"Dependency is death to initiative, to risk-taking and opportunity."
So I've been in Israel now for a little over 24 hours, and something has become very apparent to me. My family has become dependent on me here. This is a very new feeling and not one I'm sure I'm completely comfortable with. My father mentioned to a friend I ran into within 3 hours of being here that the only reason they brought me was to translate. Now I'm not sure if he was completely joking or not.
I've found myself asking for directions for them, translating restaurant menus, reading street signs, converting shekels to dollars (isn't my brother's strong suit math? not mine?), all sorts of things. And when I jokingly asked what would they do without me, like when I go off with my friends, they, very seriously, replied that if the other person doesn't speak English, they'll just leave.
My question then aims at how to categorize this. Is it ignorance? Lack of desire to be adventurous? What? I decided on dependency. Their dependency on having something, or someone in this case, bridge the gap is what causes them to have experiences and take opportunities that would otherwise would cease to exist in their minds.
Should one be dependent? I pride myself in being independent, to a fault even. My friends will agree, and even question if that in and of itself is simply independence or stubbornness. However, lately I've found myself becoming more and more dependent on others. Maybe I'm just realizing it, but I really am beginning to notice the level of dependency I have on those around me. Is this right? Should I be dependent? Is it within human nature as social creatures to be so? Or could we be like Walden and live off in a cabin by ourselves as hermits?
I do agree with the opening quote, that being too dependent will cause one to miss out and have life fly by him. But what level of dependency, if any, is appropriate? What/who should we depend on? Is there any right or wrong way to go about it? More at a foundational level, is dependency an issue of being right or wrong?
Would love to hear what y'all have to say about this. It certainly has been mulled over in my mind.
27.12.09
25.12.09
Leaving on a Jet Plane
Well, I'm leaving for Israel in the morning, and I may or may not have time to write again before I go, although I'm sure I'll write while I'm there. Anyways, I found this poem that I wrote a few years back, and, although I usual remember the thoughts behind my writings, I have no recollection of this piece, writing it or the feelings/thoughts behind it. I'd like feedback and thoughts on it though. Just let me know what you think it may have stemmed from, or what it makes you feel; literary discussion!
Intoxication
The syrum lies within my grasp.
It is all I'll ever keep,
what's left of love, what's left of life,
what's found in heartache, found in strife
is counted by tears I weep,
by those mem'ries I dare to trap.
My mind tumbles, my stomach sinks
with sounds you make into words,
for they twist into loss of love
to pull out of reach the soul of
the one who's farther than birds,
yet lays in my arms lips still pink.
Through thick or thin than time within,
I quickly have fondly grown.
But their mindset is not the same
running 'gain in Love's unfair game.
And again I am alone,
left to wonder what could have been.
A pebble falls before I do,
the seering feel through me flies.
Time slows as I'm strangled with fear,
inevitably I draw near.
My final thoughts are not cries,
something beyond me stops that too.
It happens so quickly, so fast,
last seen a flash of white light.
Pain spreads like marionette strings
pulled tight with ease, snapping doves' wings.
A crescent smile comes within sight,
their hand is reached out in the vast.
Through trials and tribulations,
one grasps for this, their mind set.
Look for sweet intoxication
of hope. That will be salvation.
No pain can make you forget
the sweet: Hope Intoxication.
Intoxication
The syrum lies within my grasp.
It is all I'll ever keep,
what's left of love, what's left of life,
what's found in heartache, found in strife
is counted by tears I weep,
by those mem'ries I dare to trap.
My mind tumbles, my stomach sinks
with sounds you make into words,
for they twist into loss of love
to pull out of reach the soul of
the one who's farther than birds,
yet lays in my arms lips still pink.
Through thick or thin than time within,
I quickly have fondly grown.
But their mindset is not the same
running 'gain in Love's unfair game.
And again I am alone,
left to wonder what could have been.
A pebble falls before I do,
the seering feel through me flies.
Time slows as I'm strangled with fear,
inevitably I draw near.
My final thoughts are not cries,
something beyond me stops that too.
It happens so quickly, so fast,
last seen a flash of white light.
Pain spreads like marionette strings
pulled tight with ease, snapping doves' wings.
A crescent smile comes within sight,
their hand is reached out in the vast.
Through trials and tribulations,
one grasps for this, their mind set.
Look for sweet intoxication
of hope. That will be salvation.
No pain can make you forget
the sweet: Hope Intoxication.
21.12.09
Atlas Shrugged: Who knew maps could be sexy?
I was talking to a friend early this morning who was surprised that I hadn't read Ayn Rand. She's been on my reading list for a while, but I just haven't had time to get through everything on my list to get to her. Anyways, he sent me a teaser in regards to her work which I have found both entertaining and intellectually stimulating.
DISCLAIMER: I am only judging this as an isolated selection. I haven't read the rest of the book, although Atlas Shrugged is on my to-read list.
[Some people] think that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of one's mind, choice, or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you -- just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself into railroad rails of its own volition. Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man's sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself. No matter what corruption he's taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment -- just try to think of performing it as an act of selfless charity! -- an act which is not possible in self-abasement, only in self-exaltation, only in the confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire. It is an act that forces him to stand naked in spirit, as well as in body, and to accept his real ego as his standard of value. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience -- or to fake -- a sense of self-esteem. The man who is proudly certain of his own value will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer, because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut. He does not seek to gain his value, but to express it. There is no conflict between the standards of his mind and the desires of his body...
Observe the ugly mess which most men make of their sex lives -- and observe the mess of contradictions which they hold as their moral philosophy. One proceeds from the other. Love is our response to our highest values, and can be nothing else. Let a man corrupt his values and his view of existence -- let him profess that love is not self-enjoyment but self-denial, that virtue consists, not of pride but of pity or pain or weakness or sacrifice, that the noblest love is born, not of admiration but of charity, not in response to values but in response to flaws, -- and he will have cut himself in two. His body will not obey him, it will not respond, it will make him impotent toward the woman he professes to love and draw him to the lowest type of whore he can find. His body will always follow the logic of his deepest convictions; if he believes that flaws are values, he has damned existence as evil and only the evil will attract him. He has damned himself and he will feel that depravity is all he is worthy of enjoying... Then he will scream that his body has vicious desires of its own which his mind cannot conquer, that sex is sin, that true love is a pure emotion of the spirit. And then he will wonder why love brings him nothing but boredom and sex nothing but shame....
Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love.
This selection interestingly uses sex as the means by which one would define an individual's life philosophy and self-image. Which makes me curious as to whether this is an accurate method of life analysis or not. I mean, surely the way people value themselves and think often run parallel to the sorts of relationships they involve themselves with, romantic or otherwise. But is sex really so easily the judgement of self?
As Ayn Rand writes, "He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience -- or to fake -- a sense of self-esteem. The man who is proudly certain of his own value will want the highest type of woman he can find..." I agree that man (as in mankind) specifically looks for those who reflect a particular desire, even a reflection of self-esteem and image, like that of a woman who has been raped who may enjoy the role play of a similar scenario or someone who is very cocky (no pun intended) who wants a very confident and strong partner. However, I am uneasy to say that is the sole angle to be observed. There are those who are complete opposites in and out of the bedroom, being submissive in one and bold in the other, or those who have particular fantasies which may not correlate to their personality or self-image, rather they are acting as it was written "selfishly" by going after their desire; " sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment". How is that supposed to reflect an individual's philosophy or self-image?
I could be completely misunderstanding the piece, but really, how can sex be the foundational aspect to be judged when analyzing someone's life philosophy and self-image when it isn't necessarily an akin point to one's personality?
Another aspect of the philosophy of sex is the morality of sex. One part of Alan Soble's essay "The Analytic Categories of the Philosophy of Sex" in The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings looks at the morality of sex, labeling certain philosophers who look into this topic as metaphysical sexual "optimists" and metaphysical sexual "pessimists". Those who are labeled pessimists, i.e. St. Augustine (in his book Confessions he writes something to the effect of G-d please grant me the ability to be chaste, just not yet), Kant, and occasionally Freud, view sex as "something nearly always, if not necessarily, unbefitting the dignity of the human person," and "that the power and demands of the sexual impulse make it a danger to harmonious civilized life... and... also a threat to his or her own humanity." The optimists, i.e. Plato, occasionally Freud, Bertrand Russell, and Albert Ellis, "... view human sexuality as just another and mostly innocuous dimension of our existence as embodied or animal-like creatures... and they applaud rather than fear the power of an impulse that can lift us to high forms of happiness."
Flat out, I don't think sex is either moral or immoral but, similar to really most objects or acts (i.e. money, power, etc.), is amoral. It is how we as individuals and partners in a relationship approach sex that is moral or immoral. As people, we can have sex be that selfish act that Ayn Rand discusses, which would be observed as metaphysical sexual pessimism, or have sex be an act NOT ONLY for the self, but also your partner, as well as a deliberate act demonstrating its biological purpose to conceive.
Thoughts on the morality of sex? Agree? Disagree? Also, consider Ayn Rand's stance on sex being the point to judge life's philosophy and self-image. Is that an appropriate item for judgement? Is it the only one or what else is there?
DISCLAIMER: I am only judging this as an isolated selection. I haven't read the rest of the book, although Atlas Shrugged is on my to-read list.
[Some people] think that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of one's mind, choice, or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you -- just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself into railroad rails of its own volition. Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man's sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself. No matter what corruption he's taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment -- just try to think of performing it as an act of selfless charity! -- an act which is not possible in self-abasement, only in self-exaltation, only in the confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire. It is an act that forces him to stand naked in spirit, as well as in body, and to accept his real ego as his standard of value. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience -- or to fake -- a sense of self-esteem. The man who is proudly certain of his own value will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer, because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut. He does not seek to gain his value, but to express it. There is no conflict between the standards of his mind and the desires of his body...
Observe the ugly mess which most men make of their sex lives -- and observe the mess of contradictions which they hold as their moral philosophy. One proceeds from the other. Love is our response to our highest values, and can be nothing else. Let a man corrupt his values and his view of existence -- let him profess that love is not self-enjoyment but self-denial, that virtue consists, not of pride but of pity or pain or weakness or sacrifice, that the noblest love is born, not of admiration but of charity, not in response to values but in response to flaws, -- and he will have cut himself in two. His body will not obey him, it will not respond, it will make him impotent toward the woman he professes to love and draw him to the lowest type of whore he can find. His body will always follow the logic of his deepest convictions; if he believes that flaws are values, he has damned existence as evil and only the evil will attract him. He has damned himself and he will feel that depravity is all he is worthy of enjoying... Then he will scream that his body has vicious desires of its own which his mind cannot conquer, that sex is sin, that true love is a pure emotion of the spirit. And then he will wonder why love brings him nothing but boredom and sex nothing but shame....
Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love.
This selection interestingly uses sex as the means by which one would define an individual's life philosophy and self-image. Which makes me curious as to whether this is an accurate method of life analysis or not. I mean, surely the way people value themselves and think often run parallel to the sorts of relationships they involve themselves with, romantic or otherwise. But is sex really so easily the judgement of self?
As Ayn Rand writes, "He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience -- or to fake -- a sense of self-esteem. The man who is proudly certain of his own value will want the highest type of woman he can find..." I agree that man (as in mankind) specifically looks for those who reflect a particular desire, even a reflection of self-esteem and image, like that of a woman who has been raped who may enjoy the role play of a similar scenario or someone who is very cocky (no pun intended) who wants a very confident and strong partner. However, I am uneasy to say that is the sole angle to be observed. There are those who are complete opposites in and out of the bedroom, being submissive in one and bold in the other, or those who have particular fantasies which may not correlate to their personality or self-image, rather they are acting as it was written "selfishly" by going after their desire; " sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment". How is that supposed to reflect an individual's philosophy or self-image?
I could be completely misunderstanding the piece, but really, how can sex be the foundational aspect to be judged when analyzing someone's life philosophy and self-image when it isn't necessarily an akin point to one's personality?
Another aspect of the philosophy of sex is the morality of sex. One part of Alan Soble's essay "The Analytic Categories of the Philosophy of Sex" in The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings looks at the morality of sex, labeling certain philosophers who look into this topic as metaphysical sexual "optimists" and metaphysical sexual "pessimists". Those who are labeled pessimists, i.e. St. Augustine (in his book Confessions he writes something to the effect of G-d please grant me the ability to be chaste, just not yet), Kant, and occasionally Freud, view sex as "something nearly always, if not necessarily, unbefitting the dignity of the human person," and "that the power and demands of the sexual impulse make it a danger to harmonious civilized life... and... also a threat to his or her own humanity." The optimists, i.e. Plato, occasionally Freud, Bertrand Russell, and Albert Ellis, "... view human sexuality as just another and mostly innocuous dimension of our existence as embodied or animal-like creatures... and they applaud rather than fear the power of an impulse that can lift us to high forms of happiness."
Flat out, I don't think sex is either moral or immoral but, similar to really most objects or acts (i.e. money, power, etc.), is amoral. It is how we as individuals and partners in a relationship approach sex that is moral or immoral. As people, we can have sex be that selfish act that Ayn Rand discusses, which would be observed as metaphysical sexual pessimism, or have sex be an act NOT ONLY for the self, but also your partner, as well as a deliberate act demonstrating its biological purpose to conceive.
Thoughts on the morality of sex? Agree? Disagree? Also, consider Ayn Rand's stance on sex being the point to judge life's philosophy and self-image. Is that an appropriate item for judgement? Is it the only one or what else is there?
20.12.09
Bigger, Better Things
So it's late on a Saturday night/Sunday morning, and I find myself having a very interesting conversation with a good friend on the second greatest fear amongst man: dying (which is only second to public speaking, go figure).
Last week, a mutual friend of ours had a death in the family. The death happened to be that of a child. My friend said, "It shouldn't be so though... Hashem (one name referring to G-d) had bigger and better plans for them somewhere else, no?" We often say this about anyone who we feel hasn't lived a "full" life, and from my experience, that is anyone who is under the age of 60, if not 70.
As for my experience, I have had someone die in my life every three years like clock work, but occasionally closer together. So far this year, I personally have known four people who have died, all of which fall into that "hasn't lived a full life" category. The youngest was 10 and the oldest was 46. Cause of death ranged from unknown to leukemia, but the reason behind the death doesn't make the pain that we feel any less.
One of my mentors told me right after the death of my best friend, "We mourn for the living, meaning the person we're grieving for is dead, what is mourning going to do for them?" As blunt and disheartening as that may sound, I feel it may be true. We mourn, sit shiva (Jewish mourning period and rituals associated with that), disassociate, a variety of different things, but those are all for us.
On a different note, why would Hashem pick certain people over others? Why the young? Why the innocent? My best friend was my age when she died for unknown reasons. She was majoring in early childhood development with a minor in special education. She was very active in her church and school, and easily could be described as a good, loving, compassionate, sweet, kind, honest, loyal (the list goes on) individual. What possibly could she have accomplished in her short nineteen years?
Oh, but she did so much. My question then becomes, if she had already done so much in nineteen short years, why not capitalize on that? Why not lengthen the time she would have had to do more?
So I suppose I strayed a bit from the questions I wanted to inquire about. Death: Can we ever have an understanding as to the when? the why? What are we meant to take away from death?
My response to the last question is the cliche term to live life as if there was no tomorrow, but to dream as if you would live forever. My friend then asked who actually does this? I responded nearly no one, but if it makes you in the least bit aware of what you are doing day in and day out and making those moments worth while, then it's worth it.
Thoughts?
Last week, a mutual friend of ours had a death in the family. The death happened to be that of a child. My friend said, "It shouldn't be so though... Hashem (one name referring to G-d) had bigger and better plans for them somewhere else, no?" We often say this about anyone who we feel hasn't lived a "full" life, and from my experience, that is anyone who is under the age of 60, if not 70.
As for my experience, I have had someone die in my life every three years like clock work, but occasionally closer together. So far this year, I personally have known four people who have died, all of which fall into that "hasn't lived a full life" category. The youngest was 10 and the oldest was 46. Cause of death ranged from unknown to leukemia, but the reason behind the death doesn't make the pain that we feel any less.
One of my mentors told me right after the death of my best friend, "We mourn for the living, meaning the person we're grieving for is dead, what is mourning going to do for them?" As blunt and disheartening as that may sound, I feel it may be true. We mourn, sit shiva (Jewish mourning period and rituals associated with that), disassociate, a variety of different things, but those are all for us.
On a different note, why would Hashem pick certain people over others? Why the young? Why the innocent? My best friend was my age when she died for unknown reasons. She was majoring in early childhood development with a minor in special education. She was very active in her church and school, and easily could be described as a good, loving, compassionate, sweet, kind, honest, loyal (the list goes on) individual. What possibly could she have accomplished in her short nineteen years?
Oh, but she did so much. My question then becomes, if she had already done so much in nineteen short years, why not capitalize on that? Why not lengthen the time she would have had to do more?
So I suppose I strayed a bit from the questions I wanted to inquire about. Death: Can we ever have an understanding as to the when? the why? What are we meant to take away from death?
My response to the last question is the cliche term to live life as if there was no tomorrow, but to dream as if you would live forever. My friend then asked who actually does this? I responded nearly no one, but if it makes you in the least bit aware of what you are doing day in and day out and making those moments worth while, then it's worth it.
Thoughts?
18.12.09
Overlooked: Eye of the Beholder
Before I head off for Shabbat tonight, there has been a particular topic I've been mulling over in my mind sparked by the movie, "Keeping the Faith" which stars Edward Norton (Father Brian), Ben Stiller (Rabbi Jake), and Jenna Elfman (Anna). It's a fun romantic comedy which starts out like a classic joke, Priest walks into a bar...
Anyways, there is this one scene where Anna and Father Brian are taking a cab ride home and Anna mentions that she had been at the Metropolitan Museum of Art earlier. Going on a weekly basis, she walks through the same galleries again and again, but this particular day she notices a small but breathtaking watercolor by Bogdan Grom. She comments on how she has gone through time and time again, but has never noticed this piece, and yet she found herself just staring at it for hours.
It got me thinking as to what do I go through life overlooking. I generally take pride in thinking that I am a very intuitive and observing individual, but I'm not aware of everything. What things do I not notice? What beauty is there that I do realize?
That then draws the questions as to what constitutes as being beautiful considering that that is what we may be missing. What is beauty? Is it subjective or objective? If objective, then what are its standards?
If we are overlooking something that we often spend our lives striving for, what else could we possibly be missing? What are we not paying attention to? Could it be important or simply extraneous? What should we be focusing on? Or more so, what should we be looking for?
Anyways, there is this one scene where Anna and Father Brian are taking a cab ride home and Anna mentions that she had been at the Metropolitan Museum of Art earlier. Going on a weekly basis, she walks through the same galleries again and again, but this particular day she notices a small but breathtaking watercolor by Bogdan Grom. She comments on how she has gone through time and time again, but has never noticed this piece, and yet she found herself just staring at it for hours.
It got me thinking as to what do I go through life overlooking. I generally take pride in thinking that I am a very intuitive and observing individual, but I'm not aware of everything. What things do I not notice? What beauty is there that I do realize?
That then draws the questions as to what constitutes as being beautiful considering that that is what we may be missing. What is beauty? Is it subjective or objective? If objective, then what are its standards?
If we are overlooking something that we often spend our lives striving for, what else could we possibly be missing? What are we not paying attention to? Could it be important or simply extraneous? What should we be focusing on? Or more so, what should we be looking for?
15.12.09
Ethics: A Start
So I suppose my desire to create this post has a lot to do with the nervousness I'm harboring for my philosophy exam tomorrow, which marks the end of both my first semester of college as well as my educational career at Arizona State University.
I have been studying pretty much non-stop, making sure that I understand the arguments and can recreate them in essay format. However, I am using this post to recreate the arguments to act as a security blanket as well as systematically process the ideas. Also, that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the arguments presented, which can lead to some discomfort about what feels like holes within the argument regardless of how sound it may come across.
So I really don't have much of an issue with the debunking of cultural relativism, and in fact agree with it. Although, that doesn't mean that everyone agrees. To start, I'll outline the idea of cultural relativism:
The idea of cultural relativism appears to be the conclusion of the premise ethnocentrism: the universal tendency for every human group to believe that its own ways, customs, beliefs, etc., are the right ways or best ways and that everyone else's ways are distinctly inferior. There are two slightly, yet significantly differing definitions: 1)each culture needs to be understood relative to its own unique background and circumstances within its own context and standards; and 2)evaluations are relative to the cultured background in which they arise, so no absolute standards by which other cultures can be judged, and in particular, we can't use our standards or we'd be committing the sin of ethnocentrism, i.e. if two communities, cultures, or what not disagree on the standards of belief or ethics, it makes no sense to even ask which is right. This presents two different concepts So in summation, no culture can be judged because they can only be compared within its own context and there is no sort of objective standards to press on all cultures.
But as my professor then says, "A conclusion follows from a premise IF AND ONLY IF affirming the premises yet denying the conclusion is a contradiction."
From here, the Principle of Toleration comes about as being the value to uphold in order to continue cultural relativism. It states that we should tolerate and respect values set up by every society even if they conflict with our own. Sounds like a decent deal right? I mean I believe one thing, you believe another, we agree to disagree? What seems so wrong with that?
That may be all well and good, the lack of judging what is good and what is bad that is, but what about effectiveness vs. ineffectiveness? Well, that would work. That's just logic, you can prove that, i.e. the use of birth control is more effective to not conceive a child rather than a woman staying away from water (Baggish, Confessions of a Former Relativist). Effectiveness vs. ineffectiveness is different from right vs. wrong. Asking a question on morality cannot be asked because there is no objective standard to compare it to. It would be like asking if a chair is manic or depressed. Wait... what? Exactly.
So next step: objections to cultural relativism. First, the Argument From Hard Cases: if cultural relativism is the basis upon which we think we should be tolerant, we’d have to equally tolerant of every cultural practice, conventions, etc., even cutting off fingers of little girls within the Dani tribe and Hitler's reign in germany. These things seem a bit harder to swallow as "okay" or tolerable. Uh, yes, I'll tolerate the suffering of the innocent in order to fulfill one's desire to fulfill what they believe to be "right." That's pretty much the response, bite the bullet, grin and bear it, just deal. Second, cultural relativism following from ethnocentrism is supposed to convince everyone they should be tolerant of everyone else's customs, values, etc. Well, the whole point of cultural relativism is to show that toleration is an OBJECTIVE VALUE, *ahem* the definition previously states that cultural relativism claims there are no objective values. Can you say contradiction? Third, cultural relativism commits the fallacy of trying to derive an "ought" from an "is." For example, it hurts little girls when you cut off their fingers, ergo you ought not to mutilate the hands of innocent little girls. That doesn't mean that one will do that, in fact, the Dani don't.
So whose to say?
In order to understand cultural relativism, we say that morality comes from G-d. Yay! Next theory: Divine Command Theory. The theory that really has my mind turning gears with the most difference in sentiment, but let's outline it anyway. Why do we define morality the way we do? Because G-d says so. We ought to do something if and only if G-d commands us to do it. Similar to how the United States Supreme Court is the supreme legal authority which sits in judgement upon us, G-d is the supreme moral authority who sits in judgement upon us. We listen to authority.
So let's compare legal and moral: one has a legal obligation to do as the supreme court rules if and only if the supreme court says you do because the law is what we say it is and one has the moral obligation to do something if and only if G-d says you do because... why? The second claim is ambiguous. Why do we follow such command? Does it mean: a) we have a moral obligation to do something because G-d tells us to OR b) G-d tells us to do things because they're what one has a moral obligation to do? YES THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT IDEAS, just give me a minute to explain.
A) is an explanation supporting that G-d created what we call "morality," but does not bind G-d to such rules, therefore making G-d an immoral being (if G-d is an immoral being, why praise G-d?), i.e. an explanation why one should tell the truth rather than lie. B) is an explanation for morality being created outside of G-d thereby defying G-d's omnipotence (if G-d didn't create morality, what is binding us to a G-d with limitations?), i.e. an explanation for why G-d is commanding us to tell the truth rather than lie.
To dive even deeper into the deep blue, there are three types of authority: final, infallible, and scorer's discretion. Final authority is the authority whose decision one must live with regardless of if you believe they are right or wrong, i.e. NFL referees' calls from the video replay booth. Infallible authority is the authority whose decisions are always correct (yes, mankind is fallible, but it is conceivable than mankind is right at all times, I mean, at least they think so...), i.e. NFL referees on the field could always be a right call, but their decisions aren't necessarily final. Scorer's Discretion is the authority whose decisions are literally made up as one goes along according to one's whims and fancies of the moment, i.e. completely throw out the rule book of football and let's just go with whatever the referee "feels like" saying is the call.
In regards to A) and B), A) would be a sort of scorer's discretion where G-d makes up what is or isn't moral without anything governing the reason other than G-d's desire to make it so. On the other hand, B) is a combination of final and infallible authorities because G-d is then enforcing a set of rules--morals--in order to continue life. However, for G-d to enforce these rules, similar to the final or infallible referees, G-d is using something outside of himself in order to continue forward with life, thereby defying G-d's omnipotence.
So... that's Divine Command Theory, and well, I simply am left with discomfort about the subject and would love to hear what others have to say about it. I have a very strong belief in G-d and believe that from G-d comes all creation and nothing could exist without G-dliness because everything comes from G-dliness. Everything includes morality. So how does this fit into the grand scheme of things.
Thoughts?
I have been studying pretty much non-stop, making sure that I understand the arguments and can recreate them in essay format. However, I am using this post to recreate the arguments to act as a security blanket as well as systematically process the ideas. Also, that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the arguments presented, which can lead to some discomfort about what feels like holes within the argument regardless of how sound it may come across.
So I really don't have much of an issue with the debunking of cultural relativism, and in fact agree with it. Although, that doesn't mean that everyone agrees. To start, I'll outline the idea of cultural relativism:
The idea of cultural relativism appears to be the conclusion of the premise ethnocentrism: the universal tendency for every human group to believe that its own ways, customs, beliefs, etc., are the right ways or best ways and that everyone else's ways are distinctly inferior. There are two slightly, yet significantly differing definitions: 1)each culture needs to be understood relative to its own unique background and circumstances within its own context and standards; and 2)evaluations are relative to the cultured background in which they arise, so no absolute standards by which other cultures can be judged, and in particular, we can't use our standards or we'd be committing the sin of ethnocentrism, i.e. if two communities, cultures, or what not disagree on the standards of belief or ethics, it makes no sense to even ask which is right. This presents two different concepts So in summation, no culture can be judged because they can only be compared within its own context and there is no sort of objective standards to press on all cultures.
But as my professor then says, "A conclusion follows from a premise IF AND ONLY IF affirming the premises yet denying the conclusion is a contradiction."
From here, the Principle of Toleration comes about as being the value to uphold in order to continue cultural relativism. It states that we should tolerate and respect values set up by every society even if they conflict with our own. Sounds like a decent deal right? I mean I believe one thing, you believe another, we agree to disagree? What seems so wrong with that?
That may be all well and good, the lack of judging what is good and what is bad that is, but what about effectiveness vs. ineffectiveness? Well, that would work. That's just logic, you can prove that, i.e. the use of birth control is more effective to not conceive a child rather than a woman staying away from water (Baggish, Confessions of a Former Relativist). Effectiveness vs. ineffectiveness is different from right vs. wrong. Asking a question on morality cannot be asked because there is no objective standard to compare it to. It would be like asking if a chair is manic or depressed. Wait... what? Exactly.
So next step: objections to cultural relativism. First, the Argument From Hard Cases: if cultural relativism is the basis upon which we think we should be tolerant, we’d have to equally tolerant of every cultural practice, conventions, etc., even cutting off fingers of little girls within the Dani tribe and Hitler's reign in germany. These things seem a bit harder to swallow as "okay" or tolerable. Uh, yes, I'll tolerate the suffering of the innocent in order to fulfill one's desire to fulfill what they believe to be "right." That's pretty much the response, bite the bullet, grin and bear it, just deal. Second, cultural relativism following from ethnocentrism is supposed to convince everyone they should be tolerant of everyone else's customs, values, etc. Well, the whole point of cultural relativism is to show that toleration is an OBJECTIVE VALUE, *ahem* the definition previously states that cultural relativism claims there are no objective values. Can you say contradiction? Third, cultural relativism commits the fallacy of trying to derive an "ought" from an "is." For example, it hurts little girls when you cut off their fingers, ergo you ought not to mutilate the hands of innocent little girls. That doesn't mean that one will do that, in fact, the Dani don't.
So whose to say?
In order to understand cultural relativism, we say that morality comes from G-d. Yay! Next theory: Divine Command Theory. The theory that really has my mind turning gears with the most difference in sentiment, but let's outline it anyway. Why do we define morality the way we do? Because G-d says so. We ought to do something if and only if G-d commands us to do it. Similar to how the United States Supreme Court is the supreme legal authority which sits in judgement upon us, G-d is the supreme moral authority who sits in judgement upon us. We listen to authority.
So let's compare legal and moral: one has a legal obligation to do as the supreme court rules if and only if the supreme court says you do because the law is what we say it is and one has the moral obligation to do something if and only if G-d says you do because... why? The second claim is ambiguous. Why do we follow such command? Does it mean: a) we have a moral obligation to do something because G-d tells us to OR b) G-d tells us to do things because they're what one has a moral obligation to do? YES THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT IDEAS, just give me a minute to explain.
A) is an explanation supporting that G-d created what we call "morality," but does not bind G-d to such rules, therefore making G-d an immoral being (if G-d is an immoral being, why praise G-d?), i.e. an explanation why one should tell the truth rather than lie. B) is an explanation for morality being created outside of G-d thereby defying G-d's omnipotence (if G-d didn't create morality, what is binding us to a G-d with limitations?), i.e. an explanation for why G-d is commanding us to tell the truth rather than lie.
To dive even deeper into the deep blue, there are three types of authority: final, infallible, and scorer's discretion. Final authority is the authority whose decision one must live with regardless of if you believe they are right or wrong, i.e. NFL referees' calls from the video replay booth. Infallible authority is the authority whose decisions are always correct (yes, mankind is fallible, but it is conceivable than mankind is right at all times, I mean, at least they think so...), i.e. NFL referees on the field could always be a right call, but their decisions aren't necessarily final. Scorer's Discretion is the authority whose decisions are literally made up as one goes along according to one's whims and fancies of the moment, i.e. completely throw out the rule book of football and let's just go with whatever the referee "feels like" saying is the call.
In regards to A) and B), A) would be a sort of scorer's discretion where G-d makes up what is or isn't moral without anything governing the reason other than G-d's desire to make it so. On the other hand, B) is a combination of final and infallible authorities because G-d is then enforcing a set of rules--morals--in order to continue life. However, for G-d to enforce these rules, similar to the final or infallible referees, G-d is using something outside of himself in order to continue forward with life, thereby defying G-d's omnipotence.
So... that's Divine Command Theory, and well, I simply am left with discomfort about the subject and would love to hear what others have to say about it. I have a very strong belief in G-d and believe that from G-d comes all creation and nothing could exist without G-dliness because everything comes from G-dliness. Everything includes morality. So how does this fit into the grand scheme of things.
Thoughts?
14.12.09
Life Philosophy: The Pursuit of Happiness
Well, hello world! I have finally been convinced to create a blog for a few reasons, which is all superfluous information. However, I suppose a blog in total is superfluous information considering its complete voluntary attribute.
Anyways, to start it out I suppose I wanted to address a topic which seems to have been coming up often in my life as of late. People, and by people I mean those who I have been in direct close contact with through discussion and other means of discourse, have consistently, although more frequently in recent weeks, told me that I'm too nice or that I simply can't say no, that I'm just so sweet and do so much for others as opposed to for myself. So, I'll go out on a limb here and admit I probably do these sorts of things more than I should and that I do things not necessarily thinking about all the steps and therefore effects that these acts of kindness may have on me, but I would like to attempt to explain myself.
Helping others makes me happy. Living for the betterment of others and working to see others grow and thrive makes me feel that I am doing good, using good as a noun here. I enjoy doing things for others whether it be something small like calling someone to ask how they have been doing or going and picking up chocolate chips from the kosher market down the street or something a bit bigger like driving to one of the other universities in the state to pick up a friend and bring them back to Phoenix or planning and putting on some sort of program for one of the many organizations I have become involved in.
I do admit that I can take on too much at times, but really, what bounds are there on happiness and service? That is the discussion I currently am inquiring of. What is it that makes a request too much when it is something that is needed? If one desires to help another, and takes joy from it, how much is too much? Is that joy selfish (under the definition of egotistical, not the definition being pertaining to an individual)?
Here is a quote that I have come to love in quite a short time which I think encompasses much of my thoughts and philosophy on life and happiness:
If we want to know what happiness is we must seek it, not as if it were a part of gold at the end of the rainbow, but among human beings who are living richly and fully the good life. If you observe a really happy man you will find him building a boat, writing a symphony, educating his son, growing double Dahlias in his garden. He will not be searching for happiness as if it were a collar gold button that has rolled under the cupboard in his bed room. He will have become aware that he is happy in the course of living 24 crowded hours of the day. If you live only for yourself you are always an immediate danger of being bored to death with the repetition of your own views and interests. No one has learned the meaning of living until he has surrendered his ego to the service of his fellowmen. If your ambition has the momentum of an express train at full speed, if you can no longer stop your mad rush for glory, power, or intellectual supremacy, try to divert your energies into socially useful channels before it is too late.
For those who seek the larger happiness and greater effectiveness open to human beings there can be but one philosophy of life, a philosophy of constructive altruism. The truly happy man is always a fighting optimist. Optimism includes not only altruism but also social responsibility, social courage and objectivity. The good life demands a working philosophy as an orientating map of conduct. This is the golden way of life. This is the satisfying life. This is the way to be happy though human. -W. Beran Wolfe
All comments and thoughts are welcome. I long for discourse on the ideas of life.
Anyways, to start it out I suppose I wanted to address a topic which seems to have been coming up often in my life as of late. People, and by people I mean those who I have been in direct close contact with through discussion and other means of discourse, have consistently, although more frequently in recent weeks, told me that I'm too nice or that I simply can't say no, that I'm just so sweet and do so much for others as opposed to for myself. So, I'll go out on a limb here and admit I probably do these sorts of things more than I should and that I do things not necessarily thinking about all the steps and therefore effects that these acts of kindness may have on me, but I would like to attempt to explain myself.
Helping others makes me happy. Living for the betterment of others and working to see others grow and thrive makes me feel that I am doing good, using good as a noun here. I enjoy doing things for others whether it be something small like calling someone to ask how they have been doing or going and picking up chocolate chips from the kosher market down the street or something a bit bigger like driving to one of the other universities in the state to pick up a friend and bring them back to Phoenix or planning and putting on some sort of program for one of the many organizations I have become involved in.
I do admit that I can take on too much at times, but really, what bounds are there on happiness and service? That is the discussion I currently am inquiring of. What is it that makes a request too much when it is something that is needed? If one desires to help another, and takes joy from it, how much is too much? Is that joy selfish (under the definition of egotistical, not the definition being pertaining to an individual)?
Here is a quote that I have come to love in quite a short time which I think encompasses much of my thoughts and philosophy on life and happiness:
If we want to know what happiness is we must seek it, not as if it were a part of gold at the end of the rainbow, but among human beings who are living richly and fully the good life. If you observe a really happy man you will find him building a boat, writing a symphony, educating his son, growing double Dahlias in his garden. He will not be searching for happiness as if it were a collar gold button that has rolled under the cupboard in his bed room. He will have become aware that he is happy in the course of living 24 crowded hours of the day. If you live only for yourself you are always an immediate danger of being bored to death with the repetition of your own views and interests. No one has learned the meaning of living until he has surrendered his ego to the service of his fellowmen. If your ambition has the momentum of an express train at full speed, if you can no longer stop your mad rush for glory, power, or intellectual supremacy, try to divert your energies into socially useful channels before it is too late.
For those who seek the larger happiness and greater effectiveness open to human beings there can be but one philosophy of life, a philosophy of constructive altruism. The truly happy man is always a fighting optimist. Optimism includes not only altruism but also social responsibility, social courage and objectivity. The good life demands a working philosophy as an orientating map of conduct. This is the golden way of life. This is the satisfying life. This is the way to be happy though human. -W. Beran Wolfe
All comments and thoughts are welcome. I long for discourse on the ideas of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
