June 29th, 2010 §
There are three positions one can take regarding the existence of God. First, in no particular order, is the atheist. Regarding God, the atheist claims that God does not exist. The second view is the agnostic school of thought. A person who maintains this position follows a “believe it when I see it” stance (i.e. suspended judgment).
Finally, there is the theist position. A person who subscribes to this school of thought believes (or asserts) that there is a God. This theistic position tends to embrace the monotheistic position of the Abrahamic Traditions, as does the atheist in their counterarguments. On the other hand, non-Abrahamic religious tradition are rarely discussed.
The Atheistic and Theistic Positions Relative to Asian Thought
Atheism is a common claim in the west. Yet in some Asian traditions, God is seen differently. For example in Hinduism, Brahman is both transcendent (transcends the spatial-temporal realm), and as well as immanent and manifest (exists in the world). This God, termed “Brahman” in the Hindu Religion, has no anthropomorphic qualities and is impersonal.
In Vedanta (Hindu philosophical thought), the self is considered God. This school of thought also involves a transcendental entity whom is present in the world.
In the Buddhist Theravadist tradition, there is no God at all. It’s believed that things exist because everything else exists in its own fashion – a concept that’s related to dependent origination. The structure of the universe is intrinsically tied to everything else, and everything depends on everything else for its form and structure. In this system, God is not essential and therefore the atheist claim would not be pertinent.
The Burden of Proof – The Atheist or the Theist?
So who should have to defend the assertion that God either does or does not exist? Is it the atheist, or the theist? Before we decide this, we have to figure out who is making the primal claim (e.g., the theist claim that God exists or the atheist claim that God does not exist).
Ordinarily one might think that the burden of proof rests with the atheist because it is normal and reasonable to think that God exists, or so it seems. Christians often ask the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” It seems the only answer to this problem is that there is some creator. Therefore, it seems that the atheist would need to defend their position.
But it is not always clear that a creator is necessary as shown by the Buddhist position of dependent origination. Perhaps the Christian position could run into problems with the Hindu position as well, because Hinduism’s all encompassing Brahman is prior to the creator Brahma (e.g., the creator God that is simply a manifestation of the transcendent and immanent Brahman).
The Existence of God: The Imperative of Theistic Proof
Nevertheless, the atheist position is nearly impossible to prove. One might say that unicorns do not exist. However, the only way one could know that is by turning over every rock and stone in the universe to show that the unicorn is absent.
On the other hand, the theist has a better option to prove God exists. To say that a unicorn exists one simply has to identify a unicorn if such a thing is possible, and all doubt is removed. So it seems fitting that the theist should step up and provide proof for God’s existence. Yet the problem for the theist is that they cannot just invite God over for dinner. Therefore arguments for the existence of God were needed by the theists.
The Theist and Philosophy
During the middle ages the priests and theologians of the day preserved philosophy. Philosophy was considered “The handmaiden of religion.” During medieval times, philosophy was used to go beyond belief, which formed the core of the Christian tradition; to go beyond and use philosophy, or rational arguments, to support the assertion of the existence of God.
If proving that God does not exist is almost impossible, it seems incumbent on the theist to prove their position. The atheist and theist positions on what is called the theistic arguments for God I will link to soon.
Sources:
Honderick, Ted., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1995
Hyman, Arthur., Walsh, James J. eds. Philosophy in the Middle Ages: The Christian, Islamic and Jewish Traditions. Hackett Publishing Company: Indianapolis, 1973
Stewart, Melville.,Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology of Contemporary Views. Jones and Bartlett Publishers: Boston, 1996
January 17th, 2010 §
While I’ll be updating my blog here from time to time with my personal writing, I’m now working as a content writer on Suite101. If you’d like to read my essays there (right now basic philosophy essays) then come on over! The essays are more of a textbook variety explaining basic concepts, at least for now. Click Here
December 6th, 2009 §
The world is so disparate. But that is changing with the homogenization of the world. Of course heterogeneous is the preferred nomenclature for the god fearing lot. Celebrating difference and also ridiculing it is the favorite pastime of US proletariat. I’m better, you are worse! Always if someone is doing better than oneself then they are a object of scorn. And the envy and hate gushes profusely from one’s veins. Conceit rules the day.
And love, oh love. For what is love? To love so intensely one must be deeply attached to that which one wants to possess. Likewise hate is a passionate feeling as well for those who desperately practice avoidance. Love for the creator, vindictiveness and scorn for the created. What an uncomfortable existence. What then is one to do?
Our innermost psyche embraces the emblems of religion. Like food and water it finds a place for us who are so alone. Jesus lives in our lives and Jesus is implanted in our brains. The emotions run rampant. To serve Jesus is to serve oneself. To deny him is to threaten ones very existence. No wonder those who betray the popular conceptions of Jesus are cursed and damned. Being damned is especially pronounced by apostates that reject popular Islam. For Jesus to love us he must love ourselves truly. For Jesus can love nothing else if it is not another. Love is like that. For to love oneself only without God or ideology is a form of narcissistic masturbation.
The irony is lost on this fundamentalist lot that Jesus in his portrayal is feminized. Long flowing locks of hair. Long gowns which adorn him and his disciples. But Jesus is a holy icon. He is almost neutered and no reference is made to his sexual preferences. This idealization appeals to a unity between both sexes. Like the Virgin Mary who gives birth without the benefit of male impregnation, sex is taboo and repressed and objectifed in a passion for the God Almighty. One is reminded of the holy rollers writhing in extacy in the church aisles.
Unfortunately like many philosophers Jesus was executed. His teaching if they are indeed his are flowery, rhapsodic and wonderful. Yet the brutal exection has become the purpose of his life. I hope my life is remembered more for how i lived my life rather than how I died. A tombstone looks so cold alone in the ground.
With the spread of the western worldview there is an attempt to indoctrinate other belief systems into our “natural” calling. These heterogenists have no qualms about homogenizing the peoples of Asia, Africa and elsewhere in this shadowy mind altering belief. At the beck and call of one’s master – the priest or pastor of the parish, these fundamentalist laity move as ordered to serve their holy masters. And if asked they fall like lemmings off a cliff in protection of their God fearing beliefs. Ideology is like this. But ideological narcisism is not particular to western religion.
In fact it is not particular to religion at all. Atheist ideology killed more people in the 20th century than all other groups combined. One only needs to look at Mao or Stalin or Pol Pot. Radical communism is not different from fundamentalist religion. Both are ideologically driven, both see the coming of a new age whether on earth or in heaven and both emphasize struggle and death to achieve the promised land. Both being contrarian in nature this explains why the fundamentalists hate the communist and the communists hate the fundamentalists. Well perhaps “hate” is too harsh because one would be more than happy to convert and “save” the other.
The kinder and softer socialism is like those who embrace others with the love of Jesus. But like the radical communists, the more radical fringe of the fundamentalists becomes hateful, tyrannical and murderous. Just as the priests are out to save souls and are the most excellent of all, the doctors of Cuba are out to save the world from one’s physical ailments. One caters to the soul and the other caters to the body but in fact both are ideological in nature.
Both worldviews take hold in the psyche, Whether we side with the communist homogeny or the christian heterogeny. World business has already thrown heterogeny to the wind. The world nature of business and greed trumps ideology and nationality. The fundamentalist Christians rail against the one world government and pray for help from their savior to remain free. Socialism in the US is manifested in their minds now in the debate over health care and is considered the biggest threat to the fundamentalists of their God given freedom. But then is socialism taking over?
Hardly. Only the amassing of capital is the owners creed. Radical communism is not any more dictatorial than fundamentalist religious totalitarianism. According to the capitalists, whatever gets the job done. Encouraging ideology among the masses but valuing only the acquisition of wealth for themselves the proletariat ideology serves the capitalist bosses well. Threatened with the fear of slavery from the socialists or the socialists fear of being exploited by their capitalist bosses all people are kept off balance in a constant state of limbo, never finding their balance in the world that shakes constantly from financial earthquakes and aftershocks. But as long as lip service is paid to the “love of Jesus” by the politicians or the martyrs of the revolution by the “communists” the capitalist bosses grow and thrive like a rapacious ivy run amok.
November 25th, 2009 §
Well the economy has tanked. All manufacturing has fled the country. We are in a terrible mess but perhaps the politicians will rescue us.
What were politicians thinking when they signed these free trade agreements? Are they working for some foreign power? How could they sell their constituents down the river? Now the unemployment rate is over 10.2 percent nationally and the population is in an uproar. But what is the complaint about anyways? There is plenty of work.
The military is hiring. The US with bases around the world and two wars and two impending conflicts there is no shortage of military employment. So step right up and sign your life away. Lucky for the rich that there is no forced conscription and that this military is all “volunteer.” People that need to feed their families who have no gainful means of employment are stuck.
One wonders whether this is intentional. The only possibilities for employment in the US generally is the war munitions plants or in the service using these weapons. Also sales of these weapons still are in great demand around the world. Well we may not export anything else but war munitions, but what else do we have to export if we control the use of these weapons. The fact of the matter is that we need no manufacturing base in order to fulfill the basic needs of US citizens. The vast armament of military weapons enable the US to take pretty much whatever it wants at will. Using poor citizens, instilling in them patriotism while blinding them to the true intention of their mission, they serve as fodder for the ruling elite. The military may offer menial pay but ultimately good benefits and a good retirement plan if you live and last to retirement.
I wonder if it is just coincidental that the impoverished economy is an intended result to enforce conscription. At any rate it seems like an expected outcome, if it is not an intended outcome (come on the government knows what is happening) because of the massive taxpayers fortunes poured into the military services. With the demand for troops and and the hazardous nature of military duty some incentive must be implemented. What is better than the financial incentive. Let’s face it, the military would have a difficult time reaching it’s quota without the dismal economy. Universal conscription is not the preferred option because of the risk of a public outcry by the privileged classes. The military industrial complex no longer is an aspect of US life but has become the only game in town. The international business conglomerates have no allegiance to the US and it’s workers. They happily abandon the US workers and happily subject them to world conflict, those being asked to lose their lives for the interest of business and the ruling class.
The US simply provides the brute force that constrains those who would obstruct our policies of controlling the worlds resources. But if the world conglomerates have no allegiance to the US worker then how are these spoils to be distributed? Certainly the wheel for the war industry must be greased and the military work force must have the basics for life in order to serve their function in allegiance to their capitalist bosses. Ultimately of course the capitalists are looking to acquire the greatest profits at the least expense. If this means moving former US jobs to sweat shops in the third world so be it.
One might wonder why the US is awarded this function of being the world’s defenders of the capitalists. Couldn’t this be outsourced too? Some countries may not be so malleable when it comes to corporate influence. The corruption of the US government is so pronounced it aint funny. Bribery is legal. What else would you call a politician that is bred from infancy with special interest money who is to serve their whole career for their oligarchical cronies. If for a second they drop the ball they are consigned to obscurity as they would be attacked by the corporate media and all funding would be removed for future campaigns. This spells disaster. The fact of the matter is business owns the government and indirectly (well not so indirectly) the war machine. Eventually the military itself may be outsourced if suitable corrupt and trustworthy governments can be found with a hungry military which is willing to die for less.
Stay tuned, the next act is coming soon.
November 20th, 2009 §
One of the classic problems in philosophy is Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover”. The question is how can something move and at the same time move itself? One problem with this idea is is that what is moved the mover? We are drawn into an infinite regress. We have the thing that moved moved by a prior mover which in turn must have a prior mover moving it. So we never arrive at a state of stasis and always must look for previous movers.
Another problem is that if something creates something then the thing it creates must be distinct from that which was created. But when something is created the thing it creates is foreign to the creator. If this creation is foreign to God then how can God be all-powerful? It seems clear that the thing God creates is limited in contrast to God’s infinite power. How can this be? It seems that the thing that the infinite God creates must be divine itself, but if this is so how are we to decide that it is in fact separate? Also closely related is the question of how can something created by God have nothing in common with God if God is infinite (e.g., encompassing all)? This is one reason for the angels and later the Christ which tied together the infinite and the finite.
The one way to address these problems is to avoid at least directly that the connection between the creator is that which moves and the created that which lies in stasis. Asian thought addresses these issues in a different way. In Taoism there is the trinity of Non-Being, Being and the 10,000 things. Non-Being can be thought of as pure potentiality, like an acorn that grows into a great oak tree. All of the great oaks potential lies in the acorn although it is clear that the great oak is not the acorn and are at least in this sense separate from the great oak but not the oak itself. Likewise when thinking of the 10,000 things, actually representing all of the diversity in the world, especially within humankind, one can characterize the difference between individual (the 10,000 things), the gross aggregate components of the universe (e.g., Being) and creative potentiality (e.g., Non-Being) where humans draw their difference from Non-Being and Being by it’s status as an ethical being. Non-Being then is potential, and Being is existence then the individual is morality. Morality is the individual human component and contribution to the infinite. It is clear that humans could not exist without existence and this existence could not exist without the potentiality or possibility of Non-Being (e.g., the potential of existence). Likewise Non-Being would not be pure potentiality if it did not potentiate Being or existence. And of course also Being would not be without the existence of “things” in the universe (e.g., human beings for example). So we can see that each aspect of the Tao (e.g., Non-Being, Being and the 10,000 things) depend on each other and in fact are ultimately inseparable. Yet by the same token the manifestation of each is unique (at least conceptually). No causal factor is implied because there is no hierarchy of factors and all are necessary and essential (Non-Being, Being and the 10,000 things). Since there is no primary mover then the uniquely western problem of which came first the chicken or the egg is not played out (e.g., the Aristotelian Mover and the Moved). Non-Being is conceptual but dynamic rather than being a discrete entity and this serves well as illustration.
Hinduism has struggled with this problem between the moved and the mover. It has tried to resolve this problem by stating that that which is infinite or eternal (e.g., Brahman) is that which is “real” but that which exists (e.g., the material world) is simply an illusion. While not really solving the problem of the unmoved mover because the question is how can an illusion come out of that which is fundamentally real, but it is also clearly nonintuitive (and I think sometimes it is safe to trust our intuitions) where that which is intangible (atemporal and aspatial ) is that which is real and that which is tangible (the temporal and the spatial) is that which is an illusion. Logically it is difficult to see why such things might be and seems difficult to defend.
Buddhism on the other hands simply throws out the metaphysical aspect of this discussion (e.g., God, the infinite, Non-Being) and talks about the practical aspect of things where we live in the world and therefore our focus should address the problems of the world. Unfortunately this seems to just ignore or throw out the foundational problem of the unmoved mover which moves something else. Buddhism does advance the theory of dependent origination which escapes the problem of the unmoved/moved mover problem because everything that exists is dependent on everything else. Therefore there is no need to posit that which is essential or primal. But one problem that needs to be addressed it seems is why are things as they are? How did things get to be as they are? Are the things truly real if they don’t depend on everything else to exist? This draws back on the question that “Do we really exist?” Like Hinduism, Buddhism embraces the idea of reincarnation but if we do not exist essentially then what is reincarnated? How can certain aspects of one’s lives be carried over to the subsequent existence? It seems that Buddhism can’t have it both ways by ignoring both creation and the created, at the same time, by using dependent origination.
It is important to note that things do exist or at least seem to. We are constantly getting sensory feedback of this fact. It is easy to examine the logic of this fact.
For something to exist it must be composed of the aggregates of existence (e.g., your car, the stars, your house, your children, etc.). If this were not true then of course nothing would or could exist. If there were no existence then the potential of existence would not be part of the equation either because this potential must ultimately realize something or no potential is there as stated before. But it is even simpler than this because there must be the things of existence for there to be existence for without existence we would arrive at the Buddhism void or nothingness. This void or nothingness cannot be objectified so cannot even be talked about. It is a mystical concept. Many might claim, and they might be right, that to talk about this Void is impossible and therefore ridiculous to contemplate. Ordinarily you are not going to get very far in a conversation when talking about the void. At any rate it seems to talk about existence and the void as being the same in the same breath is to be non-intuitive and bizarre.
But it seems that we do exist, that is if we are not deluded. Of course if we are deluded that fact “a priori” determines that we do in fact exist. So ipso facto we do exist! This reminds me of Descartes “I think therefore I am” but avoids the mind/body problem: (e.g., how can an atemporal aspatial “thing” [the mind] have a relationship between that and the spatial and temporal thing [the body] where in fact they never seem to meet). The fact is that for there to be existence things must exist. We avoid the Mover/Unmoved Mover dilemma. We are drawn out of this monism (e.g., oneness) because if we do not and cannot assert the void and don’t believe that which we take as existing is not and cannot be illusion then existence is, can and must be distinct from some metaphysical construct. For how could these “things” be at all if they did not exist. It seems existence is the only logical answer.
So rest assured that you do exist because it now has been proven (as if you had any doubt in the first place). I ‘m sure in fact you haven’t really questioned this unless you are on your way to the insane asylum. Therefore a distinction need not be made beween the mover (e.g., the creator) and the thing moved (e.g., that which finds itself in the state of stasis) because things must be as they are and cannot be any other way. When you have an accident or enjoy a drink you can feel comfortable that your sensations and feelings are in fact yours and that they must be so. But of course you already knew that!
It seems in infinity all things remain possible and necessary (including existence) so then what is the nature of the infinite?
October 20th, 2009 §
To be human is to be flawed. Those without flaws are not human. To be alive is to be flawed. How could we be flawed if we were not alive. Perfection is the goal of our spirit. This is because intrinsically all are flawless. How could it be otherwise? Is the universe flawed? How can the infinite be flawed? We are determined by our humanity. Our flaws are determined by our self will. Being flawed results in feelings of guilt, remorse and anger. One might wonder: Why must we be flawed as we are? Who is responsible? What have I done to deserve this? Am I being punished by God?
Variety is the norm of existence. Normalcy is the variant of judgment. For to be normal implies a sort of standard deviation where the most congregate around the mean and those that vary from the mean are progressively more outlandish. But if everything was the same in our selfish existence then how would we find difference? Darwinism determines this variance. One persons deformity is anothers adaptation. Some might say that a blind man and a color-blind man have something in common, blindness, but the hawk would consider us blind too even in all our glory.
The robustness of a species depends on the gene pool and this gene pool enhances the chances for the species survival if it is broad and deep. Such is the nature of the infinite too – all things compose the infinite and so the infinite cannot be a norm but rather simply a composition of the stuff of all. It too is broad and deep. So suffice it to say nothing is flawed.
If there is a flaw then it is not understanding the unity that composes all things. To be blind to the forces of nature which tug at our loins ignores the material and spiritual outcropping and subsequent growth. Underneath us all lies a creature that has been most successful up to this point in history although there is no assurance for the future. To hold on to some divineness in order to become like an angel is impossible because there are no angels. Well at least there are no angels in the sky. To act in a manner that benefits all things is the noblest thing one can do. But the dystopian spirit that surrounds us now cannot permit it.
To be flawed is human. To achieve divinity is to strive for power over others or having divinity applied to one’s life is a strategy for others to gain power over others. There is no other reason. Our words speak for ourselves. The blood sweat and excrement all comes from our physical form and none can escape this unless they do not live. It is best to accept one’s position in life rather than setting one’s goal on the impossible.
The only things that can benefit all is to bring about understanding and compassion. Without these things nothing useful is done.
June 30th, 2009 §
I felt pressed to get the 3rd edition of The Yoga Party: Philosophical Writings (the present edition) out because I thought it was important to be put in circulation. Unfortunately to get the most out of this edition one would invariably need a philosophy background, both West and East (most importantly in the East Sri Aurobindo).
Since I’m aiming for a release date for the 4th edition by 2010 it’s time for me to get crackin. In this edition I will include a index, glossary, and footnotes with in some cases short excerpts of the relevant philosophers.
I also have unpublished political writings and poetry if the demand presents itself for the second and third volume of the Yoga Party. I imagine the present third edition will be difficult and frustrating for some reading it now. Once again I published this early because I think the ideas needed to be out there so I hope you will forgive me for releasing such a difficult text.
I’ve listed recommended reading on Goodreads which will give an introduction to the main ideas of Idealism, Materialism, Rationalism and Empiricism. I encourage you to join my discussion group on Goodreads (listed at the top) where I can answer questions. I truly believe that my book presents ideas which are important and relevant to todays discourse.
So until 2010 (and afterwards of course) I am available for any questions you may have so please don’t be afraid to ask. As is listed previously the Third Edition of The Yoga Party: Philosophical Writings is available on Google Book Search for those that don’t have the buck to drop and have iron clad eyes. I wish you well. Otherwise the bound edition is on Amazon.
So now the annotated version is underway…
June 21st, 2009 §
In the book “The Synthesis of Yoga” in Chapter XII titled The Realization of Sachchidananda by Sri Aurobindo it states
“It is at least a fundamental principle principle of the ancient wisdom, the wisdom of the East on which we are founding ourselves, that philosophy ought not to be merely a lofty intellectual pastime or a play of dialectical subtlety or even a pursuit of metaphysical truth for its own sake, but a discovery by all right means of the basic truths of all-existence which ought then to become the guiding principles of our own existence. ”
Philosophy should mean something. It should be for something and it should amount to something. Philosophy in the West has been neutered and any attempt to bring philosophy to earth is derided and is often considered to be subversive. This is why Philosophy is considered in the West to simply be a waste of time. On the rare occasion where philosophy has been substantial as in Sri Aurobindo’s work or the work of Karl Marx the attitude is taken either that with Aurobindo for example that his writings are cultist (and therefore suspect) or in Marx’s case that his writing are subversive and ultimately evil.
Philosophy should mean something and stand for something. It should not be an idle exercise practiced only by those in the “Ivory Towers” like the scholars in Hermann Hesse’s famous work “The Glass Bead Game.”
June 7th, 2009 §
Well I’ve sold my first book and I’ve had my first review. I’m now well on my way to success (or not). I’m looking forward to learning from the reader’s of my book. I need to keep an open mind to improve myself. As Aristotle said once something to the effect that learning is not pleasant. To improve myself I must gird myself and be resilient.
Philosophy is a hard sell in any case. Most often if the material is good the philosopher is not recognized in their lifetime. Those that are recognized are academics, something that I no longer am. This is assuming that in fact there is something of value in my book and I should not be so presumptuous to assume so.
Sometimes I think I’m just working out the contradictions in my mind when I write. I think there must be some logical pattern to explain existence but Einstein once said that using logic to understand the universe is a dead end. But then Einstein ran up against quantum mechanics.
Perhaps things in fact are not logical at all, or that my system is flawed.
I tried to create something that would be useful in the world, that would be something the world really needed. But naturally borrowing from a 20th century Indian Philosopher will probably not tickle many’s fancies. Perhaps I’m so silly to think that people would find it valuable based on it’s merits. It is so foreign to western tastes that I now think it is unlikely that it will ever catch on. As a friend told me perhaps in a hundred years (if at all).
I know it’s abysmally difficult to read and sometime I wonder if it makes any sense at all. It makes sense to me though but am I an apt judge? One of my pals (who swears by it BTW ) who went through the philosophy program with me asks me to explain it to him because for him too it is very difficult.
One thing in my book is that there is spiritual as well as physical evolution. Recently I’ve thought that perhaps there is both evolution and devolution and that the coming of enhanced consciousness is not guaranteed. One can consider the dinosaurs I suppose.
Well time will tell. I can’t predict the future. But I made the effort and it was a supreme effort.
April 19th, 2009 §
We exist. This we know for sure but the question that comes up often is why? A likely response would be “does there need to be a reason?” Perhaps we need to look at some sort of divine intelligence to explain our existence, for if we are here we must have a purpose. For what would our lives mean if we didn’t have a purpose?
But it would not seem prudent to posit a purpose in order to feel better. But it would surely seem to be a cold world without some sort of meaning. When feeling so alone one wants solace in their travail. When one is friendless it is comforting to have a friend that can listen. When one has reached the end in their life it would be nice if there were someone or something caring enough to greet them on the other side.
People find themselves so alone in western culture, especially American (US) culture. The world is foreign, their friends are competitors, their wives and husbands are potential philanderers. And of course to show any real emotion with someone of your own gender could make you an outsider, someone not man enough.
But God can be trusted. God loves you unconditionally. God hates the sin but loves “his” creation. God will never forsake you and God will never cross you. God is your perfect friend. And since God is not physical but is spirit you cannot be worried about having your relationship with God questioned as being swishy.
People live their lives largely alone. Some have fortunately been able to cultivate a lifelong relationship with a significant other (if they so choose). But life is not fair, even those you love and trust can be torn from you in an instant because of a mistake, or an accident, or because of some unnamable disease. Then where is one to turn?
One turns to God the creator. God loves you or so we are told. But can we know that God is there to hear us? Like our father who protected us this God in heaven protects us. Like our father who provided the semen which instigated our birth so our holy father created all and loves all his creation. Yet God is transcendent and the world is immanent and never the twain shall meet.
In the West we depend on dualism. In philosophy this is the idea where the mind (e.g., one’s spiritual nature) is separate from the body (e.g., our physical nature). This idea of dualism has been very effective in increasing our capital and subjugating our enemies. Dualism is a very effective way of manipulating the world. With dualism we have the subject (ourselves) and the object (everything else). We embody the mental sphere and the world and in some sense the uneducated masses composing physical inert matter. But this presentation does not adequately explain the genesis of dualism.
In the Judeo-Christian tradition God is worshipped. Some people take this God so seriously you can’t even spell the word “God” out, that this is some sort of sacrilege. It seems to some people at least to even try to understand God is sacrilege. After all it was the downfall of “man” from eating of the apple of knowledge that ended paradise.
So now we have to find our way out of the wilderness. How is one to do it? It is either through faith or reason. Speaking of reason it seems “reasonable” to use ones God given abilities to the extent they are possible. This seems to do this is a fitting tribute to God. Faith is satisfying for many or most but in fact how can we know that faith is the answer? We are often compelled to accept things without thinking about them which of course is what faith is all about. Yet it should be noted that the teaching of Jesus are very different from the story told about his life and especially his resurrection.
Jesus certainly was a thinker, perhaps the most profound of all time, but the thing that sets Jesus apart in Christian tradition is the redemption promised to “man” through Jesus for man’s sin of eating of the apple of knowledge. Jesus on the contrary was a teacher with wisdom to dispense although he has become through Holy tradition to be the sacrificial lamb.
To be human is to think. Everyone thinks differently. Everyone depends on a base of dogma from which their whole life radiates. Yet what we think or more importantly “the way we think” determines the way we understand the world. But for the ardent believers thinking becomes dogmatic constructions.
Fortunately or not the world does not need a world of thinkers. It doesn’t make sense in a society driven by profit to educate the masses. It is better that those that are driven don’t think at all. For if we were all to think we would probably not accomplish much of anything and society would most certainly fail. These non-thinkers can and are compelled do all the work and provide for those that don’t work.
Though it is not in society’s interest to have all people highly educated it is necessary to have an educated class. Like Odysseus bound to the ships mast so as not to have the ship and crew lured to destruction by the entrancing songs of the sirens, in society those that must follow orders are driven by one bound to the mast of knowledge. But now the ship may still founder with captain and crew if the sound of the sirens cannot be overcome. The echoing of the singing pervades the sinews of our bodies and reverberates in our soul. The distance between body and spirit has been compromised. This sound echoing in a cacophony of inspiration threatens the very foundation of our civilization. Now postmodernism and the death of capitalism is upon us. Maybe still it is not too late. Maybe still the myth of dualism can still be exposed.