A little bit of a supplementary for the last entry. I had a comment from my sister and I was going to quickly answer in the comments section, but I feel as though this warrants some more careful consideration. So, Sarah's original quote was as follows:
"Not out of virtue or duty, but because this is another one of those contradictions. If one accepts and reaches out to people and remain unconcerned about having the same be given back to them, they will begin to feel a welling of happiness within them."
Do you suppose that this feeling of well-being springs from nowhere? Could it be possible that virtue and duty are in our nature and therefore give us feelings of well-being? A thing is best itself when it complies with its own nature. I think the virtue part is necessary, as it saves this magnanimity you speak of from being condescending and self righteous and prideful.
I love that prayer of Francis too (being a Franciscan)... Have you read his Canticle of the Sun? The language or ideas may first offend you but I am sure as you contemplate it you will love it!
Sarah:
I absolutely agree with you. Virtue and duty are very real and important things, but in being virtuous for the purpose of being a virtuous person I believe there is a danger of not just, as you say, being self-righteous but also of forgetting our nature. Similarly, doing things merely because they are your duty can lead to grudges and dissatisfaction. Putting names on positive qualities gives them a strict definition, which is good in many ways, but also makes them easier to corrupt and even easier to lose sight of what they really are. It's difficult for me to make sense of all this, because defining the attributes is a tricky and dangerous thing.
Virtue is close to the idea I'm trying to convey, but I feel like this nature is sort of inexplicable and even if I could explain it, then I would end up trying to pursue this explanation instead of the real thing. The closest thing I can say is that there are just Things You Do and Ways You Think that are either a part of your nature and therefore good for you (producing nice things like peace, happiness, satisfaction etc.) or they are contrary to it and will twist you in bad ways. It is my conviction that it is in our nature to be kind.
However, now arises the argument that we are all different emotionally, physically and even spiritually. Why on earth would our natures all be the same?
While it's true that there are no two people exactly the same, we all (typically) have bodies that function in the same. Our hearts pump blood through our bodies, our lungs take in oxygen, our livers cleanse our bodies of toxins. When one of these things stops working, we get sick and die.
I believe we are all different and that being different from each other is (sometimes) what makes this an interesting and beautiful world to live in (RAINBOWSBUNNIESSUNSHINELOVEPEACEHAPPINESS whew, I had to get that out of my system). However, much like the human body and it's organs I think we all have an underlying nature or "spiritual organs" if you will.
So there it is. I think.
I wrestled for a long time over how to end this entry but came up with nothing. Be well.
Oh wow. There are so many things to discuss in here. May I?
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'd like to ask you what is the goal of being virtuous?
Second, I would like you to defend your position that defining things is dangerous, because I think it's almost unqualifiedly good, and even necessary.
I'll go on after we've talked about those things a bit. :-)
Thanks a lot for the comment! Everything is appreciated.
ReplyDelete1) I'd be hard pressed to tell you what I actually thought the real goal of leading a virtuous life is other than it just seems to be the way to go about things. In a sort of Epicurean way, I suppose, it's because virtue brings with it friendship, love (of others and of yourself), wisdom and other things necessary to live a pleasant life.
I do have a problem thinking in terms of spiritual "goals" though. I don't take issue with people that think that way, but I have difficulty with it myself. My thoughts keep drifting back to Taoism, that it's not precisely virtue, but "nature," defined in Taosim as "that which happens of itself," that is what must be grasped in order to live a good life.
So, if I haven't gone way off the point, perhaps the goal of virtue is to be a tool to comprehend something higher or more important?
2) To me definitions are usually good and necessary to a point.
Two entries ago I touched on objective and subjective truths and how I wrestle with the concepts of each. Some things just are. I exist. I am sitting. I am at a computer. Computers do certain things. You are reading this.
You could argue all of those points, but for the sake of sanity, let us assume they are universally true. Now we get to the hard questions:
What is love?
What is happiness?
What is hatred?
What is God?
What am I?
What is success?
These are things that mean different things to different people, and it is very difficult to express them in words. Even canonical things about God and virtue and justice at least partially need to be experienced before an understanding can be reached. As cheesy as it is, you can't know what love is until you can finally say, "So this is love."
Definitions are necessary. However, when dealing with important concepts, I feel definitions are flimsy and can only be understood through experience aided by conversation and interaction.
This is all sort of off the top of my head, though, like everything in this journal. Take it with mountainous piles of salt.
OK, well. Let's talk about this. Would you say that "personal growth" is a term you could describe as a positive good, a better term to use than "virtue?" Because, see, we can't even really have a discussion unless we have *some* definitions out there on the table. No agreement in first principles = no progress possible.
ReplyDelete(And, briefly, back to the issue of peace, happiness, well-being as the reward of virtue, in that case, you *are* performing acts of kindness in the hope of reciprocation and reward, just not from the objects of your kindness. And if you stop feeling the peace that comes with "virtue" (or whatever you want to call it), is it OK to stop? Because a lot of the time, being nice really sucks hard.)
So. Living a good life. In order to do it, you have to work at it. If it were not so, then waaaaaay more people would be doing it. I think it's safe to say that there is a lot of good in the world, in mankind, and it's also safe to say that there is a lot of ugliness too. If a "good life" happens of itself, then why is it so damn hard for so many?
And then, to work at something is to move in a definite direction. Towards a more proper orientation. A Goal. Your goal is a well-lived life.
(I am going to go out on a limb here and risk sounding mean, condescending, and a variety of other spiritual insults, and hope that you don't take them that way, because I'm trying to say them in charity - imagine a very nice look on my face, eager, respectful, and a very gentle tone, somewhat questioning but not didactic.)
I think it is intellectual cowardice to shrink from defining the hard stuff, just as much as it is intellectual effrontery to try to define them without working your way up. If you are a thinking person, earnestly engaged in a search for truth, goodness and wisdom (and I think you are), then all your intellectual exercise will guide you along a path of greater and greater enlightenment, which will allow you to define those greater and even greatest goods. Such definitions may only mean something to you in their finest details, since they must be discovered personally to be understood, and they will evolve as you evolve. But they will give you and your interlocutors (for everyone should have many) a launching point for mutual exploration. People are social for a reason - variety in life makes us able to help illuminate each other.
So I ask you again, what is the goal of a virtuous life?
Oh hey, I just said the same thing you said:
ReplyDelete"when dealing with important concepts, I feel definitions are flimsy and can only be understood through experience aided by conversation and interaction"
so now I'm confused. Are you saying definition = good, or definition = bad? Or are you just saying "don't throw your definitions at me"? I'm ready for conversation and interaction - let's define some crap!
Two parter.
ReplyDeleteI'm saying that definitions on the hard stuff run the risk of making people settle on what they were told something is. You say "tree" and I know what that is because I have seen one, but if I hadn't I might be just as happy never seeking one out and accepting your description, which arguably limits my imagination and understanding. I've already said that they are good and necessary things.
As for virtue being personal growth, I suppose that might be a better angle, or perhaps just "nature," but as I mentioned in the original post, it's not something I have a name for. It's like Jesus telling parables, or Zen and Taoist masters speaking in confusing contradictions (sound deafens, colour blinds, go East to go West, etc.).
They tell you what it's like as opposed to what it is. Guidance but not education (and of course education is important).
It's like Lao-tzu said, "Nature can never be completely described, for such a description of Nature would have to duplicate Nature."
Just as much as it may be intellectual cowardice not to at least attempt to define the hard things, I believe (imagine me saying this as nice as possible as well, not pointing fingers or making accusations) it's spiritual fraud to think that you can pin it down through logic. Enlightenment is, I believe, equal parts seeking answers and quiet acceptance. At least I think so. I doubt I'm exactly an enlightened one.
Perhaps I'm at a disadvantage because so much of my argument hinges on it not being an argument, but a thing that can't be argued or explained (jokes, hahahaha).
"Living a good life. In order to do it, you have to work at it. If it were not so, then waaaaaay more people would be doing it. I think it's safe to say that there is a lot of good in the world, in mankind, and it's also safe to say that there is a lot of ugliness too. If a "good life" happens of itself, then why is it so damn hard for so many?"
If there is a God and he is good and just, why is there so much ugliness in the world? That's not an attack on anybody's beliefs or anything, because I know the answer. We have the gift of free will. We are, to my knowledge, the only creatures on the planet who have the capability to behave in a way that isn't beneficial to either our species or to a large degree, our ecosystem.
Enter meditation. Or "naval-gazing" as it is disaffectionately referred to by some. Sometimes it is searching the self, and sometimes it is quieting the mind completely. Just as too much good food, water, and exercise can be harmful, I believe that it can be the same with thinking. Too much thinking can lead to overvalue of possessions, being too ambitious, jingoism, pride etc. (although most of those things can also be caused by not enough thinking).
The "void," or "nothingness," that Eastern philosophers speak of isn't some kind of non-existence, or black hole. Rather, to completely oversimplify it, a state of simply "being," that is needed to discover your
ReplyDeletenature.
"you *are* performing acts of kindness in the hope of reciprocation and reward, just not from the objects of your kindness. And if you stop feeling the peace that comes with "virtue" (or whatever you want to call it), is it OK to stop? Because a lot of the time, being nice really sucks hard."
I've never been back-stabbed, mugged, or particularly abandoned, so I can't say for sure how much it would suck to be kind in more extreme instances. I have, however, had plenty of instances where something has had a lasting negative effect on me and I had every reason to blame somebody else. The more I practiced compassion, not bearing grudges, and trying to understand where other people are coming from, the freer and happier I felt. It sucked at first, and still does sometimes, but it softened over time. I think in that respect, it's the angle you approach it from? One can act nice, but you're going to explode if they don't actually feel like being nice?
As for the first point, yes. It's almost as though not having a goal is the goal. Without thinking about reward, you are rewarded. I'm happy because I'm not concerned with being happy in order to be happy so that I can continue to not concern myself with being happy. It's circular, I admit. I'll get back to you sometime on that one.
OK, I'm very much with you so far. Too much thinking, bad. Yes. Purely logical definitions, limiting. Yes. Being good when it makes you feel crappy, eventually maks you feel good. Yes.
ReplyDeleteTry this (and guess who wrote it!):
To reach satisfaction in all, desire satisfaction in nothing.
To come to knowledge of all, desire the knowledge of nothing.
To come to possess nothing, desire the possession of nothing.
To arrive at being all, desire to be nothing.
To come to enjoy what you have not, you must go by the way in which you enjoy not.
To come by a knowledge you have not, you must go by a way you know not.
To come to the possession you have not, you must go by a way in which you possess not.
To come to be what you are not, you must go by a way in which you are not.
When you delay in something, you cease to rush towards the all.
to go from the all to the all, you must deny yourself of all in all.
And when you come to the possession of the all, you must possess it without wanting anything.
In this nakedness, the spirit finds quietude and rest,
for in coveting nothing, nothing tires it by pulling it up
and nothing oppresses it by pushing it down,
because it is in the center of humility.
Oops... in the 3rd line, that should be "to come to possess all, desire the possession of nothing." duh.
ReplyDeleteSounds like either Shunryu Suzuki or St. Francis.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe St. John?
It's St John of the Cross, co-re-founder of the Carmelite order, and my new favorite spiritual writer. What do you think of it?
ReplyDeleteI quite like it.
ReplyDelete