Ants Marching, Anshu

I'd like to devote this blog post to, not so much the text, but a possible future the text implicitly points to. In one area, the author refers to ants and how one ant is willing to sacrifice itself for the benefit of the whole. In a sense, these little ants are true Buddhas, utterly desire less. Its interesting to Imagine(john lennon) a world where humans would be willing to give up their personal pleasures for the happiness of others. It's true selfish desire has it's purpose, namely competition. However, humanity has the potential for, and here is the kicker, proactive selfless development versus reactive selfish development. Personally, I aspire to the ideal that one should push oneself because it's just right, and not because reactive necessity forces our minds or bodies to do work. We are evolutionarily designed to work only when competing and relax when there is no need. But, there is a disjunction between evolution and self aware evolution. We have the ability to be proactive, and actively take evolution into our own hands. I point to Thoreau, or the Buddha. Their actions influenced billions, and will continue to do so. Similarly, our actions will absolutely do the same. If you proactively push your mind, body, and morality to extremes simply for the sake of doing so, these actions will influence mankind for millenia to come. Perhaps because of your efforts, your children will be that much smarter, and then they will be able to get into that college, and then meet that girl of their dreams, and then have many smart grandchildren who go on to help the world, who have more children who are super moral and become MLK's and Ghandis and start social revolutions because the world is not fair, and not living up to it's potential. A ripple in a pond. That what we all are. Let's try and make the ripple count.

Natural Selection of the Mind?

As we begin reading Robert Wright's book, The Moral Animal, I would like to pose a philosophical question that was prompted in Chapter 1 which is entitled "Darwin Comes of Age." When we usually talk about survival of the fittest through means of natural selection, we usually talk about the selection of the fittest genes being passed to the next generation. However, according to Wright, "if the theory of natural selection is correct, then essentially everything about the human mind should [similarly to genes] be intelligible in these terms. The basic ways we feel about each other, the basic kinds of things we think about each other and say about each other, are with us today by virtue of their past contribution to genetic sequence" (pg. 28). Therefore, if natural selection of more "fit" genes are passed on to future generations, which are intended to perfect the human race, can this process also be true of the mind, even if there is some debate as to whether it is tangibly found in the brain? Could natural selection be used to perfect the human mind, in short? What would the implications of creating the most perfect mind imaginable with respect to human nature and more specifically, the way in which humans act toward one another with respect to morality?

Regarding "Fellow-Feeling"

Adam Smith writes that we naturally take pleasure and pain from the pleasure and pain from others. He says this only works when the spectator raises their level of sympathy and the person principally concerned lowers their feeling.  However, I think there are certain situations where neither person would have to change there feelings for a connection to be made. For example, if I am talking with Amanda (who is afraid of needles) about going to the doctor and getting my blood drawn, I would not have to lower my feelings and she would not have to raise her sympathy, because we would have the same level of pain about the situation. So, I find it persuasive to say that not every situation would require a person to raise or lower their feelings.

Buddhism

In the video we watched in class, the monk Thich Nhat Hanh said regarding this concept that “Our suffering comes from our wrong perceptions…when you remove wrong perceptions, you remove the suffering…ideas like being and non-being, birth and death, coming and going are wrong ideas…ultimate reality is free from birth, from death, from coming and going, from being and non-being.” Our concept of individuality, according to the Buddhist tradition, is a wrong perception that only contributes to our suffering. If we want to eliminate this suffering, then we have to eliminate the wrong perceptions, or views, in our lives. Once we are able to accomplish this, then we are able to see how everything is connected to everything else; how there is no separation, no individualization, everything, in essence, just is. While this idea may seem like removing oneself from the picture, so to speak, and this leading to removing one’s values and aspirations from the picture as well,this is not necessarily the case. If we are acting in accordance with the Buddhist tradition we are not removing ourselves entirely from the picture, but rather, we are getting rid of the concept of ourselves as individuals, as separate entities from the world and from those things that surround us in our daily lives. Our values and aspirations still come across through the ways that we choose to act; however, we must choose to be cognizant of the fact that these ideas should not be merely limited to ourselves, but should be able to be applied universally.

Smith

in section 2 ch. 1 paragraph 9, Smith says "the man who barely abstains from violating either the person, or the estate, or the reputation of his neighbours, has surely very little positive merit.  He fulfills, however  all the rules of what is peculiarly called justice, and does every thing which his equals can with propriety force him to do, or which they can punish him for not doing.  We may often fulfill all the rules of justice by sitting still and doing nothing."  Which would you say is better: the man who does this bare minimum of social justice, caring only for himself and following the laws, or a man that tries to do good but always does more harm than good?  Do motives matter more than actions?

Back to the World of Existentialism...

In his work, "Existentialism is a Humanism," Sartre adamantly states, "there is no reality except in action...Man is nothing else than his plan; he exists only to the extent that he fulfills himself; he is, therefore, nothing else than the ensemble of his acts, nothing else than his life" (pg. 654). Do you agree with Sartre? Are we humans only determined by our acts and not by our thoughts or feelings? Sartre seems to place a great deal of emphasis on physical action, as suggested by this quote, but perhaps this is a misinterpretation? However, if this is not a misinterpretation, what would Satre say of some one who had felt that he should be a world-class musician but found that he could not perform on par with other world-class musicians and was a mediocre musician at best? That is, would he think that he was not reaching his full potential and was falling short of achieving the greatness he was capable of achieving? If a person is really the sums of his actions, it would seem to follow that any action that is taken or not taken to achieve one's end would not constitute a full life, in the eyes of Sartre. Aside from the quote, I do have one other question left with regard to Sartre's piece, "Existentialism is Humanism": Sartre seems to place a heavy emphasis on the suffering of man. In fact, he calls man "anguish" because he is thrown quite literally into a world where he has to endure not only his suffering but others' suffering as well. If indeed the world is full of suffering and man is really anguish encapsulated in flesh and bones, why does any of this matter considering existentialists do not believe in an after life? In other words, if there is no hope for an after life, then why would an existentialist claim to feel such suffering for his fellow man if he knows that all is futile and will end in its time? Why not make the most of what life has to offer with as much pleasure as possible?

The Four-Fold Path: Can it help us to find meaning?

The teachings of Buddhism are centralized around the Four Noble Truths, namely;

1) Life is suffering. It is suffering because we go through pain that is caused by various factors; pain, disease, old age, etc.
2) Suffering is caused by our cravings and aversions. That means we want/expect people to conform to our expectations and we are disappointed when they don't.
3) It is possible to overcome suffering and be happy. This can be done by being content with what we have and trying to control our "cravings" of materialistic things that don't necessarily matter.
4) Suffering can come to an end by following the Noble 8-fold path to happiness. This includes constantly being aware of our actions and introspecting them daily in order to re-evaluate how we should lead our lives.

I believe that these four truths can lead one to find meaning in one's life because while suffering is inevitable, it is possible to still find happiness amidst all the pain if we learn to introspect our actions on a daily basis. I think that's what brings us happiness - introspection. If we are able to evaluate our actions and our short-comings, we can detach or pull away from things that have the potential to bring us pain and anguish. I'm not saying that it can be eliminated, but in order to attain the highest form of happiness that even Aristotle talks about, this might be a possible route to attain it. If we're able to eliminate our expectations, there is no room for disappointment.