As I promised readers, here's another blog entry for today.
Last night reality TV was discussed and its effect on life experience and why it is popular. Tonight I want to look at the phenomenon of experience and explore briefly its consequences for being.
I want this entry to be more of an idea formulation than a full blown blog entry. Here's what I am seeing and let's discuss whether this happens or whether I'm just completely off my rocker (or both).
What I see in being right now is that people are being trained to be addicted to experience, people need to experience everything they possibly can in order to live life. This mentality occurs because of many different influences in society, either peer pressure or college institutions who encourage students to get out and do things. This influence is all well and good because people need to get out and experience the world sometimes because there are many things which people need to see. However, people can be told to experience too much, or to look for a particular brand of experience which is authentic.
Last night the discussion on reality TV talked about how people seek an escape from ordinary being by drawing themselves into something which is said and appears to be real being, but in fact is often fabricated or exaggerated being. This tendency to sensationalize experience occurs in another way. Reality TV tends to take many different experiences of being and flounders as many different emotions and feelings as possible into one experience. However, the opposite can also happen with different effects. Instead of pouring many different experiences into one experience, an experience can also be one which emphasizes one particular aspect of experience repeatedly (either a feeling or a ritual phrase.)
Ritual can be used to do this (either with or without knowledge that this is happening) through its use of repetition in prayers and the guidance of the worship leader. For example, if one wants to spread an idea of Jesus having mercy then one possible method of spreading that message is to have a litany which repeats "Jesus have mercy". The litany with its use of repetition helps the phrase get stuck in people's heads. If the phrase gets stuck in someone's head, then people in their minds repeat the same phrase, and in this particular phrase it is one of comfort.
To get feelings stuck in people's minds which can lead to a desire for a particular experience, one has to see a dramatic example of a particular feeling. This can either be an authentic response to an action, which people desire to emulate because there is an extreme feeling (and someone having or seeming to have a deep experience.) This experience and concern happens particularly within charismatic religious movements of the Holy Spirit. The encounter with the Holy Spirit is a deep reality. In response to that reality, some people have deep experiences to this transcendental reality. People desire to have this experience because it is a feeling of encounter with the divine. This desire for a particular feeling is also encouraged by those who lead prayer services through various incantations and extemporaneous prayers to the Spirit.
This experience in itself is not a bad thing. Deep prayer experiences are times of peace and calmness. However, the experience of God is greater than an experience of this particular feeling of the Spirit. The experience of God is a journey which takes place through joys and sorrows, happiness and pain. One particular feeling is not an exclusive experience of God. God can show His presence in a variety of feelings and many a way. Without this knowledge of the journey, people can feel a lack of God if they do not experience this particular high. This is dangerous because it becomes easy for people to fall away from God because of the lack of this particular experience.
Aristocrates
Showing posts with label Human Nature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Nature. Show all posts
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Reality TV: Why the being you see on reality TV is not real, and more importantly why people are attracted to it?
Greetings readers,
Tis that busy time of the semester where being is frantic trying to get all sorts of stuff done and people get stressed due to the amount of things which need to get done. I'm sort of in that boat, so again I realize it's been a while but I'm back to posting and as a special treat you'll get a two-fer this week, one today and one tomorrow. :) Both posts will be sort of related but not at the same time, I'll let you all draw your own connections.
But speaking about being, tonight I want to talk about the crazy topic of reality TV. Why do we see this phenomenon in front of us and what draws people to reality TV? Also, is reality TV even comparable to "factical life experience"? (Heidegger) (P.S. For all readers, if one has not read Heidegger, I highly commend anything of his to your reading.) These questions are important because they examine human nature but also what is being portrayed as real. Reality TV also comes up this week because I heard rumor on Pardon the Interruption that Chad Ochocinco is going to star in a reality TV show where he dates 85 women and I was utterly confused as to why anyone would consider watching that show.
My own opinion is that reality TV exists because being itself can be painful for people a lot, and in response people want a release. Reality TV can do that in a variety of ways, either it projects people into a world so unlike, yet similar to their own that they can zone out to its aura, or they present a reality so awful and conflict ridden that people feel better about their own lives. Either way there is an appeal because it's real and unreal at the same time. Reality TV can either be as bizarre as "Survivor", or conflicted like "The Real World". Reality TV can do just about anything and is produced to do such so people can feel all sorts of emotions without leaving their living room. (or kitchen if you want to get a snack hmm :) )
People can feel a lot of emotions, good and bad. Bad emotions can stack up in people and cause people to become distressed with life. Even routine can become boring, monontous, and without purpose. This causes people pain because wants to be valued for their unique gifts, and want to life an exciting life. This can lead people to seek good emotions in whatever way possible, some healthy, and some not so healthy ways. An outlet which occurs is reality TV. Reality TV is a popular outlet because it requires so little work at all, but yet can give seemingly so many real emotions which seem to be real life.
But because it seems to be real does that mean it is real? There are many things which can appear real but aren't, like an image in a mirror or fruit juice which is not 100% juice. (Thanks Maggie!) The same thing can be said about reality TV. It looks real, it involves real people, but it is all staged situations and occasions which do not occur in being or are overexaggerated encounters with being. What they can teach us is about human nature, and how people respond in certain extreme situations? But it is easy to be engrossed by it because it presents so much loaded being in one small block of time that people are overburdened with reactions. This overburden draws people back for more and more of the TV, even though it isn't real or consistent with ordinary being. Since it's not ordinary being, it draws people in as well. No one wants to watch TV for ordinary being, so TV has to do something which is or seems out of the ordinary so people watch.
As long as one knows this, reality TV is not bad. However, it is dangerous when people take reality TV and try to incorporate ordinary being, or seek the experience of reality TV in ordinary being. So what does one do to prevent this? One must enjoy being itself and all its small pleasures. A smile of someone or a gentle hug are things which invigorate ordinary being with something special. To make being more enjoyable, one must find the things which she appreciates, especially the small things. When one can accomplish this, one can get more joy from ordinary being, which may include one not needing or desiring reality TV.
Aristocrates
Tis that busy time of the semester where being is frantic trying to get all sorts of stuff done and people get stressed due to the amount of things which need to get done. I'm sort of in that boat, so again I realize it's been a while but I'm back to posting and as a special treat you'll get a two-fer this week, one today and one tomorrow. :) Both posts will be sort of related but not at the same time, I'll let you all draw your own connections.
But speaking about being, tonight I want to talk about the crazy topic of reality TV. Why do we see this phenomenon in front of us and what draws people to reality TV? Also, is reality TV even comparable to "factical life experience"? (Heidegger) (P.S. For all readers, if one has not read Heidegger, I highly commend anything of his to your reading.) These questions are important because they examine human nature but also what is being portrayed as real. Reality TV also comes up this week because I heard rumor on Pardon the Interruption that Chad Ochocinco is going to star in a reality TV show where he dates 85 women and I was utterly confused as to why anyone would consider watching that show.
My own opinion is that reality TV exists because being itself can be painful for people a lot, and in response people want a release. Reality TV can do that in a variety of ways, either it projects people into a world so unlike, yet similar to their own that they can zone out to its aura, or they present a reality so awful and conflict ridden that people feel better about their own lives. Either way there is an appeal because it's real and unreal at the same time. Reality TV can either be as bizarre as "Survivor", or conflicted like "The Real World". Reality TV can do just about anything and is produced to do such so people can feel all sorts of emotions without leaving their living room. (or kitchen if you want to get a snack hmm :) )
People can feel a lot of emotions, good and bad. Bad emotions can stack up in people and cause people to become distressed with life. Even routine can become boring, monontous, and without purpose. This causes people pain because wants to be valued for their unique gifts, and want to life an exciting life. This can lead people to seek good emotions in whatever way possible, some healthy, and some not so healthy ways. An outlet which occurs is reality TV. Reality TV is a popular outlet because it requires so little work at all, but yet can give seemingly so many real emotions which seem to be real life.
But because it seems to be real does that mean it is real? There are many things which can appear real but aren't, like an image in a mirror or fruit juice which is not 100% juice. (Thanks Maggie!) The same thing can be said about reality TV. It looks real, it involves real people, but it is all staged situations and occasions which do not occur in being or are overexaggerated encounters with being. What they can teach us is about human nature, and how people respond in certain extreme situations? But it is easy to be engrossed by it because it presents so much loaded being in one small block of time that people are overburdened with reactions. This overburden draws people back for more and more of the TV, even though it isn't real or consistent with ordinary being. Since it's not ordinary being, it draws people in as well. No one wants to watch TV for ordinary being, so TV has to do something which is or seems out of the ordinary so people watch.
As long as one knows this, reality TV is not bad. However, it is dangerous when people take reality TV and try to incorporate ordinary being, or seek the experience of reality TV in ordinary being. So what does one do to prevent this? One must enjoy being itself and all its small pleasures. A smile of someone or a gentle hug are things which invigorate ordinary being with something special. To make being more enjoyable, one must find the things which she appreciates, especially the small things. When one can accomplish this, one can get more joy from ordinary being, which may include one not needing or desiring reality TV.
Aristocrates
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Nietzsche and the Problem of Clericalism
Note: Please read disclaimers before reading the rest of this piece, they will clarify exactly what I want to say in this piece and more importantly what I am not saying in this piece.
Disclaimer 1: Yes, I am using Nietzsche to explore the issue of clericalism in the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, I am a Roman Catholic and actually enjoying my reading of Nietzsche. Yes, I understand Nietzsche is not Christian, matter of fact he hates Christianity (which he more than implicitly states in his Genealogy of Morality when he talks about the inversion of values and Jesus (Nietzsche 1151, Treatise 1, #8). However, this piece plans to use Nietzsche's examination of morality and examine the possibility of temptation to a clericalist attitude (this can be by both laity and clergy, which this piece will examine how this possibility comes to fruition.) I want this to be an example of inculturation, someone outside Christianity writing on human nature (tendencies may be a better word), and what can this person teach us about Christianity.
Disclaimer 2: Citations for this piece are taken from Classics of Moral and Political Theory 4th edition. Each citation will appear as the one above with a page number, a treatise number and a section number. My text of The Genealogy of Morality appears in an anthology so the page numbers will not correspond with a book by the primary author. The treatise number and section number will allow the reader to find the source quotations in a book which is not my political theory book.
Disclaimer 3: This piece is not written to implicate any particular person or diocese participating in this behavior. However, my own presupposition is that I have seen behaviors similar to the ones I will mention in this piece, so this affects the way I write and think. My hope is everyone who reads this will be able to understand my presuppositions and be able to contribute to a fruitful discussion about the nature of clericalism, its potentiality for being a problem, if the attitudes really are problematic, or if someone wants to leave a comment about how I am completely wrong that will be acceptable as well. I want this piece to be a discussion starter for the future. This piece is by no means exclusive of everything which can be discussed; there are many outlets which can pour forth from this piece. However, I only want to cover the basics in this piece so as to leave it open for discussion on the blog and on facebook. That's all the disclaimers for now, if I think of more later I'll add them.
Yay for disclaimers! Let's get to the fun part now, which is examining the content.
For starters, one must understand the concept of noble and slave morality in order to understand Nietzsche. Noble morality is morality which focuses on the virtue of being powerful and using that power to exercise control over people. A prime example of this morality is the Roman Empire. Rome valued courage and strength, the ability to face danger head-on. Military prowess was brutal and those who resisted Rome were crushed in their struggle. (Jerusalem 70 AD is an example of this brutality.) (1150, Treatise 1, #7) Slave morality is morality which has a life focus of generosity. Virtue is measured not by strength, but rather by compassion. The best example of this is Christianity itself, which is the popular bringer of value inversion (1151, Treatise 1, #8) At its base concept, this presents a power struggle between the nobles who want to have a morality based on strength, and the religious leaders who want one based on virtuous gift.
This raises two points: First, it presents an interesting discussion on Church/State dynamics. Machiavelli in The Prince issues a treatise on why rulers should appear to be virtuous, but at times not act in virtue because it serves the best needs for the people. This work is the reason why power politics has an appearance in society. If one has ever examined a politician and thought she is lying through her teeth, this is the mentality which empowers current politics. People are influenced by slave morality because they deplore the problems in the State. They deplore the use of power by the nobles over their lives. (This may not seem as obvious in a democratic country, but looking at the recent financial crisis may present this issue in a greater light. Nobles looking out for their own interests on Wall Street gambled with other people's money trying to make more money to infinity and figured out the hard way how that does not work. Slaves were upset because they are the ones suffering in unemployment lines, while nobles are still making massive amounts of money because of government bailouts.)
Nietzsche highlights this point and writes, "The truly great haters in the history of the world have always been priests, also the most ingenious haters: -compared with the spirit of priestly revenge all the rest of spirit taken together hardly merits consideration (1150, Treatise 1, #7)." This is a strong critique, but his point is that priests are heads of the ideas of slave morality. As heads of slave morality, they act in different interests than noble morality. This leads to tension between the priests and the state because there is a disagreement. For the state, this is no problem, if the priests become a problem they can crush them with only resistance from those lower than themselves. For the priests, this is a big problem because there is this constant struggle to find a place in the world. Using this mentality, it becomes easy to see how some religious circles have a great dichotomy between "the spirit of the world" and "the spirit of God."
Second, the source of value inversion had taken place in many small ways in societies before. Greek philosophers had Plato and Aristotle who were different from the state. Plato's virtue focused on finding the forms (of beauty, truth, etc) (See Plato's Republic). Aristotle's virtue focused on the Golden Mean, finding virtue in moderation (See Nicomachean Ethics). Both of these standards of virtue were different from Greek society; however, their popularity was not great among the people. Both men had schools of thinkers, but their influence on the people was not large (at least compared to what happens later) (Actually it can also be argued that Greek philosophy only survived because of its inculturation into Christianity). Jesus and his followers popularize value inversion by their consistent witness, often to their death, (see the stories of the martyrs in the patristic period, there are too many of them to list here, Acts 7 is a good story which characterizes the reality of the martyr.) This value inversion eventually becomes connected with the State by the conversion of Constantine; however, the tension always exists in some fashion between Church and State. (Benedict and his rule were written in response to the popularization of Christianity in the Roman Empire.)
Now that these two points have been made we can now explain the person of the priest using Nietzsche's criteria. The priest as a follower of Jesus is by definition a teacher of value inversion and slave morality. However, by being a priest in a position to teach slave morality, the priest is no longer a slave in the same way a lay person is. The priest gains a title of respect which makes him more noble. However, this nobility places the priest in a weird position, because he is not a noble by noble standards. But he is still a noble in the sense of a difference between people.
This circumstance comes with certain temptations. The temptation arises from the system of guilt-debt which is prevalent in slave morality (1163, Treatise 2, #4). Nietzsche uses guilt-debt to explain the connection between having guilt and having a debt toward a religious end, for example salvation of the soul. The salvation of the soul becomes collateral for certain behaviors toward others. It also becomes the source of comparison between one person and another (1166, Treatise 2, #8). This is dangerous for the priest trying to avoid clericalism because the priest has a lot of power in influencing the congregation on the matters of slave morality. Also, slave morality in some respect helps the priest have his life support, because people donate money to support the Church. The encouragement of generosity allows the priests to survive and have the material needs and luxuries they have.
If salvation of the soul becomes collateral for paying a sort of debt to God, there is a danger of losing sight of God's grace. This is where Nietzsche in his analysis is not looking necessarily at what is there, but only what he sees in physical phenomenon. However, the point useful for this analysis is that this can happen, people can feel indebted spiritually and in a sense of gift/donation to a particular priest or Church and lose this sense of a free gift of grace. Particularly in Germany, Martin Luther's memory would be particularly strong for Nietzsche in examining religion, where Luther was critiquing the "buying of grace." (particularly indulgences, which in medieval practice was pay x amount of money toward donation of building St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and one could have sins forgiven) (a bit of an oversimplification but this will suffice for now.) This presupposition may help clarify Nietzsche's position and understand his own feelings in writing what he wrote. Catholic position has a problem with indulgences in that manner of saying ("give us x money, you get sins forgiven." Confession is much more personal and focused on the self growing toward conversion toward a giving slave morality, but also not at the cost of the self completely. There is a greater understanding that there must be a self to give which Nietzsche may not have been exposed to in his own faith and time.)
The above example is a situation of oversimplifying morality either because of a belief that people cannot understand the goods of slave morality and value inversion or because there is an end which wants to be obtained by this simplification. This can happen even in modern times, even with a greater understanding of the self. The rest of this essay wants to explore a new possibility which was not a problem in Nietzsche's time, namely the increasing relations between Church and State and the blending of nobilities. (Nietzsche wrote in a time where the Modernist controversy was prevalent so there was not as much engagement between Church and State. This was a time of increasing fear of the State. This fear changed during Vatican II.)
By the blending of nobilities, I refer to the phenomenon of priests (and lay members who want to work with them) working with politicians to reach certain ends. This takes place in many ways, some which serve the common good, and others of which require us to ask questions. Many efforts take place to serve the needs of the poor, the unborn, the homeless between the two nobilities. However, there is a certain tension which exists because there are philosophies which blend the two nobilities too closely.
For example, say priests and nobles were to each compromise some of their values to make a consensus to serve some benefit. In order to popularize this consensus, priests then would need to explain this in their homilies and sermons to their congregation. People involved with the parish may see this reality and want to agree with it. However, the parishoners who see the problems with this consensus quickly get marginalized because both the secular nobles and religious nobles have power together. They quickly get left to the backs of churches and brought to the aisles, instead of being front and center like they once were. This new philosophy quickly becomes the consensus and this serves both nobilities nicely. The secular nobles can have their power, and the priests benefit both from their congregation and the nobles who are supporting their causes. This temptation is one which cannot be ignored because the temptation for one's own utility is something which is present in life all the time. Nietzsche argues, "the good itself is not true, it is seen as what benefits the people in power (1146-47, Treatise 1, #2)."
This critique of the personalistic norm (see Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, Pope John Paul II's Love and Responsibility) is one which must be addressed in discussing clericalism. Utilitarianism is an attitude which can contribute to the possibility of clericalism because people can focus on how actions benefit themselves. To act in a way one could claim a universal maxim benefits people in authority greatly (Metaphysics of Morals). However, the lesson of slave morality for the priest which is extremely important is that a priest must be a servant of the people. This means resisting the possible temptation to blend moralities of secular and religious nobles.
Nietzsche wants to argue for the secular nobility and argue for power. (1147, Treatise 1, #2) He theorizes that virtue is the "shame of human instinct (1165, Treatise 2, #7)." To fix this problem, he wants people to be unafraid of their instincts to enjoy the suffering of others (1165, Treatise 2, #6). He also saw how people in priestly position had the potential to use their position similarly as a noble uses his position, though it is power for a different end, not physical power, but a spiritual domination of people. Nietzsche's view of human nature is pessimistic, in that doing the good not only is difficult for a human, it is something a human should not do because it hurts the potential of the present (by worrying about the future, which generosity does, especially notable in environmental debates now.) (1145, Preface, #6).
Though this picture is bleak, there is hope to avoid clericalism, and to overcome these difficulties in human nature. However, a more positive view of human nature is necessary in order to accomplish this task. In being, one can have empathetic feelings without some order of morality coming from the nobles of the slave morality. Empathetic feelings are a part of being itself, because persons are raised in community. To avoid clericalism, we have to encourage these sensitivities wherever they arise, in whatever forms of healing people want to bring to others. The cleric must avoid focusing parishoners only on his own sensitivities.
Another important attitude for preventing the possibility of clericalism is realizing that priests are people too, and as such they can fall, need respect and support, but also need to not be deified. If people glamor, ooh a priest :), then the priest will suffer the temptation to think his call is better than everyone else's because everyone tells him so. Priests need to be treated just like a regular person. This means, however, also realizing their need for support because they do not get paid enough money to live on, so in generosity people should be altruistic in serving their priest.
Finally, if there is the temptation for nobilities to blend, it must be stopped at all costs. This can be nothing but destructive to the people in the end. In the former, secular and religious nobles working together can do some good like helping people. A lot of this is seen now where the two sets of nobles work together. However, in being there is also the blending of teachings which confuse what is slave and what is noble. This has happened since Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire and this struggle continues today. One must take care to act truly for the good of others and not to fulfill one's own desires.
The discussion on clericalism and the blending of nobilities sheds light on the greatest problem in society today, which is people being used as means to an end for some purpose. This issue needs its own treatment, but if we believe in the slave morality, of a virtue based in generosity, then using should have no possibility in Christian existence and still be called Christian. People are used in many ways: emotionally, spiritually, sexually, physically, mentally. The possibility for clericalism shows that people see this potential for use in our own morality (which Nietzsche shows in his approach). This potential has to change and systems must be built in order to ensure this does not happen.
The other can teach us the most about ourselves. Others see things in us which do not appear to our own sight. We cannot ignore the lessons presented before us, but also we must critically question interpretations, teachings, because this engagement is how traditions live and grow. (Rahner, Chalcedon: End or Beginning?) There's more I could say here but I'll leave this post for questions and the possibility of a re-treatment or an expansion in the future. I hope you enjoyed your read :)
Aristocrates
Disclaimer 1: Yes, I am using Nietzsche to explore the issue of clericalism in the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, I am a Roman Catholic and actually enjoying my reading of Nietzsche. Yes, I understand Nietzsche is not Christian, matter of fact he hates Christianity (which he more than implicitly states in his Genealogy of Morality when he talks about the inversion of values and Jesus (Nietzsche 1151, Treatise 1, #8). However, this piece plans to use Nietzsche's examination of morality and examine the possibility of temptation to a clericalist attitude (this can be by both laity and clergy, which this piece will examine how this possibility comes to fruition.) I want this to be an example of inculturation, someone outside Christianity writing on human nature (tendencies may be a better word), and what can this person teach us about Christianity.
Disclaimer 2: Citations for this piece are taken from Classics of Moral and Political Theory 4th edition. Each citation will appear as the one above with a page number, a treatise number and a section number. My text of The Genealogy of Morality appears in an anthology so the page numbers will not correspond with a book by the primary author. The treatise number and section number will allow the reader to find the source quotations in a book which is not my political theory book.
Disclaimer 3: This piece is not written to implicate any particular person or diocese participating in this behavior. However, my own presupposition is that I have seen behaviors similar to the ones I will mention in this piece, so this affects the way I write and think. My hope is everyone who reads this will be able to understand my presuppositions and be able to contribute to a fruitful discussion about the nature of clericalism, its potentiality for being a problem, if the attitudes really are problematic, or if someone wants to leave a comment about how I am completely wrong that will be acceptable as well. I want this piece to be a discussion starter for the future. This piece is by no means exclusive of everything which can be discussed; there are many outlets which can pour forth from this piece. However, I only want to cover the basics in this piece so as to leave it open for discussion on the blog and on facebook. That's all the disclaimers for now, if I think of more later I'll add them.
Yay for disclaimers! Let's get to the fun part now, which is examining the content.
For starters, one must understand the concept of noble and slave morality in order to understand Nietzsche. Noble morality is morality which focuses on the virtue of being powerful and using that power to exercise control over people. A prime example of this morality is the Roman Empire. Rome valued courage and strength, the ability to face danger head-on. Military prowess was brutal and those who resisted Rome were crushed in their struggle. (Jerusalem 70 AD is an example of this brutality.) (1150, Treatise 1, #7) Slave morality is morality which has a life focus of generosity. Virtue is measured not by strength, but rather by compassion. The best example of this is Christianity itself, which is the popular bringer of value inversion (1151, Treatise 1, #8) At its base concept, this presents a power struggle between the nobles who want to have a morality based on strength, and the religious leaders who want one based on virtuous gift.
This raises two points: First, it presents an interesting discussion on Church/State dynamics. Machiavelli in The Prince issues a treatise on why rulers should appear to be virtuous, but at times not act in virtue because it serves the best needs for the people. This work is the reason why power politics has an appearance in society. If one has ever examined a politician and thought she is lying through her teeth, this is the mentality which empowers current politics. People are influenced by slave morality because they deplore the problems in the State. They deplore the use of power by the nobles over their lives. (This may not seem as obvious in a democratic country, but looking at the recent financial crisis may present this issue in a greater light. Nobles looking out for their own interests on Wall Street gambled with other people's money trying to make more money to infinity and figured out the hard way how that does not work. Slaves were upset because they are the ones suffering in unemployment lines, while nobles are still making massive amounts of money because of government bailouts.)
Nietzsche highlights this point and writes, "The truly great haters in the history of the world have always been priests, also the most ingenious haters: -compared with the spirit of priestly revenge all the rest of spirit taken together hardly merits consideration (1150, Treatise 1, #7)." This is a strong critique, but his point is that priests are heads of the ideas of slave morality. As heads of slave morality, they act in different interests than noble morality. This leads to tension between the priests and the state because there is a disagreement. For the state, this is no problem, if the priests become a problem they can crush them with only resistance from those lower than themselves. For the priests, this is a big problem because there is this constant struggle to find a place in the world. Using this mentality, it becomes easy to see how some religious circles have a great dichotomy between "the spirit of the world" and "the spirit of God."
Second, the source of value inversion had taken place in many small ways in societies before. Greek philosophers had Plato and Aristotle who were different from the state. Plato's virtue focused on finding the forms (of beauty, truth, etc) (See Plato's Republic). Aristotle's virtue focused on the Golden Mean, finding virtue in moderation (See Nicomachean Ethics). Both of these standards of virtue were different from Greek society; however, their popularity was not great among the people. Both men had schools of thinkers, but their influence on the people was not large (at least compared to what happens later) (Actually it can also be argued that Greek philosophy only survived because of its inculturation into Christianity). Jesus and his followers popularize value inversion by their consistent witness, often to their death, (see the stories of the martyrs in the patristic period, there are too many of them to list here, Acts 7 is a good story which characterizes the reality of the martyr.) This value inversion eventually becomes connected with the State by the conversion of Constantine; however, the tension always exists in some fashion between Church and State. (Benedict and his rule were written in response to the popularization of Christianity in the Roman Empire.)
Now that these two points have been made we can now explain the person of the priest using Nietzsche's criteria. The priest as a follower of Jesus is by definition a teacher of value inversion and slave morality. However, by being a priest in a position to teach slave morality, the priest is no longer a slave in the same way a lay person is. The priest gains a title of respect which makes him more noble. However, this nobility places the priest in a weird position, because he is not a noble by noble standards. But he is still a noble in the sense of a difference between people.
This circumstance comes with certain temptations. The temptation arises from the system of guilt-debt which is prevalent in slave morality (1163, Treatise 2, #4). Nietzsche uses guilt-debt to explain the connection between having guilt and having a debt toward a religious end, for example salvation of the soul. The salvation of the soul becomes collateral for certain behaviors toward others. It also becomes the source of comparison between one person and another (1166, Treatise 2, #8). This is dangerous for the priest trying to avoid clericalism because the priest has a lot of power in influencing the congregation on the matters of slave morality. Also, slave morality in some respect helps the priest have his life support, because people donate money to support the Church. The encouragement of generosity allows the priests to survive and have the material needs and luxuries they have.
If salvation of the soul becomes collateral for paying a sort of debt to God, there is a danger of losing sight of God's grace. This is where Nietzsche in his analysis is not looking necessarily at what is there, but only what he sees in physical phenomenon. However, the point useful for this analysis is that this can happen, people can feel indebted spiritually and in a sense of gift/donation to a particular priest or Church and lose this sense of a free gift of grace. Particularly in Germany, Martin Luther's memory would be particularly strong for Nietzsche in examining religion, where Luther was critiquing the "buying of grace." (particularly indulgences, which in medieval practice was pay x amount of money toward donation of building St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and one could have sins forgiven) (a bit of an oversimplification but this will suffice for now.) This presupposition may help clarify Nietzsche's position and understand his own feelings in writing what he wrote. Catholic position has a problem with indulgences in that manner of saying ("give us x money, you get sins forgiven." Confession is much more personal and focused on the self growing toward conversion toward a giving slave morality, but also not at the cost of the self completely. There is a greater understanding that there must be a self to give which Nietzsche may not have been exposed to in his own faith and time.)
The above example is a situation of oversimplifying morality either because of a belief that people cannot understand the goods of slave morality and value inversion or because there is an end which wants to be obtained by this simplification. This can happen even in modern times, even with a greater understanding of the self. The rest of this essay wants to explore a new possibility which was not a problem in Nietzsche's time, namely the increasing relations between Church and State and the blending of nobilities. (Nietzsche wrote in a time where the Modernist controversy was prevalent so there was not as much engagement between Church and State. This was a time of increasing fear of the State. This fear changed during Vatican II.)
By the blending of nobilities, I refer to the phenomenon of priests (and lay members who want to work with them) working with politicians to reach certain ends. This takes place in many ways, some which serve the common good, and others of which require us to ask questions. Many efforts take place to serve the needs of the poor, the unborn, the homeless between the two nobilities. However, there is a certain tension which exists because there are philosophies which blend the two nobilities too closely.
For example, say priests and nobles were to each compromise some of their values to make a consensus to serve some benefit. In order to popularize this consensus, priests then would need to explain this in their homilies and sermons to their congregation. People involved with the parish may see this reality and want to agree with it. However, the parishoners who see the problems with this consensus quickly get marginalized because both the secular nobles and religious nobles have power together. They quickly get left to the backs of churches and brought to the aisles, instead of being front and center like they once were. This new philosophy quickly becomes the consensus and this serves both nobilities nicely. The secular nobles can have their power, and the priests benefit both from their congregation and the nobles who are supporting their causes. This temptation is one which cannot be ignored because the temptation for one's own utility is something which is present in life all the time. Nietzsche argues, "the good itself is not true, it is seen as what benefits the people in power (1146-47, Treatise 1, #2)."
This critique of the personalistic norm (see Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, Pope John Paul II's Love and Responsibility) is one which must be addressed in discussing clericalism. Utilitarianism is an attitude which can contribute to the possibility of clericalism because people can focus on how actions benefit themselves. To act in a way one could claim a universal maxim benefits people in authority greatly (Metaphysics of Morals). However, the lesson of slave morality for the priest which is extremely important is that a priest must be a servant of the people. This means resisting the possible temptation to blend moralities of secular and religious nobles.
Nietzsche wants to argue for the secular nobility and argue for power. (1147, Treatise 1, #2) He theorizes that virtue is the "shame of human instinct (1165, Treatise 2, #7)." To fix this problem, he wants people to be unafraid of their instincts to enjoy the suffering of others (1165, Treatise 2, #6). He also saw how people in priestly position had the potential to use their position similarly as a noble uses his position, though it is power for a different end, not physical power, but a spiritual domination of people. Nietzsche's view of human nature is pessimistic, in that doing the good not only is difficult for a human, it is something a human should not do because it hurts the potential of the present (by worrying about the future, which generosity does, especially notable in environmental debates now.) (1145, Preface, #6).
Though this picture is bleak, there is hope to avoid clericalism, and to overcome these difficulties in human nature. However, a more positive view of human nature is necessary in order to accomplish this task. In being, one can have empathetic feelings without some order of morality coming from the nobles of the slave morality. Empathetic feelings are a part of being itself, because persons are raised in community. To avoid clericalism, we have to encourage these sensitivities wherever they arise, in whatever forms of healing people want to bring to others. The cleric must avoid focusing parishoners only on his own sensitivities.
Another important attitude for preventing the possibility of clericalism is realizing that priests are people too, and as such they can fall, need respect and support, but also need to not be deified. If people glamor, ooh a priest :), then the priest will suffer the temptation to think his call is better than everyone else's because everyone tells him so. Priests need to be treated just like a regular person. This means, however, also realizing their need for support because they do not get paid enough money to live on, so in generosity people should be altruistic in serving their priest.
Finally, if there is the temptation for nobilities to blend, it must be stopped at all costs. This can be nothing but destructive to the people in the end. In the former, secular and religious nobles working together can do some good like helping people. A lot of this is seen now where the two sets of nobles work together. However, in being there is also the blending of teachings which confuse what is slave and what is noble. This has happened since Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire and this struggle continues today. One must take care to act truly for the good of others and not to fulfill one's own desires.
The discussion on clericalism and the blending of nobilities sheds light on the greatest problem in society today, which is people being used as means to an end for some purpose. This issue needs its own treatment, but if we believe in the slave morality, of a virtue based in generosity, then using should have no possibility in Christian existence and still be called Christian. People are used in many ways: emotionally, spiritually, sexually, physically, mentally. The possibility for clericalism shows that people see this potential for use in our own morality (which Nietzsche shows in his approach). This potential has to change and systems must be built in order to ensure this does not happen.
The other can teach us the most about ourselves. Others see things in us which do not appear to our own sight. We cannot ignore the lessons presented before us, but also we must critically question interpretations, teachings, because this engagement is how traditions live and grow. (Rahner, Chalcedon: End or Beginning?) There's more I could say here but I'll leave this post for questions and the possibility of a re-treatment or an expansion in the future. I hope you enjoyed your read :)
Aristocrates
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Metaphysics of Hugs
What's in a hug? Valentine's Day makes people think of love and happiness and the joy of being with someone. One of the ways in which people express themselves is by giving hugs to one another. But what is in a hug? What is there in the act itself, and then in the emotional consequences surrounding the hug? And why does being itself feel like it changes when a hug is given? After we answer all these questions, we can then learn why I like hugs so much, and wants to encourage everyone to give lots of hugs :)
So to start this post, we must explore the act of a hug itself. A hug itself is compromised of two people who wrap their arms around each other and perform an embrace. This means that physical is required to have a hug in the fullest sense of the term. (You can have a spiritual hug but it's not the same, but still useful in certain situations.) So in essence, a physical hug is two people sharing physical space and enclosing the other in that space as a sign of affection (usually).
However, the sign of affection is where we must explore more. Because this changes the nature of the hug, and it changes being itself. A hug by its nature always involves relationship (in the broad sense of the word) and at least two people. (Big group hugs are also allowed in this as well.) Because of this one must explore hugs in the context of at least two people relating to each other. This context gives light to why being changes when people hug each other.
People experience being as autonomous selves (in this I only mean that one person can never fully understand the being of the other, though emotional intimacy allows one to come close.) In being autonomous selves, people have a sense of independence and a function which allows them to act on their own (namely they do not need a puppet master.) However, when one gives a hug to someone, being changes for both people. A hug puts one past the autonomous self and allows another to enter your personal space. It is a gift of trust.
Being changes in a hug because of the emotional context surrounding a hug as well. Hugs, if one is paying attention, can make one attentive to the needs of the other based on the kind of hug the person is giving. Here are a few examples: first, say for instance a friend is hugging you really tight, is hesitant to let go and is shaking a little bit. This kind of hug is the "I need you, something's wrong" hug. Also, a person could hug really tight and one can feel a looseness in the other's arms even in a tight hug. This is labeled the, "I'm so excited to see you hug." The final example I'll give here is the soft, tender hug which the other person gently makes herself comfortable in your embrace. This will be called the, "Hold me gentle, hold me close and I really do want to be here :) hug." Again, this list of hugs is not exclusive, there are many kinds of hugs but it all depends on the body language, which tells one the emotional circumstances behind the hug. This leads to a change in being because one is drawn into the world of the other person just by what her body tells him.
This is an example of how "tenderness" works in human relationships. To be brief, "tenderness is the ability to immerse oneself in the emotions of the other and to be present to them." (paraphrased from Love and Responsibility pgs 201-207.) This tenderness is a true giving of oneself to the other because it seeks to bring the reality of the other into one's own. Hugs are a very good way of acting in tenderness because it allows two people to enter each other's world, in a mental/spiritual as well as a physical sense.
Another positive metaphysical benefit to the hug is in noticing time. Time itself becomes unnoticeable because the only focus in giving a real hug is the other person. Therefore, presence overtakes time, and being becomes happy as there is a taste of the eternal in being in another's embrace. The moment of the hug can go on forever because one does not feel the limits of time. (The "timeless moment" (me in other posts) is one which needs a re-treatment at some point in the future because this is oversimplifying the reality, but it would sidetrack this post to go further.)
However, this mentality can be abused and its something to watch for in ourselves. Human tenderness can be insincere if it seeks as its primary end to use the hug of another in order to fulfill only their own psychological desires for comfort. In this sense, hugs can be taken but not given, even though it appears a physical hug is given. This is not to say one should be judgmental; however, because there are days when people just need to receive a hug and cannot give one (for whatever physical, psychological, spiritual, emotional reason.) This warning is given as a disposition for each one of us individually so that we can give hugs and in return receive them.
Of course, there are people who do not like touch either, which affects the nature of the hug. However, people that do not like touch can show tenderness in other ways. Eye contact is wonderful for showing tenderness, it shows one really wants to be there with the other person. (Eye contact as a metaphysical reality is something which needs its own treatment at some point in the future, because there is a lot in a "gaze" (Jean Luc Marion In Excess).) This desire to enter the emotional life of another person can be in words, gestures, smiles, but for me the best way to enter the emotional life of another is to give a hug :). Even though it's Lent, and we're supposed to be a little more solemn now, do not be afraid to show others around you that you care about them.
Since the subjects of this study are human beings, sometimes people need physical comfort in order to really feel like the beings they are. Sometimes all someone really needs is for someone to really be there, and be present to their own life, their own story. People also need more than someone who is physically there but emotionally not. A hug is a good entryway to bridge the physical need for comfort and the emotional need of someone really being there. This is how being changes, when we show love in this way, we change it for the better, and lights and rainbows shine in the eyes of others. When we show hatred, we plant the seeds of darkness for sensitive people to see and for all to be possessed by. Our actions change being for light or for dark, and sometimes it's not so obvious what is light and what is dark. This is for those who preach against physical touch, who want exclusively spiritual friendship, who fear humanity's potential to use each other by physical touch. We cannot fear the gift which is given by tenderness and touch, because it has the potential to be used, but rather humanity itself must be willing to not use each other. "We must be the change we want to see" (Gandhi). Without this change, no one else will change, and the solution is not to avoid touching people. The solution to the problem is to trust in the grace of God to provide touch which enriches the lives of people and draws us closer to their being and God's being. The answer is to provide the emotional tenderness which so many people need and yet which philosophy tries to drive people away from the touch out of fears of human darkness. However, it is this fear which drives the darkness, not the touch itself. So give tenderness and hugs, for by this openness to emotional and physical closeness with the other, can we begin to see the being of the other.
So to start this post, we must explore the act of a hug itself. A hug itself is compromised of two people who wrap their arms around each other and perform an embrace. This means that physical is required to have a hug in the fullest sense of the term. (You can have a spiritual hug but it's not the same, but still useful in certain situations.) So in essence, a physical hug is two people sharing physical space and enclosing the other in that space as a sign of affection (usually).
However, the sign of affection is where we must explore more. Because this changes the nature of the hug, and it changes being itself. A hug by its nature always involves relationship (in the broad sense of the word) and at least two people. (Big group hugs are also allowed in this as well.) Because of this one must explore hugs in the context of at least two people relating to each other. This context gives light to why being changes when people hug each other.
People experience being as autonomous selves (in this I only mean that one person can never fully understand the being of the other, though emotional intimacy allows one to come close.) In being autonomous selves, people have a sense of independence and a function which allows them to act on their own (namely they do not need a puppet master.) However, when one gives a hug to someone, being changes for both people. A hug puts one past the autonomous self and allows another to enter your personal space. It is a gift of trust.
Being changes in a hug because of the emotional context surrounding a hug as well. Hugs, if one is paying attention, can make one attentive to the needs of the other based on the kind of hug the person is giving. Here are a few examples: first, say for instance a friend is hugging you really tight, is hesitant to let go and is shaking a little bit. This kind of hug is the "I need you, something's wrong" hug. Also, a person could hug really tight and one can feel a looseness in the other's arms even in a tight hug. This is labeled the, "I'm so excited to see you hug." The final example I'll give here is the soft, tender hug which the other person gently makes herself comfortable in your embrace. This will be called the, "Hold me gentle, hold me close and I really do want to be here :) hug." Again, this list of hugs is not exclusive, there are many kinds of hugs but it all depends on the body language, which tells one the emotional circumstances behind the hug. This leads to a change in being because one is drawn into the world of the other person just by what her body tells him.
This is an example of how "tenderness" works in human relationships. To be brief, "tenderness is the ability to immerse oneself in the emotions of the other and to be present to them." (paraphrased from Love and Responsibility pgs 201-207.) This tenderness is a true giving of oneself to the other because it seeks to bring the reality of the other into one's own. Hugs are a very good way of acting in tenderness because it allows two people to enter each other's world, in a mental/spiritual as well as a physical sense.
Another positive metaphysical benefit to the hug is in noticing time. Time itself becomes unnoticeable because the only focus in giving a real hug is the other person. Therefore, presence overtakes time, and being becomes happy as there is a taste of the eternal in being in another's embrace. The moment of the hug can go on forever because one does not feel the limits of time. (The "timeless moment" (me in other posts) is one which needs a re-treatment at some point in the future because this is oversimplifying the reality, but it would sidetrack this post to go further.)
However, this mentality can be abused and its something to watch for in ourselves. Human tenderness can be insincere if it seeks as its primary end to use the hug of another in order to fulfill only their own psychological desires for comfort. In this sense, hugs can be taken but not given, even though it appears a physical hug is given. This is not to say one should be judgmental; however, because there are days when people just need to receive a hug and cannot give one (for whatever physical, psychological, spiritual, emotional reason.) This warning is given as a disposition for each one of us individually so that we can give hugs and in return receive them.
Of course, there are people who do not like touch either, which affects the nature of the hug. However, people that do not like touch can show tenderness in other ways. Eye contact is wonderful for showing tenderness, it shows one really wants to be there with the other person. (Eye contact as a metaphysical reality is something which needs its own treatment at some point in the future, because there is a lot in a "gaze" (Jean Luc Marion In Excess).) This desire to enter the emotional life of another person can be in words, gestures, smiles, but for me the best way to enter the emotional life of another is to give a hug :). Even though it's Lent, and we're supposed to be a little more solemn now, do not be afraid to show others around you that you care about them.
Since the subjects of this study are human beings, sometimes people need physical comfort in order to really feel like the beings they are. Sometimes all someone really needs is for someone to really be there, and be present to their own life, their own story. People also need more than someone who is physically there but emotionally not. A hug is a good entryway to bridge the physical need for comfort and the emotional need of someone really being there. This is how being changes, when we show love in this way, we change it for the better, and lights and rainbows shine in the eyes of others. When we show hatred, we plant the seeds of darkness for sensitive people to see and for all to be possessed by. Our actions change being for light or for dark, and sometimes it's not so obvious what is light and what is dark. This is for those who preach against physical touch, who want exclusively spiritual friendship, who fear humanity's potential to use each other by physical touch. We cannot fear the gift which is given by tenderness and touch, because it has the potential to be used, but rather humanity itself must be willing to not use each other. "We must be the change we want to see" (Gandhi). Without this change, no one else will change, and the solution is not to avoid touching people. The solution to the problem is to trust in the grace of God to provide touch which enriches the lives of people and draws us closer to their being and God's being. The answer is to provide the emotional tenderness which so many people need and yet which philosophy tries to drive people away from the touch out of fears of human darkness. However, it is this fear which drives the darkness, not the touch itself. So give tenderness and hugs, for by this openness to emotional and physical closeness with the other, can we begin to see the being of the other.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Liminality and Christianity: How acting like a child is a good thing
Note: I have to thank Taylor Morgan for this blog entry because his research question in the Gospel of Matthew course about Mt 19 sparked a discussion on liminality which will be the basis for this blog entry. Discussion notes are taken from the same course from Professor Charles Bobertz.
Welcome readers,
Today's blog entry will require a use of the imagination as it requires one to imagine a state of being where there are no loyalties and talks about an uncommon state of being for those of us who have been in society for a while. Here's a quote to demonstrate the paradox which this blog entry will bring forth. "Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said, 'Let the children come to me and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:13-15).'" This parable presents a paradox to our understanding of growth, because as we see, people do not stay children forever; matter of fact, in society we are encouraged to grow up and become a part of the society. So what could Jesus possibly mean by stating the "kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these (Mt 19:15)."
Many interpretations can be given for this passage. One could argue that there must be a childlike faith in all people. Another plausible interpretation is that Jesus is setting an impossible teaching because the attitude of a child is near impossible to keep for all of one's life. However, these two interpretations do not bring the social reality of children or the Christian call to the forefront in this passage. These two factors are important in examining this passage because they demonstrate the Christian reality and children have a tendency to act with certain behavior which can be carried into the world.
First, one must think of how many times children must be told, "don't talk to strangers." Why do we warn our children not to talk to strangers? Because strangers might hurt our children. One can only list the horrific things which happen to children, e.g. pedophilia, kidnapping. Strangers might do this so we keep our kids away from strangers until we know who they are. Why do children trust strangers? Because on the aggregate, children have a deep trust and love for everyone. Children have a natural tendency to love and avoid the tribal conflicts which we so often get into. (Younger children especially, once school starts then tribalism tends to grow because of societal influences.) One interpretation of the passage above is the possibility that Jesus knows this as well and points to the example of the children as an example of the unbiased love the disciples must show to all people.
This phenomenon of children showing unbiased love is an example of liminality, or an experience of being above cultural and social status. Christian practice (particularly Catholic practice) presents baptism as not only entering into a new life, but also being baptized into the death of Christ. By sharing death with Christ, all who are baptized are made equal. Social status means nothing in the Christian reality because all are equal in Christ. ("for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:24-28.) However, it is not equality just for the members of the sect, it also must apply to every person one meets. People who are baptized into the death of Christ must strive to act like Christ. The merits of his life and death are numerous and all these virtues are told in the Gospels.
Next question, all of this sounds wonderful, but in a world which is postmodern, with many different cultures, how can one live in an ethic of liminality. There are many ways which one can envision this ideal, for sake of space, I will list three.
1) Know yourself. It is hard to love others with an unbiased love if you do not know yourself. Knowing yourself allows you to have patience for those who think differently from you. Also, knowing yourself allows you to respect other people's positions because you are secure in your own. (This is why it is impossible to do true ecumenical dialogue unless you know yourself but that's another discussion for another time.)
2) Do not be afraid to have feelings of tenderness and to express that affection for others. Also, do not be afraid to show tenderness to those who might need it. The function of tenderness is thus, "Awareness of a tie, awareness of a share in the existence and activity, the joys and sufferings of another being bids us think tenderly not only of other people, but also for instance of the animals who share our lot (Love and Responsibility, 201)." Tenderness is being sensitive to the fact that we all have more in common than in difference. The things we have in common include life; the fact that we all suffer and have hardships, but also have joys. We all want to have true communion in sharing life with others. (One could also call this having "True Friendship" (see the book with the same title by John Cuddeback for more information.)
We see tenderness in our midst everyday in many ways. Most prevalently, we see it with our extroverted friends who want to know everyone and want to listen to a lot of life stories. They like to give out lots of hugs and various forms of touch. Tenderness is also displayed in the patient ear of a friend who listens to our sufferings. Extending these feelings of tenderness increases our sensitivity to the problems in being around us. When we increase these sensitivities, our love for others increases, even those who do not think like us. (The use of the tribal us is questionable here, but I'm going to leave it for now, since every individual thinks a little differently; however, there tends to be some form of tribal mentality in aligning with people who think mostly like us.)
3) Embrace mystical theology and do not be afraid of it. (This is assuming you are into theology, if you're not into theology you can skim ahead to the next section.) Mystical theology focuses on the relationship of the human person to God, and in turn to all things. Rahner in Theological Investigations Volume 7 illustrates this point well when he writes, "the Christian of the future will be a mystic, or will not be a Christian at all." Mystic, for Rahner, focuses on sensitivity to being around the person. A disposition of this brand of mystical theology would be tenderness. Mystical theology engages people to become more sensitive as God makes Himself more present. This gift of immanence helps the mystic see the gift of God in all things, and in turn, the person can relate to the being of each thing more because of this gift. This breaks tribalisms and allows people to live the condition of liminality because unbiased love comes from an increased sensitivity to being. When one sees sufferings of the self or others, one can react with love, and when the same person sees someone overjoyed, she can share in that joy as well, because God is the bringer of liminality for people. Whether this be external, or a prayer offered for that person, is up to the individual mystic; however, this is a theology which acts in ways contrary to culture, and to the cultures of Church politics as well. Mystical theology is for everyone, but it requires an openness which all can achieve if one chooses. (More can be said on mystical theology, but it requires its own treatise which room does not suffice for here.)
Though the ethic is challenging, the results are fun to watch. When one can see people who deeply live tenderness in their being, and love others, these are the most inspiring people to be around. Two drastically different perspectives in Catholic world (Rahner and JPII) can see this same reality, even though they approach it from different perspectives. (Rahner from the perspective of the Holy Spirit, and JPII from the approach of relationships.) Diversity in approach leads to a unity in opinion. This same challenge is presented to all of us as we walk our journeys through life to attempt to reach heaven, a kingdom which is given to the smallest of children and those who can act as such.
Aristocrates
P.S. This writing is rather limited because many of these questions need a greater detail than can be addressed here. Questions, comments, heckling, we're glad to listen to all of it. Peace,
Welcome readers,
Today's blog entry will require a use of the imagination as it requires one to imagine a state of being where there are no loyalties and talks about an uncommon state of being for those of us who have been in society for a while. Here's a quote to demonstrate the paradox which this blog entry will bring forth. "Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said, 'Let the children come to me and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:13-15).'" This parable presents a paradox to our understanding of growth, because as we see, people do not stay children forever; matter of fact, in society we are encouraged to grow up and become a part of the society. So what could Jesus possibly mean by stating the "kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these (Mt 19:15)."
Many interpretations can be given for this passage. One could argue that there must be a childlike faith in all people. Another plausible interpretation is that Jesus is setting an impossible teaching because the attitude of a child is near impossible to keep for all of one's life. However, these two interpretations do not bring the social reality of children or the Christian call to the forefront in this passage. These two factors are important in examining this passage because they demonstrate the Christian reality and children have a tendency to act with certain behavior which can be carried into the world.
First, one must think of how many times children must be told, "don't talk to strangers." Why do we warn our children not to talk to strangers? Because strangers might hurt our children. One can only list the horrific things which happen to children, e.g. pedophilia, kidnapping. Strangers might do this so we keep our kids away from strangers until we know who they are. Why do children trust strangers? Because on the aggregate, children have a deep trust and love for everyone. Children have a natural tendency to love and avoid the tribal conflicts which we so often get into. (Younger children especially, once school starts then tribalism tends to grow because of societal influences.) One interpretation of the passage above is the possibility that Jesus knows this as well and points to the example of the children as an example of the unbiased love the disciples must show to all people.
This phenomenon of children showing unbiased love is an example of liminality, or an experience of being above cultural and social status. Christian practice (particularly Catholic practice) presents baptism as not only entering into a new life, but also being baptized into the death of Christ. By sharing death with Christ, all who are baptized are made equal. Social status means nothing in the Christian reality because all are equal in Christ. ("for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:24-28.) However, it is not equality just for the members of the sect, it also must apply to every person one meets. People who are baptized into the death of Christ must strive to act like Christ. The merits of his life and death are numerous and all these virtues are told in the Gospels.
Next question, all of this sounds wonderful, but in a world which is postmodern, with many different cultures, how can one live in an ethic of liminality. There are many ways which one can envision this ideal, for sake of space, I will list three.
1) Know yourself. It is hard to love others with an unbiased love if you do not know yourself. Knowing yourself allows you to have patience for those who think differently from you. Also, knowing yourself allows you to respect other people's positions because you are secure in your own. (This is why it is impossible to do true ecumenical dialogue unless you know yourself but that's another discussion for another time.)
2) Do not be afraid to have feelings of tenderness and to express that affection for others. Also, do not be afraid to show tenderness to those who might need it. The function of tenderness is thus, "Awareness of a tie, awareness of a share in the existence and activity, the joys and sufferings of another being bids us think tenderly not only of other people, but also for instance of the animals who share our lot (Love and Responsibility, 201)." Tenderness is being sensitive to the fact that we all have more in common than in difference. The things we have in common include life; the fact that we all suffer and have hardships, but also have joys. We all want to have true communion in sharing life with others. (One could also call this having "True Friendship" (see the book with the same title by John Cuddeback for more information.)
We see tenderness in our midst everyday in many ways. Most prevalently, we see it with our extroverted friends who want to know everyone and want to listen to a lot of life stories. They like to give out lots of hugs and various forms of touch. Tenderness is also displayed in the patient ear of a friend who listens to our sufferings. Extending these feelings of tenderness increases our sensitivity to the problems in being around us. When we increase these sensitivities, our love for others increases, even those who do not think like us. (The use of the tribal us is questionable here, but I'm going to leave it for now, since every individual thinks a little differently; however, there tends to be some form of tribal mentality in aligning with people who think mostly like us.)
3) Embrace mystical theology and do not be afraid of it. (This is assuming you are into theology, if you're not into theology you can skim ahead to the next section.) Mystical theology focuses on the relationship of the human person to God, and in turn to all things. Rahner in Theological Investigations Volume 7 illustrates this point well when he writes, "the Christian of the future will be a mystic, or will not be a Christian at all." Mystic, for Rahner, focuses on sensitivity to being around the person. A disposition of this brand of mystical theology would be tenderness. Mystical theology engages people to become more sensitive as God makes Himself more present. This gift of immanence helps the mystic see the gift of God in all things, and in turn, the person can relate to the being of each thing more because of this gift. This breaks tribalisms and allows people to live the condition of liminality because unbiased love comes from an increased sensitivity to being. When one sees sufferings of the self or others, one can react with love, and when the same person sees someone overjoyed, she can share in that joy as well, because God is the bringer of liminality for people. Whether this be external, or a prayer offered for that person, is up to the individual mystic; however, this is a theology which acts in ways contrary to culture, and to the cultures of Church politics as well. Mystical theology is for everyone, but it requires an openness which all can achieve if one chooses. (More can be said on mystical theology, but it requires its own treatise which room does not suffice for here.)
Though the ethic is challenging, the results are fun to watch. When one can see people who deeply live tenderness in their being, and love others, these are the most inspiring people to be around. Two drastically different perspectives in Catholic world (Rahner and JPII) can see this same reality, even though they approach it from different perspectives. (Rahner from the perspective of the Holy Spirit, and JPII from the approach of relationships.) Diversity in approach leads to a unity in opinion. This same challenge is presented to all of us as we walk our journeys through life to attempt to reach heaven, a kingdom which is given to the smallest of children and those who can act as such.
Aristocrates
P.S. This writing is rather limited because many of these questions need a greater detail than can be addressed here. Questions, comments, heckling, we're glad to listen to all of it. Peace,
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Oh How I Want to Be a Philosopher, A Philosopher I Want to Be Part 4
But how do I become the philosopher I want to be? Could it finally be, it's synthesis time. YAY!! :) It's time to put together everything I've seen and heard and propose ideas for systems or utilize an existing system if one is already in place which can handle my ideas either as well or better than I can. Since there are a lot of systems from a lot smarter people than myself, then I will probably be borrowing someone else's system to insert my ideas. Parts 2 and 3 of this series compromised of 1 main point each which is useful to start the discussion. Part 2 focused on order and disorder. Part 3 focused on the other and what people do with the other. To start the synthesis, a brief review is necessary before one can start the application of ideas.
Order and disorder are both things which we see in being/existence. Human life exemplifies this because there are times when everything is neat and orderly, and times where everything is going wrong and one cannot get organized or have stability. Because people see both order and disorder in life, one system which can be useful to think about to advance a philosophy is Chinese Metaphysics in the I Ching. The I Ching holds many books, but the point relevant to our discussion here is the ideas of yin and yang, and the drawing of the yin and yang. In the art, one will see how in the white part of the circle there is still a black dot, while in the black part of the circle a white dot is present. This represents the idea that in light there is always darkness, and in darkness there is always light. (Peter Phan also dedicates a section of his work Jesus the Christ with an Asian Face to discuss Jung Young Lee who notes the importance of change in theology.)
This observation can be useful because it does appeal to how life seems to be. Life is a lot of change, a lot of wavering (as Heidegger would put it). In philosophy though, one does not just ascertain how things appear to be, one searches for how things really are. The question one must ask is, "whether there is perfect order in being itself, and do people search for that perfect order?" Of course, reason can never really tell us whether perfect order actually exists, this is something for the journey of faith. (For now, we'll take faith as an inclusive term which means faith in anything, the task of later work will be to define specific kinds of faith.) However, reason and experience can tell us whether people seek a perfect order. For now, let us appeal to experiences in our friendship.
Everyone has friends, and everyone has friends who talk with each other about life, stuff, whatever. We also talk to certain people about others who frustrate us, either by their actions, or simply because the person does things we do not like. (The merits of this are also reserved for another article, the important here is that it happens in friendships.) This leads to friends complaining about other people to others behind their back. An example of this is in order, your best friend decides randomly to punch you in the face one day. Before any response happens, there is a feeling, notably of disorder. You sense disorder in your friend punching you in the face because this is not what a perfectly ordered friendship is supposed to be. However, there is this desire for a perfectly ordered friendship, which has no dark spots. (This example is obviously limited because there are relationships where it is perfectly normal to hit someone in the face as a sign of affection of sorts, but everyone can think of an example similar to this where someone would not like/feel uncomfortable in a situation.)
We have to be careful, because simply by this example one cannot say there is perfect order in the universe. However, if a similar example can be carried over to every person having a desire for order (even if it is a different sense of order), then the thesis of Chinese Metaphysics above becomes harder to prove. Even people of a relativist mindset have some sense of what they think is right and wrong. None of the morals are universal in this philosophy; however, the desire itself is universal. (even if it is simply a desire to not be judgmental and let everything be relative.) People with a relativist mindset still complain about the actions which other people do to hurt them. When I was a resident assistant, on an regular basis I would hear other residents talk about how certain people should not have gotten so drunk, or talk about the girl who had too much fun at the party last weekend. All of this activity is simply a desire to have perfect order, to have the world the way I want to see it.
If there is supposed to be a perfect order and disorder is not supposed to be part of that order, then what is the correct answer to the question of order and disorder posted above? Another approach one could take is to examine human actions. What happens if the human person herself is broken; not fundamentally, but rather has the ability to do wrong. One can see many times in life where he has made mistakes and done things he wish he could replay and try again. To have regrets is a normal human reaction, it takes training to live a life of no regrets. Since human people can do wrong, then one also must believe that humans can do right. There are many times where people act in kindness toward others and people do not regret their actions. There are times when people get a warm fuzzy feeling inside because they helped someone and made their life better. (Of course, morality cannot be decided on sentiment alone, but the appeal to sentiment is to express a condition in nature, it says nothing specific about any action.)
"The other" is also an important point to examine notably in how we treat other people who are different from ourselves. In being, people see a "me" and a "not-me". There are certain things I do, and certain things others do. People are all different, so any philosophy must be able to deal with difference. Let us take an example from Christianity which will serve as the example of differentiation. Most people have heard the story of the crucifixion of Christ and the events which played out to get Christ there. In his work, Christ served the poor, down-trodden, and Gentile people and spoke a message which was different from the religious leaders of the time. (Jesus was a Jew and Jews insisted on separation from Gentiles (Orthodox Jews still keep separate dishes for Gentiles and themselves)). Because Christ acted as the "not-me" for the religious leaders of the time, the Jewish leaders sought to get rid of Christ. The Jewish leaders then worked with Roman authorities to give Christ the death penalty. (Keep in mind under ancient law only Romans could actually give the death penalty to someone). This is a lesson in differentiation and the consequences of it. Whatever your creedal beliefs, one can see how Christ was a nice guy, who was a little different. Because of a lack of respect for differentiation, Christ suffered the death penalty. (Again only speaking on a physical level, the beliefs add extended meaning to this which can be discussed in different circles.)
This act also shows the consequences of order and disorder. Because humans can do wrong, then humans can also act against those who are different from them. (We see many examples of this in human history, most of the wars in the modern era started because of people assaulting differentiation (World War II, the situation in Rwanda and D.R. Congo are just a few examples.) Many people decry these conflicts because they are assaults against humanity which grew simply because of people being different. People of all creeds want a solution which allows for peace. From what has been shown above, Christianity is a strong example which can instill peace, and explain what we see in being.
We've already discussed how Christianity teaches about the other through the example of Christ (through his willingness to serve the poor, the downtrodden, and Gentiles.) "The other" is someone who must be treated with love and respect. Christianity also teaches about order and disorder, the death of Christ shows humans who make a choice to kill Jesus. (Jesus in creedal Christianity is seen as pure order). Because humans make a choice to kill, this is seen as disorder, and it shows how humans can do disordered things. Humans have this ability to be disordered because humans choose disorder. Humans want pure order because this is the essence of happiness and peace, but in life people make choices which allow disorder into their lives. (There is also natural disorder which gets into the Christian theory of suffering, while important, is outside the scope of this already long piece.)
Christianity is a good philosophical system because it can explain the main features observed in being, and it connects these points into a conclusive synthesis which calls for respect of all creation. This is something which is desirable because it can pave a way of peace. Christianity can also help people engage the order and disorder within themselves. By starting this discussion, people can grow in themselves and reach new heights. The particulars of which are not important now, but one can see how the potential is there, which is all a system can do. The rest is based on the people who follow that system and engage its tradition.
Aristocrates
P.S. Some presuppositional talk is probably in order here. As mentioned in my introductory post I am an MA theology student and also a Roman Catholic. These presuppositions do read into my philosophy because I have concentrated a lot of reading into the Catholic tradition. (while also reading some amount of modern philosophy and phenomenology as well.) Any post-modern view of this article will see these presuppositions, which is fine, I am open to admitting I have presuppositions. What is important to realize is all people have these presuppositions and they all have some effect on decision making. The decision making process I use in this article is based on reason and thoughts but it is important to know and list my presuppositions at some point in this piece, as I've given my synthesis here. I hope you enjoyed the read.
Order and disorder are both things which we see in being/existence. Human life exemplifies this because there are times when everything is neat and orderly, and times where everything is going wrong and one cannot get organized or have stability. Because people see both order and disorder in life, one system which can be useful to think about to advance a philosophy is Chinese Metaphysics in the I Ching. The I Ching holds many books, but the point relevant to our discussion here is the ideas of yin and yang, and the drawing of the yin and yang. In the art, one will see how in the white part of the circle there is still a black dot, while in the black part of the circle a white dot is present. This represents the idea that in light there is always darkness, and in darkness there is always light. (Peter Phan also dedicates a section of his work Jesus the Christ with an Asian Face to discuss Jung Young Lee who notes the importance of change in theology.)
This observation can be useful because it does appeal to how life seems to be. Life is a lot of change, a lot of wavering (as Heidegger would put it). In philosophy though, one does not just ascertain how things appear to be, one searches for how things really are. The question one must ask is, "whether there is perfect order in being itself, and do people search for that perfect order?" Of course, reason can never really tell us whether perfect order actually exists, this is something for the journey of faith. (For now, we'll take faith as an inclusive term which means faith in anything, the task of later work will be to define specific kinds of faith.) However, reason and experience can tell us whether people seek a perfect order. For now, let us appeal to experiences in our friendship.
Everyone has friends, and everyone has friends who talk with each other about life, stuff, whatever. We also talk to certain people about others who frustrate us, either by their actions, or simply because the person does things we do not like. (The merits of this are also reserved for another article, the important here is that it happens in friendships.) This leads to friends complaining about other people to others behind their back. An example of this is in order, your best friend decides randomly to punch you in the face one day. Before any response happens, there is a feeling, notably of disorder. You sense disorder in your friend punching you in the face because this is not what a perfectly ordered friendship is supposed to be. However, there is this desire for a perfectly ordered friendship, which has no dark spots. (This example is obviously limited because there are relationships where it is perfectly normal to hit someone in the face as a sign of affection of sorts, but everyone can think of an example similar to this where someone would not like/feel uncomfortable in a situation.)
We have to be careful, because simply by this example one cannot say there is perfect order in the universe. However, if a similar example can be carried over to every person having a desire for order (even if it is a different sense of order), then the thesis of Chinese Metaphysics above becomes harder to prove. Even people of a relativist mindset have some sense of what they think is right and wrong. None of the morals are universal in this philosophy; however, the desire itself is universal. (even if it is simply a desire to not be judgmental and let everything be relative.) People with a relativist mindset still complain about the actions which other people do to hurt them. When I was a resident assistant, on an regular basis I would hear other residents talk about how certain people should not have gotten so drunk, or talk about the girl who had too much fun at the party last weekend. All of this activity is simply a desire to have perfect order, to have the world the way I want to see it.
If there is supposed to be a perfect order and disorder is not supposed to be part of that order, then what is the correct answer to the question of order and disorder posted above? Another approach one could take is to examine human actions. What happens if the human person herself is broken; not fundamentally, but rather has the ability to do wrong. One can see many times in life where he has made mistakes and done things he wish he could replay and try again. To have regrets is a normal human reaction, it takes training to live a life of no regrets. Since human people can do wrong, then one also must believe that humans can do right. There are many times where people act in kindness toward others and people do not regret their actions. There are times when people get a warm fuzzy feeling inside because they helped someone and made their life better. (Of course, morality cannot be decided on sentiment alone, but the appeal to sentiment is to express a condition in nature, it says nothing specific about any action.)
"The other" is also an important point to examine notably in how we treat other people who are different from ourselves. In being, people see a "me" and a "not-me". There are certain things I do, and certain things others do. People are all different, so any philosophy must be able to deal with difference. Let us take an example from Christianity which will serve as the example of differentiation. Most people have heard the story of the crucifixion of Christ and the events which played out to get Christ there. In his work, Christ served the poor, down-trodden, and Gentile people and spoke a message which was different from the religious leaders of the time. (Jesus was a Jew and Jews insisted on separation from Gentiles (Orthodox Jews still keep separate dishes for Gentiles and themselves)). Because Christ acted as the "not-me" for the religious leaders of the time, the Jewish leaders sought to get rid of Christ. The Jewish leaders then worked with Roman authorities to give Christ the death penalty. (Keep in mind under ancient law only Romans could actually give the death penalty to someone). This is a lesson in differentiation and the consequences of it. Whatever your creedal beliefs, one can see how Christ was a nice guy, who was a little different. Because of a lack of respect for differentiation, Christ suffered the death penalty. (Again only speaking on a physical level, the beliefs add extended meaning to this which can be discussed in different circles.)
This act also shows the consequences of order and disorder. Because humans can do wrong, then humans can also act against those who are different from them. (We see many examples of this in human history, most of the wars in the modern era started because of people assaulting differentiation (World War II, the situation in Rwanda and D.R. Congo are just a few examples.) Many people decry these conflicts because they are assaults against humanity which grew simply because of people being different. People of all creeds want a solution which allows for peace. From what has been shown above, Christianity is a strong example which can instill peace, and explain what we see in being.
We've already discussed how Christianity teaches about the other through the example of Christ (through his willingness to serve the poor, the downtrodden, and Gentiles.) "The other" is someone who must be treated with love and respect. Christianity also teaches about order and disorder, the death of Christ shows humans who make a choice to kill Jesus. (Jesus in creedal Christianity is seen as pure order). Because humans make a choice to kill, this is seen as disorder, and it shows how humans can do disordered things. Humans have this ability to be disordered because humans choose disorder. Humans want pure order because this is the essence of happiness and peace, but in life people make choices which allow disorder into their lives. (There is also natural disorder which gets into the Christian theory of suffering, while important, is outside the scope of this already long piece.)
Christianity is a good philosophical system because it can explain the main features observed in being, and it connects these points into a conclusive synthesis which calls for respect of all creation. This is something which is desirable because it can pave a way of peace. Christianity can also help people engage the order and disorder within themselves. By starting this discussion, people can grow in themselves and reach new heights. The particulars of which are not important now, but one can see how the potential is there, which is all a system can do. The rest is based on the people who follow that system and engage its tradition.
Aristocrates
P.S. Some presuppositional talk is probably in order here. As mentioned in my introductory post I am an MA theology student and also a Roman Catholic. These presuppositions do read into my philosophy because I have concentrated a lot of reading into the Catholic tradition. (while also reading some amount of modern philosophy and phenomenology as well.) Any post-modern view of this article will see these presuppositions, which is fine, I am open to admitting I have presuppositions. What is important to realize is all people have these presuppositions and they all have some effect on decision making. The decision making process I use in this article is based on reason and thoughts but it is important to know and list my presuppositions at some point in this piece, as I've given my synthesis here. I hope you enjoyed the read.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Oh How I Want to Be A Philosopher, a Philosopher I Want to Be Part 2
But how do I become the philosopher whom I want to be? What do I see about which I can make synthetic judgments about later? Sight in philosophy is the privileged sense because if one sees things with their eyes it is reasonably certain the event happened. (Even critiques of sight in philosophy, primarily the rationalist philosophies of the 1500-1600's did not deny seeing events, they denied whether what they saw was real life or not.) This entry will give just a taste of what I see in the world which a philosophy is written about.
"Dude, that party this weekend was epic awesome, but now I have to go to class :(." This brief snippet of loud cell phone conversation on a Friday morning before class tells us two things about human nature. In human experience, there is joy and there is suffering. In this case, the joy is an ecstasy of sorts brought on by the party experience. The suffering is coming back to reality after the crazy Thursday party of having a class. Existence continues in this paradox of joy and suffering.
I also see a pretty sunrise and a pretty sunset. The colors in the sky glow magically, and this pattern of sunrise and sunset happens every day, at a predictable time, even when I cannot see the fullness of the sun because of cloud cover. However, in this same experience, every day when I see a sunrise I may see people who are going about a work/school routine, or people who are doing things out of the ordinary, like having pink hair or walking a dog in sub-zero temperatures. I see people who care, and people who are cold to the world. The one thing I can say for certain in life is that there is order and there is disorder. This order and disorder deepens the experience of a paradox because things are and are not at the same time.
The question now is, "what do I do with this experience of a paradox?" Am I doomed to think life is meaningless because I see this paradox and see importance in experience? To answer this question, I must examine if there is anything common in human nature which I see in my experience, as well as others. The first commonality I see, is that all who can realize their own existence in this manner are humans. Animals cannot detect the importance of a pattern and reason events out; they live by instincts and their appetites. Thus, there must be something special about people, no matter how they fit into the patterns of order and disorder, and the difference in their physical attributes.
However, to make this distinction is not enough for the discussion at hand. All people are special, and all people fit into the flow of order and disorder; however, there is little agreement about what is order and what is disorder. Also, each individual person in themselves at the same time lives a life of order and disorder because of the choices people make. (Good choices bring one closer to order, bad choices bring one closer to disorder, generally speaking anyway.) If a person can be in order and disorder at the same time, then for observational purposes there needs to be something in the experience of all people which can be observed in order to make a connection to order.
As I examine and think about the people I have encountered in my life, one thing is clear, love is necessary. Without this love, people become cold to the world and lost in its disorder. It is easier to act in disorder when one does not receive love and instead receive cruelty. Meaning is difficult to find, and order becomes harder to ascertain when one sees disorder all around them. Families that break and leave children neglected, the poor in India who long for their material and emotional/spiritual/mental needs, and the struggling migrant worker trying to work in America to make a living for his family back home, all of these people see vast amounts of disorder. In all of these examples, something is missing and not on the part of these people, but on those who observe. Many people see these kinds of situations and see a situation similar to animal nature, in which the strong survive and the weak are left to starve.
However, this sentiment is one which cannot stand because people do have an empathy for those who suffer, seen in all the little and great ways. There are friends who help the child know a loving environment and affirm their achievements. There are religious orders, social workers, caregivers, and volunteers who do care about the needs of people in India and Latin America. In disordered society, when needs are not met by those who hold the power, there are those who rise up and meet the needs of people in compassion. In this way, order is brought to those who suffer in isolation. Because of this, there is a connection between love and order. (This connection needs further examination later.)
A quick review is important here: sight is important because it is the one sense which is privileged in both a legal and a philosophical sense. What people see with their eyes has a higher probability of being true because the eyes input information in an instantaneous and direct way which does not need another source of mediation. (e.g. hearing requiring imagination to get an image of what is going on in another space, feeling needing some interpretation of the surface being felt in order to know who/what is being felt, etc.) The world one sees is one of order and disorder, and individual people can be in order and disorder at the same time. Examples of order and disorder are prevalent in the world if people know for where and what to look. However, in the midst of order and disorder, there is this empathy for those who suffer in the disorder of communal living. This empathy draws people back to the order of things.
Since what I see has now been made clear, and sight is something which is only a step in building a philosophy, the process of which I have discussed here. Then for the next step, I need the help of the readers. I want the readers of this blog to discuss with me what they see in the world. This does two things for me. First, it helps me move to step 2 in building a philosophy and becoming a philosopher :). Second, and probably more importantly, it helps ascertain whether the synthesis I have currently made can stand to reason. The synthesis I have begun to make in this text is jumping the gun a little bit, since experience is something which is greater than the self; however, I feel this error in philosophy will be forgiven, because the response of the readers will either be to agree with the synthesis or propose a different model based on the experience of the reader. So I need your help and I know you won't let me down. :) Think of this as an opportunity to help yourself grow by asking yourself the fundamental questions and at the same time, you're helping a potential philosopher, (e.g. me) to develop more by responding to your experience.
I hope all have a blessed Christmas season (as this is the only actual holiday going on right now, as Hanukkah was early this year, and I'm not exactly sure about Kwanzaa.)
Aristocrates
"Dude, that party this weekend was epic awesome, but now I have to go to class :(." This brief snippet of loud cell phone conversation on a Friday morning before class tells us two things about human nature. In human experience, there is joy and there is suffering. In this case, the joy is an ecstasy of sorts brought on by the party experience. The suffering is coming back to reality after the crazy Thursday party of having a class. Existence continues in this paradox of joy and suffering.
I also see a pretty sunrise and a pretty sunset. The colors in the sky glow magically, and this pattern of sunrise and sunset happens every day, at a predictable time, even when I cannot see the fullness of the sun because of cloud cover. However, in this same experience, every day when I see a sunrise I may see people who are going about a work/school routine, or people who are doing things out of the ordinary, like having pink hair or walking a dog in sub-zero temperatures. I see people who care, and people who are cold to the world. The one thing I can say for certain in life is that there is order and there is disorder. This order and disorder deepens the experience of a paradox because things are and are not at the same time.
The question now is, "what do I do with this experience of a paradox?" Am I doomed to think life is meaningless because I see this paradox and see importance in experience? To answer this question, I must examine if there is anything common in human nature which I see in my experience, as well as others. The first commonality I see, is that all who can realize their own existence in this manner are humans. Animals cannot detect the importance of a pattern and reason events out; they live by instincts and their appetites. Thus, there must be something special about people, no matter how they fit into the patterns of order and disorder, and the difference in their physical attributes.
However, to make this distinction is not enough for the discussion at hand. All people are special, and all people fit into the flow of order and disorder; however, there is little agreement about what is order and what is disorder. Also, each individual person in themselves at the same time lives a life of order and disorder because of the choices people make. (Good choices bring one closer to order, bad choices bring one closer to disorder, generally speaking anyway.) If a person can be in order and disorder at the same time, then for observational purposes there needs to be something in the experience of all people which can be observed in order to make a connection to order.
As I examine and think about the people I have encountered in my life, one thing is clear, love is necessary. Without this love, people become cold to the world and lost in its disorder. It is easier to act in disorder when one does not receive love and instead receive cruelty. Meaning is difficult to find, and order becomes harder to ascertain when one sees disorder all around them. Families that break and leave children neglected, the poor in India who long for their material and emotional/spiritual/mental needs, and the struggling migrant worker trying to work in America to make a living for his family back home, all of these people see vast amounts of disorder. In all of these examples, something is missing and not on the part of these people, but on those who observe. Many people see these kinds of situations and see a situation similar to animal nature, in which the strong survive and the weak are left to starve.
However, this sentiment is one which cannot stand because people do have an empathy for those who suffer, seen in all the little and great ways. There are friends who help the child know a loving environment and affirm their achievements. There are religious orders, social workers, caregivers, and volunteers who do care about the needs of people in India and Latin America. In disordered society, when needs are not met by those who hold the power, there are those who rise up and meet the needs of people in compassion. In this way, order is brought to those who suffer in isolation. Because of this, there is a connection between love and order. (This connection needs further examination later.)
A quick review is important here: sight is important because it is the one sense which is privileged in both a legal and a philosophical sense. What people see with their eyes has a higher probability of being true because the eyes input information in an instantaneous and direct way which does not need another source of mediation. (e.g. hearing requiring imagination to get an image of what is going on in another space, feeling needing some interpretation of the surface being felt in order to know who/what is being felt, etc.) The world one sees is one of order and disorder, and individual people can be in order and disorder at the same time. Examples of order and disorder are prevalent in the world if people know for where and what to look. However, in the midst of order and disorder, there is this empathy for those who suffer in the disorder of communal living. This empathy draws people back to the order of things.
Since what I see has now been made clear, and sight is something which is only a step in building a philosophy, the process of which I have discussed here. Then for the next step, I need the help of the readers. I want the readers of this blog to discuss with me what they see in the world. This does two things for me. First, it helps me move to step 2 in building a philosophy and becoming a philosopher :). Second, and probably more importantly, it helps ascertain whether the synthesis I have currently made can stand to reason. The synthesis I have begun to make in this text is jumping the gun a little bit, since experience is something which is greater than the self; however, I feel this error in philosophy will be forgiven, because the response of the readers will either be to agree with the synthesis or propose a different model based on the experience of the reader. So I need your help and I know you won't let me down. :) Think of this as an opportunity to help yourself grow by asking yourself the fundamental questions and at the same time, you're helping a potential philosopher, (e.g. me) to develop more by responding to your experience.
I hope all have a blessed Christmas season (as this is the only actual holiday going on right now, as Hanukkah was early this year, and I'm not exactly sure about Kwanzaa.)
Aristocrates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)