Today in Philosophy, we talked a lot about Buddhism and where the assumptions it makes lead.
The core of Buddhism is the idea that life is suffering, suffering is caused by desire, and in order to get rid of desire you must get rid of personal existence.
I follow it and tend to agree with it up until it assumes that the existence of self is a myth and should be gotten rid of (oh yeah, and the whole non-existence of God thing).
I think the reason I have such a hard time with these ideas is because of my innate beliefs. I innately believe in the existence of God.
The main fallacy of Buddhism is the idea that suffering is caused by desire, period. I would say that it is caused by self-centered desire, which can't really exist in the absence of a "self."
My professor quoted C. S. Lewis today when he said basically that there are only two religions: Buddhism and Christianity. One thinking that we don't actually exist, and that are existence is the cause of our suffering while the other believes that our selfish desires cause our suffering and the key is to live a life of giving rather than taking, as taught by Jesus.
But as the discussion continued, I noticed a third basic philosophy present itself. A girl in the class seems to think that there is nothing wrong with taking and consuming to fulfill desires. She said that as long as you're happy and not hurting others, then it's fine. She didn't seem to have much concern for the aspect of suffering present.
So, are there 3 philosophies or just 2? Does everyonene fit into one of these basic patterns of thinking? Is your purpose either to live a life of giving to others and to work to eliminate your own selfish desires while not denying that you exist or to go about trying to eliminate all desire until you cease to actually exist? Are your tendencies towards one or the other tied to your basic beliefs that all other beliefs boil down to? There is no way to prove the non-existence or existence of self. It's got to be something you just either believe or don't.
Throughout the discussion, I kept thinking about how we talked about something so similar in GEW with all beliefs boiling down to whether or not you believe God exists. Does this idea of whether or not "self" exists boil down further to your beilef on the existence of God? If so, how does Romans 1 play into whether or not you believe in God and therefore personal existence?
If anyone's read this far, I'd appreciate comments of your own thoughts on this idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You would really have enjoyed my Developing A Christian Mind class this Interim. We talked about similar things from a very different viewpoint as the name of the class may suggest.
I think you are right to say that even this question boils down to your belief in God. If God exists, then your personal existence must have some meaning behind. If God created you, then it must have a positive meaning. Likewise, without a God, you have no natural reason to assume the goodness of physical existence and, seeing the world around you, may very well decide it to be irrevocably evil and wrong.
In this mindframe, there are three basic directions. You can see God as the greatest being and therefore work towards his glory. You can see yourself as most worthy and strive towards your own perfection (non-desire and nonexistence). Finally, you can take a path similar to this girl in your class I like to call positive nihilism. There is no meaning; there is no purpose. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die style living.
Ah, yes, the innate sense of God. Calvin would call that the sensus divinitatus or the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. If it helps any, you have a major theologican backing your innate sense ;)
Post a Comment