Interesting threads of discussion in MALA-Communication...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Last class already! I'm hitting the road for my annual August meetup with far-flung friends and won't have as much time this week...
-
Dr. Phil Oliver -- phil.oliver@mtsu.edu James Union Building (JUB) 300 Our course explores American philosophy in the context of American cu...
-
Anderson, ch9-11; McDermott, ch11-12; Romano, Part 4. REPORT: Erica , Women in Philosophy... See last time's questions pertaining to Rom...
We are the culmination of our experiences, thoughts, and behaviors. This is, in part, how a sense of self is established. Thus, the ego emerges. If we do not understand or acknowledge the ego, we cannot do the work to untangle the attachment to self. The statement shared from The Philosopher and the Monk, “The state of the river at any given moment is the result of its history. In the same way, an individual stream of consciousness is loaded with all the traces left on it by positive and negative thoughts, as well as by actions and words arising from those thoughts,” alludes to the fact that our thought processes and inner dialogue are a direct reflection and combination of our experiences and interpretation of those experiences. It is not contradictory to assume that “You need first to have an ego in order to be aware that it doesn’t exist,” (The Philosopher and the Monk). It is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain an absence of being without establishing a sense of being. There is no frame of reference from which a sense of self can be undone. In theory, we strive to make sense of the world around us by defining our position in our environments and those foreign to us. Once we formulate an understanding of how we belong, we can begin the greater work unmasking the ego.
ReplyDeleteA strong sense of self is an indicator of success in life in Western culture. It is also often associated with being highly egotistical. The ego, in terms of self-assertion, is generally an obstacle to effective communication and conversation. It can impede the ability to listen critically and without concern for how the content affects the listener personally. Rather than listening for meaning, we tend to hear and develop a response. The response may often be a disguise from the ego to defend the self or self-preserve.
As one works to disseminate an attachment to self, there may be a concern that what is left is a nothingness. However, a discovery in the process is the altruistic nature and conscious adoption of the wellbeing of all other beings. When our thoughts and actions are in the best interest of others, a greater sense of indescribable fulfillment occurs. Positive thoughts and actions breed goodness and promote selflessness. Ricard illustrates this with a verse from the eight-century Buddhist sage Shantideva:
All the joy the world contains
Has come through wishing happiness for others.
All the misery the world contains
Has come through wanting pleasure for oneself.
Is there need for lengthy explanation?
Childish beings look out for themselves,
While Buddhas labor for the good of others:
See the difference that divides them!
It's so counter-intuitive to the western mind,to think that we can gratify ourselves by seeking the good of others. And, I think, it's the source of much of the partisan division that's wracked our politics and public life. Happy lives aren't ego-driven, but the disappearance of Self doesn't mean we don't still care, or can't still flourish. We seem to have a hard time getting that.
DeleteOh, and speaking of the Buddha...
Delete"As we teach children to observe physical hygiene for its health benefits, we need to teach them to cultivate emotional hygiene — to tackle destructive emotions and find peace of mind." Dalai Lama
Natalia Jiron
ReplyDeleteThoughts on Week 2
The second weeks readings were a bit more challenging for me to understand, but the Zoom class most definitely helped me understand the concepts a lot better. When it came to the topics for this week’s readings, it was a struggle to understand. I have a harder time trying to differentiate the type of concepts and vocabulary that is being used. In reading these articles and watching TED talks, I found myself researching background on the philosopher and many concepts. In my undergraduate and graduate career, I have not studied the concept of philosophy until taking this block with Professor Oliver.
In the first article, “Life, Pragmatism, and Conversational Philosophy”, I had to research the meaning of pragmatism in order to understand the basis of the article (this may seem silly). One of the main ideas that stood out to me was the concept of conversation. The article states how conversation is an important idea in being able to understand the motions behind Rorty’s philosophy. In relation to this, Rorty wanted philosophy to become a conversation. Overall, he preferred the ideas of conversational philosophers over analytical philosophers. The reason can be that they are being a part of a conversation instead of practicing a specific discipline (Zabala).
After being able to read the second article, “The Fire of Life”, I believe that I developed a different understanding of poetry. The introduction that Rorty gives sends out the message of how poetry has impacted him and how he wishes he spent more time with poetry. “I now wish that I had spent somewhat more of my life with verse. This is not because I fear having missed out on truths that are incapable of statement in prose” (Rorty). In further reading the article on about David Whyte, “The Conversational Nature of Reality”, I found it rather fascinating how captivated Whyte become through poetry. He claims falling in love with poetry at a young age and feeling being “abducted” in some type of way. The experiences from Rorty and Whyte show how the positive impact that poetry can have. Whyte’s experiences in the Galapagos allowed him to return back to poetry since he felt that the language did not match along with what he had experienced. Reading through these two articles, I have been able to appreciate poetry in a different perspective especially through some of their own works.
“I now wish that I had spent somewhat more of my life with verse. This is not because I fear having missed out on truths that are incapable of statement in prose” (Rorty)--
ReplyDeleteThis is a bit tricky. Maybe poetry conveys no particular "truths" that philosophic prose misses, but the point of James's statement that something always "glimmers and twinkles" for which familiar language comes too late, and which honest philosophers have to acknowledge, is that poetry evokes a dimension of experience and humanity that improves our lives. Rorty had technical reasons for not wanting to call that dimension a source of "truth" but it's still something he found himself wanting more of, as his life wound down. He would have envied David Whyte's earlier insight that led him to "fall in love with poetry at a young age." But it's never too late for new love, is it?
Week 2 readings
ReplyDeleteSo, am I a pragmatist? I thought I was, and I still think I lean toward pragmatism but after listening to What is Pragmatism? A discussion on the BBC's "In Our Time" I’m not as certain. According to Webster, the definition of pragmatism is an American movement in philosophy marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief. And as I understood the BBC discussion, one of the arguments against Pragmatism is that an idea’s truth isn’t always based on its usefulness, that it can be truth even if that truth isn’t useful. Of course, then you could argue, I suppose on what or how do we define usefulness? However, that pulls away from the basic question for am I a pragmatist? I would have to say that I yes, at heart my thoughts begin at the nature of practical thinking. Faced with a problem or situation that needs dealing with, I will think about possible solutions or ways of handling things, so the truths that I discover are related to a practical situation and trying to resolve that situation. However, in working to resolve practical matters, I also believe that we can discover truths that we did not consider before and even if they do not become used toward practical application of a situation, those thoughts should not always be discounted as untrue. Those unused truths by be relevant to a problem we have yet to think about which would make them useful in the future or help us shape and informed decisions we make about issues we haven’t thought of yet. I guess what I would caution myself against when looking for a practical application of thought is that I don’t discredit a though as true because it does not work with the issue I’m trying to resolve, essentially giving me to power to pick and choose what is true and ignoring the trues that I do not to deal with, the inconvenience truth. Of course, then you could get into a discussion about what is true. Is truth based only on its ability to solve practical matters. I don’t think so. But I do believe that the ability to see truth and apply those truths to practical matter helps form clearer thoughts about who we are and why we do things. So, dealing in the practical in order to “get things done”, is more of what motivates be that not, so yes, I would consider myself a pragmatist...I think.
This is the standard objection to pragmatism, that it incorrectly defines truth as usefulness. It's a serious objection, but I think it misses a crucial distinction between the definition of truth and the criteria by which we identify it. Pragmatists typically think we have no better criterion than usefulness, or practicality, or (as Wm James said, "what is better for us to believe"). That is, pragmatists may agree that truth is formally and officially DEFINED as something objective and independent of our estimation of usefulness... but they also insist that we have no other way of discerning what's true than in terms of what's useful. So, Jennifer, I do think you are a pragmatist. Me too.
DeleteJames on truth, in Pragmatism Lecture II ("What Pragmatism Means"):
...I am well aware how odd it must seem to some of you to hear me say that an idea is 'true' so long as to believe it is profitable to our lives. That it is good, for as much as it profits, you will gladly admit. If what we do by its aid is good, you will allow the idea itself to be good in so far forth, for we are the better for possessing it. But is it not a strange misuse of the word 'truth,' you will say, to call ideas also 'true' for this reason?
To answer this difficulty fully is impossible at this stage of my account. You touch here upon the very central point of Messrs. Schiller's, Dewey's and my own doctrine of truth, which I cannot discuss with detail until my sixth lecture. Let me now say only this, that truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons. Surely you must admit this, that if there were no good for life in true ideas, or if the knowledge of them were positively disadvantageous and false ideas the only useful ones, then the current notion that truth is divine and precious, and its pursuit a duty, could never have grown up or become a dogma. In a world like that, our duty would be to shun truth, rather. But in this world, just as certain foods are not only agreeable to our taste, but good for our teeth, our stomach and our tissues; so certain ideas are not only agreeable to think about, or agreeable as supporting other ideas that we are fond of, but they are also helpful in life's practical struggles. If there be any life that it is really better we should lead, and if there be any idea which, if believed in, would help us to lead that life, then it would be really better for us to believe in that idea, unless, indeed, belief in it incidentally clashed with other greater vital benefits.
'What would be better for us to believe'! This sounds very like a definition of truth. It comes very near to saying 'what we ought to believe'; and in that definition none of you would find any oddity. Ought we ever not to believe what it is better for us to believe? And can we then keep the notion of what is better for us, and what is true for us, permanently apart?
Pragmatism says no, and I fully agree with her. Probably you also agree, so far as the abstract statement goes, but with a suspicion that if we practically did believe everything that made for good in our own personal lives, we should be found indulging all kinds of fancies about this world's affairs, and all kinds of sentimental superstitions about a world hereafter. Your suspicion here is undoubtedly well founded, and it is evident that something happens when you pass from the abstract to the concrete, that complicates the situation.
(31)
I said just now that what is better for us to believe is true unless the belief incidentally clashes with some other vital benefit. Now in real life what vital benefits is any particular belief of ours most liable to clash with? What indeed except the vital benefits yielded by other beliefs when these prove incompatible with the first ones? In other words, the greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the rest of our truths. Truths have once for all this desperate instinct of self-preservation and of desire to extinguish whatever contradicts them... https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/James/James_1907/James_1907_02.html