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.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)