#gudlyfe

[tatetot22-blog]

Trust the Unknown

     Meditation, that cushion sitting, lotus positioned activity, plays such an instrumental part in Eastern culture that was largely swept under the rug in the West. Why was Socrates parading through the streets like a gadfly instead of sitting on his lonesome meditating? Why was Diogenes the Dog bothering with his double robe when all he needed was a cushion? So much of Western philosophy is a logical, intellectual, and scholarly endeavor with the intent of explaining the complexities of human life. As Celiamayne notes, “This is where the road splits for Dogen and Aristotle.” Dogen, too, puts emphasis on mindfulness in this way, but meditation takes a step back from intellect that Western thinkers like Aristotle call “the highest element in us” (Aristotle, 192). Meditation in a sitting position, known as zazen, calls upon an enlightenment that is almost entirely inexplicable, but this vagueness is what spawns so many other interesting and insightful ideas that the Dogen touches on.

     Quite simply, “zazen is not thinking of good, not thinking of bad. It is not conscious endeavour” (Dogen, 11). We’ve heard that “...the unexamined life is not worth living” for many years, but even examination, we’ve surely come to know by now, must be done with moderation. On the complete opposite end of the spectrum from mindfulness is meditation where thought is entirely absent. Through meditation, buddhists have come to find the balance between the two. While total mindfulness is centered around mastering the self, zazen is the forgetfulness of the self and the connectedness to all beyond, since “in the great way of going beyond, no endeavor is complete without being one with the myriad things” (14). In this light, the only requirement we have for mediation is having a self to lose: sentience.

     This sole requirement of sentience opens up many doors. With this, we should “not be concerned with who is wise and who is stupid,” but rather who is willing to practice the way of buddha wholeheartedly (58). Unlike most Western philosophy, this idea allows women to have an equal hand in attaining enlightenment through zazen. Despite all sexist beliefs of the inferiority of women, it simply can’t be denied that women are sentient beings made of the same stuff as men with equal capacity to achieve enlightenment in this way. Dogen even recognized the importance of this trait when he advocates for us to “not discriminate between men and women” because “this is the most wondrous principle of the buddha way” (77).

     The inexplicability of enlightenment, too, is the reason why trust is so important in finding the buddha way. It can’t be logically written out and deeply understood like the Western philosophy we’ve read, but often finds itself written in strange and poetic analogies. In this way, subscribing to the process and the goal of the buddha way without knowledge of its intricacies is absolutely required. Perhaps Western philosophy has reached beyond its limits in trying to explain the inexplicable. Perhaps, to trust in the unknown is to achieve the good life.

[tatetot22-blog]

Where Do We Go From Here?

     I’m lost. I look around me to my friends, to my peers, and to my community and all I see are solemn, disappointed, and angry faces. How can Donald Trump be elected president when everyone around me has so adamantly stood against his policies and his character? I fear that I have created an echo box in my life where nothing frequently challenges these ideals with loving criticism. Now, though, the bubble has burst with this election and I am left questioning why half of the nation sees something in this man that I do not. Often I’ve immediately dismissed many of Trumps beliefs, but I’m left in a state where I see no other option than to try to lovingly and acceptingly understand where half of the nation is coming from. With this goal in mind, Marcus Aurelius’ words find no better home than here. Mcstovall writes “Many of my family and friends have been distressed by this election, and I posted various Marcus Aurelius quotes to Twitter, which successfully calmed them.” Aurelius notes that by nature we are born for the “sole aim of service and harmony of all” (Marcus Aurelius, 76). In the face of anyone who seems to stand as an obstacle to this idea, we should never let them dictate our mindsets “otherwise my neighbor’s wickedness would become my evil” (105). Rather, we should “simply seek to direct the present hour aright into the paths of holiness and justice” through loving acceptance of our current circumstance, straightforward truthfulness in our words, and respect for law and every man’s rights in our actions to improve this country (154). To myself and those alike, this is my attempt at finding my way through.

     I’ve never been able to talk politics with my parents. My father is an unwavering democrat and my mother is a stubborn republican. Any and every political conversation about the election turned into a heated, fault-finding argument. I’ve rarely heard why either candidate’s policies are good, only why the other’s aren’t worth considering. In this light, I presumed that I was going to be choosing the lesser of two evils. However, the first step in this process is realizing that neither candidate is evil because “if I do not view the thing as an evil, I take no hurt” (78). In the end, regardless of Donald Trump becoming president, he is not evil and myself nor the country can be jeopardized for it. Despite the initial panic I felt, “pain is never unbearable or unending, so long as [I] remember its limitations and do not indulge in fanciful exaggerations” (87). I am left with the reality that Trump is our next president and I must do my best to confront and compromise with our government and the other half of the nation with loving acceptance and respect.

     This headway will, no doubt, be rigorous but is essential to the progression and harmony of our nation and my psyche, for that matter. In my pursuit of understanding the other side, I no doubt expect to be proven right in many cases, but I also expect to be proven wrong in even more. I’ve come to recognize that “to change [my] mind and defer to correction is not to sacrifice [my] independence” in the cases where I feel I’ve made a mistake in my mindset (94). I’ve also come to understand that attempting to drive others to change should be done with equal grace. In the end, if I am met with an unconvinced opposition in the face of adequate reasons, “it is man’s peculiar distinction to love even those who err and go astray” (79). Now more than ever we need to embrace the idea that “no other part of creation [but humanity] has been so favored by God with permission to come together again after once being sundered and divided” (99). So Mom, take a seat, because we are about to have an interesting conversation!

[tatetot22-blog]

Top Umptene Things Authors Don’t Want You to Know About Lists

        Most philosophers rely on magnificently constructed and complexly supported writing to illuminate their ideas on the best ways to live. However, life is a lot simpler. No matter how much we account for the future or reflect on the past, we can only act from moment to moment. As a result, we can only improve ever so slightly from each day to the next. Kirakiraposts notes on this subject that “we strive to improve little by little each day in order to become the best versions of ourselves.” In this light, Marcus Aurelius thought that a simple but long list of these little by little lessons would be a great medium for philosophy. This begs the simple questions: seriously, though, why a list? Isn’t that, like, a rough draft to a proper essay or something? To the latter, the short is no, and to the former, the answer is more complicated. Let’s dive in, shall we?

        In the same way that we live short moment to short moment, Marcus Aurelius provides his tips and tricks in bite sized pieces as food for thought. Just like the various clickbait Internet articles with names like “Top 10 Blah Blahs of 2016,” there is something about lists that entices us with its simplicity. Each of Marcus Aurelius’ advice is simple and small enough to easily be comprehended at a quick read. In this way, each piece is meant to be reflected upon of its own accord and, simultaneously, reflexive of a niche type of experience. This allows for one-off tips that would usually be cut in a streamlined argument. For example, Marcus Aurelius haphazardly writes that “in all things call upon the gods for help - yes without too many scruples about the length of your prayers; three hours so spent will suffice” (Marcus Aurelius, 65). What an interesting but oddly specific tip!

        The simplicity of lists, however, is a double edged sword. Lists can offer the most opportunity for personal reflection to connect all of the advice together, but lists can, perhaps, more easily be glossed over. Our memory works best when we connect new ideas to things that are already cemented in our minds. List can fall into the trap of not doing this well depending on our approach to reading them. Marcus Aurelius gives many diverse tips, but from chapter to chapter and all throughout, the advice usually has a common focus on how to live the good life. The real lessons are learned, then, when we give ourselves enough time to reflect upon each tip separately and then connect them together to paint the entire picture of the good life.

        Lists, from shopping lists to the Bill of Rights, have played a huge role in how we organize our lives. Through reflection, Marcus Aurelius’ grand list provides specific and detailed to-do’s that allow us to readily structure our reactions to the infinite possibilities the world can throw our way. As Umberto Eco says, lists are how we make infinity comprehensible.      

[tatetot22-blog]

Cultivation of a Nation

Friendship among individuals is a complicated thing. The ins and outs of our diverse personalities, perspectives, and attitudes that influence how we interact is undoubtedly complex. Kirakira posts writes, “It fascinates me that people with vastly different characteristics can set aside those differences and become friends with each other.” However, if friendship among people is a corn maze, then the relationship between a government and its citizens is a labyrinth. Aristotle touches on the interaction between the individual and the political community at large. This political community, especially in terms of a democratic republic, is quite plainly the government. Aristotle translates his thoughts on friendship to that of a political community which prompted me to try and answer this question: What makes a good democratic republican government?

Aristotle observed that from our social beginning, the political community is society’s means of gaining long term utility, since “what is useful, in common, is just” (Aristotle, 152). However, Aristotle also spoke of a friendship with someone virtuous as cultivating what is useful and pleasant without qualification. I believe that in an ideal world, our government would act as a virtuous friend to its citizens and, subsequently, long term utility would come about unqualifiedly alongside pleasantness. If the government was a virtuous institution “worthy of friendship and [knew] it” at the same time, then it would be the cream of the crop (145).

Striking that balance to achieve moderation and virtue is not an easy thing when a single mind is involved. For a set of minds that are supposed to be representative of the whole, virtue can be near impossible. However, finding that balance would undoubtedly allow both for society as a whole and for each individual involved to flourish. The result of ruling with a green thumb for virtue would be a government worthy of love because “what is unqualifiedly good and what is unqualifiedly pleasant” is worthy of love, the virtue of friendship. If our government was to ever achieve this kind of virtue, the government's confidence in its own worthiness to rule the nation would need to be portrayed convincingly because “friendship, people say, is equality” and “mutual friendship involves rational choice” (147).

As the government cultivates and portrays its virtue, the friendship between government and governed would grow stronger. Alongside this growth, “the demand for justice also naturally increases” (152). This is quite simply because as the choices that the government and citizens alongside become more virtuous, more justice would be required by a deviation away from virtue on either's part. In this way, rebellion and tyranny would be equally wrong and less likely. Luckily, “it is characteristic of good people [and a good government] neither to make errors themselves nor allow their friends to do so” (151). The government would provide guidelines for its people, but the government would equally be willing to be guided by its citizens. This type of symbiotic relationship in ruling a nation is what I would like to see our own strive for. With every year and every new legislation, our government is simply one step closer to finding this balance and finding virtue. We, as citizens, simply have to be prepared to cultivate virtue in ourselves and our government to allow our society to bloom.

[tatetot22-blog]

Cicero the Economist?

        Economics is the study of how scarce resources are utilized in a world of seemingly infinite wants. The goal is to divide and allocate these resources with the least cost and most benefit to humanity. Simple, right? This economic ideology weaves into Cicero’s ideas of the good life perfectly. Ideas of self-improvement and personal leisure are put in the backseat to an obligation to the greater good of humanity. Idierdor optimistically noted that “to hear that I may have a purpose larger than myself, a purpose that extends to others, is refreshing.” In this light, Cicero advises us to help when the cost is less than the benefit and expect the same from others. As a result, we should seek a level of moderation balanced between leisure and duty to obtain the good life.

        One of the fundamentals I learned in my first days of studying economics is that a cost for buying something is not simply the price tag but also the cost of foregoing the next best alternative. Cicero touches on this idea by noting two types of injustices: “an unjust attack on another” and failing to “obstruct the injustice when we can” (Cicero, 10). He provides an example by throwing shade at past philosophers we’ve read. He notes that the price of excessive leisure time is “abandon[ing] those whom they ought to protect,” (12). In this way, Cicero simply puts in check the ideas of leisure we’ve come to learn from people like Seneca by pointing out our forgone duty in doing so. Cicero, however, still maintains that leisure is a huge boon to us as individuals by asking, “What is better for a man, what more worthy of a man?” (64).

        By taking into account others into the decisions concerning personal leisure, this points to a larger question: should we even be concerned with others in our pursuits of the good life? I believe that the answer to this lies in another economic principle: specialization. Specialization allows us to divide our limited resources, time most importantly among them, in the most efficient ways. Earning an education to gain a niche job is a perfect example! The higher our education, the more specialized we are, and the more we are needed by humanity. That’s why doctors get paid the big bucks! When you think about it, money is simply society’s means of trading benefits efficiently and expansively. Interesting, right? By specializing and “through sharing our abilities and advantages, we [come] to lack nothing” (68).

        Cicero realizes that it is impractical to entirely devote our lives to leisure. Instead, he notices that I have gifts that I can use to help you, while you have talents of your own that I don’t posses. This give-and-take is both more realistic and essential to maintaining a functioning society. Although I’d like to live a life devoted to leisure, I’ve come to learn, and so has humanity, that we need each other to make life worth living. We need to support each other “with moderation” so that we can secure “the requirements of nature in full and ample measure” (69). With this balance of duty and leisure, humanity as a whole and each individual will be able to flourish.

[tatetot22-blog]

A Little Birdie Told Me

It doesn’t take an eagle’s eye to see that Diogenes is a polarizing philosopher. Some adore him for his straightforward, bold methods, while others pin him to be a rash critic in the Cynic’s way of living the good life. Some, like Idierdor, flock to Diogenes’ idea of rigorously taking “the short way, with all of its difficulties and steep climbs and challenges,” while others, like Kirakiraposts, adamantly opposed Diogenes’ idea of “live[ing] a life of destitution in order to fulfill one out of the many philosophies about leading a good life.” Diogenes’ extreme way of living can be advantageous for those of a similar feather, but not for everyone.  

A cynic in this day and age is someone who is disdainfully critical of other’s motives and dispositions. There is an easy parallel to make here with the Cynic as embodied by Diogenes. His idea of the path to living well is not a long migration of gingerly finding and living by the mean. Rather, Diogenes’ path is swift, extreme, and rigorous; the Cynic path is “a shortcut to virtue” (Diogenes, 27). This quick trick to the good life requires not simply a tendency towards the mean, but adamant, unapologetic, and sometimes annoying action against excess and deficiency, which is where our version of the cynic likely derives. Nearly all of Diogenes’ quotes are not only said as truth but also said with raw, apathetic criticism. One of Diogenes many sayings, for example, was that to live properly we either need “reason or a rope” (31)!

Diogenes’ apathetic way of life requires “begging from people for you need to support yourself” (161). However, he saw this as a means of a sort of tax from those he was teaching by example. This statement ruffles my feathers. If Diogenes’ way of life was spread to all, then all would be forced to beg and none would be able to the provide basic needs to living, let alone living well. This leads me to the idea that if everyone achieved the good life in the same way, no one would be able to live well. This is similar to evolutionary behaviors I’ve recently read about seagulls. If there were too many seagulls with a thieving behavior, there would be no fish to steal, so the honest, hardworking habits would be adaptively advantageous. However, if every seagull had honest, hardworking tendencies, there would be an excess in opportunity to steal fish, live long, and reproduce. In other words, the habits for stealing would be adaptively advantageous. As a result, a balance even within the population, let alone each individual seagull, is necessary for this bird to thrive. In a similar way, there needs to be a balance of ways to live well among the people in society in order for everyone to be able to live well. At least, that's what a little birdie told me...

[tatetot22-blog]

Food for Thought

        Seneca has some interesting ideas and a few concepts that hit home, but I think that he needs to take a page out of Aristotle’s cookbook. I’m a subscriber to the idea of moderation as the key and this is a point that Seneca seems to disregard in many instances. Pavanguduri disagreed with both the idea that “postponement is the greatest waste of life” and the idea that “well accomplished members of society such as senators or soldiers” wasted their lives as well. On these two fronts, I think a sprinkle of moderation would make Seneca’s ideas a delectable entrée for life!      

        We discussed last week that experience and experimentation are required to learn to find the mean, the balance. This process is a trident for devouring that delicious meal. A balance of experimentation in the present, followed by reflection on the past, and application in the future is the recipe for moderation. However, Seneca seems to neglect this idea. He argues that the only person who gladly looks back on the past is the one whose every action “passed his own censorship, which is never deceived” (On the Shortness of Life, 15). This idea leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. How can someone learn how to find their moderation to be applied to their actions if past actions are too awful to reflect upon? I believe that reflection leads to a “mind which is tranquil and free from care” in the future, not the other way around (16). Equally, he argues that “direct[ing] their purposes with an eye for the distant future” is the greatest waste of life (13). However, I’d argue that learning from experiences or philosophers alike prepares you to live well in the future. What use would gaining knowledge of how to live well be if you didn’t expect to live on in the future! 

        Seneca’s ideas seem to fall under the notion that if humans were totally selfish with our time, then we’d all be more fulfilled in life. However, I think that family-style dining is much more satisfying! Seneca notes that “demanding the time of others and meeting a most obliging response” is completely contrary to living a fulfilled life (12). Instead, he advocates that life should be spent in leisure philosophizing because “only those are really alive” (23). However, this excludes the idea of sacrificing your time to help another as a means of using time well. According to Aristotle, that is called generosity, and that’s a virtue! Not sacrificing time for another would leave society in shambles because sacrifices are often necessary for the greater good of the people to live, let alone live well. A simple balance of leisure and sacrifice is required to attend to the basic needs of living along with living well, not just for the one person but for all. Isn’t that some delicious food for thought?

[tatetot22-blog]

Hug All the Elephants!

     I commend Roger Crisp and Aristotle for their extensive analysis of this Rubik’s Cube of ultimate happiness. However, both the translation and explanation conflict immensely with a lot of young, hip ideology us students have these days. This makes many of us sneer at the thought of some of Aristotle’s points and are left with a questioning look and a cocked head at others. As established in Book I, happiness “is a certain kind of activity of the soul in accordance with virtue” (Nicomachean Ethics, 15). Many of us disagreed with the thought of happiness, a free and lively feeling, being directly tied to virtue, a strict and limiting ideal. This idea of happiness as the most basic form of good anyone could experience belittles many of Aristotle’s arguments. For this reason, I believe Mr. Crisp (or should I say Mr. Missed Opportunity) got the translation wrong. Happiness isn’t the right word, but I believe contentment to be quite fitting in a tux and tie.

     Let me wrap my interpretation of Aristotle’s ideas of virtue and, more accurately, contentment with a pretty pink bow for you. Aristotle establishes that “excess and deficiency are characteristics of vice, the mean characteristic of virtue,” so moderation seems to pin the tail on the virtue donkey (30). Therefore, acting in perfectly balanced moderation is characteristic of living with contentment. Discovering these ceilings and the floors in all things requires experimentation in order to find balance. However, when deficiency or excess come about along the way, these dissatisfy your psyche in some form. This dissatisfaction works in opposition to living with contentment. In this way, acting in contentment, happiness in Crisp’s words, is directly affected by acting in moderation, virtue in Crisp’s words. Thusly, Aristotle can adequately argue things that made us turn up our noses originally. Here is an example that speaks to me in this light. Aristotle argues that “a child is not happy either, since his age makes him incapable of doing such [virtuous] actions” (16). Because children don’t have the experience and practice to know the limits, they cannot act in moderation and, therefore, cannot be content. This mindset is a more accurate and, frankly, more agreeable interpretation than when I say that children cannot be virtuous and, therefore, cannot be happy.

     What I think can also be improved in this argument is not a lack of translation, but rather a change in Aristotle’s argument. He theorizes that acting “about the right people, for the right end, and in the right way” is virtuous, making virtue the bullseye on the dartboard (30). Kirakiraposts questions that “with virtue so difficult to obtain, is anyone truly happy?” With this in mind, I believe that there is no objective, god-defined ‘right’ way that you are striving to act. Rather, I believe that your idea of moderation alone and your idea of your own limits determines what actions dissatisfy you and, therefore when you live with contentment. Doesn’t the idea that contentment stems from your balance in life just make sense? So, as one does when hugging an elephant, embrace the grey!