think that the Crossan book can be very helpful as far as Jesus is concerned. Of course, there are still significant parts of Jesus' life which are unchronicled, and which we can only guess at, but on a whole it seems that we can reconstruct a relatively clear picture of who he was and what he did.
God, though, is a different matter. As God's actions are a matter of theology rather than history, we cannot simply find evidence of them through archeology or careful reading of historical texts. This unverifiability of God is, I think, one of the most significant issues dividing theists and atheists; as the reality of God has to be taken on faith rather than historical evidence, some people reject the idea, and others support it. Honestly, though, I think that the way this requires faith is a good thing; if God was a matter of fact rather than conjecture, religion would basically be another science, rather than a matter of belief - which is what makes it interesting to me.
In regards to wanting to know the truth, I think that the Crossan book can be very helpful as far as Jesus is concerned. Of course, there are still significant parts of Jesus' life which are unchronicled, and which we can only guess at, but on a whole it seems that we can reconstruct a relatively clear picture of who he was and what he did.
God, though, is a different matter. As God's actions are a matter of theology rather than history, we cannot simply find evidence of them through archeology or careful reading of historical texts. This unverifiability of God is, I think, one of the most significant issues dividing theists and atheists; as the reality of God has to be taken on faith rather than historical evidence, some people reject the idea, and others support it. Honestly, though, I think that the way this requires faith is a good thing; if God was a matter of fact rather than conjecture, religion would basically be another science, rather than a matter of belief - which is what makes it interesting to me.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Jesus and Discrimination
So far, Crossan's book has presented a picture of Jesus as an advocate for universal equality. If this is truly the case, then what might Jesus say about those modern practitioners of Christianity who use the Bible to justify all sorts of discrimination, ranging from racism, to homophobia, to sexism, to discrimination on the basis of religion? While it appears that Jesus may have been something of a feminist, do we have any idea how he felt about other issues, like race relations or homosexuality?
If he intended to keep his message consistent, it seems likely that Jesus would have supported equality for all of the above minority groups. Ironically, it seems that in modern society Christianity (as with many religions, actually) has been used more frequently to preach in favour of various forms of discrimination than it has to support universal equality. It is both amusing and sad that some people appear to have taken Jesus' messages and used them to support exactly the sort of agenda he was most vehemently opposed to.
If he intended to keep his message consistent, it seems likely that Jesus would have supported equality for all of the above minority groups. Ironically, it seems that in modern society Christianity (as with many religions, actually) has been used more frequently to preach in favour of various forms of discrimination than it has to support universal equality. It is both amusing and sad that some people appear to have taken Jesus' messages and used them to support exactly the sort of agenda he was most vehemently opposed to.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Morality and Mythology
We spoke about how mythology usually exists as a medium for conveying moral messages. Almost every ancient culture had a mythology, which could serve to instruct those in the culture about how to live their lives. In modern culture, however, the number of people who choose to live their lives without the aid of a guiding mythology or religion has been steadily increasing. Is this a bad thing? Without the help of mythology, how can people know how to live morally?
I think that mythology is not the only medium for morality. Those who choose to think about and construct codes of ethics based on philosophical discussion seem to do at least as well, in general, as those who gain their morality from religion or tradition. It is, I think, simply a difference in type, not quality. Gaining morals from mythology is comparable to getting morals from fiction; gaining them from philosophical discussion and real life is comparable to getting them from nonfiction. Both ways are valid, and can be effective.
I think that mythology is not the only medium for morality. Those who choose to think about and construct codes of ethics based on philosophical discussion seem to do at least as well, in general, as those who gain their morality from religion or tradition. It is, I think, simply a difference in type, not quality. Gaining morals from mythology is comparable to getting morals from fiction; gaining them from philosophical discussion and real life is comparable to getting them from nonfiction. Both ways are valid, and can be effective.
Better as Fiction
In class, we discussed the idea of reading the Bible as fiction with grains of truth, in the form of messages relevant to real life, running through it. In addition to preventing the sort of fanatic fundamentalism that has led to such unpleasant organizations as the WBC, I think that interpreting the Bible as fiction can actually provide more instruction to its readers than taking everything it says literally. After all, much of the Bible is not reasonably applicable to modern life; as a result, most people who are not crazy dismiss those parts which seem unreasonable to them, and mainly ignore them. If such people read the Bible as fiction, a novel with embedded moral messages rather than an instruction manual, they might instead seek to find the reasons that the Bible's writers included the outdated parts, and update the ideas to apply to modern life while still trying to keep the spirit of the original intentions of the writers.
Response: Mythologizing Historical Figures
In response to JonDavid's post "The Gospels: "Jesus Facts"" (February 16, 2012):
I think the Chuck Norris analogy is a good one - the main difference between Chuck Norris and Jesus, mythologically speaking, is that no one believes that Chuck Norris can actually do those things, whereas some people believe that Jesus really did perform miracles. However, Jesus is not the only historical personage who has grown over time into a mythological, or perhaps legendary, figure. Even such relatively recent lives, such as that of George Washington and the other founders of the United States, have become somewhat shrouded in the mists of legend. That popular story about George Washington and the cherry tree, while not as widely believed as Jesus' miracles, still has a following of people who do not know it is fiction. It seems that admirable people, despite being sufficiently impressive in reality, tend to take on supernatural attributes after death.
I think the Chuck Norris analogy is a good one - the main difference between Chuck Norris and Jesus, mythologically speaking, is that no one believes that Chuck Norris can actually do those things, whereas some people believe that Jesus really did perform miracles. However, Jesus is not the only historical personage who has grown over time into a mythological, or perhaps legendary, figure. Even such relatively recent lives, such as that of George Washington and the other founders of the United States, have become somewhat shrouded in the mists of legend. That popular story about George Washington and the cherry tree, while not as widely believed as Jesus' miracles, still has a following of people who do not know it is fiction. It seems that admirable people, despite being sufficiently impressive in reality, tend to take on supernatural attributes after death.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Response: Open-Minded Investigation
In response to Rebecca Ryan's post "The Jesus Biography" (February 11, 2012):
The last sentence in this post - "Unfortunately, it's difficult for me to be close-minded about these things." - made me think quite a bit. I have not heard close-mindedness referred to in a positive sense before, and it caused me to consider if there is such a thing as being too open-minded.
I concluded that the answer depends on one's definition of open-mindedness. If one considers it to be a state in which one makes no decisions and develops no opinions, then yes, one could indeed be too open-minded. If, on the other hand, one defines it as a state in which one thinks about and considers every possibility prior to discarding it, then I believe the answer would be no. Avoiding thinking about something because one is afraid that doing so will change one's views is not a good thing. If one thinks fully about something and concludes that it is the right view, then it most likely is. If one thinks about something and decides that it is not the right view, then at least one can defend one's decision adequately against critics. Simply ignoring the possibility that one might be wrong can (and has) lead to some of the worst events in human history. So, in response to your worries, I do not think that reading even something which might be challenging to your views (which I do not think the Crossan book is) is a bad thing - it will either lead to to change your views to better ones, or will reaffirm your belief in the views you already held.
The last sentence in this post - "Unfortunately, it's difficult for me to be close-minded about these things." - made me think quite a bit. I have not heard close-mindedness referred to in a positive sense before, and it caused me to consider if there is such a thing as being too open-minded.
I concluded that the answer depends on one's definition of open-mindedness. If one considers it to be a state in which one makes no decisions and develops no opinions, then yes, one could indeed be too open-minded. If, on the other hand, one defines it as a state in which one thinks about and considers every possibility prior to discarding it, then I believe the answer would be no. Avoiding thinking about something because one is afraid that doing so will change one's views is not a good thing. If one thinks fully about something and concludes that it is the right view, then it most likely is. If one thinks about something and decides that it is not the right view, then at least one can defend one's decision adequately against critics. Simply ignoring the possibility that one might be wrong can (and has) lead to some of the worst events in human history. So, in response to your worries, I do not think that reading even something which might be challenging to your views (which I do not think the Crossan book is) is a bad thing - it will either lead to to change your views to better ones, or will reaffirm your belief in the views you already held.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Idea of Benevolent Monarchy - Plato and Arjuna
While the idea of monarchy as a good form of government may seem ridiculous to many members of modern Western cultures, it is not as alien to Western thought as they may initially think. Arjuna's position as head of a kingdom would not necessarily, or even probably, immediately negate all the positive aspects of his personality, and if he remained as wise and enlightened as he appears to be in the Gita, he might actually do more good for his kingdom (at least during his lifetime) as another form of government like democracy could.
Plato, in his writings on government, actually favored a sort of monarchy over democracy. He thought that countries should be ruled by 'philosopher-kings' - wise, public-spirited rulers who led their lives by the dictate of reason alone. Arjuna very nearly fits this picture, albeit in a slightly more religious manner. As most consider Plato to be an incredibly significant figure in the history of Western thought, it might be worth giving the Gita's views on government a little consideration before dismissing them out of hand.
Plato, in his writings on government, actually favored a sort of monarchy over democracy. He thought that countries should be ruled by 'philosopher-kings' - wise, public-spirited rulers who led their lives by the dictate of reason alone. Arjuna very nearly fits this picture, albeit in a slightly more religious manner. As most consider Plato to be an incredibly significant figure in the history of Western thought, it might be worth giving the Gita's views on government a little consideration before dismissing them out of hand.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Focal Points of Religion
As we move on from our study of Hinduism to monotheistic religions like Christianity, I think it is interesting to reflect on the difference in structure between the two types of religion. Hinduism, while incorporating many deities, is so abstract and idea-centric that it almost seems more like a philosophy than a religion per say. In stark contrast to this, Christianity (and its close cousins, Islam and Judaism) is focused on a single god more than on any one code of morality. Hinduism certainly includes elements of deity-centric thinking (as in the Bhagavad Gita's use of Sri Krishna to illustrate various principles - although one can not believe in the existence of Krishna and still very well be part of the religion), and Christianity includes elements of idea-centric thinking (the ten commandments, etc. - although these, too, are somewhat flexible depending upon which branch of Christianity one belongs to) but in general the focus appears to be quite different. It will be interesting to compare and contrast the two different types of religion.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Response: Over-saturation of Religion
In response to Lauren Feeney's post "Take a Chance and See" (February 8, 2012):
I listened to the song, and did appreciate the instrumentation. It sounds rather like traditional Celtic music, which is a style I very much enjoy. The female singer also had a nice voice, and I didn't mind the male singer too much either.
However, I cannot say that I agreed with the lyrics, nor can I see how someone who was not religious could do so easily; the reason for this is that the lyrics were basically completely about Christ. In fact, I have found this to be the case with most religious music, and that makes it somewhat difficult for me to identify with the music.
This over-saturation of religion is not confined to music; I have noticed it in many other areas as well, such as art, storytelling, and perhaps most annoyingly charitable organizations. While I appreciate the efforts of these last, and do not personally find the idea of religion (well, most religion; the WBC is an exception) objectionable, it disturbs me that any money I donate to these organizations may not end up helping whatever cause they work for - I could be funding a new church, or even something I do object to, like anti-gay marriage demonstrations. Religion is not, I believe, a bad thing at all, but it would be nice if it were a little less interwoven with basically everything else.
I listened to the song, and did appreciate the instrumentation. It sounds rather like traditional Celtic music, which is a style I very much enjoy. The female singer also had a nice voice, and I didn't mind the male singer too much either.
However, I cannot say that I agreed with the lyrics, nor can I see how someone who was not religious could do so easily; the reason for this is that the lyrics were basically completely about Christ. In fact, I have found this to be the case with most religious music, and that makes it somewhat difficult for me to identify with the music.
This over-saturation of religion is not confined to music; I have noticed it in many other areas as well, such as art, storytelling, and perhaps most annoyingly charitable organizations. While I appreciate the efforts of these last, and do not personally find the idea of religion (well, most religion; the WBC is an exception) objectionable, it disturbs me that any money I donate to these organizations may not end up helping whatever cause they work for - I could be funding a new church, or even something I do object to, like anti-gay marriage demonstrations. Religion is not, I believe, a bad thing at all, but it would be nice if it were a little less interwoven with basically everything else.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Response: Westernization of Ideas
In response to Ryan Walters' post "Meditation" (February 6, 2012):
I think this may be a case less of the concept of meditation changing over time, and more one of the concept becoming muddled through the process of Westernization. While many Eastern civilizations practiced (and practice) meditation, few if any ancient Western societies did the same. Meditation mainly appeared much later in the west, as an imported idea from Eastern societies such as India and China. I am not entirely sure what the modern conception of meditation is in more Eastern countries, but I'd guess that it is at least closer to the concept expressed in the Gita than is the currently common Western conception.
I think this may be a case less of the concept of meditation changing over time, and more one of the concept becoming muddled through the process of Westernization. While many Eastern civilizations practiced (and practice) meditation, few if any ancient Western societies did the same. Meditation mainly appeared much later in the west, as an imported idea from Eastern societies such as India and China. I am not entirely sure what the modern conception of meditation is in more Eastern countries, but I'd guess that it is at least closer to the concept expressed in the Gita than is the currently common Western conception.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Response: Contradictions?
In response to Peter Mitchell's post "Textual Bias" (February 4, 2012):
I don't really see any contradictions here, actually. The idea of there being different paths that one can take to achieve Moksha is, I think, not exactly what the Bhagavad Gita seems to be saying. Instead, I think that it advises doing whatever it is you feel is best (which may include several different paths, not just one), and then eventually realising the futility of that pursuit (again, it could be any of the three suggested) and working towards elimination of the ego.
It is true that Sri Krishna appears to advise less strongly against selfless service than the other two paths, but I think that may be because he sees that Arjuna already has little to no interest in pleasure or worldly success. Thus, he sees that the path Arjuna must follow is the one which leads through selfless service. Arjuna will have to try serving others until he realises that doing so is not the ultimate goal for him, and then he can move on to achieve Moksha.
I could be totally wrong about this, so if anyone has better ideas about this possible contradiction please feel free to say so.
I don't really see any contradictions here, actually. The idea of there being different paths that one can take to achieve Moksha is, I think, not exactly what the Bhagavad Gita seems to be saying. Instead, I think that it advises doing whatever it is you feel is best (which may include several different paths, not just one), and then eventually realising the futility of that pursuit (again, it could be any of the three suggested) and working towards elimination of the ego.
It is true that Sri Krishna appears to advise less strongly against selfless service than the other two paths, but I think that may be because he sees that Arjuna already has little to no interest in pleasure or worldly success. Thus, he sees that the path Arjuna must follow is the one which leads through selfless service. Arjuna will have to try serving others until he realises that doing so is not the ultimate goal for him, and then he can move on to achieve Moksha.
I could be totally wrong about this, so if anyone has better ideas about this possible contradiction please feel free to say so.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Satisfaction in the Context of Infinity
In Tuesday's class, Matt Silliman mentioned that he finds the notion of infinite possibilities when playing the guitar at once frustrating and pleasant, because he will never run out of new tunes. This, as it relates to the idea of worldly success and service for the benefit of others both being impossible to accomplish completely, caused me to think about the idea of being satisfied with something incomplete.
In the case of something like music, one can never achieve complete mastery or knowledge of the subject. Similarly, one can never have all possible wealth, or make everyone in the world perfectly happy. Such an inability to reach a goal could indeed be incredibly frustrating. However, in spite of what the Hindu belief system appears to assert, I do not think it needs to be so. While I think that in a subject with infinite possibilities it is best to continue attempting to improve or do more, and not be fully satisfied unless one reaches the highest level (which one never will, due to the nature of infinity), one can still be at least somewhat satisfied with reaching a level somewhere in the middle. This does not say that one should stop improving at any point; but rather than being eternally unsatisfied, one should learn to focus on the satisfaction of what one has achieved - and if one does so, I think that working towards an impossible goal can be a truly enjoyable experience.
In the case of something like music, one can never achieve complete mastery or knowledge of the subject. Similarly, one can never have all possible wealth, or make everyone in the world perfectly happy. Such an inability to reach a goal could indeed be incredibly frustrating. However, in spite of what the Hindu belief system appears to assert, I do not think it needs to be so. While I think that in a subject with infinite possibilities it is best to continue attempting to improve or do more, and not be fully satisfied unless one reaches the highest level (which one never will, due to the nature of infinity), one can still be at least somewhat satisfied with reaching a level somewhere in the middle. This does not say that one should stop improving at any point; but rather than being eternally unsatisfied, one should learn to focus on the satisfaction of what one has achieved - and if one does so, I think that working towards an impossible goal can be a truly enjoyable experience.
Emotional Attachment and the Concept of Moksha
In class on Tuesday, we discussed the various stages of goal-setting
that a person might go through according to the Hindu belief system.
The stages were pleasure, worldly success, service for the benefit of
others, and then eventual release from the cycle of life and death along
with the dissipation of the self as a separate being. While I do like
the ideas of this worldview, there seems to have been at least one
important feature of life on Earth which it neglected to mention - that
of emotional attachment.
The first category of pleasure includes certain kinds of interpersonal relations, such as sexual relations. However, relations which are purely emotional (friendship or non-sexual love, for example - the two may or may not be the same thing) seem unlikely to fall under the same category. Worldly success obviously does not apply to these relationships, as being in them does not usually get one any sort of material benefit, and even if it does it is still not the central reason for having the relationship. Service to others similarly does not work; friendship is a two-way street (or a more-than-two-way street), so to speak, so being in a relationship of that sort is simultaneously beneficial to both or all people involved.
If one does succeed in escaping the cycle of reincarnation, one will become a fully integrated part of the universe. However, one will lose everything that made one unique and a separate, self-coherent entity. This includes personality. If one had a group of very close friends, whom one loved very much, even if all the friends left the cycle at once at at the same time as one did one would still be 'losing' those friends, so to speak; their personalities, as well as one's own personality, would vanish. If one liked these friends for their personalities (which is, I would say, the best reason for liking them), one would effectively be losing these friends as soon as one or all of them left the reincarnation cycle.
It occurred to me that the reason the originators of this sort of thinking may have neglected to think of emotional bonds such as the ones mentioned above is that they may not have observed or experienced such bonds. For most people, friendships are relatively casual relationships; the only sort of really close relationship they experience is romantic. While a good number of romantic relationships do include incredibly close emotional bonds, on the surface they may appear to be based primarily on sex; so, if the people who came up with the system had not personally been in any romantic relationships (or any peculiarly close friendships/other non-sexual love-based relationships), they might not have realized the intensity of certain types of emotional attachment.
The first category of pleasure includes certain kinds of interpersonal relations, such as sexual relations. However, relations which are purely emotional (friendship or non-sexual love, for example - the two may or may not be the same thing) seem unlikely to fall under the same category. Worldly success obviously does not apply to these relationships, as being in them does not usually get one any sort of material benefit, and even if it does it is still not the central reason for having the relationship. Service to others similarly does not work; friendship is a two-way street (or a more-than-two-way street), so to speak, so being in a relationship of that sort is simultaneously beneficial to both or all people involved.
If one does succeed in escaping the cycle of reincarnation, one will become a fully integrated part of the universe. However, one will lose everything that made one unique and a separate, self-coherent entity. This includes personality. If one had a group of very close friends, whom one loved very much, even if all the friends left the cycle at once at at the same time as one did one would still be 'losing' those friends, so to speak; their personalities, as well as one's own personality, would vanish. If one liked these friends for their personalities (which is, I would say, the best reason for liking them), one would effectively be losing these friends as soon as one or all of them left the reincarnation cycle.
It occurred to me that the reason the originators of this sort of thinking may have neglected to think of emotional bonds such as the ones mentioned above is that they may not have observed or experienced such bonds. For most people, friendships are relatively casual relationships; the only sort of really close relationship they experience is romantic. While a good number of romantic relationships do include incredibly close emotional bonds, on the surface they may appear to be based primarily on sex; so, if the people who came up with the system had not personally been in any romantic relationships (or any peculiarly close friendships/other non-sexual love-based relationships), they might not have realized the intensity of certain types of emotional attachment.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Response: Unnecessary Commandments?
In response to Brandon Gaudet's post "Desensitization: Video Games v. Religion" (January 26, 2012):
I agree with the ideas expressed in the above post - I merely wished to add to some of the points brought up in the last paragraph, particularly those involving the idea of Christians going immediately to heaven upon their deaths. Historically, Christianity has on more than one occasion endorsed warring against and killing those of differing religious views. According to the Bible, people who do not worship the Christian God go to hell, or at the very least to purgatory. Thus, a Christian killing a nonbeliever is not harmless to said nonbeliever - they are not going to a better place upon their demise, in fact they could be said to be going to a much worse place.
A Christian could safely kill another Christian in the knowledge that the person they killed would go straight to heaven. Yet despite this, Christians have warred against other Christians far less frequently than they have fought with non-Christians. Furthermore, one of the ten commandments in the Christian faith is "Thou shalt not kill" (or "Thou shalt not commit murder", according to some interpretations). Judging by the history of religious wars fought by the Christians, this commandment applies less to killing nonbelievers than it does to killing fellow members of the faith. Why? Why has God apparently declared it forbidden to kill people who are going straight to heaven anyway? It seems to me that if dead Christians go to heaven, this commandment should be totally unnecessary, at least in regards to members of the faith. I could understand refusing to kill nonbelievers to give them a chance to reconsider their religious affiliation, but that is a separate matter.
I agree with the ideas expressed in the above post - I merely wished to add to some of the points brought up in the last paragraph, particularly those involving the idea of Christians going immediately to heaven upon their deaths. Historically, Christianity has on more than one occasion endorsed warring against and killing those of differing religious views. According to the Bible, people who do not worship the Christian God go to hell, or at the very least to purgatory. Thus, a Christian killing a nonbeliever is not harmless to said nonbeliever - they are not going to a better place upon their demise, in fact they could be said to be going to a much worse place.
A Christian could safely kill another Christian in the knowledge that the person they killed would go straight to heaven. Yet despite this, Christians have warred against other Christians far less frequently than they have fought with non-Christians. Furthermore, one of the ten commandments in the Christian faith is "Thou shalt not kill" (or "Thou shalt not commit murder", according to some interpretations). Judging by the history of religious wars fought by the Christians, this commandment applies less to killing nonbelievers than it does to killing fellow members of the faith. Why? Why has God apparently declared it forbidden to kill people who are going straight to heaven anyway? It seems to me that if dead Christians go to heaven, this commandment should be totally unnecessary, at least in regards to members of the faith. I could understand refusing to kill nonbelievers to give them a chance to reconsider their religious affiliation, but that is a separate matter.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Response: Individuality vs. The Family
In response to Julia Monturo's post "Search for Self at All Costs" (January 26, 2012):
I do agree that choosing one's own quest for enlightenment over the happiness of one's family and friends appears selfish at first glance, and in many cases (such as seems to be the case with the man in the film we watched on Thursday) it probably is. I don't object terribly strongly to the idea of one doing it anyway, as I do not feel that a person should consistently place their family over their own personal satisfaction, but the idea does seem to clash with a doctrine which advocates selflessness.
However, I can think of certain motivations which would render this choice less selfish. For example, if one has assurance that one's family will remain in good living conditions regardless of what one chooses to do, and one wishes to undergo this quest in order to achieve spiritual enlightenment for the purpose of then passing on one's learnings to others, then it is arguable a relatively selfless decision, particularly if making it causes one some sort of emotional pain. Alternately, if one's family was unpleasant and hostile, then I do not think that abandoning them to live a life of meditation is selfish in the same way as leaving a family who loves one (and who one loves in return) - although it still could be interpreted as selfish in another way, some could argue that living away from hostility is not a selfish choice so much as an inherent right.
I do agree that choosing one's own quest for enlightenment over the happiness of one's family and friends appears selfish at first glance, and in many cases (such as seems to be the case with the man in the film we watched on Thursday) it probably is. I don't object terribly strongly to the idea of one doing it anyway, as I do not feel that a person should consistently place their family over their own personal satisfaction, but the idea does seem to clash with a doctrine which advocates selflessness.
However, I can think of certain motivations which would render this choice less selfish. For example, if one has assurance that one's family will remain in good living conditions regardless of what one chooses to do, and one wishes to undergo this quest in order to achieve spiritual enlightenment for the purpose of then passing on one's learnings to others, then it is arguable a relatively selfless decision, particularly if making it causes one some sort of emotional pain. Alternately, if one's family was unpleasant and hostile, then I do not think that abandoning them to live a life of meditation is selfish in the same way as leaving a family who loves one (and who one loves in return) - although it still could be interpreted as selfish in another way, some could argue that living away from hostility is not a selfish choice so much as an inherent right.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Selflessness is Relative
One thing that bothers me about Sri Krishna's advice in the Bhagavad Gita is his advocation and description of 'selfless service' and selflessness in general. As seems to be the case in many religions or philosophies, this supposed selflessness is not actually selfless; in the case of Krishna's advice to Arjuna, one should practice selfless service because doing so will bring one closer to achieving the ultimate goal of being at peace and possessing "the joy of spiritual awareness" - which is something that one wants for oneself. One paragraph in particular stood out to me as being especially nonsensical: "Through constant effort over many lifetimes, a person becomes purified of all selfish desires and attains the supreme goal of life" (pg. 145). The sentiments expressed by this passage appear to be very nearly in exact opposition to one another. On the one hand, the person referred to by the passage is purified of all selfish desires; on the other, they are attaining something (the supreme goal of life) which they desire.
The Bhagavad Gita is certainly not alone amongst religious and philosophical texts in containing this somewhat hypocritical version of selflessness. Christianity, with its required obedience to biblical scripture and the will of God, is no better - in fact, it may well be worse, considering that numerous Christians state that those without religion are necessarily immoral. How, I ask, can someone (let us say an atheist) who does things for the benefit of others alone, because they choose to do so, be less moral than someone who helps others because they believe that they will be granted eternal reward (and exempted from eternal punishment) if they do so? If anything, I would say the opposite is true; however, I think that the issue is more complicated than that, and while there is no space to go too far into it here I may address it in another post. For now, I shall merely refrain from stating that religious people cannot be moral (I believe they can be), and instead list a few other religions/philosophies which suffer a similar lack of consistency regarding selflessness - namely Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, and secular belief in 'the golden rule'.
The Bhagavad Gita is certainly not alone amongst religious and philosophical texts in containing this somewhat hypocritical version of selflessness. Christianity, with its required obedience to biblical scripture and the will of God, is no better - in fact, it may well be worse, considering that numerous Christians state that those without religion are necessarily immoral. How, I ask, can someone (let us say an atheist) who does things for the benefit of others alone, because they choose to do so, be less moral than someone who helps others because they believe that they will be granted eternal reward (and exempted from eternal punishment) if they do so? If anything, I would say the opposite is true; however, I think that the issue is more complicated than that, and while there is no space to go too far into it here I may address it in another post. For now, I shall merely refrain from stating that religious people cannot be moral (I believe they can be), and instead list a few other religions/philosophies which suffer a similar lack of consistency regarding selflessness - namely Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, and secular belief in 'the golden rule'.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Introduction
Hello, fellow bloggers and readers. My name is Avery, as you can see elsewhere on
this blog. I'm a freshman here at MCLA,
and come from Groton, Massachusetts. I
have always been highly interested in philosophy, and as such have chosen to
major in it. Music is also a great
interest of mine; I play the pedal harp, the electric guitar, the piano, and a
number of other instruments, and enjoy listening to a wide variety of music,
from classical to metal to Celtic folk.
I do compose some music, but am not as yet proficient enough at that to
try presenting my compositions in a formal setting. My one sibling, a younger sister, also plays
and writes music.
I am an almost-vegetarian, for ethical
reasons rather than for my health; the reason I cannot call myself a
complete
vegetarian is that I still do consume shellfish. In regards to
religion, I am an agnostic, but remain open-minded about the possibility of changing this. My literary taste, similarly to my musical
taste, varies widely; I like many contemporary authors (Terry Pratchett,
Meredith Ann Pierce, Garth Nix, etc.) and also older authors (Edgar
Allen Poe,
Arthur Conan Doyle, Franz Kafka, etc.).
I like reading mythology, drawing, and attempting to psychoanalyse
people, and am a black belt in Uechi-ryu karate.
That is all I can think of off the top of
my head which might be of interest. I
look forward to being able to participate in this class and get to know all of
you better through discussions in it!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)