Due to
exams and weather, I never got around to speaking with students today. In fact,
exams will last the rest of the week and we have a long weekend due to the
holiday for MLK, Jr., so the likelihood of me getting back out into the
courtyard soon is slim. Even so, I plan to continue posting in the hopes of
drumming up more interest in our experiment.
You may
have noticed new tabs at the top of the screen. I will try to get those rounded
out in the next few days. They are self-evident in terms of what those pages
will contain, and I hope that they will be of some value to you and your own
philosophical quest.
Until then,
though, I am open to suggestions. Please use the comment box to ask your
favorite “question of ultimate concern,” as Tillich would say. I would like to
start a dialogue with readers, but I want to give you the honor of posting some
of the big questions you think about a lot. Or if you can’t really articulate
that topic or concern as a question, then write it as a statement or a single
word.
Okay. Your
turn.
Love is such a strong compelling force. Even throughout history and now love guides decisions with an iron fist. What makes love such a strong deciding factor?
ReplyDeleteAnother great comment, sir. To be completely honest, however, I have no answer to your question. Personally, I think love is such a compelling force because we are social creatures by nature and need to be accepted by others. Moreover, love is completely irrational. We cannot explain why we feel the way that we do toward others (especially our "significant" others), and we often do courageous and foolish things for love. Perhaps the reason it is such a strong deciding factor, as you put it, is due to our insatiable need for acceptance and belonging, even if this need is potentially detrimental.
DeleteDoes that even make sense? Not sure. It does in my head, but that's not saying much.
Thanks again, Korey!
Makes sense to me H. So youre saying its just human nature really? Like a bird's nature is to sing, or something along those lines? We cant help but feel love because our nature is sociable and we are compelled to fit in and be accepted by our kind. Did I get that right?
DeleteYes, you did. Perhaps it's not nature alone, as we are clearly nurtured to love and have relationships with others, too. I'm also not saying that my answer is the only answer to your question either. But what we're doing in exactly the point--to discuss these ideas in search of a potential answer that will help us further understand our world and our place within it. Our emotions certainly pre-date our ability for rational thought, which is why powerful emotions such as love can cause us to do crazy things and "guide our decisions with an iron fist" as you said. It can be difficult to override our emotions, but sometimes it's necessary for us to do so (for example, anger) for us to "fit in and be accepted by our kind."
DeleteHappiness is often seen as the be-all, end-all goal of life. But isn't pure happiness only achievable by missing out on a wide spectrum of other human experiences? Doesn't the desire to be happy itself cause pain (to riff off the Buddha), as a form of lust? And yet, happiness would seem inherently desirable; it's difficult to imagine joy as a bad thing, and failing to wish for happiness may cause stagnation in an unhappy state. As such, should the goal of life be happiness or contentment with one's current state, whatever it may be (even accepting that the state may be a negative one)?
ReplyDeleteI think the first thing to which we must attend is the definition of happiness; the way you discuss it covers both ideas, so we should parse these two concepts in order to differentiate them.
DeleteHappiness, in terms of philosophy, usually runs along the lines of the classical Greek notion of "eudaimonia." While this term is often loosely translated as "happiness" it is perhaps more accurate to translate it as "human flourishing" (although Alexander Nehamas makes an excellent case for translating it as "success" in his book _The Art of Living_). Either way, happiness in this sense is more about the quality of one's life or well-being, if you will. Additionally, we could also say that happiness in this way carries with it the connotation of "contentment" or being full, desires sated, etc. This notion of happiness would easily fit into the Buddhist practice of the middle way that you posed in the final question (to which I concur).
You also mention happiness as an experience, though. This is undoubtedly an acceptable, legitimate definition of the term, but it carries with it the idea of luck or fortune. For instance, we can think of happiness as the joy one experiences in a given moment when serendipitously crossing paths with an old friend, receiving an unexpected gift, et cetera. So, yes, trying to always seek that kind of happiness can lead to suffering and cause you to miss out on the full spectrum of human experiences as you observed.
When speaking of happiness, I'm definitely referring to the first notion rather than the second. Though there is something to be said about living mindfully in the moment through contentment that can make the second kind of happiness both spontaneous and continually accessible. Trying to meld the two, however, is the real challenge.
Thanks for your contribution, Professor Chute!
Ah, so then happiness doesn't refer to the emotion of joy, per se, which is by nature ephemeral, but more of a holistic satisfaction; thus, one could experience natural ups and downs, but the baseline would be one of contentedness. That makes sense to me as a desirable concept; I also remember that such a concept is referred to in the ideas of healthy and unhealthy sadness.
ReplyDeleteLanguage can at times be frustratingly ambiguous; how strange that a single term is used for two entirely-different emotions. But, your reply actually reminded me of a philosophy I remember hearing from several adults, one of "trying to regain a child's point of view". I feel that such an outlook would meld the two to some degree--both in the appreciation of every day as an adventure (thus, the baseline) and in the sense of wonder at the world (happy spontaneity). Of course, cultivating such a mindset is the real challenge...
Thanks for the reply and clarification!
My pleasure, Prof! And, yes, language (English in particular) is frustratingly ambiguous at times, which is why I always encourage others to be compassionate to those who are learning English as a second language--definitely not an easy task. Other languages often have multiple words that offer a particular concept nuance and refinement (e.g. ancient Greek having three words for "love": eros, philos, and agape). I'd imagine you have also discovered a similar phenomenon in your Japanese studies. Either way, I'm sure you see/appreciate how it is necessary to be specific with our diction when discussing these ideas. Besides, being as precise as possible is half the fun of philosophy ;-)
DeleteThanks again for checking in and commenting, sir.
P.S. - You just gave me an idea for today's post!