A Philosophical Video Short
Cast of Characters:
Mr. Carter = Philosophy Professor
Ashley Smith = White student
Lakisha = African American office worker
Mrs. Thompson = Office supervisor
Johnson = Soldier
Sergeant = Voice of sergeant
Bill = AC Technician Helper
Matt = AC Technician
Couple = Young couple in car
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theme:
Who knows, we might be living in parallel worlds at this very moment, say the Quantum physicists. Philosophers ponder these issues and more through the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of science. Who knows what is really real or who we really are?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASSROOM SCENE I:
In a typical college classroom, a philosophy teacher (Mr. Carter) is addressing the students:
CARTER:
“What do you know with absolute certainty?”
A white student raises her hand.
ASHLEY:
“I know that I’m Ashley Smith.”
CARTER:
How do you know that?
ASHLEY:
Because that’s what everyone calls me; that’s what I’ve always been called; that’s what is on my birth certificate; that’s what my Mom calls me. I’m sure that I am Ashley Smith.
CARTER:
Birth certificates can have mistakes on them or even be forged; babies can be accidentally switched in the hospital nursery; people can call you lots of things but that doesn’t make it your real name.
ASHLEY:
But, regardless what they call me, I’m still the same physical person, so I am me. I’m certain of that.
CARTER:
So, you know that you exist right now, at this moment? How do you know this.
ASHLEY:
I can see what’s around me. I have memories of doing things through the years. I can remember when I was ten years old and playing with my cousins. I remember going to work yesterday and driving to school this morning. I DO exist – I remember the things that happened in my life!
CARTER:
So you’re saying that because you seem to remember things, images and impressions that make up a consistent story in a convincing way, even though they are not happening right now, then you are absolutely sure that all those things really happened the way you remember them, so your memories are really the key to you knowing with absolute certainty that you are who you think you are and that your life has really occurred the way you remember it occurring? Is that what you’re basing your certainty on?
ASHLEY:
Not just my memories. My memories were made up of present moments like right now. I can see you; I can hear you. I can feel myself breathing and talking. I definitely exist right now (a little frustrated).
CARTER:
How do you know that you can see me and hear me? How do you know you feel yourself breathing? How do you know you have memories, these memories that you are basing your whole life on? How do you know they are accurate or actually even represent real events that happened?
ASHLEY:
Wha…..?? (confused & disbelieving look)
????
I…just…know….
CARTER:
HOW do you know that you’re really here at this moment? That you are who you think you are? That you live the life you think you’re living? HOW do you know these things? Our senses, our minds, our beliefs, are easily manipulated. A magician, a hypnotist, a sales person…heck, even a late night comedian can manipulate you into believing things that are not really true. Yet you are absolutely sure that what you’re experiencing right now is real and true and getting sent to your “memories” to accurately record?
ASHLEY:
So, Mr. Carter, what are you saying…that I don’t exist? That this is not real?
CARTER:
No, I’m trying to make you aware of your assumptions, things that we assume are true but we never really think about or question. We just buy into it. Here, let’s do an exercise. Relax…relaaxxxx. Be awake in this moment; what are you really feeling? Who are you, really? Relax and pay attention. Just sense this moment, right now…relax…relaaxxxx. What do you feel? What’s really going on?
Zoom to Close up on her eyes; eyes turn inward, reflective; blur then squiggly lines.
-------------------------------------
OFFICE SCENE:Close up on new eyes, pull out.
Scene is a busy office. Ashley is now an African-American office worker sitting at a messy desk full of papers. An older woman is standing next to the desk, talking to her:
MRS. THOMPSON:
“Lakisha? Lakisha? Are you with me? We need to get those Accounts Payables out today. You can do that, right?”
Lakisha goes from being confused to quickly gathering herself.
LAKISHA:
“Oh…oh…right, Mrs. Thompson. I’m on it.”
MRS. THOMPSON:
Mrs. Thompson heads out the door; “I’m counting on you.”
LAKISHA:
Lakisha looks down at her desk. “Now, what was I doing? That was a weird feeling….”
Words on screen: TWO HOURS LATER.
Desk looks neatly organized.
LAKISHA:
“There! All done. Now where was I? (slowly) Where was I?” Looking inward, reflective.
Zoom to close up on the eyes; blur then squiggly lines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIGHTTIME BATTLE SCENE:
It’s dark. Gunshots are heard in the background. Flashes of light, almost like lightning come and go, then thunderous sounds.
JOHNSON:
“Where am I? Where are we?” A man’s voice, where was previously Lakisha’s, asks.
SERGEANT:
A second voice tensely whispers: “Johnson! Johnson! You still with me!?”
Johnson tries to gather himself. A flashlight snaps on and awkwardly illuminates the face of Johnson, who is clearly a soldier. He has camos on, a helmet, and black smudges on his face. He’s lying face-first on the ground with a rifle next to him.
JOHNSON:
“Uhh…uhh…I’m with you Sergeant! I just lost my bearings for a second. What’s going on?!”
SERGEANT:
“We’ve walked into an ambush, that’s what’s going on! They were waiting for us. We gotta retreat; we already lost McDonald and Kozinsky. You ready? It’s just you and me left, Johnson. Here we go: Ready…Go… go… go!”
(barely visible in the low light, Johnson grunts and breathes hard, as if struggling and running.)
A brilliant flash of light then a boom. Johnson’s voice groans. All is dark.
------------------------------------------------------------
CAR SCENE:
Close up on a man’s pair of eyes. Pull out to show a young couple sitting in a car together.
YOUNG WOMAN:
“Are you even listening to me?” the young woman asks.
The man has a far-away look in his eyes, then snaps it to the here-and-now.
YOUNG MAN:
“Wha…? I’m sorry, sweety. What were you saying?”
YOUNG WOMAN:
“Whenever you have something to say, it’s all ‘end-of-the-world’ important, but I want to vent a little about my work, and you don’t even pay attention. Forget it! I’m going home.” She gets out of the car and slams the door.
The man looks bewildered.
Zoom to Close up to blurr.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAINTENANCE WORKERS SCENE:
Close up on eyes, then pull out.
Two construction workers with hard hats are outside working on air-conditioning equipment behind a building. One is up on a ladder. Another confused-looking one is on the ground; takes a drag from a cigarette.
MATT:
“Billy! Give me that socket again. It’s not tight enough.”
BILLY:
“Huh? Oh…oh! Okay, Matt, what size was that again?” leaning down to the toolbox.
MATT:
“Are you day-dreaming down there? The 13 millimeter, you dumbass!”
Close up on eyes, then Blurr & squiggly lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASSROOM SCENE II:
Close up on eyes, then pull out to show Ashley Smith in the classroom.
Ashley looks confused.
CARTER:
“So, Ashley, the question is HOW do you know who you really are? Doesn’t it have something to do with what we are consciously aware of at the moment? That whatever you’re aware of in the here-and-now, especially if you suddenly have memories of how you got there that support your beliefs, then you’ll think it’s real. You’ll be convinced that wherever you are IS the real world.”
“Ashley? Are you following me?”
Ashley shakes her head and gives a wave, as if to say ‘forget it’.
CARTER:
“Anyway, class, that’s a taste of Metaphysics with a little Epistemology thrown in for good measure. See ya’ll next week. Have a nice day.”
Weary class gets up and walks out.
Mr. Carter smiles mischievously as he watches them file out the classroom, knowing that he might have gotten them to reflect a little about existence this day.
END
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
What is "Philosophy"?
What is philosophy? That is the question.
Some of you have a general idea of what the word "philosophy" means, but most of you don't. The most common usage of the word is probably when someone expresses their “philosophy” of something; e.g. their “philosophy of life,” or their “philosophy of football,” or their “philosophy of using make-up.” This usage, however, does not explain what the concept of “philosophy” actual is. We will unpack the word philosophy here to find out what it really means. Philosophy is more of an activity than a field of study. In the above examples, it kind of means a person’s “conclusions about an issue AND their reasons for believing it to be that way” – so their philosophy of life might be to “take it easy” or “don’t sweat the small stuff” or “just do it,” and they can readily explain to you why they believe these things. But their conclusions, or opinions, do not make it philosophy – their rational attempts to discover their conclusions and opinions DO make it philosophy. So philosophy is more of a systematic approach to finding the truth about something.
“Philosophy” is even more than that; philosophy seeks the ultimate truth about things; it tackles BIG questions. These questions often seem simplistic at first: Why are we doing what we’re doing? What is important to us? What political type of government works best? What do we know? What is real? What's the purpose of living? We automatically tend to answer these questions with responses that we’ve been conditioned to give, such as, “I’m taking this class because it’s required by the school and once I finish school I can get a good job,” or, “Supporting my family is most important,” or “I know what my name is because it’s on my birth certificate,” or “The things around me are real because I can see them.” Philosophy encourages us to go beyond these quick-response answers.
Why do you want a good job? What is a “good” job? One that pays $75,000 per year? What if you hate the job? What if you’re required to work 90 hours per week and be away from home for two weeks out of each month? You might not like these responsibilities even though you are receiving $75k per year. Is it really the good job that you want or is it what the good job will provide for you, namely, an income and job experience? Why do you want money? Is it the money or what money will help you acquire? The point here is that there is more that meets the eye with these questions. Asking why you’re taking this class might seem simple until you really think about it – and that’s what the field of philosophy does – really tries to figure these BIG questions out.
Philosophy asks non-rhetorical questions like these then seeks the truest answer --yet does not rely solely on opinions, tradition, or authority. Philosophy relies on good reasons to support opinions. This is one of the most difficult concepts to grasp when first entering the world of philosophy. When a student makes a statement then I ask, “Yes, but how do you know that?” the student often interprets my question as if it were a statement. The student often thinks that I am saying “You don’t know that” but I am not. I am asking the question “How” do you know something. It’s important in philosophy to know how and why we believe to know things.
Philosophy is the field that questions assumptions people have in order to gain a better understanding of things -- of every thing. Why are you here? How do you know you're here? How do we know when something is true or false? Why do you believe what you believe? Why do you think one action is good and another bad? We try to answer these questions as best as possible.
Other fields teach you facts, histories, routines, and techniques -- established things. Philosophy itself doesn't really do this -- learning the history of philosophy in an academic setting does, but not philosophizing in itself -- it teaches you to question assumed facts, truths, & methods in order to understand the "facts" better.
Philosophy also demands that good reasons be presented for making conclusions. A philosopher asks: How so? Can you prove it? Can you show me? Are you sure? How do you know? And then listens closely to the answer. He or she does not simply accept a "truth" or "fact" except during informal socializing.
Philosophers make some people extremely annoyed and even furious. They make others bored to death. What is "death," by the way? What happens after death? What is "life"? When does life start? How do we know that "time" exists for us to live within? This is what philosophers do, they question everything – but with the purpose of understanding, not just to destroy assumptions. It's a difficult concept for many.
Some of the other issues Philosophy investigates are: What is love? knowledge? justice? morality? beauty? These are all abstract ideas -- beliefs, theories, assumptions -- very general conclusions we assume are real and sometimes true.
Philosophy is an activity, an active process; it asks questions that can't satisfactorily be answered by science or religion. You may ask: What is a Southern Baptist? or What is a Roman Catholic? or What is Atheism? and be able to arrive at a clear answer because those questions pertain to convention or agreed upon terminology. But what is "religion"? What is "God"? What does having a "belief" mean? Knowing the "truth"? These are more difficult topics that philosophy tackles; these are more philosophical questions.
The KEY in Philosophy: support your opinions with defensible statements. Opinions that have more weight to them, because they have more evidence or logical validity, are going to be considered more true than those opinions that cannot hold up to questioning.
So why do we do philosophy? Because it is what we are meant to do; philosophizing is what sets us apart from every other thing on Earth, and ultimately, it makes us happy. "To be happy," or “feeling satisfied,” or “experiencing pleasurable feelings” are often concluded as our ultimate purpose. To think about things; to think about ourselves; to think about others; to think about why we are the way we are; to think about the consequences of our actions and adapt; to think about ideal ways to live; to anticipate what might happen if we did such and such, so not do it if we conclude it would not be good.
Philosophy is all about a process of thinking, a certain manner of thinking, a method of thinking; it helps you think more clearly. It helps you recognize what you value. It helps you to understand yourself and your world better. Philosophy is not an alternative to other fields but can enhance any other field.
=================================================
What questions do philosophers ask" Questions such as these: What is a philosophical question? Is there a purpose to living? Why are we here? What makes something right or wrong? What is real? Is this just an illusion, a dream? Does God exist? How do we know? Why do so many people consider a certain painting beautiful?
These are the types of things philosophy tackles and what a student of philosophy will hope to understand better.
Some of you have a general idea of what the word "philosophy" means, but most of you don't. The most common usage of the word is probably when someone expresses their “philosophy” of something; e.g. their “philosophy of life,” or their “philosophy of football,” or their “philosophy of using make-up.” This usage, however, does not explain what the concept of “philosophy” actual is. We will unpack the word philosophy here to find out what it really means. Philosophy is more of an activity than a field of study. In the above examples, it kind of means a person’s “conclusions about an issue AND their reasons for believing it to be that way” – so their philosophy of life might be to “take it easy” or “don’t sweat the small stuff” or “just do it,” and they can readily explain to you why they believe these things. But their conclusions, or opinions, do not make it philosophy – their rational attempts to discover their conclusions and opinions DO make it philosophy. So philosophy is more of a systematic approach to finding the truth about something.
“Philosophy” is even more than that; philosophy seeks the ultimate truth about things; it tackles BIG questions. These questions often seem simplistic at first: Why are we doing what we’re doing? What is important to us? What political type of government works best? What do we know? What is real? What's the purpose of living? We automatically tend to answer these questions with responses that we’ve been conditioned to give, such as, “I’m taking this class because it’s required by the school and once I finish school I can get a good job,” or, “Supporting my family is most important,” or “I know what my name is because it’s on my birth certificate,” or “The things around me are real because I can see them.” Philosophy encourages us to go beyond these quick-response answers.
Why do you want a good job? What is a “good” job? One that pays $75,000 per year? What if you hate the job? What if you’re required to work 90 hours per week and be away from home for two weeks out of each month? You might not like these responsibilities even though you are receiving $75k per year. Is it really the good job that you want or is it what the good job will provide for you, namely, an income and job experience? Why do you want money? Is it the money or what money will help you acquire? The point here is that there is more that meets the eye with these questions. Asking why you’re taking this class might seem simple until you really think about it – and that’s what the field of philosophy does – really tries to figure these BIG questions out.
Philosophy asks non-rhetorical questions like these then seeks the truest answer --yet does not rely solely on opinions, tradition, or authority. Philosophy relies on good reasons to support opinions. This is one of the most difficult concepts to grasp when first entering the world of philosophy. When a student makes a statement then I ask, “Yes, but how do you know that?” the student often interprets my question as if it were a statement. The student often thinks that I am saying “You don’t know that” but I am not. I am asking the question “How” do you know something. It’s important in philosophy to know how and why we believe to know things.
Philosophy is the field that questions assumptions people have in order to gain a better understanding of things -- of every thing. Why are you here? How do you know you're here? How do we know when something is true or false? Why do you believe what you believe? Why do you think one action is good and another bad? We try to answer these questions as best as possible.
Other fields teach you facts, histories, routines, and techniques -- established things. Philosophy itself doesn't really do this -- learning the history of philosophy in an academic setting does, but not philosophizing in itself -- it teaches you to question assumed facts, truths, & methods in order to understand the "facts" better.
Philosophy also demands that good reasons be presented for making conclusions. A philosopher asks: How so? Can you prove it? Can you show me? Are you sure? How do you know? And then listens closely to the answer. He or she does not simply accept a "truth" or "fact" except during informal socializing.
Philosophers make some people extremely annoyed and even furious. They make others bored to death. What is "death," by the way? What happens after death? What is "life"? When does life start? How do we know that "time" exists for us to live within? This is what philosophers do, they question everything – but with the purpose of understanding, not just to destroy assumptions. It's a difficult concept for many.
Some of the other issues Philosophy investigates are: What is love? knowledge? justice? morality? beauty? These are all abstract ideas -- beliefs, theories, assumptions -- very general conclusions we assume are real and sometimes true.
Philosophy is an activity, an active process; it asks questions that can't satisfactorily be answered by science or religion. You may ask: What is a Southern Baptist? or What is a Roman Catholic? or What is Atheism? and be able to arrive at a clear answer because those questions pertain to convention or agreed upon terminology. But what is "religion"? What is "God"? What does having a "belief" mean? Knowing the "truth"? These are more difficult topics that philosophy tackles; these are more philosophical questions.
The KEY in Philosophy: support your opinions with defensible statements. Opinions that have more weight to them, because they have more evidence or logical validity, are going to be considered more true than those opinions that cannot hold up to questioning.
So why do we do philosophy? Because it is what we are meant to do; philosophizing is what sets us apart from every other thing on Earth, and ultimately, it makes us happy. "To be happy," or “feeling satisfied,” or “experiencing pleasurable feelings” are often concluded as our ultimate purpose. To think about things; to think about ourselves; to think about others; to think about why we are the way we are; to think about the consequences of our actions and adapt; to think about ideal ways to live; to anticipate what might happen if we did such and such, so not do it if we conclude it would not be good.
Philosophy is all about a process of thinking, a certain manner of thinking, a method of thinking; it helps you think more clearly. It helps you recognize what you value. It helps you to understand yourself and your world better. Philosophy is not an alternative to other fields but can enhance any other field.
=================================================
What questions do philosophers ask" Questions such as these: What is a philosophical question? Is there a purpose to living? Why are we here? What makes something right or wrong? What is real? Is this just an illusion, a dream? Does God exist? How do we know? Why do so many people consider a certain painting beautiful?
These are the types of things philosophy tackles and what a student of philosophy will hope to understand better.
Friday, January 6, 2012
New World Ethics
Judging large-scale ethical behavior is a tricky thing. Crime statistics will go down then all of a sudden, whammo! a string of school shootings, car-jackings, or destructive flash mobs will take place. Or people will declare their concern for individual liberties (a la the Tea Party) then suddenly opinion polls show that the majority is okay with our freedoms being usurped in the name of safety.
I’ve noticed some trends myself. I’m starting to worry about the direction of ethics in our society, especially but not exclusively, our youth. My concern does not seem to be the same concern the older generation had with teenagers and young adults (“listening to that crazy, decadent music,” etc.) but more to do with trends in 1) attitudes and 2) technologies, and where these trends will lead.
Current attitudes lean towards believing that other people will make important decisions for you, not you yourself; your own right to free choices should be restricted to the area of entertainment and appearance. Technologies are developing that keep us personally disconnected from each other, from social-connectivity – even though this seems paradoxical. We use more impersonal electronics to stay in touch. Actual, live, in-person, human connectivity and the impact resulting from that live, in-person, human connectivity, is disappearing. Compassion and fear are playing less and less a role in our decision-making due to the electronic socialization of people; yet compassion and fear have historically been two of the most self-governing characteristics of humanity.
Attitudes:
I’ve been teaching at the community college level for over thirteen years. In class, I ask questions to initiate discussions and I try to rebut the responses given by my students – by playing a little devil’s advocate. Whenever I ask my students “How much freedom should a person have?” the general response is, “Not too much.”
As odd as this sounds, the idea of freedom seems to have a negative connotation with young adults. For the past three or four years, there has rarely been any student in class who believes we should have as much freedom as possible. Almost all believe that people cannot handle freedom; freedom makes people steal and kill and drive like maniacs; they have sex with everyone they can and use all the drugs they want. “People go crazy when they have too much freedom!”
I respond by saying, “Do they really? But wait a second, the question is How much freedom, not ‘Should we be totally free with no laws or limits.’” They continue to reply with answers such as, “No, we’ll have anarchy without laws.” I repeat several times, “No one is saying that we shouldn’t have laws, but how many laws should we have and how intrusive should they be?” The overwhelming majority sticks to the original sentiment: We need more authority to protect us from the crazies out there.
I usually bring in the Bill of Rights about this time. “What about the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution? It protects certain freedoms that we should have. Freedom of speech, religion, the Press, the right to bear arms. What about those freedoms?” They reply with answers such as, “Yes, but you can’t say whatever you want so we really don’t have freedom of speech. You can’t offend others with certain words or lies. I think you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt others.”
“So what can you do without affecting others? If you sleep late so end up going to work late, doesn’t that hurt your co-workers? Should sleeping late be against the law, punishable by fines or jail? If I say I like gangsta rap music and you had a relative who was shot by a person who was listening to gangsta rap music, does that mean we should make rap music illegal? Should a redneck’s ‘YeeHaw!’ cry be banned because past racism was sometimes accompanied by yeehaws?”
Silence. “How free should we be?” I re-ask.
Usually one person will speak up and say something like, “Everyone is different. What’s right to me is not right to others; what’s good to them might not be good to me.” I usually rebut with, “So should we have no laws, more laws, the same amount of laws, or different laws for different people? Are you suggesting that because people are different they should follow different laws, based on how responsible they are? Who is to say what laws we’re supposed to follow? If you want more laws, will you follow those new laws?”
“Should not we follow all the current laws?” (class makes murmurs and snickering sounds) “No? Do you follow all the laws? Do you always drive the speed limit and never smoke pot? (laughter) Why not? It’s against the law to drink alcohol if you’re under 21. Does everyone here obey that law? Or do you follow some laws but don’t follow others? Martin Luther King, Jr. says we should follow ‘just’ laws but not unjust laws, to follow God’s moral laws.
“Who’s to decide which laws are just and which are unjust? Is it fair to leave law-making up to our government? Of course, at every level, that is exactly who makes our laws. This is why voting for someone to accurately represent us is important."
Getting back to our topic, should each of us choose which laws are good laws and which aren't? A drug addict thinks he or she deserves compassion so relieving his or her suffering with more drugs it's a good thing. The addicts think the laws they break are unjust laws so shouldn't be followed. Thieves, murderers, drug gangs, car-jackers, all commit their evil deeds even though there are laws against them and police officers trying to prevent them. Police are, in fact, catching and incarcerating the law-breakers – yet people still break laws – day-after-day, year-after-year, people break laws – yet you want more laws?”
So I have to wonder, do we really need more laws and more enforcement to keep us safe? Or do we actually need more morals instilled within our cultures? If parents instill a strong sense of right and wrong behavior, what should be considered good and what should be considered bad, then maybe more children will grow up to be moral young adults.
Students often say, “Yes, but who’s to say what is right or wrong? Whose morals are we supposed to follow?” Most world religions have the same basic morals: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, & Confucianism all teach to help your neighbor, honor your parents, to not steal or kill. I would rebut their rhetorical questions by saying that society already has a general set of moral principles called the “Principles of Ethics” that specifies how and why we should behave; it's based on both religious and secular reasonings. We should be good to ourselves and others, prevent harm, remedy harm, be fair to everyone, treat groups with equal respect, and give each person the individual freedom and dignity they deserve – unless they are breaking these morals and trying to hurt others.
Moral concepts such as these should be followed regardless who you are, how you were raised, or regardless what the laws state. But very few of my students seem to feel this way. Even after the semester on Ethics is completed, they continue to believe that everyone has their own definition of right and wrong, and that people cannot help but exploit, steal from, cheat, and even kill others. So, they reason, we need parent-like governments to take care of us, to guide us, and to punish us if we do bad things. This is the current attitude among teens and young adults. Maybe they are right; maybe they haven't been knocked around enough -- like we have -- so are not capable of controlling their impulses? Nahh!
Technologies:
We have probably all heard others, especially old folks, criticize the new social media. “They’re addicted to their phones! Why don’t they pay attention to the people around them? Phones are for talking to people! They’re going to kill someone while they’re texting and driving!” I happen to agree with some of these statements and you might also but alas and alack, the times are a-changing and we have to adapt. We can rebut this argument by saying, "People have always been distracted and always will be; it's not the new technology -- it's human nature!" Then again, we do need to be careful when adapting to powerful new technologies that allow us to be connected to our family and friends 24 hours, day-and-night.
To understand this new addiction to social media, remember that human beings are social animals; everyone should be aware of that ingrained fact. We tend to herd together and share thoughts, fears, and feelings with our fellow humans. People have always done that, only it used to be much more difficult, logistically speaking. We have always craved company, to share our emotions and experiences with others, at least with one person or a few significant others.
Mammals have a need for a sense of belonging; they also need to find a mate and care for immature young – social media assists in this process. Mammals need to gather information in order to protect themselves – social media assists in this process. Mammals need to feel secure, which social media can do by keeping in constant touch with a confidante to share emotional feelings about an array of topics. Humans seek to avoid anxiety and existential angst at all costs; however, anxiety used to be inevitable and an important part of our maturing process.
Think about it: Social media can help young people avoid many of the fears and challenges that used to accompany growing up. Dealing with friends and enemies face-to-face changes one’s behavior in a dramatic fashion, yet that live, in-person experience, with all its drooling, fears, and adrenaline is being eliminated. Now the new generation fears losing their constant communication with others and feeling cut-off and isolated, forced to deal with their own inner thoughts and feelings. This is a new de-emphasis on physical contact and emphasis on virtual contact. In this respect, the concepts of right and wrong take on a very different perspective.
One of the first things a new initiate to the world of social media notices is how blatantly uninhibited people tend to be compared to speaking face-to-face with a person. People will make the most inappropriate, opinionated, unthought-out, and personal comments, apparently not believing there will be any consequences. Some postings I’ve seen on the comment-boards are incredibly rude, have no truth whatsoever, and would lead to a punch in the nose if it was actually spoken live, in person. Social media, on one hand, has given people the opportunity to be friendly and social, but on the other hand, has made people extremely rude.
One can anticipate that in the not-so-distant future a generation of young adults who have never reflected on their thoughts and feelings; a generation of people who are used to being interconnected with their “friends” yet not in a physical, face-to-face manner. In other words, they will be filled with other people’s impulsive thoughts and feelings, which they will undoubtedly compare and synthesize with their own thoughts and feelings. Whether this massive influx of other-people’s-voices motivates them to particular, actual behavior is uncertain but seems likely.
People will become more impulse-driven to express their thoughts and feelings since they will be so habituated towards immediate expression of their thoughts and feelings. Without reflection or contemplation – two of the main ingredients that separated humans from other primates – the new generation will become more instinctive, like non-human animals, and with their instincts being controlled not by their DNA and culture but by social media -- the information (commercial) source of their electronic devices will become their inner “id.” Yahoo-News, Facebook, Wikipedia, and such would be their guiding “super-consciousnesses.”
You can see how television programs reflect this idea. Writers used to struggle to come up with relevant human themes: boy meets girl, seems inadequate at first then proves himself and wins girl; conflict at beginning drives entire story that ends up with a "moral to the story." Today, most programs are insightless reality shows. What drives todays programs are gut-level, animal-like base needs: sex, anger, jealousy, revenge, survival at all costs, fear. The modern viewer desires to be like an animal again instead of a human. We used to separate ourselves from animals through our creativity, our reflective ability to find meanings in the things we did, and so on. We developed values that symbolized our hopes and fears and search for meaning.
Most of us older types struggled on our own in a solitary manner during our young-adult years. I joined the Navy at 17 years old, just out of high school. I came back after the Navy and worked in a local shipyard. Later, I lived out of my car for some months while I worked and saved money to rent a room. Years later, after deciding to go to college, I lived out of my van for several months, during my first semester at a university, until my veterans benefits arrived. These times forced me to reflect long and hard about what my values were and what my goals should be.
Will the new generation find a new way to discover their values and goals – or will they acquiesce to the powers that be on the internet? Will their values be determined by their parents, culture, or religion – or will they be determined by the U. S. Supreme Court, Yahoo, Wikileaks, or others who have commercial and ideological agendas all being promoted on the web?
If the new generation believes that more government is needed, which is what most of my students believe, yet they believe that right and wrong are simply individual opinions, which is what most of my students believe – then most young adults will eventually find themselves in conflict with the governments decisions, since a single entity (the govt.) cannot address all the people all the time. Either that or each person will not be deciding what is right and wrong, good and bad, on their own. They will let the government decide for them, and then they will choose to follow some of the rules and not follow others, which is the norm for a society that uses sporadic and inconsistent enforcement of the laws. The problem with this outcome is that the government, unlike family-religious morals, will have the power to enforce their values onto the public – not the reverse, which is what has made our country different from other countries over these past 230 years.
The new power invested in the government will eventually allow them to fine you, imprison you, or force you to do community service if you don’t recycle or drive a fuel-efficient car or have health insurance. And you will think these things are justified since you have been wired in to the group-think modern ethics via a constant connection to the social media, a media that gives the illusion of being grass-roots controlled but is actually controlled by the providers of the media.
Just as newspapers used to be able to influence readers’ opinions in the past, modern social media providers run daily stories that provide a barrage of titillation and political bias that no one really rebuts or checks the relevant facts. This leads to the susceptibility for rampant disinformation; and with the 24-hour-per-day communication between people, rumors become exaggerated, truth (if it could be found) becomes distorted, and countries will fall to the most aggressive – physical – leaders. People believe most things that are repeated on news blurbs -- even though much of it turns out to be false.
Conclusion:
Current attitudes of young adults, waiting for the unseen “other people” to make important decisions for them, coupled with technological devices that allow them to stay in constant communication with each other and the world-wide internet, will likely create an entire generation of sheep-like citizens who are easily manipulated and will be capable of doing great immoral acts since they will not have deeply ingrained morals and values created by their own experiences. In the same way that “flash mobs” appear and destroy an entire city block, these young adults will be manipulated into causing anarchy and chaos in our urban centers.
What can we do about this predicted behavior? I’ll cover that in a future blog.
I’ve noticed some trends myself. I’m starting to worry about the direction of ethics in our society, especially but not exclusively, our youth. My concern does not seem to be the same concern the older generation had with teenagers and young adults (“listening to that crazy, decadent music,” etc.) but more to do with trends in 1) attitudes and 2) technologies, and where these trends will lead.
Current attitudes lean towards believing that other people will make important decisions for you, not you yourself; your own right to free choices should be restricted to the area of entertainment and appearance. Technologies are developing that keep us personally disconnected from each other, from social-connectivity – even though this seems paradoxical. We use more impersonal electronics to stay in touch. Actual, live, in-person, human connectivity and the impact resulting from that live, in-person, human connectivity, is disappearing. Compassion and fear are playing less and less a role in our decision-making due to the electronic socialization of people; yet compassion and fear have historically been two of the most self-governing characteristics of humanity.
Attitudes:
I’ve been teaching at the community college level for over thirteen years. In class, I ask questions to initiate discussions and I try to rebut the responses given by my students – by playing a little devil’s advocate. Whenever I ask my students “How much freedom should a person have?” the general response is, “Not too much.”
As odd as this sounds, the idea of freedom seems to have a negative connotation with young adults. For the past three or four years, there has rarely been any student in class who believes we should have as much freedom as possible. Almost all believe that people cannot handle freedom; freedom makes people steal and kill and drive like maniacs; they have sex with everyone they can and use all the drugs they want. “People go crazy when they have too much freedom!”
I respond by saying, “Do they really? But wait a second, the question is How much freedom, not ‘Should we be totally free with no laws or limits.’” They continue to reply with answers such as, “No, we’ll have anarchy without laws.” I repeat several times, “No one is saying that we shouldn’t have laws, but how many laws should we have and how intrusive should they be?” The overwhelming majority sticks to the original sentiment: We need more authority to protect us from the crazies out there.
I usually bring in the Bill of Rights about this time. “What about the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution? It protects certain freedoms that we should have. Freedom of speech, religion, the Press, the right to bear arms. What about those freedoms?” They reply with answers such as, “Yes, but you can’t say whatever you want so we really don’t have freedom of speech. You can’t offend others with certain words or lies. I think you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt others.”
“So what can you do without affecting others? If you sleep late so end up going to work late, doesn’t that hurt your co-workers? Should sleeping late be against the law, punishable by fines or jail? If I say I like gangsta rap music and you had a relative who was shot by a person who was listening to gangsta rap music, does that mean we should make rap music illegal? Should a redneck’s ‘YeeHaw!’ cry be banned because past racism was sometimes accompanied by yeehaws?”
Silence. “How free should we be?” I re-ask.
Usually one person will speak up and say something like, “Everyone is different. What’s right to me is not right to others; what’s good to them might not be good to me.” I usually rebut with, “So should we have no laws, more laws, the same amount of laws, or different laws for different people? Are you suggesting that because people are different they should follow different laws, based on how responsible they are? Who is to say what laws we’re supposed to follow? If you want more laws, will you follow those new laws?”
“Should not we follow all the current laws?” (class makes murmurs and snickering sounds) “No? Do you follow all the laws? Do you always drive the speed limit and never smoke pot? (laughter) Why not? It’s against the law to drink alcohol if you’re under 21. Does everyone here obey that law? Or do you follow some laws but don’t follow others? Martin Luther King, Jr. says we should follow ‘just’ laws but not unjust laws, to follow God’s moral laws.
“Who’s to decide which laws are just and which are unjust? Is it fair to leave law-making up to our government? Of course, at every level, that is exactly who makes our laws. This is why voting for someone to accurately represent us is important."
Getting back to our topic, should each of us choose which laws are good laws and which aren't? A drug addict thinks he or she deserves compassion so relieving his or her suffering with more drugs it's a good thing. The addicts think the laws they break are unjust laws so shouldn't be followed. Thieves, murderers, drug gangs, car-jackers, all commit their evil deeds even though there are laws against them and police officers trying to prevent them. Police are, in fact, catching and incarcerating the law-breakers – yet people still break laws – day-after-day, year-after-year, people break laws – yet you want more laws?”
So I have to wonder, do we really need more laws and more enforcement to keep us safe? Or do we actually need more morals instilled within our cultures? If parents instill a strong sense of right and wrong behavior, what should be considered good and what should be considered bad, then maybe more children will grow up to be moral young adults.
Students often say, “Yes, but who’s to say what is right or wrong? Whose morals are we supposed to follow?” Most world religions have the same basic morals: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, & Confucianism all teach to help your neighbor, honor your parents, to not steal or kill. I would rebut their rhetorical questions by saying that society already has a general set of moral principles called the “Principles of Ethics” that specifies how and why we should behave; it's based on both religious and secular reasonings. We should be good to ourselves and others, prevent harm, remedy harm, be fair to everyone, treat groups with equal respect, and give each person the individual freedom and dignity they deserve – unless they are breaking these morals and trying to hurt others.
Moral concepts such as these should be followed regardless who you are, how you were raised, or regardless what the laws state. But very few of my students seem to feel this way. Even after the semester on Ethics is completed, they continue to believe that everyone has their own definition of right and wrong, and that people cannot help but exploit, steal from, cheat, and even kill others. So, they reason, we need parent-like governments to take care of us, to guide us, and to punish us if we do bad things. This is the current attitude among teens and young adults. Maybe they are right; maybe they haven't been knocked around enough -- like we have -- so are not capable of controlling their impulses? Nahh!
Technologies:
We have probably all heard others, especially old folks, criticize the new social media. “They’re addicted to their phones! Why don’t they pay attention to the people around them? Phones are for talking to people! They’re going to kill someone while they’re texting and driving!” I happen to agree with some of these statements and you might also but alas and alack, the times are a-changing and we have to adapt. We can rebut this argument by saying, "People have always been distracted and always will be; it's not the new technology -- it's human nature!" Then again, we do need to be careful when adapting to powerful new technologies that allow us to be connected to our family and friends 24 hours, day-and-night.
To understand this new addiction to social media, remember that human beings are social animals; everyone should be aware of that ingrained fact. We tend to herd together and share thoughts, fears, and feelings with our fellow humans. People have always done that, only it used to be much more difficult, logistically speaking. We have always craved company, to share our emotions and experiences with others, at least with one person or a few significant others.
Mammals have a need for a sense of belonging; they also need to find a mate and care for immature young – social media assists in this process. Mammals need to gather information in order to protect themselves – social media assists in this process. Mammals need to feel secure, which social media can do by keeping in constant touch with a confidante to share emotional feelings about an array of topics. Humans seek to avoid anxiety and existential angst at all costs; however, anxiety used to be inevitable and an important part of our maturing process.
Think about it: Social media can help young people avoid many of the fears and challenges that used to accompany growing up. Dealing with friends and enemies face-to-face changes one’s behavior in a dramatic fashion, yet that live, in-person experience, with all its drooling, fears, and adrenaline is being eliminated. Now the new generation fears losing their constant communication with others and feeling cut-off and isolated, forced to deal with their own inner thoughts and feelings. This is a new de-emphasis on physical contact and emphasis on virtual contact. In this respect, the concepts of right and wrong take on a very different perspective.
One of the first things a new initiate to the world of social media notices is how blatantly uninhibited people tend to be compared to speaking face-to-face with a person. People will make the most inappropriate, opinionated, unthought-out, and personal comments, apparently not believing there will be any consequences. Some postings I’ve seen on the comment-boards are incredibly rude, have no truth whatsoever, and would lead to a punch in the nose if it was actually spoken live, in person. Social media, on one hand, has given people the opportunity to be friendly and social, but on the other hand, has made people extremely rude.
One can anticipate that in the not-so-distant future a generation of young adults who have never reflected on their thoughts and feelings; a generation of people who are used to being interconnected with their “friends” yet not in a physical, face-to-face manner. In other words, they will be filled with other people’s impulsive thoughts and feelings, which they will undoubtedly compare and synthesize with their own thoughts and feelings. Whether this massive influx of other-people’s-voices motivates them to particular, actual behavior is uncertain but seems likely.
People will become more impulse-driven to express their thoughts and feelings since they will be so habituated towards immediate expression of their thoughts and feelings. Without reflection or contemplation – two of the main ingredients that separated humans from other primates – the new generation will become more instinctive, like non-human animals, and with their instincts being controlled not by their DNA and culture but by social media -- the information (commercial) source of their electronic devices will become their inner “id.” Yahoo-News, Facebook, Wikipedia, and such would be their guiding “super-consciousnesses.”
You can see how television programs reflect this idea. Writers used to struggle to come up with relevant human themes: boy meets girl, seems inadequate at first then proves himself and wins girl; conflict at beginning drives entire story that ends up with a "moral to the story." Today, most programs are insightless reality shows. What drives todays programs are gut-level, animal-like base needs: sex, anger, jealousy, revenge, survival at all costs, fear. The modern viewer desires to be like an animal again instead of a human. We used to separate ourselves from animals through our creativity, our reflective ability to find meanings in the things we did, and so on. We developed values that symbolized our hopes and fears and search for meaning.
Most of us older types struggled on our own in a solitary manner during our young-adult years. I joined the Navy at 17 years old, just out of high school. I came back after the Navy and worked in a local shipyard. Later, I lived out of my car for some months while I worked and saved money to rent a room. Years later, after deciding to go to college, I lived out of my van for several months, during my first semester at a university, until my veterans benefits arrived. These times forced me to reflect long and hard about what my values were and what my goals should be.
Will the new generation find a new way to discover their values and goals – or will they acquiesce to the powers that be on the internet? Will their values be determined by their parents, culture, or religion – or will they be determined by the U. S. Supreme Court, Yahoo, Wikileaks, or others who have commercial and ideological agendas all being promoted on the web?
If the new generation believes that more government is needed, which is what most of my students believe, yet they believe that right and wrong are simply individual opinions, which is what most of my students believe – then most young adults will eventually find themselves in conflict with the governments decisions, since a single entity (the govt.) cannot address all the people all the time. Either that or each person will not be deciding what is right and wrong, good and bad, on their own. They will let the government decide for them, and then they will choose to follow some of the rules and not follow others, which is the norm for a society that uses sporadic and inconsistent enforcement of the laws. The problem with this outcome is that the government, unlike family-religious morals, will have the power to enforce their values onto the public – not the reverse, which is what has made our country different from other countries over these past 230 years.
The new power invested in the government will eventually allow them to fine you, imprison you, or force you to do community service if you don’t recycle or drive a fuel-efficient car or have health insurance. And you will think these things are justified since you have been wired in to the group-think modern ethics via a constant connection to the social media, a media that gives the illusion of being grass-roots controlled but is actually controlled by the providers of the media.
Just as newspapers used to be able to influence readers’ opinions in the past, modern social media providers run daily stories that provide a barrage of titillation and political bias that no one really rebuts or checks the relevant facts. This leads to the susceptibility for rampant disinformation; and with the 24-hour-per-day communication between people, rumors become exaggerated, truth (if it could be found) becomes distorted, and countries will fall to the most aggressive – physical – leaders. People believe most things that are repeated on news blurbs -- even though much of it turns out to be false.
Conclusion:
Current attitudes of young adults, waiting for the unseen “other people” to make important decisions for them, coupled with technological devices that allow them to stay in constant communication with each other and the world-wide internet, will likely create an entire generation of sheep-like citizens who are easily manipulated and will be capable of doing great immoral acts since they will not have deeply ingrained morals and values created by their own experiences. In the same way that “flash mobs” appear and destroy an entire city block, these young adults will be manipulated into causing anarchy and chaos in our urban centers.
What can we do about this predicted behavior? I’ll cover that in a future blog.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
What is Reality?
What is reality? How does reality actually work? These are metaphysical questions. Perennial answers have taken the form of a dichotomy with change on one side and form on the other side. Our individual DNA is the one physical constant about each of us yet we are always changing. Am I still the same essential Joey Carter as the Joey Carter at ten years old, or am I “Joey Carter, version 10ⁿ”? The Mississippi River is constantly changing yet it’s still considered the same river; is it the same river or not? Do we simply call it the same for practical reasons or is there something that’s actually constant?
Modern science theorizes that time and space may have begun at the Big Bang or one of several proposed theories (such as Brane, Superstrings, Big Bounce, etc.). They all seem to agree, however, that three-dimensional, normal time-and-space with its incremental changes, is not part of the “Big Picture.” It’s only part of the current picture. Science is restricted to using the scientific method, by testing hypotheses with experimentation – we are not.
So what is the true view of reality? How does it really work? Not just the surface appearances, but really. The answers that do not seem to change with time or culture are those that seem to follow a particular line: somehow we are in a world limited to time and space, making decisions, being born, living and dying; but at the same time the real reality is without time and space; it’s complete, all at once – All-is-One, here-and-now.
This implies that the past and future exist right now but we must experience life moment-by-moment, from present-moment to present-moment, with a built-in memory-capturing capability in order to conceive of a past, and this helped us develop the conception of the persistence of time – hence, our concept of normal reality. The here-and-now seems to be a very small sampling of the true reality, which is beyond the limits of time-and-space because it is beyond our physical confines of interpretation.
We know quite a lot about the physical world via science and mathematics. In other words, we know quite a lot about the cage we find ourselves trapped in. The world outside the cage, however, is hinted at again and again by the wisest among us. Clearly, we have the ability to see the Big Picture if we open our metaphorical eyes.
These perennial ideas are presented differently in different cultures and different eras but are, at the very least, similar enough to be considered the same idea. They are difficult to express in normal terms. In the Tao Te Ching, for example, a Chinese book from several centuries B.C., the first aphorism states, “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.” Also, “He who speaks does not know; he who knows does not speak.” These statements make clear that even 2500 years ago, people knew that the Big Ideas could not be explained in the normal manner.
The oldest and newest Big Picture ideas are remarkably similar. In the ancient East we find that some of the oldest ideas about how the world really works coincide with revelations in the West. I caution you, however, your personal beliefs may prevent you from reading the words that are actually here. Open your mind before reading the following passages or else you will only read what you already believe.
“Tao” means the way, or path, that reality goes. Reality “works” a certain way and if you follow this way, then you are doing good and right because it is good and right to follow the way (Tao). “Te” is the virtue, or righteousness, one receives from sensing and following the Tao (path), and “wu wei” is the effort one makes to follow the Tao.
Jesus said, “I am the way.” It’s odd that the word Tao means the “way” and was adopted centuries before Jesus’ unique words. Does Jesus mean to follow Him, as Christians believe, or does he mean, “What I’m preaching is the way,” the way to righteousness so if someone believes that Jesus had great wisdom and understands true reality then they are also following him and his “way”? Would this imply that Taoists are actually Christians? Confucius, apparently, also followed Taoist principles; does he believe in the same things as Jesus? We will get to this question in due time.
Obviously, a Christian is one who believes that the Jewish man called Yeshua (Jesus) is the Son of the one God, the creator of all. Moreover, a Christian believes that Jesus was actually God manifested as a flesh-and-blood human, so in a sense Jesus WAS God. Jesus sacrificed himself as atonement for the sins of mankind, meaning that man has forever been a sinner since Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Adam and Eve were banished from the perfect world of Eden and made to fend for themselves, with Adam having to work for sustenance and Eve having to endure childbirth. This story was described in the Jewish Torah, in the book of Genesis, which is part of the Christian Old Testament. The new covenant of Jesus began when He offered himself for mankind. This sacrificial act is believed to have opened the way for humans, all of which are thought to have eternal souls, to re-join God in Heaven. So by believing in Jesus, or by following his “way,” one can enter Heaven.
Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and “Love thy neighbor,” both a version of the reciprocal law of timelessness. These were considered unique and even counterproductive at the time – but were these sayings really that unique? Confucius said, 500 years before Jesus, to “Don’t do to others what you don’t want yourselves,” and “Love your neighbors.” Hindus and others believe in “karma,” a kind of metaphysical reciprocity, where one’s actions are tied to one’s past and future, which is similar to the Golden Rule in Christianity and Confucianism in China.
As made clear above, another common perennial element is the idea of reciprocity – what you do today will come back to you in the future. There are many ways to interpret reciprocity, from a prosaic “Smile at others and others will smile right back” to a more metaphysical aspect. From the latter, this idea seems to be a hint about a world without time, as if implying that we are living in eternity at this moment, only our physical limitations prevent us from experiencing the past and future at once so reality appears to be reciprocal, where sooner or later the things we say and do will have consequences since they are part of our timeless reality, the reality that exists in the eternal now.
Siddhartha Gautama Buddha preached of one’s dharma (lifelong duty), otherwise known as the “eight-fold path,” where one must think, do, and believe in a righteous – good – manner. This list of suggested oughts and ought-nots are similar to the morals of Confucianism and Christianity. Buddha also explained life as suffering, as long as we are confined within the physical body, due to the limitations of the human condition.
There is no God, per se, in Buddhism, Confucianism, or Taoism (although many local deities have made their way into these philosophies). This is the main difference between the Abrahamic religions and the Eastern philosophies. I will not go into the theological differences between the East and West but suffice it to say that they are quite similar in the metaphysical aspects. Professional philosophers, Christians, Jews, and Muslims generally disagree with me here (samsara versus Judgment Day, etc.) but I stand by this claim quite strongly. My theological colleagues love to point out the differences, and there always are will be differences, but it’s the commonalities that tell us how everything in the physical world is pointing to the one Big Truth about all reality.
Even our Western roots from the Greeks, such as Plato, seem to imply a similar pattern of metaphysics. In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, he describes the limited world of the cave, where people are chained down to the rocks and are only able to experience a small range of sensations from which to build a view of reality. Outside the cave, however, an escaped slave confronts a much more beautiful and free world, from which this slave builds a broader world view. This parable conveys Plato’s “Two World” theory, which consists of one ideal and eternal world of “forms” on one side, and a second world which consists of a temporary, changing physical world. The physical world contains a varied array of imperfect copies of the perfect forms. The entire description seems an awful lot like the unchanging-DNA/changing-body description from above.
Aristotle adds to Plato’s picture through his “Four Causes” theory. One begins with the material substance, then uses a master design/blueprint, then uses effort and skill to transform the material into the final product – all the while being aware of what the ultimate purpose of the thing is.
How do these ideas fit into the sequential, tick-tock-tick, world and the All-is-One eternal now world? It’s easy to see all the differences because we live in an intelligible world of discriminating one thing from another. It’s our specialty in this three-dimensional world of change. It’s what our brain, as an evolved bundle or nerve cells, does. The thing that is difficult for us is seeing the world of sameness, the same patterns regardless of the person, place, or thing – or time or culture.
Even the 17th century mathematical genius Gottfried Leibniz thought that the best way to explain reality was in the following manner: God takes a finite set of possibilities from each moment, chooses the best possibility, then creates that moment. There are many possible worlds based on what currently exists but not all these worlds are brought into being – only one is. It’s not a perfect world but it’s the best possible world. This repeats itself moment-by-moment, so there is no actual flowing of time as we normally think of it. Rather, there is only one moment, the current moment, and we should do the best we can with each created moment. The eternally blossoming world is full of energy but also complete in itself. It appears to be changing but is born anew each moment therefore we can “start over” each moment. Interesting stuff.
There is always a dichotomy of eternal, even perfect, concepts and temporary, imperfect changing objects. In the West there is the perfect idea of Heaven; in the East, there is the perfect idea of the Void. Plato’s pagan forms are perfect and eternal yet all things sensed are temporary and changing in today’s world of scientific materialism.
Clearly, the eternal question is what is true reality? And is there a God in this true reality or is God simply a concept people mentally invented in our distant cultural past to explain occurrences that they cannot explain – and people are still using God as an explanation for things that can be readily explained by science. Science is gathering enormous knowledge and ideas about the physical world but this world is the world of change, rebirth, and decay – the imperfect world of the senses.
Is science explaining true reality or only physical reality and is mistakenly supersizing its theories in an attempt to cover all of reality? What happened to the patterns of old, the eternal ideals that seem to be embedded in all the physical examples of the physical world and give us hints of a kind of eternal world? Why have these ideas disappeared among the thinkers of today? Today’s scientists and philosophers have acquiesced to a prosaic world of physical, natural laws, and have ignored the Big Picture except for theories (Branes, Superstrings, Parallel Universes, etc.) that begin with circular logic -- self-fulfilling prophecies (assumptions of constant physical laws, etc.). Since science and Analytic Philosophy begin with assumptions that MUST lead them to conclude a materialistic paradigm, clearly today’s science will not give us the answers about true reality.
If there is an eternal reality here and now, then there must be a way to perceive it with our mind and senses operating together. If we look out into the world with an enlightened perspective then we might be able to see beyond the illusions of a prosaic world; we might see a century within a second or a millennia during a coffee break. It seems possible that we are not completely limited by our physical bodies.
Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century, used to believe that the concept of a God-as-creator was a real possibility. His beliefs have changed over his brief history in our time. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going.” (The Grand Design)
The problem with this statement is not that science cannot explain how things work on a surface, linear level – I think science does that, and does it better than any other methodology. The problem is that there is so much more going on at any moment than any mechanical system could explain – purposeful, meaningful, coincidental events. For example, by changing my attitude or outlook, the world around me seems to change.
When the probabilities for an event seem very high (or low), and then I change my attitude about that event (acquiesce, or give up, and let “God” tell me what to do), the previous probabilities disappear and I discover that the event may or may not occur – it seems to have altered the previous probabilities, logic, and science. It seems to have more to do with me lining up with the mysterious “God” insight received. It’s easy to say that we twist our view of reality to believe in a fictional mysterious God, but I’ve found the opposite is true; I’ve tried to see the predictable truth of science and found it failing time and time again, only to have the “wishes” of “God” prove to be correct in the end.
One small example: I wanted to get in shape and run in a fun run or two so I jogged nearly every day. I used to be quite fast and had won numerous first places finishes in my age group. This time, however, whenever I increased my speed to a fast jog, my left calf muscle would cramp then pull. I’d have to limp home and wait about a week then start my slow rehab jogging over again. This went on for nearly five years, with me never getting past a jogging pace. I searched through the internet for solutions, sought advice from my doctor, saw an orthopedic sports doctor, got an MRI – the works.
There were plenty of possible causes, from diet to general runner’s malady where my body had just had enough, but none of the remedies to the various syndromes worked. I was asked to resign myself to jogging or walking. I really missed running so at a low point I found myself asking above for any advice. I don’t follow any particular religion but I sure seem to sense a grand consciousness, aware of everything. I feel that I am a miniscule part of that grand picture so don’t mean much to “God” but I asked for help anyway. The impression that came in my head was that I should stop drinking beer.
This was an odd impression because I liked beer yet managed my drinking in a fairly disciplined way; I only drank one or two beers per day on a regular basis, and for parties I might occasionally drink three or four maybe twice a year. There were many runners who drank much more beer than I did so it seemed to be an odd impression. I knew drinking alcohol the night before a race could have a deleterious effect and certainly drinking a substantial amount on a regular basis would also, but only a beer or two?
I used extra discipline, in addition to asking God to give me some extra willpower, and gradually stopped drinking. The cramping and pulling in my calf muscle disappeared. I began to train at a much higher level, running times I hadn’t run in more than five years. Whenever I relaxed my discipline and enjoyed a few beers for some occasion, my running would suffer. Conclusion? There are almost certainly medical and scientific reasons for my reprieve in running but I’m convinced that rather than God being an anthropomorphic justification for some natural occurrence, that natural occurrences bend to the will of God. This running example is only one of many that have convinced me of this. It’s a Schrödinger’s Cat type of paradox, where our choices are somehow intertwined with a holistic, time-free world.
What does this all say about reality, then? Only that all existence IS right now at this moment a dynamic, multi-dimensional, concurrent living happening, beyond time and space, birth and death. The normal, prosaic stretched out time of this morning, this afternoon, or this evening is a filtered down, extremely limited view of a much larger reality. What we physically see and experience around us at this moment is beautiful in its tragedy and glory. The striving, the failures, the births, injuries, sicknesses, milestones, and deaths are powerful events that otherwise would not be possible without the limiting machines we find ourselves trapped within, our physical bodies.
Close relationships, such as belonging to a family, is the closest we can come to knowing the eternal-real-world on a day-to-day basis. A family provides one person with meanings and feelings beyond himself or herself. Death of a family member provides the worst kind of loss. Another way we feel complete is by somehow practicing eternal-like activities that focus on timeless, eternal truths. Prayer, chanting, meditation, recitation on a subject considered beyond time and space tends to help us cross boundaries into the true reality, the eternal All-that-Is existing in front of us at all times.
While in the physical world, then, we can briefly tap into the eternal, true world but we still must live in the world of matter. As long as we have the human machine converting the dynamic All into a three-dimensional existence, we must play it through, within the confines and rules of the human machine. The more we understand, the more the world makes sense yet the more fleeting the moments appear to be. We are dumb animals, you might say, but we can try to be closer to our true, eternal selves, part of the true one living reality of God. Only then can we have a small piece of contentment while living as a physical human animal.
Modern science theorizes that time and space may have begun at the Big Bang or one of several proposed theories (such as Brane, Superstrings, Big Bounce, etc.). They all seem to agree, however, that three-dimensional, normal time-and-space with its incremental changes, is not part of the “Big Picture.” It’s only part of the current picture. Science is restricted to using the scientific method, by testing hypotheses with experimentation – we are not.
So what is the true view of reality? How does it really work? Not just the surface appearances, but really. The answers that do not seem to change with time or culture are those that seem to follow a particular line: somehow we are in a world limited to time and space, making decisions, being born, living and dying; but at the same time the real reality is without time and space; it’s complete, all at once – All-is-One, here-and-now.
This implies that the past and future exist right now but we must experience life moment-by-moment, from present-moment to present-moment, with a built-in memory-capturing capability in order to conceive of a past, and this helped us develop the conception of the persistence of time – hence, our concept of normal reality. The here-and-now seems to be a very small sampling of the true reality, which is beyond the limits of time-and-space because it is beyond our physical confines of interpretation.
We know quite a lot about the physical world via science and mathematics. In other words, we know quite a lot about the cage we find ourselves trapped in. The world outside the cage, however, is hinted at again and again by the wisest among us. Clearly, we have the ability to see the Big Picture if we open our metaphorical eyes.
These perennial ideas are presented differently in different cultures and different eras but are, at the very least, similar enough to be considered the same idea. They are difficult to express in normal terms. In the Tao Te Ching, for example, a Chinese book from several centuries B.C., the first aphorism states, “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.” Also, “He who speaks does not know; he who knows does not speak.” These statements make clear that even 2500 years ago, people knew that the Big Ideas could not be explained in the normal manner.
The oldest and newest Big Picture ideas are remarkably similar. In the ancient East we find that some of the oldest ideas about how the world really works coincide with revelations in the West. I caution you, however, your personal beliefs may prevent you from reading the words that are actually here. Open your mind before reading the following passages or else you will only read what you already believe.
“Tao” means the way, or path, that reality goes. Reality “works” a certain way and if you follow this way, then you are doing good and right because it is good and right to follow the way (Tao). “Te” is the virtue, or righteousness, one receives from sensing and following the Tao (path), and “wu wei” is the effort one makes to follow the Tao.
Jesus said, “I am the way.” It’s odd that the word Tao means the “way” and was adopted centuries before Jesus’ unique words. Does Jesus mean to follow Him, as Christians believe, or does he mean, “What I’m preaching is the way,” the way to righteousness so if someone believes that Jesus had great wisdom and understands true reality then they are also following him and his “way”? Would this imply that Taoists are actually Christians? Confucius, apparently, also followed Taoist principles; does he believe in the same things as Jesus? We will get to this question in due time.
Obviously, a Christian is one who believes that the Jewish man called Yeshua (Jesus) is the Son of the one God, the creator of all. Moreover, a Christian believes that Jesus was actually God manifested as a flesh-and-blood human, so in a sense Jesus WAS God. Jesus sacrificed himself as atonement for the sins of mankind, meaning that man has forever been a sinner since Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Adam and Eve were banished from the perfect world of Eden and made to fend for themselves, with Adam having to work for sustenance and Eve having to endure childbirth. This story was described in the Jewish Torah, in the book of Genesis, which is part of the Christian Old Testament. The new covenant of Jesus began when He offered himself for mankind. This sacrificial act is believed to have opened the way for humans, all of which are thought to have eternal souls, to re-join God in Heaven. So by believing in Jesus, or by following his “way,” one can enter Heaven.
Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and “Love thy neighbor,” both a version of the reciprocal law of timelessness. These were considered unique and even counterproductive at the time – but were these sayings really that unique? Confucius said, 500 years before Jesus, to “Don’t do to others what you don’t want yourselves,” and “Love your neighbors.” Hindus and others believe in “karma,” a kind of metaphysical reciprocity, where one’s actions are tied to one’s past and future, which is similar to the Golden Rule in Christianity and Confucianism in China.
As made clear above, another common perennial element is the idea of reciprocity – what you do today will come back to you in the future. There are many ways to interpret reciprocity, from a prosaic “Smile at others and others will smile right back” to a more metaphysical aspect. From the latter, this idea seems to be a hint about a world without time, as if implying that we are living in eternity at this moment, only our physical limitations prevent us from experiencing the past and future at once so reality appears to be reciprocal, where sooner or later the things we say and do will have consequences since they are part of our timeless reality, the reality that exists in the eternal now.
Siddhartha Gautama Buddha preached of one’s dharma (lifelong duty), otherwise known as the “eight-fold path,” where one must think, do, and believe in a righteous – good – manner. This list of suggested oughts and ought-nots are similar to the morals of Confucianism and Christianity. Buddha also explained life as suffering, as long as we are confined within the physical body, due to the limitations of the human condition.
There is no God, per se, in Buddhism, Confucianism, or Taoism (although many local deities have made their way into these philosophies). This is the main difference between the Abrahamic religions and the Eastern philosophies. I will not go into the theological differences between the East and West but suffice it to say that they are quite similar in the metaphysical aspects. Professional philosophers, Christians, Jews, and Muslims generally disagree with me here (samsara versus Judgment Day, etc.) but I stand by this claim quite strongly. My theological colleagues love to point out the differences, and there always are will be differences, but it’s the commonalities that tell us how everything in the physical world is pointing to the one Big Truth about all reality.
Even our Western roots from the Greeks, such as Plato, seem to imply a similar pattern of metaphysics. In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, he describes the limited world of the cave, where people are chained down to the rocks and are only able to experience a small range of sensations from which to build a view of reality. Outside the cave, however, an escaped slave confronts a much more beautiful and free world, from which this slave builds a broader world view. This parable conveys Plato’s “Two World” theory, which consists of one ideal and eternal world of “forms” on one side, and a second world which consists of a temporary, changing physical world. The physical world contains a varied array of imperfect copies of the perfect forms. The entire description seems an awful lot like the unchanging-DNA/changing-body description from above.
Aristotle adds to Plato’s picture through his “Four Causes” theory. One begins with the material substance, then uses a master design/blueprint, then uses effort and skill to transform the material into the final product – all the while being aware of what the ultimate purpose of the thing is.
How do these ideas fit into the sequential, tick-tock-tick, world and the All-is-One eternal now world? It’s easy to see all the differences because we live in an intelligible world of discriminating one thing from another. It’s our specialty in this three-dimensional world of change. It’s what our brain, as an evolved bundle or nerve cells, does. The thing that is difficult for us is seeing the world of sameness, the same patterns regardless of the person, place, or thing – or time or culture.
Even the 17th century mathematical genius Gottfried Leibniz thought that the best way to explain reality was in the following manner: God takes a finite set of possibilities from each moment, chooses the best possibility, then creates that moment. There are many possible worlds based on what currently exists but not all these worlds are brought into being – only one is. It’s not a perfect world but it’s the best possible world. This repeats itself moment-by-moment, so there is no actual flowing of time as we normally think of it. Rather, there is only one moment, the current moment, and we should do the best we can with each created moment. The eternally blossoming world is full of energy but also complete in itself. It appears to be changing but is born anew each moment therefore we can “start over” each moment. Interesting stuff.
There is always a dichotomy of eternal, even perfect, concepts and temporary, imperfect changing objects. In the West there is the perfect idea of Heaven; in the East, there is the perfect idea of the Void. Plato’s pagan forms are perfect and eternal yet all things sensed are temporary and changing in today’s world of scientific materialism.
Clearly, the eternal question is what is true reality? And is there a God in this true reality or is God simply a concept people mentally invented in our distant cultural past to explain occurrences that they cannot explain – and people are still using God as an explanation for things that can be readily explained by science. Science is gathering enormous knowledge and ideas about the physical world but this world is the world of change, rebirth, and decay – the imperfect world of the senses.
Is science explaining true reality or only physical reality and is mistakenly supersizing its theories in an attempt to cover all of reality? What happened to the patterns of old, the eternal ideals that seem to be embedded in all the physical examples of the physical world and give us hints of a kind of eternal world? Why have these ideas disappeared among the thinkers of today? Today’s scientists and philosophers have acquiesced to a prosaic world of physical, natural laws, and have ignored the Big Picture except for theories (Branes, Superstrings, Parallel Universes, etc.) that begin with circular logic -- self-fulfilling prophecies (assumptions of constant physical laws, etc.). Since science and Analytic Philosophy begin with assumptions that MUST lead them to conclude a materialistic paradigm, clearly today’s science will not give us the answers about true reality.
If there is an eternal reality here and now, then there must be a way to perceive it with our mind and senses operating together. If we look out into the world with an enlightened perspective then we might be able to see beyond the illusions of a prosaic world; we might see a century within a second or a millennia during a coffee break. It seems possible that we are not completely limited by our physical bodies.
Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century, used to believe that the concept of a God-as-creator was a real possibility. His beliefs have changed over his brief history in our time. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going.” (The Grand Design)
The problem with this statement is not that science cannot explain how things work on a surface, linear level – I think science does that, and does it better than any other methodology. The problem is that there is so much more going on at any moment than any mechanical system could explain – purposeful, meaningful, coincidental events. For example, by changing my attitude or outlook, the world around me seems to change.
When the probabilities for an event seem very high (or low), and then I change my attitude about that event (acquiesce, or give up, and let “God” tell me what to do), the previous probabilities disappear and I discover that the event may or may not occur – it seems to have altered the previous probabilities, logic, and science. It seems to have more to do with me lining up with the mysterious “God” insight received. It’s easy to say that we twist our view of reality to believe in a fictional mysterious God, but I’ve found the opposite is true; I’ve tried to see the predictable truth of science and found it failing time and time again, only to have the “wishes” of “God” prove to be correct in the end.
One small example: I wanted to get in shape and run in a fun run or two so I jogged nearly every day. I used to be quite fast and had won numerous first places finishes in my age group. This time, however, whenever I increased my speed to a fast jog, my left calf muscle would cramp then pull. I’d have to limp home and wait about a week then start my slow rehab jogging over again. This went on for nearly five years, with me never getting past a jogging pace. I searched through the internet for solutions, sought advice from my doctor, saw an orthopedic sports doctor, got an MRI – the works.
There were plenty of possible causes, from diet to general runner’s malady where my body had just had enough, but none of the remedies to the various syndromes worked. I was asked to resign myself to jogging or walking. I really missed running so at a low point I found myself asking above for any advice. I don’t follow any particular religion but I sure seem to sense a grand consciousness, aware of everything. I feel that I am a miniscule part of that grand picture so don’t mean much to “God” but I asked for help anyway. The impression that came in my head was that I should stop drinking beer.
This was an odd impression because I liked beer yet managed my drinking in a fairly disciplined way; I only drank one or two beers per day on a regular basis, and for parties I might occasionally drink three or four maybe twice a year. There were many runners who drank much more beer than I did so it seemed to be an odd impression. I knew drinking alcohol the night before a race could have a deleterious effect and certainly drinking a substantial amount on a regular basis would also, but only a beer or two?
I used extra discipline, in addition to asking God to give me some extra willpower, and gradually stopped drinking. The cramping and pulling in my calf muscle disappeared. I began to train at a much higher level, running times I hadn’t run in more than five years. Whenever I relaxed my discipline and enjoyed a few beers for some occasion, my running would suffer. Conclusion? There are almost certainly medical and scientific reasons for my reprieve in running but I’m convinced that rather than God being an anthropomorphic justification for some natural occurrence, that natural occurrences bend to the will of God. This running example is only one of many that have convinced me of this. It’s a Schrödinger’s Cat type of paradox, where our choices are somehow intertwined with a holistic, time-free world.
What does this all say about reality, then? Only that all existence IS right now at this moment a dynamic, multi-dimensional, concurrent living happening, beyond time and space, birth and death. The normal, prosaic stretched out time of this morning, this afternoon, or this evening is a filtered down, extremely limited view of a much larger reality. What we physically see and experience around us at this moment is beautiful in its tragedy and glory. The striving, the failures, the births, injuries, sicknesses, milestones, and deaths are powerful events that otherwise would not be possible without the limiting machines we find ourselves trapped within, our physical bodies.
Close relationships, such as belonging to a family, is the closest we can come to knowing the eternal-real-world on a day-to-day basis. A family provides one person with meanings and feelings beyond himself or herself. Death of a family member provides the worst kind of loss. Another way we feel complete is by somehow practicing eternal-like activities that focus on timeless, eternal truths. Prayer, chanting, meditation, recitation on a subject considered beyond time and space tends to help us cross boundaries into the true reality, the eternal All-that-Is existing in front of us at all times.
While in the physical world, then, we can briefly tap into the eternal, true world but we still must live in the world of matter. As long as we have the human machine converting the dynamic All into a three-dimensional existence, we must play it through, within the confines and rules of the human machine. The more we understand, the more the world makes sense yet the more fleeting the moments appear to be. We are dumb animals, you might say, but we can try to be closer to our true, eternal selves, part of the true one living reality of God. Only then can we have a small piece of contentment while living as a physical human animal.
What are the Characteristics of a Wise Person?
What does it mean to have wisdom?
The study of philosophy was first and foremost the study of “wisdom.” The word “philosophy” itself was first used by the ancient Greeks to mean the love (or pursuit) of wisdom. Wisdom means to understand knowledge about “things,” how this knowledge is related to each other, and what value it has. These things might be physical objects, abstract mental concepts, people, living creatures, or any other kind of knowledge.
A wise person, then, should understand what is really real, what is most true, what is most valuable to people and to existence, how everything all fits together, and why we are the way we are. A wise person should understand why we are here, what our purpose is in life – if any -- and how we should ideally behave. If there is a purpose to our lives, does this mean that we should actively seek that purpose or will we naturally follow our purpose if we simply “be ourselves”? A wise person, hopefully, makes decisions based on this understanding – based on this wisdom.
Generally, we would like our leaders to be wise. Whenever an election comes around, those candidates who have made some moral or legal or policy mistakes in their past tend to be quickly booted out of the field. But would they have made a good leader or not? Is a leader someone who doesn’t make mistakes? Which mistakes are simply too bad to allow? What really makes a wise leader?
Whenever we think of a “wise” person, do we mean a person who has never made a mistake, never taken a chance, never thought outside the box, or never pushed something past the limit? Do we mean someone who has never tried something, failed at it, and then acknowledged that it was a poor choice, and that other choices might have worked better?
I doubt if many of us would agree that a wise person is someone who never fails. Wisdom does not equate with following every rule, dotting every “i” or crossing every “t.” Wisdom does not equate with always being right and always winning. Clearly, one has to make mistakes, fail, and lose now and then in order to gain some wisdom. On the other hand, wisdom doesn’t mean being lazy, taking unnecessary risks, and failing at everything either.
Wisdom comes from logic and experience. It comes from winning and losing. It comes from making a connection, an inference, anticipating a result, then testing that inference. Wisdom doesn’t start by being sure about something; it comes from being not sure, testing it out and learning from the tests in order to have a better idea – an idea closer to the truth. Wisdom comes from seeing possible patterns and asking questions to check out ideas.
Learning is a key ingredient. If we continue to learn, then we eventually weed out trivial things in our lives and are left with things of value. We are left with conclusions that are closer to the truth about things. We are left with lessons and meanings and people who provide deeply satisfying experiences. We are left happier than before. We are wiser.
Wisdom is about knowing that some things are more important than other things; it’s about knowing that there are some things in life that make life worth living and other things that just taste sweet. Wise people see beyond the immediate consequences of an action; wise people see beyond the shininess of things; wise people see past peer pressure; wise people see value in all things but recognize the eternal value intrinsic in some things rather than other things. They see deeper truths, more true concepts.
A great musician is not someone who took all the right classes, has all the right degrees, and follows all the rules. He or she may have these things but his or her musicianship has very little to do with the formal recognition of such. Some (most?) of the greatest musicians of all time did not follow a standard formula. In fact, they broke many rules along the way to their understanding; they copied bits and pieces of melodies from others that evoked emotions or meaning; they experimented and discovered combinations of sounds that evoked other feelings or meanings, all within a moderately standardized framework.
A great athlete is not someone who took all the right kinesiology classes, had the best trainers, and makes certain moves. He or she may be but his or her athleticism and success has little to do with formal training. It often has more to do with their sandlot experience during their developing years, failing again and again until they learned what worked best. Knowledge, training, and potential helps but it not the most important aspect to their athleticism.
A wise person is not someone who followed a formula to wisdom. He or she usually made many mistakes along the way, arriving at a realization more profound than those who simply accepted a teacher’s pronouncement. These people usually learned the rules, then broke the rules and learned from either the consequences of their actions or from near tragedies.
Ignorant people occasionally seem wise but wise people are rarely very ignorant. Wisdom means learning therefore wise people tend to be very knowledgeable. They may have been arrested, used drugs, pre-judged others, or worse; however, they usually change their ways as their lives progress, and they find themselves doing more and more “good” acts.
Wise people tend to be good people, understanding and giving. Over time, if a person learns life’s hard lessons – again and again – that person will eventually learn that all people deserve dignity, even those who make mistakes. A wise person learns that hard work and a noble purpose will never be wasted. A wise person knows that tough decisions must be made and the people around him or her will be displeased with his or her decisions. Wise people tend to focus on eternal, big themes in their lives, not fads, fashions, or popular issues.
Wise people are wise. They focus intently on the moment and where they happen to be at that moment yet sees the eternal nature of that moment as well. They see the fleetingness of it and the whole of it.
The study of philosophy was first and foremost the study of “wisdom.” The word “philosophy” itself was first used by the ancient Greeks to mean the love (or pursuit) of wisdom. Wisdom means to understand knowledge about “things,” how this knowledge is related to each other, and what value it has. These things might be physical objects, abstract mental concepts, people, living creatures, or any other kind of knowledge.
A wise person, then, should understand what is really real, what is most true, what is most valuable to people and to existence, how everything all fits together, and why we are the way we are. A wise person should understand why we are here, what our purpose is in life – if any -- and how we should ideally behave. If there is a purpose to our lives, does this mean that we should actively seek that purpose or will we naturally follow our purpose if we simply “be ourselves”? A wise person, hopefully, makes decisions based on this understanding – based on this wisdom.
Generally, we would like our leaders to be wise. Whenever an election comes around, those candidates who have made some moral or legal or policy mistakes in their past tend to be quickly booted out of the field. But would they have made a good leader or not? Is a leader someone who doesn’t make mistakes? Which mistakes are simply too bad to allow? What really makes a wise leader?
Whenever we think of a “wise” person, do we mean a person who has never made a mistake, never taken a chance, never thought outside the box, or never pushed something past the limit? Do we mean someone who has never tried something, failed at it, and then acknowledged that it was a poor choice, and that other choices might have worked better?
I doubt if many of us would agree that a wise person is someone who never fails. Wisdom does not equate with following every rule, dotting every “i” or crossing every “t.” Wisdom does not equate with always being right and always winning. Clearly, one has to make mistakes, fail, and lose now and then in order to gain some wisdom. On the other hand, wisdom doesn’t mean being lazy, taking unnecessary risks, and failing at everything either.
Wisdom comes from logic and experience. It comes from winning and losing. It comes from making a connection, an inference, anticipating a result, then testing that inference. Wisdom doesn’t start by being sure about something; it comes from being not sure, testing it out and learning from the tests in order to have a better idea – an idea closer to the truth. Wisdom comes from seeing possible patterns and asking questions to check out ideas.
Learning is a key ingredient. If we continue to learn, then we eventually weed out trivial things in our lives and are left with things of value. We are left with conclusions that are closer to the truth about things. We are left with lessons and meanings and people who provide deeply satisfying experiences. We are left happier than before. We are wiser.
Wisdom is about knowing that some things are more important than other things; it’s about knowing that there are some things in life that make life worth living and other things that just taste sweet. Wise people see beyond the immediate consequences of an action; wise people see beyond the shininess of things; wise people see past peer pressure; wise people see value in all things but recognize the eternal value intrinsic in some things rather than other things. They see deeper truths, more true concepts.
A great musician is not someone who took all the right classes, has all the right degrees, and follows all the rules. He or she may have these things but his or her musicianship has very little to do with the formal recognition of such. Some (most?) of the greatest musicians of all time did not follow a standard formula. In fact, they broke many rules along the way to their understanding; they copied bits and pieces of melodies from others that evoked emotions or meaning; they experimented and discovered combinations of sounds that evoked other feelings or meanings, all within a moderately standardized framework.
A great athlete is not someone who took all the right kinesiology classes, had the best trainers, and makes certain moves. He or she may be but his or her athleticism and success has little to do with formal training. It often has more to do with their sandlot experience during their developing years, failing again and again until they learned what worked best. Knowledge, training, and potential helps but it not the most important aspect to their athleticism.
A wise person is not someone who followed a formula to wisdom. He or she usually made many mistakes along the way, arriving at a realization more profound than those who simply accepted a teacher’s pronouncement. These people usually learned the rules, then broke the rules and learned from either the consequences of their actions or from near tragedies.
Ignorant people occasionally seem wise but wise people are rarely very ignorant. Wisdom means learning therefore wise people tend to be very knowledgeable. They may have been arrested, used drugs, pre-judged others, or worse; however, they usually change their ways as their lives progress, and they find themselves doing more and more “good” acts.
Wise people tend to be good people, understanding and giving. Over time, if a person learns life’s hard lessons – again and again – that person will eventually learn that all people deserve dignity, even those who make mistakes. A wise person learns that hard work and a noble purpose will never be wasted. A wise person knows that tough decisions must be made and the people around him or her will be displeased with his or her decisions. Wise people tend to focus on eternal, big themes in their lives, not fads, fashions, or popular issues.
Wise people are wise. They focus intently on the moment and where they happen to be at that moment yet sees the eternal nature of that moment as well. They see the fleetingness of it and the whole of it.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Modern Conservatives and Liberals -- Core Beliefs
I was listening to some conservative rhetoric the other day on the car radio soon after reading some liberal rhetoric in the local newspaper. The perspectives from which each side came seemed to be pretty clear. In truth, there are lots of exceptions, I understand. The explanations below might seem way off base -- each side would chastise me -- but I'm only reacting to the rhetoric being put out there. These are the beliefs which each side seemed to hold:
Conservative Republicans want to use conservative and traditional morals based on Judeo-Christian values. These morals and values are used as ethical guidelines with restrictions and recommendations. Republicans also want as much freedom as possible within the confines of those traditional constraints. A republican would like nothing more than have the Constitution and U.S. Laws all based upon the Bible, and they celebrate the founding fathers; however, they want each individual to make personal choices and face the consequences for those choices. Republicans tend to be proud of the ideals set up by the founding fathers and proud of the good morals that the U.S. has stood up for throughout its history. The American flag is a symbol of high moral standards and great achievements.
Liberal Democrats want to use secular, governmental controls based on current progressive values. These values are meant as guidelines to keep people in line with restrictions and recommendations, rather than individual choices and consequences from those choices. Democrats also want as much freedom as possible but only if non-traditional; freedom to express old-fashioned Christian beliefs and to glorify America make liberals cringe. U.S. Laws should be based upon a progressive view of the world and not follow obsolete “God-given” rules. A liberal democrat would like nothing more than have all references to Judeo-Christian roots in the founding of the U.S. banned from any mention and to brand the founding fathers as what liberals believe they were – racist, misogamist, rich, white men who made their wealth on the backs of slaves. Democrats tend to feel justified being ashamed and angry at the immorality that can be found throughout America’s history, including their history of discrimination against non-Europeans, institutional racism, and colonization of non-European territories. The American flag is generally seen as a symbol of oppression.
Conservative Republicans try to follow Judeo-Christian values, with a touch of Greco-Roman ideals, in their attempt to be good people. They try to be nice, courteous, self-sufficient, courageous, male-led, female-nurturing people who care for those under their stewardship. They want freedom to try new things, to stretch and grow and be creative – therefore as a consequence regularly break those same traditional value-limitations, so then are quickly called hypocrites and judged poorly, and must somehow repent to be accepted back in the fold of the morally righteous.
Democrats also want the freedom to be creative by acting, wearing, and speaking in ways that are in opposition to traditional Judeo-Christian ideals. They adopt an evolving set of values based on progressive ideals, such as Marxism, Eastern philosophies, Liberation Theology, African Naturalism, Pseudo-Darwinism and other anti-Judeo-Christian/traditional themes. They sometimes find themselves using traditional values, such as found in Christianity, but once realized, dramatically alter the expression of those values. For example, Jesus is still worshipped but in a very different manner than a traditional WASP or Roman Catholic might do so.
The similarities are that both Republican and Democrat want morals (restrictive guidelines for right & wrong behavior) to provide ethical barriers in which we are allowed to be free. The differences are that conservative republicans attempt to base their morals on conservative, Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian – often metaphysically-inspired – traditional values. The liberal democrats attempt to base their morals on non-Judeo-Christian, non-traditional, alternative values; they admire secular, often atheistic ideals made by man's reasoning, such as Hobbes' Leviathan, rather than supernatural ideals handed down by a “historically cruel culture.”
As we can see, conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats seem to be creating a wide and often bizarre chasm between themselves. They are straying further from their own roots and becoming confused as to what they actually stand for due to the extreme rhetoric. Should we ban the rhetoric? NO! Should we speak out for reason and understanding? YES! Will we? Probably not for awhile.
Conservative Republicans want to use conservative and traditional morals based on Judeo-Christian values. These morals and values are used as ethical guidelines with restrictions and recommendations. Republicans also want as much freedom as possible within the confines of those traditional constraints. A republican would like nothing more than have the Constitution and U.S. Laws all based upon the Bible, and they celebrate the founding fathers; however, they want each individual to make personal choices and face the consequences for those choices. Republicans tend to be proud of the ideals set up by the founding fathers and proud of the good morals that the U.S. has stood up for throughout its history. The American flag is a symbol of high moral standards and great achievements.
Liberal Democrats want to use secular, governmental controls based on current progressive values. These values are meant as guidelines to keep people in line with restrictions and recommendations, rather than individual choices and consequences from those choices. Democrats also want as much freedom as possible but only if non-traditional; freedom to express old-fashioned Christian beliefs and to glorify America make liberals cringe. U.S. Laws should be based upon a progressive view of the world and not follow obsolete “God-given” rules. A liberal democrat would like nothing more than have all references to Judeo-Christian roots in the founding of the U.S. banned from any mention and to brand the founding fathers as what liberals believe they were – racist, misogamist, rich, white men who made their wealth on the backs of slaves. Democrats tend to feel justified being ashamed and angry at the immorality that can be found throughout America’s history, including their history of discrimination against non-Europeans, institutional racism, and colonization of non-European territories. The American flag is generally seen as a symbol of oppression.
Conservative Republicans try to follow Judeo-Christian values, with a touch of Greco-Roman ideals, in their attempt to be good people. They try to be nice, courteous, self-sufficient, courageous, male-led, female-nurturing people who care for those under their stewardship. They want freedom to try new things, to stretch and grow and be creative – therefore as a consequence regularly break those same traditional value-limitations, so then are quickly called hypocrites and judged poorly, and must somehow repent to be accepted back in the fold of the morally righteous.
Democrats also want the freedom to be creative by acting, wearing, and speaking in ways that are in opposition to traditional Judeo-Christian ideals. They adopt an evolving set of values based on progressive ideals, such as Marxism, Eastern philosophies, Liberation Theology, African Naturalism, Pseudo-Darwinism and other anti-Judeo-Christian/traditional themes. They sometimes find themselves using traditional values, such as found in Christianity, but once realized, dramatically alter the expression of those values. For example, Jesus is still worshipped but in a very different manner than a traditional WASP or Roman Catholic might do so.
The similarities are that both Republican and Democrat want morals (restrictive guidelines for right & wrong behavior) to provide ethical barriers in which we are allowed to be free. The differences are that conservative republicans attempt to base their morals on conservative, Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian – often metaphysically-inspired – traditional values. The liberal democrats attempt to base their morals on non-Judeo-Christian, non-traditional, alternative values; they admire secular, often atheistic ideals made by man's reasoning, such as Hobbes' Leviathan, rather than supernatural ideals handed down by a “historically cruel culture.”
As we can see, conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats seem to be creating a wide and often bizarre chasm between themselves. They are straying further from their own roots and becoming confused as to what they actually stand for due to the extreme rhetoric. Should we ban the rhetoric? NO! Should we speak out for reason and understanding? YES! Will we? Probably not for awhile.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Wisconsin Problems
The Wisconsin budget problem still disturbs me. What disturbs me is how the democratic process was thwarted. In November, citizens voted to elect representatives who would carry out their wishes. Some people did not get their wishes – that is the paradox of democracy. Those who vote for the losing candidate must live with the results. Whether the winner is George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, or Scott Walker, we must accept the legitimate winners of an election. This is democracy.
In our democracy we’re a republic, where the government is responsible to the citizens and in return the citizens must follow the laws that their representatives create; the election results must be followed even when some folks don’t like the results.
In Wisconsin, the minority Democratic representatives effectively bypassed the democratic process by leaving the state in order to avoid voting on a key bill. Whether you might like the outcome of a vote or not, in our country we must respect the outcome of the democratic process or else our country will collapse into chaos. Peaceful, non-violent protesting is our protected right and a great tool in democracy – but our representatives bypassing the laws of democracy will eventually result in mob rule. Just look around the world and you’ll see where that will lead us.
In our democracy we’re a republic, where the government is responsible to the citizens and in return the citizens must follow the laws that their representatives create; the election results must be followed even when some folks don’t like the results.
In Wisconsin, the minority Democratic representatives effectively bypassed the democratic process by leaving the state in order to avoid voting on a key bill. Whether you might like the outcome of a vote or not, in our country we must respect the outcome of the democratic process or else our country will collapse into chaos. Peaceful, non-violent protesting is our protected right and a great tool in democracy – but our representatives bypassing the laws of democracy will eventually result in mob rule. Just look around the world and you’ll see where that will lead us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)