|
Friday, August 31, 2007
impossible assertions of "freedom"
Does freedom mean no consequences for your actions? That definition ignores reality, every action (or inaction) has consequences. Does freedom mean you can do whatever you want to do? Again, that definition ignores reality, because our capabilities correspond neither to our imaginations nor our desires. Does freedom mean you can do whatever you are capable of? What a strange definition, it includes everybody and excludes nobody. What would be the purpose of fighting for freedom or valuing freedom if we all have it? Does freedom mean being able to act without restraint from others? I think you might have to live in an unpopulated area to get away with that. The definition I most often hear is freedom means I can do whatever I choose so long as I do not interfere with somebody else's right to do whatever she chooses. This sounds cool ... but I think it satisfies neither the test of logic nor the test of reality. Typically what people think of as freedom is a social code of conduct that allows people to make some choices, and to not make others. In this way the concept of freedom is at best a compromise, in which you are offered some choices in return for giving up others. If everybody gets the same mix of choices and non-choices that sounds fair ... but there is always a struggle between various people and groups who propose mutually incompatible social codes, because there is no single social code that works best for everybody. One person's compromise is another person's injustice.
Written by Matthew Dominic Hunter @ 01:58 PM
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Putting the label where the motivation arises
In some neighborhoods of the incalculably diverse universe of Buddhist thought, it is said that trying to make the world a better place is a form of aggression. Even that trying to help somebody else is a form of aggression. Because trying to fix somebody else's (or a planet's) problems assumes that there is a problem, and assumes that everything will be better after you supposedly fix the problem. Buddhists would say that these activities are really more about puffing up your own ego than helping others. Whether a circumstance is a problem is entirely dependent on a judgment taken from a particular point of view. People with other points of view may not share your judgments. Your own view, taken 10 years in the future, may not share your current judgments. Unforeseen factors will complicate the tally of pros and cons in ways that nobody can predict. Reality's web of cause and effect is far more complex than a controlled scientific experiment can elucidate. So, does a Buddhist person with charitable impulses turn entirely away from them because there is no way to judge properly how to help? Perhaps the solution to this dilemma is to switch from helping to giving. Instead of vaulting one's ego through a set of holier-than-thou judgments, simply share your excess with others. Acquire less. Use less. Give more. Not to make the world a better place, but because you have more than you need. Not to help others, but because you have effort to spare.
Written by Matthew Dominic Hunter @ 10:35 AM
|
