Hello Everyone,
I hope everyone is enjoying the first week of classes. I am off to a really great start. (I guess you would be if your still at an A :) Nevertheless, I am going to enjoy all of my classes this semester!
Over break, I began reading an online book titled Freedom from the Known, written by a great Indian philospher by the name of Jiddu Krishnumerti.
I decided for this first blog that I would simply pose a question in regards to what Krishnumerti speaks about in this book.
Feel free to pose your thoughts. I value honesty and differences! I love hearing other people's opinions.
Question #1. If a person were to eliminate everything they were ever taught in life in effort to embrace a new understanding of their life; would they be denying themselves?
Question #2. What does our instution's motto really mean? If we say it is important to contemplate truth and share the fruits of this contemplation with others, how can we really know what is truth? How do we find out this truth? When others do not want to accept the "truth" from us, then have we still shared our fruits?
Krishnumerti was a writer, philospher and international lecturer. He was born May 12, 1895. He lived his whole life asking and attempting to answer questions surrounded by truth. To check out a portion of the book, follow this link:http://books.google.com/books?id=60fnDE7_hREC&printsec=frontcover&dq=freedom+from+the+known+jiddu+krishnamurti&source=bl&ots=agLvRkEkD7&sig=9hmvpHHFXEyxc2rUy966HoJs2Pw&hl=en&ei=hU9PS9TEO9CVtgeYi6WmCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Until next class time,
Reflect
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really enjoy this post!
ReplyDeleteIt makes me think of a line from the movie "Synecdoche, New York" when one character says "Knowing that you don't know is THE most essential step to knowing . . . you know?"
As far as answering the question itself . . . that's tough.
I would have to say that it would not be denying his/her self to do this (assuming it were possible to eliminate everything one knew).
I feel this for a number of reasons:
Firstly, they would still be themselves after this transformation, they may seem different to anyone who "knew" them, but would not be any less who they are, which I believe is constantly in a state of change anyway.
From one year to the next we are not the same person we were Even the transition from a room of old friends to a room of professional colleagues is a often a radical change of the "self." There is an interesting dialogue about this idea in the film "Waking Life" about the fictional story you have to create in order to connect your self to an picture of you from the past. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NH5U6Wf7Zw
An easier way for me to look at it, or at least define it would be to focus on the words "in effort" in the question - these two words imply intention which can only come from the self. The decision to do such a thing would be embracing his or her self to the highest potential, because it is the very self which is taking responsibility for the transformation.
As for question 2, The motto is kind of a loaded statment (as most any motto is). Truth, I am convinced more and more, is relative. The only thing we can really measure is the effects of believing one truth or another, which ever is more beneficial to the largest number of people is the "most true." (obviously this is my opinion and not "the truth")
As for the last part, about others accepting our truth, I think it is hard to say. If you have put your truth out there, it has been shared, it has been offered and observed. If someone refuses the offer, completely ignoring what you have said, they still have heard it I suppose.
Thanks for the interesting mind-puzzles!
As a philosophy major, but questions were equally appealing to me!
ReplyDeleteThe first draws my mind immediately to Descartes, who wished to do such a thing. To take all he had learned and discard it that he might not believe anything unless he knew it for certain.
I think that for each person it is crucial to critically examine all that he or she has been taught. We base every one of our decisions, both big and small, off of what we think we know. But what if what we 'know' is just another's incorrect opinion?
It's not as much necessary to eliminate or abandon all that one has been taught, but to critically examine it from time to time, to ensure that a person is not holding onto ideas, thoughts or beliefs that are not true to who they are.
In that way we are not denying ourselves, but embracing who we truly were before every one else in this world had a say.
As for question #2, Ryan I have to question what you mean by truth being relative. By the law of noncontradiction two opposing ideas cannot at the same time, in the same way be true. And if all you hold are opinions and nothing is ever truth, why hold anything at all?
As for the original question, how do we really know what is true? Well, there are some things I suppose that our human reason cannot fully work out, some truths that we hold out of faith and some falsehoods that we hold out of misguided faith. (And by using the word faith, I do not mean to speak only of religious truths!) As for many truths, I think human reason is an incredibly beautiful, powerful tool that is able to see the world, weigh evidence, contemplate outcomes and know, indubitably, truth.
We use our reason and we seek and search and never give up until we are wholly satisfied (which I hope is never!) and that is how we discover truth.
Simply because another does not accept our offering of the fruits of our contemplation does not nullify the validity of that contemplation. In the words of C.S. Lewis, one person cannot deny what is blatantly true any more "than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell."
Thanks for the thought-provoking questions!
Wow Brittany, I was looking for that quote that I printed for my flier/posters and was totally oblivious that it was the same guy who said it that you were talking about in this post. I'm trying to find some collections of his writings now!
ReplyDeleteTeresa,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I understand the law of noncontradiction very fully. I understand the law in the context of a single individual to some extent, though I might even argue that it is still a matter of semantics. But once another subjective observer is involved, whose definition takes priority? Whom ever's definition provides more predictability?
As for the question of why hold anything at all, I feel like this could be a very interesting discussion. I think part of it is a natural response of the mind to organize data in order to make predictions, on a very primal/survival level.
Also I feel like if something is "true" than it must have always been and forever be. I personally cannot think of anything that has lived up to that rigorous definition. Perhaps I am being to literal?
I'd love to keep our thoughts coming on this! :)