I feel like I'm seeking in the same manner that somebody looks around for their glasses when they are right on the person's face.
I've spent a long time trying to expand upon my last entry and it has been exhausting. I've been trying to explain why I am not one thing and why I think another thing, revising opinions and scrapping entire entries and starting over. I feel like my mind is settled and that I can sit down and write, but then the dust just gets kicked up again.
I think this is mostly because, although I believe in the importance of spontaneity especially in cases of philosophy and spirituality, I never took the time to sit and lay down some basic groundwork in my own mind (for example: I am not a Catholic but I still wear a scapular). After I left the church, I wandered pretty aimlessly until I finally landed on a few ideas that have recently evolved. The problem is that I skipped over or didn't think much about the basic things and leaped right into the big ideas, using terms and concepts that I'm not sure I understand or at least haven't really taken the time to make a decision about. So a created a list of four questions that I had never genuinely asked myself.
Do I believe in God(s)?
Not as such. I do not believe in an extra/omnidimensional or omnipotent existence. It has taken me a long time to come to admit that. I held onto that concept like a child that won't give up it's security blanket. I do, however, hold existence itself in similar sort of mystical esteem. I accept the idea that there are very strange forces at work that we cannot yet hope to understand. For example, magick might actually be a thing. I don't really buy into it but it does make a certain amount of sense to me if I think of it from a sort of... psychodramatic point of view.
Do I believe in an afterlife?
No, but I do not believe that it strips us of our responsibilities and consequences of our actions.
What is the purpose of existence?
The purpose of existence is, in my mind, that there is no purpose. That existence is for existing, and every second I spend thinking about what I want from it or where it is going is a second spent not actually doing things and figuring things out. Even what I am doing right this very second is kind of weird, because while it is the exact opposite of what I have been talking about (learning and being instead of knowing and dissecting) I get enjoyment out of blathering about nothing and putting it out there for people to see. I like to entertain. I would like to see if people out there can enjoy a point of view that I quite like, and that has helped me a great deal.
So my answer to "Why are we here?" would be, to be happy and find a sense of worth in some fashion or another. Sometimes being happy means living for the moment, in a perpetual now; sometimes it means planning and doing something productive and getting that sense of worth.
I don't think it's weird to say that and turn around and say that I don't think there is a God or an afterlife. I don't believe the removal of a cosmic judge and watcher from the picture turns the idea of ethics on it's head. Which leads me to my next question.
What is good and evil?
No afterlife and God is not, in a stricter sense, a single being with a single will of it's own? No great entity comprised of pure goodness, or even goodness itself? Well then, how can we possibly make a clear, concise decision of what is good and evil? How can I claim that we ought to be compassionate when I have no basis, no creator to compare it to? I'm really tempted to just say "I don't know," and move on, but let's at least try.
For a long time I tried to distance myself from dualistic views of good and evil, mainly because of the sense that good is stronger was so heavily ingrained in me. Also because of a concept that was explained to me through the works of C.S. Lewis. He talked about how dualism doesn't work in this case because evil has to borrow free will, a good trait, to be evil. Evil has to actively decide to be so, and yet good can be good of itself or through free will.
There are ideas in there that I like and that I don't like. I like his distinction that good is not only a choice, but also that when things are the way they ought to be, it is a good thing. What I don't agree with is his assertion that free will is not a neutral thing. I certainly enjoy having free will (most of the time) and try to make the best use of it, but it can be used to perform acts on either side of the ethical fence. Saying free will is good because you don't need it to be good doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. So, to bring it back around, I can't help but have this nagging inclination that, while the "forces of good and evil" (whatever that means to you) might not be exactly equal in strength or will or power or whatever, that it's difficult to imagine one without the other. Good things are called good, I think, because they can be compared to evil.
If a person doesn't go around stabbing people, helps friends when he sees they are in distress and tries to be decent but generally minds his own business, we would say that is a good person.
If a person, say, becomes a doctor and goes overseas to help impoverished countries, donates regularly to homeless shelters and generally dedicates their life to helping others, we would say that is a very good person.
Killing people, taking their things, hurting people physically or emotionally, hatred. These are evil things, n'est-ce pas?
So if we remove the heavens from the picture we see right away that good things are things that help or at the very least don't hinder each other's lives and that, comparatively, evil things are things that create obstacles for each other. We know when something is good if it is not evil, and conversely we know something is probably bad if we can't find anything good about it. Both things will perpetuate forever or as long as humans are still around to make that distinction. So it is hard to not see it from a dualistic perspective.
So now I think I can knuckle down. Those are, to my knowledge, the questions I had really been shying away from. Just when I thought I had landed on something profound, the only thing holding me back was fear of letting go of a few things I really didn't find worthwhile in the first place. I couldn't really think about God or the afterlife because it's what my life was based around for so long, and I couldn't let go of it. I could be wrong, obviously. Everybody could be wrong. However, even if I were to return to Christianity, I'd feel good about admitting to myself that, for a while, I didn't believe in God.
I'm feeling better already.
Sorry about the J Lennon quote in the title, I couldn't resist. I used to dislike that song.
It's starting to grow on me.
Well, I just learned what a scapular is. :)
ReplyDelete(Good post overall too.)
Boy, you're really laying it out here, aren't you? :-)
ReplyDeleteI can't help but think, though, that you're still not starting at the beginning. or, at least, you're starting at the beginning of an explanation, not the beginning of a finding, if you know what I mean. What I want to know is, where did you start? Did you start with "Is there God? (yes/no circle one) or did you start with "what am I, why am I here?" I'm just curious as to your thought process. I love process.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
ReplyDeleteThe two are a more than just a little bit related, though. I feel like it's a chicken-and-egg concept. If there is a God then you bet the answer to that second question has something to do with the first. On the other hand, if the concept of God is new to you, then you might have a different idea of him in your mind because of your preconceived notions of the purpose of existence.
I don't believe because I have never felt internally, nor seen otherwise sufficient evidence for his existence. So then I have to start over on the Why and What, since the I've finally admitted to myself what I think about the Who.
Also, you said "I'm really tempted to just say "I don't know," and move on" as though that were something you wanted to avoid, but I''m not at all sure that you didn't just do exactly that in the end.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteIt was a little vague, sure. However, I think without explicitly saying so, I came to the conclusion that these concepts are given meaning through each other, and by people as things that bring prosperity and hopefully happiness. What are they? They are ideas. Helpful ones.
The commandments weren't to keep you from doing bad things, they were to keep people from doing bad things to you. Right?
So anyway, I've been wondering. I know you're rejected the idea of an omnipotent/benevolent Being. Have you rejected the idea of a Creator?
ReplyDeleteHere's my problem: I don't think good and evil *can* be defined without reference to a God of some sort. I think instances of obvious good and obvious evil can be pointed to, but that no useful definition can be reached. (And yes, I said useful definition. See, I think definitions, properly speaking, are freeing and enlightening.) How are you supposed to determine the rightness or wrongness of a possible course of action without some kind of working definition? And there are some situations where the right course and the wrong course are *very* hard to discern, and choosing the wrong one has huge implications.
That's kind of what I was intending to gradually chip out of my fuzzy comments, when I first started commenting. I was doing the whole Teacher-Socrates thing of gradually trapping you into admitting to a contradiction, then kindly point out to you how you found the answer yourself in your wanderings. But that's not only pointless, it's annoying and insulting, so I think better of it. Instead I'm just going to flat out contradict you:
I happen to think that without God, there is no accounting for good or evil. And I have yet to see a convincing definition that doesn't involve God in some capacity (even in as amorphous a position as "mystical principle of Existence").
I guess I've danced around it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think good an evil are, in the strictest sense, real things. I set out to figure out what I think they are, not justify them, nor lay out my own moral code (that's a task that's going to take a lot longer).
Currency has no actual use or value other than what we made up, yet society functions much smoother and arguably better with it. Such is the case with ethics, I think.
Does that make it not ok to get angry when there is injustice, or happy to see people help each other? Of course not. I feel like I can say "I am a good person," like a guy who has lots of money can say "I am a wealthy person."
That probably sounds nuts, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
"(And yes, I said useful definition. See, I think definitions, properly speaking, are freeing and enlightening.) How are you supposed to determine the rightness or wrongness of a possible course of action without some kind of working definition?"
First off, I know you probably didn't mean it this way, but I can't help but take that first part a bit personally. I thought I had already explained that I don't disagree with the importance of definitions and I don't know why it's being brought up again. That's probably just me being hyper-sensitive though.
However, I am pretty disgustingly vague with some of my definitions. Good and evil decisions are kind of a miasmic thing to me. There are, most of the time, rather clear courses of action to take if you want to do the right thing. Some decisions might warrant a bit more reflection than others but I think there is an ingrained behavioral instinct in most of us, call it survival instinct, or "natural law", whatever you please.
In any case, you probably WON'T find a convincing definition here since I totally acknowledge that:
- I lack consistency in what I say a lot of the time
- Everything I say here is off the cuff
- I tend to feel things out instead of articulate them
- I believe God is People
Sorry, I did mean a directed "I disagree with you" point on the definitions thing, but not an "I think you're stupid" point. Text is evil. What I was trying to do there was acknowledge a difference in our thinking that might cause trouble were we to focus on it - a first principle on which we don't agree. Which, of course, tends to invalidate our discussion to a certain extent. Let's get back to the definitions thing later, then.
ReplyDeleteThe currency/value argument is interesting, I'd never heard it laid out like that before. I like it. Of course, a man with a lot of currency can say "I am (this much) wealthy," but if his country's economy crashes, his wealth evaporates. Does that mean he was ever actually wealthy, if his wealth was not based on actual assets?
In a similar way, a person can say "I am (this much) good" (i.e. I don't hurt people, I am kind to animals, I give away X% of my income to the poor, I volunteer, etc - whatever your standards of goodness are). But there are, I think, situations in which his internal moral compass will fail him. I'm happy for you that you usually have no trouble up to now determining what is right and what is wrong. I haven't always found that to be the case. And when it's hard, it seems to be the times when it's most crucial to do the Right Thing.
Take, for example, today's Big News: US people have killed Osama bin Laden. And there was much rejoicing. People are partying in the streets because a man is dead. Seriously, what is the right way to consider this? What is the "good" course of action here? If it were so easy to know what was good, why would people be behaving so differently?
And I guess I am continuing to misunderstand you no the definitions thing. Maybe I never got what you meant in the first place when you said you thought definitions are dangerous. Maybe I'm just remembering wrong. Can you set me straight? Were you just taking a stand against Phariseeism?
ReplyDeleteMy issue with definitions is simply that people cling to them sometimes. They exist to help us further our understanding of things, I know. That's what language is for. You could say I'm talking about Phariseeism (have to admit, I had to look that one up), but it's less that I disagree with a letter-of-the-law approach (although, I do) and more that there is a lab-coat approach to philosophy sometimes (not saying that's your approach, of course), and I have a general distaste for picking things apart and dissecting them instead of looking at the whole and feeling it out.
ReplyDeleteI think SOME words define themselves. Love, for example, is a word that people argue over what it means, when I think it's self explanatory. I think there are some things (writing an entry right now, actually) that we have a very real feeling for, but no words to explain it, so we just slap one word on it, and that's the definition. Once you fall in love, you know what everybody is talking about, and everybody else who's seen love knows what you're talking about.
So picking things apart is important. Philosophy and science would have gone nowhere without it, but I think people can get caught up in it and run the risk of losing that need to gawk at everything. I'm not saying definitions ruin or cheapen concepts or life in general, I'm just saying it's hard to keep your "beginner's mind" when you get caught up in them.
Beginner's Mind (more or less I'm talking about but still very interesting, plus the beginner/expert thing is rather enlightening): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCOVusLqXmk
ReplyDeleteThe currency comparison probably shouldn't be read into too much, but yes, it can also bring up the idea that if society suddenly and unanimously decides that killing each other is the right thing to do, or some other morally bankrupted thing like that, I'd probably change my opinion on right and wrong being societally driven pretty damned fast.
I'll admit that I'm kind of in a corner in terms of where people's peopling ends and concrete ethics begins.
As for the Osama bin Laden thing, I find myself torn. The world could become a more peaceful place as a result of his death. Yet, somebody was still killed. A man is dead. Even if we are better for it, or if things are more peaceful because of it. Even if it is his own fault. A man has still been murdered.
OK, I'm feeling much more on the same page as you now. I guess where I was getting prickly was my projection of your rejection of the value of dissecting philosophical ideas. I *love* doing that, but only because it increases my enjoyment in gawking. I gawk, and then say "but how does it WORK?" and then gawk some more. And I see that you have no problem with that. So I'm at rest now. THanks.
ReplyDelete