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.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
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:
Posts (Atom)