The Philosophy Thread

That beliefs exist? Yes, they surely do. But, to me, a belief is not the same thing as a subjective truth. A belief may be held in the absence of evidence. You can even run into things like blind faith. But a truth is more securely held. I've got 60+ years of observation, evidence and analysis leading me to the subjective truths I now hold. I know not all agree with me, but it works for me. :)
Came across this this morning, which seems apt here: the Hindu concept of shraddha, which "is literally 'that which is placed in the heart,' : all the beliefs we hold so deeply that we do not think to question them. It is the set of values, axioms, prejudices, and prepossessions that colors our perceptions, governs our thinking, dictates our responses, and shapes our lives, generally without our even being aware of its presence and power. This may sound philosophical, but shradda is not an intellectual abstraction. It is our very substance."

Ecknath Easwaran, The Bhagavad Gita, Introduction, p. 63 (Nilgiri Press 2007).

Interestingly, perhaps, the book was printed in Canada.
 
It's apropos that Graham brought up shraddha, because I was thinking deeply about something similar the other day, although perhaps not in terms quite as deep.

I'll try to articulate it, but this is a stream of consciousness, so I might repeat myself slightly, and I'll try not to.

Regarding national differences, religious differences etc. that are set into us so deeply that they lead to conflict: can we -- perhaps not the entire human race, but perhaps a section thereof -- can we, just for one moment, set aside the things that divide us (our nations, our religions, our "races" -- whatever that is) and remember, even just for a second, that underneath our disparate communities and customs and communal clothes and separate foods, we are all part of the same 'race', which is the human race?

That's as politely as I can ask that question.

Can we do that? Please? It'd be a heck of a nice change. Enough of the petty squabbling. Is it such an impossible dream? Yes, there will be plenty of people who will try to divide us, but let's notice who they are -- politicians and religious leaders, especially the ones noted for their zeal; the same people, in fact, in whose name all the fighting and the squabbling happens. And where do you think they are when that happens, hmm? One moment they're shouting "Forward, brave comrades!", but the next, I'll bet you dollars to donuts (or brownies to borscht) that they'll be the ones in that bunkbuster-proof bomb shelter and wearing the only bullet-proof vest that's truly bullet-proof.

See, I've never been interested in, or impressed by, anyone calling himself a "keynote speaker" who tries to rally up a crowd. While everyone's shouting "Yeah!" and clapping like trained seals, I'll be the one on the fringes, keeping notes and occasionally rolling my eyes at the opprobrium. I've read enough history to know that orators like this come and go.

Isn't it time we evolved beyond our simian origins? When we were barely humans, we flung our own excrement at each other. Then we graduated to rocks, arrows, bolts, bullets, cannon balls, grapeshot, and artillery shells ... and now we congratulate ourselves on our stock of nuclear bombs. We say: you better watch out, cousin, 'cos we got enough biochemical weapons and dirty bombs to wipe you out if you even look at me cockeyed. We got so many nuclear bombs, we can wipe out the entire planet if we wanna.

But I, in my temerity, ask: why? Why destroy this little blue-green marble, this wonder on whose our entire existence depends? Why bomb each other? Why kill and stab and rape and murder? Isn't it enough to stand in the park on a bright, sunny day, and stare in awe at a bird on a tree and wonder how they, through millions of years, became what they are? Or look out across a dazzlingly white panorama of snow and glittering ice on a winter's morning, while gratefully sipping a cup of hot chocolate -- with cinnamon, no less -- and count our blessings for being alive, despite the fact that we'll only be here for such a brief time-span, geologically speaking, that the ONLY thing -- we can do is love, or at least try to tolerate, our fellow human beings?

All this anger. All this destruction. All this thisness. It's enough to make you cry, or start to pray ... or write unabashedly unphilosophical, irreligious, deeply spiritual rants like this.

So maybe our race is doomed to destroy itself. Maybe our planet is doomed to a nuclear holocaust. It's survived much worse than us. But will we?
 
@Rath Darkblade - thank you for the heartfelt expression that I am sure many people share.

Yes indeed - "Why can't we all just get along?"

It's a complicated question, and there are so many dynamics at play.

If I had to choose one area where we can make progress, it would be in education. High school students should be exposed to a wide range of different ideas, and critically examine them, especially in the context of history.
 
I just thought about this a while ago: World War II was the last time that young people were obliged to be companions to other young people of different cultures, before their own beliefs of culture became solidified. They met people from other walks of life and...here's the main thing....trusted those people with their lives. Their shraddha was still largely unformed and amenable to change. And that might have contributed to the progressive attitudes that culminated in the civil rights movement and concern about the ecology. Now, of course, most of that exposure to people of different races and religions and classes come primarily from second-hand sources like the media, but true contact is scarce. Social media is designed to filter out all the influences of people who are not like us, and to reflect only our own self-images and political views back at us. In our social cocoons, we aren't as aware that we still depend on each other for survival.
 
Speaking of history, February is Black history Month and on this day in 1906, Paul Laurence Dunbar, the prolific and renound, black poet and novelist, passed away at the age of 33. Dunbar's impressive body of work is considered instrumental in establishing African American literature and as a vital picture of Negro life after the American Civil war. Here is one of his best known poems:

Sympathy

By Paul Laurence Dunbar

I know what the caged bird feels, alas!
When the sun is bright on the upland slopes;
When the wind stirs soft through the springing grass,
And the river flows like a stream of glass;
When the first bird sings and the first bud opes,
And the faint perfume from its chalice steals—
I know what the caged bird feels!

I know why the caged bird beats his wing
Till its blood is red on the cruel bars;
For he must fly back to his perch and cling
When he fain would be on the bough a-swing;
And a pain still throbs in the old, old scars
And they pulse again with a keener sting—
I know why he beats his wing!

I know why the caged bird sings, ah me,
When his wing is bruised and his bosom sore,—
When he beats his bars and he would be free;
It is not a carol of joy or glee,
But a prayer that he sends from his heart’s deep core,
But a plea, that upward to Heaven he flings—
I know why the caged bird sings


In Canada we honour the men of No.2 Construction Battalion – Black Canadians who fought not only for their country, but the right to serve it. When Black volunteers were rejected for racist reasons, they and their communities pressed to be allowed to serve. In 1916, a Black labour battalion was authorized. More than 600 Black men from across Canada answered the call.
 
I just thought about this a while ago: World War II was the last time that young people were obliged to be companions to other young people of different cultures, before their own beliefs of culture became solidified. They met people from other walks of life and...here's the main thing....trusted those people with their lives. Their shraddha was still largely unformed and amenable to change. And that might have contributed to the progressive attitudes that culminated in the civil rights movement and concern about the ecology. Now, of course, most of that exposure to people of different races and religions and classes come primarily from second-hand sources like the media, but true contact is scarce. Social media is designed to filter out all the influences of people who are not like us, and to reflect only our own self-images and political views back at us. In our social cocoons, we aren't as aware that we still depend on each other for survival.
You would have to qualify that between East and West as the WWII experience had some very not progressive effects elsewhere. Maybe it was an opportunity for Americans to be exposed to other cultures, but the Europeans have been doing that forever and didn't become more progressive either.
 
You would have to qualify that between East and West as the WWII experience had some very not progressive effects elsewhere. Maybe it was an opportunity for Americans to be exposed to other cultures, but the Europeans have been doing that forever and didn't become more progressive either.
I agree that Europeans would be exposed to other cultures, but I don't think it was common for them to really interact on a life-threatening basis. German soldiers were fighting alongside other Germans, French alongside other French, British alongside other British. They were already associating with their fellow soldiers on a fairly homogenous basis.

But there were units that mixed the national cultures together, usually for specific operations. And there as a lot of cross-training going on, as American soldiers were teaching their techniques for combat and equipment usage to the British and vice versa. Whether these people brought a form of progressive thought back home, I don't know.
 
I just thought about this a while ago: World War II was the last time that young people were obliged to be companions to other young people of different cultures, before their own beliefs of culture became solidified. They met people from other walks of life and...here's the main thing....trusted those people with their lives. Their shraddha was still largely unformed and amenable to change. And that might have contributed to the progressive attitudes that culminated in the civil rights movement and concern about the ecology. Now, of course, most of that exposure to people of different races and religions and classes come primarily from second-hand sources like the media, but true contact is scarce. Social media is designed to filter out all the influences of people who are not like us, and to reflect only our own self-images and political views back at us. In our social cocoons, we aren't as aware that we still depend on each other for survival.
Social media backfired. It claims to bring us together but it tears us apart.
 
If I had to choose one area where we can make progress, it would be in education. High school students should be exposed to a wide range of different ideas, and critically examine them, especially in the context of history.

But, like, I parrot ideas that, like, my peers tell me about, and like...Iunno...

Social media is makin' us dumb...or...whatever...

*walks away cluelessly*
 
Does writing make you present with yourself? And does that make you happy?

I am asking in the context of this quote from Søren Kierkegaard (May 5, 1813–November 11, 1855)

The unhappy person is one who has his ideal, the content of his life, the fullness of his consciousness, the essence of his being, in some manner outside of himself. The unhappy man is always absent from himself, never present to himself. But one can be absent, obviously, either in the past or in the future. This adequately circumscribes the entire territory of the unhappy consciousness.
 
I would say that when I am truly into writing, or into any activity, when I am "in the flow," I am contented, which I consider more than happy, and I believe at those times I am actually less present with my "self" as a psychological construct, and more present with my inner being that underlies any sense of self.
 
Yes! Like Graham, when I am writing a new chapter, everything else goes on hold. Nothing matters except the writing, the research, the finding out of new things that matter to the chapter I'm working on, and the search for synonyms so I don't accidentally use the same word twice because I don't pay attention to such minutiae because I'm so much "in the flow". (Sorry for that run-on sentence). :)

This especially happens when I get critiquing comments and have to solve them within a specified time. (My critique partner and I give each other a submission each to critique on Friday mornings). I'm conscious of that, so I try to finish 'solving' the critique comments before then. Each 'comment' is like a puzzle to be solved, or a brain teaser, or finding a new word in Scrabble.

For instance, how do I give my protagonist more internals, so it's more obvious what she thinks? How does my protagonist overcome problem ABC (without 'cheating' in some way)? And so on.

Obviously, I also take pauses to eat dinner and such. ;-P
 
I am actually less present with my "self" as a psychological construct, and more present with my inner being that underlies any sense of self.

I love this. I was reading this morning about the ontological basis of shradda - thanks again for introducing me to the concept - and your words here seem to echo what I read - about how shradda is an inherent nature – an internalization of reality - rather than as a property of language or knowledge.
 
Back
Top