Is Suffering Necessary to Achieve Enlightenment?

Hooray! It seems I'm down for another post, so it seems I won't have to make an excuse for not completing the double.

The next topic is a question, coming directly from Mr. Sanderson: "Is suffering necessary to achieve enlightenment?"

Now, this question unleashed a pool of repressed thoughts for me, although they might not be what you would expect. I have had no one close to me die, nor have I experienced great pain. As far as I am aware, I live in what most people would consider a comfortable life. This position I have been given, grateful as I am, creates a unique kind of dread. It is fear of change, fear of death.

I look at all of these people who have been motivated by the passing of loved ones, people who have found their "purpose" because of dying wishes or advice, and it scares me. I, too, want to make my parents proud, but I find it impossible to avoid taking them for granted. Is this a result of my comfortable life? I do not know loss, so how do I know if I really love them? And if I do love them as much as I hope, will I live the way they would want me to after they pass? Or will I be gripped with so much grief that I lose passion in everything?

Personally, I am afraid to answer the question posed by Mr. Sanderson. If I say yes, then it gives me a reason to be thankful for death. I never want to feel good that my loved ones are gone. If I say no, then I fear I will never reach "enlightenment", for the comfortable life given to me produced a mind which is easily satisfied with the status quo. Where else will I find such motivation?

Too personal? Maybe. Am I too lazy to switch it out for something else? Absolutely.

Confucianism Is the Opposite of the American Way of Life

Yet again I have strayed from the righteous path of the blog posts. As a man seeking redemption, what other choice do I have other than to offer another double?

To start, I would like to preface this with some background pertaining to my classroom's current discussions. As of today, we are delving into Confucius and his philosophy, Daoism, and the differences between the two and western ideals/ideas.

My first topic is of my own thoughts, although it was inspired by our classroom dialogue. It is my assertion that Confucianism is in direct opposition to the capitalist, American way of life.

In order to narrow my argument, I have decided to focus on a single aspect of our culture, the one which I believe to be the its most defining characteristic. In my eyes, the American lifestyle is a series of fleeting experiences. We are materialistic, easily bored, and hungry for innovation. We chase all the trends: buying the next iPhone, participating in a viral challenge, and listening to the new Drake album. Every generation before us and every generation after us have and will shed the customs of their successor. For example, despite the scorn from adults, the teenagers of the 1950s continued to listen to rock and roll. In the future, I would not be surprised if the next generation invents new hip lingo, similar to our "lit" and "fam". I would even go so far as to say that the "living document" status of the Constitution of the United States is a direct result of the people's desire to change--and rapidly if wished.

This is why I believe Confucianism, a philosophy that preaches tradition and firm adherence to it, is in direct opposition to the ever-changing American lifestyle.

At first, I did not think I could make a decent argument out of this, but in retrospect, it's not all bad. What do you guys think? Is it nonsense?

Evolution of Deities Alongside Technology

It's already late at night, but I need to follow through with this whole double post thing. Otherwise, it will be hard to sleep tonight.

The second topic I am interested in is the question of how "concepts of deities evolve in correlation to the advancement of society", inspired by our Mr. Sanderson.

I do not exactly buy the "well of course because more technology calls for simpler solutions" argument (in relation to the idea of society moving from polytheism to monotheism). If that last sentence did not make sense, I will elaborate. The consensus of my classroom seemed to be that society is moving from polytheism to monotheism because of acquired knowledge (ex. there is no need for a rain god if we have already constructed the water cycle). I propose that technology has less to do with the evolution of gods and that societal values play a more crucial role. If you look at monotheistic religions around the world, most are splintered into a multitude of groups, each with different teachings and beliefs. For example, Baptism and Catholicism differ on how one is to achieve salvation but both claim to be under the Christianity banner. These divisions seem to be a result of values not technology.

Of course, the technology argument also does not explain why Hinduism (a polytheistic religion) is still so prominent today. Technology permeates throughout Hindu nations, yet the belief of multiple gods prevails. Rather, it must be the solidity of the Hindu culture that keeps these beliefs intact. Also, a good argument can be made on the change of the Old Testament to the New Testament (Christian bible). Was the change due to technology? No. It was due to the desire of making the bible more universal, a clear change of values (to be more accepting).

I hope I was able to support my argument. I tried as well as I could with this lingering need for sleep.

Is Odysseus a Hero?

Since I neglected to post last week, I feel motivated to do a double post today. After all, who else is going to pick up this slack but me? Lately, our class has been focused on the Odyssey, and the discussions that have been taking place really got my gears turning.

The first topic I want to delve into is a question posed by one of my classmates: "Is Odysseus still a 'hero', even if he could not protect any of his comrades?"

Considering the circumstances of Odysseus's journey, I cannot see how he can be seen as anything but a hero. He tried his hardest to prevent the crew's demise, despite the merciless will of the gods. Few of their deaths can be attributed to a deliberate action by Odysseus. His careless boasting to Polyphemus about his true identity spelled doom for many of his comrades, but he did this unaware of the consequences. An argument can be made on whether or not his negligence with actions such as these revoke his "hero" status, but it is undeniable that Odysseus did everything in his power to save those under him. He outsmarted Polyphemus, intimidated Circe, and warned his crew to abstain from eating the cattle of Helios. He made sure to perfectly follow the instructions of the gods, hoping that even a few of his men would survive, but his efforts were unfortunately in vain.

This unwavering determination to save his comrades is enviable by my standards. What do you guys think? I would love to hear your thoughts.