On The Praise of Selflessness.

In Nietzsche’s piece, The Gay Science, the argument forms that one who praises selflessness is in fact being selfish.  He states, “The ‘neighbor’ praises selflessness because it brings him advantages.”  Looking at this quote one is originally absorbed by the apparent logic in it.  ‘The only reason we praise those who help others is because it encourages even more people to sacrifice their own well being for the benefit of me.’  Is this really true though?  Why then do we praise those who donate to causes that do not help us?  Or ones in which the benefactor is someone we don’t’ even know?

At first glance I was shocked at how great an argument the selfishness of praising selflessness was.  I told my roommate and had a good conversation with my dad about it and through these discussions I began to see the flaw in the reasoning of Nietzsche.  Nietzsche seems to think that the neighbor will only praise the giver if he benefits from the sacrifice.  There are many examples were this is not true.  I know I have never received any charitable organizations bestowing money or privilege on me yet I still praise the things they do for the people they help.  I know that I have received kind, selfless acts from friends and that I greatly appreciate them when they come around but that’s what I think friends do for each other.  It is not like I take advantage of my friends, it is a reciprocating game in which both of us help each other so that we both end up better in the end.  Simply because someone does something selfless doesn’t mean they have to be incredibly worse off.  If my friend wants me share my notes with him it honestly doesn’t harm me in any way but it helps him a lot.  I will probably never ask to see his notes but I know that I can help him so I do.  Does him thanking me for giving him my notes selfish?  Not in my opinion, that’s just what friends do.

Upon further reflection I also realized that many times, people praise the selfless even when they don’t have anything to gain from it.  When we look at Bill Gates, who is donating billions to various charities, we do not say that is a great act because he helped us personally.  Instead we look at it and say that is an admirable thing to do, he is helping those in need and for that reason we should praise his selflessness.  Most people who praise these acts do not actually feel the impact of these billions of dollars but know that other people do.  All these people are not being selfless in encouraging him to donate more or encouraging others to act in a like manner because they are not receiving any benefit themselves.

Nietzsche’s argument may appear intelligent and accurate when viewed on a small scale of personal gains and sacrifices but on the larger scale most people who praise selflessness are not acting selfish.  I would even argue that between friends and “neighbors” selfless acts and their praise benefit everyone not just the recipient of the praise.  Friendship is a relationship of mutual giving and receiving that makes everyone involved better off.

In fact, if you look at it logically the praise of selflessness may actually be selfless itself.  We see someone doing something for our community and we sacrifice our time, effort or money to congratulate them and encourage them to do more.  Other people see this and feel like maybe they can sacrifice a bit of themselves for the benefit of society and more selfless acts are created.  So by giving up your own time and effort to praise the selfless you inspire more people to act in a like manner creating a greater good for society.  In other words your sacrifice benefits the greater good.

On Morality as a Path

I recently had an interesting conversation with my roommate about whether or not morality was an emotion or a path or based on reason or some other type of thing all together.  This got us along on a conversation about why God sent down rules in the beginning but eventually deemed them as different no longer relevant to our society and repealed them in a vision to his prophets.  This whole debate began on the discussion of whether or not homosexuality is a sin.

Now I am not going to talk go into great detail about my personal beliefs when it comes to the morality of homosexuality but I will say that personally I do not think that it is a sin and I believe whole heartedly that God loves and accepts all of his creations.

Now on to morality, I think that the reason the morality and rules that God sent down has changed because man has changed.  In the beginning man was far below God and they could not understand how great God was, stuck in the wilderness as they were.  The best way I can look at it is through an analogy of a ladder.  Imagine you are standing on the ground gazing up at a twenty foot ladder leading to God.  Now this is no ordinary ladder however, no it only has one step, the highest one.  Is there any way that you can possibly hope to climb there with no help in between?  I personally wouldn't have any hope of jumping that high and reaching God.  That's why God came down to the level of man, to give him the ladder rungs to step on.  God always rests slightly above humanity, slowly drawing them up, giving them rungs to stand on.

I recently learned that my grandfather had a very similar analogy and this may help clear up anything my analogy failed to explain.  My grandfather preached that God was like a fisherman, luring humanity up with his bait; slowly lifting man out of the depths and up towards the top, towards him.

This brings up the question why God even felt the need to lead people instead of allowing them to choose for themselves when man has free will.  I feel that God originally needed to set man on the right path and then allow him to choose for himself what was moral and what was immoral.  Imagine that you are standing in the middle of a circle.  One side of the circle is perfect morality and on the opposite side is immorality.  You have no idea where these points are so how will you know which direction to go?  You won't unless you have a guiding light, and that is what God originally sent down.  God gave man a very narrow path to walk in order to encourage them to walk in the direction of morality.  Sense then He (or She) has widened the path in order to allow humans to decide on their own what they view as moral and immoral because in my opinion morality is always a case by case thing and is not actually an absolute.

God hasn't left man completely in the dark however, we still have the teachings of Jesus and an inborn instinct as to what is moral based on how our society has progressed.  The teachings of God and Jesus basically boil down to love your God and your fellow men.  God is still leading us down the path to righteousness but it is our decision whether or not to follow.

On Christology

For anyone who does not know, Christology is one's belief on how holy Jesus Christ is.  Many Christians think that Jesus is as holy as God while some others don't.  It's a whole spectrum thing.

The problem I've always had with traditional Christian teachings is when they say that Jesus is God's son and because of this he is holy while simultaneously preaching that we are all God's children and are created in his image.  If we should worship Jesus because he is God's son shouldn't we worship each other as well.  I don't think that God came down and actually impregnated Mary so what really makes Jesus holier than any of us?

As anyone who has read my prior posts already knows, I believe in a system of reincarnation in which souls struggle through many lives in order to achieve a oneness with the world or a complete knowledge.  I also believe that as souls age and continue to learn their hosts can begin feeling their presence on a subconscious level.  After souls reach this enlightened stage they no longer have a need to return to this world but occasionally one might have a desire to return or feel that the world needs them at a certain time. That is what I believe happened with many of the prophets in the Bible.  Each one had an abnormal connection to God, some could hear him calling their name by night, some encountered an incarnation and some had dreams.  Still others lived the majority of their lives devoted to teaching the ways of God through many different methods.  Jesus is different from these prophets however in that he does not get messages from God but instead already knows what he needs to say.  He seems to be one step closer to full enlightenment than the other prophets were.  For this reason I believe that Jesus was a soul that had already reached enlightenment before he came down again.

Now just because a soul has experienced more lives or is more educated/wise does not make that soul any holier than any other soul.  I think every soul is holy in its own right.  I think that Jesus was a soul that had an incredibly abnormal connection to God and the world beyond our own and understood things most people can't even imagine.  This doesn't make him holier than any of us because we are all God's children.  This doesn't belittle any of his teachings however.  His teachings are still holy and should still be heeded.  So I guess my Christology is that I believe Jesus is holy but I also believe that we all are as well.

On Morality as an Emotion

David Hume argues in his book, A Treatise of Human Nature, that humans derive value and morals from emotions instead of reasoning and fact.  At first when I read this I thought he was way off base but after discussing it in class I realized that he does have many valid points that I agree with.  I do not necessarily believe everything he puts forth but I do for a lot of it.

He begins his arguments by saying that the only thing the mind can know is perceptions.  These perceptions include our sense like taste, touch and sight as well as our thoughts and feelings towards the world around us.  Hume goes further to break down these perceptions into ideas and impressions.  From there we can look at morality as either one of the two.  If we argue that morality is an idea that is concreted in truth then it must follow that morality is a constant, where one behavior is always moral and another is not.  How can someone label one behavior as always moral however?  Morals are situational and there is no black and white test on what is moral in one situation and what is immoral in the same.  People base it on their own gut instincts instead of a reasoned algorithm to determine the relative morality of each behavior.  They can just feel what is right and what is wrong.

If morality were a set truth then it would not change over time either.   We can look at history and easily discredit this argument.  Less than 200 years ago it was completely acceptable and in the eyes of many not immoral to own slaves and beat them because they were less than human.  Now we look back and cringe at the apparent immorality of our ancestors.  Even in this day our moral code as a society is shifting.  Look at the gay rights movement.  Prior to this generation almost no one accepted homosexuals, saying that they were immoral and acting against God himself.  Now however, we see that people are changing what they view as immoral and moral, accepting actions as moral that were previously moral.  If morals truly were based in fact than how could they change?  Facts are set, unchanging and definite.  Since morals change they are obviously not based in natural fact.

Hume’s next point is one I have a little trouble buying into completely.  He states that reason cannot evoke any actions and is rigid and unchanging.  If all everyone knew every fact than perhaps reason could be called rigid, but with each new fact someone learns their reasoning and outlook on the world changes.  Now the main point I disagree with that he brings up here is that reason cannot cause or prevent actions.  Hume states that reason can excite passions in individuals that then cause them to act.  How is this not reason exciting action?  If you look at it the reason caused the passion, which caused the action.  So, if even if you buy Hume’s argument that only passion creates actions the reason still caused the action through the transitive process.  Reason can affect actions in the manner of exciting passions therefore reason causes actions.

Now I concede that reason is one step off of creating the action so Hume’s points still hold that actions are not good or evil due to reasoning.  It is still the passion that has the final say in someone’s actions so if someone is embarrassed by an act or feels that it is immoral they will still avoid doing it even if reason tells them they will be better off.  If someone has a strong moral code and has reasoned that he can get away with theft he will still resist it do to the emotions he feels contrary to the reasoned selfishness his mind is telling him.  Morality and emotions can trump reason but that does not mean reason cannot affect actions.

In the same stream Hume states that actions cannot be labeled as either good or evil.  Instead they are all situational.  If actions could be labeled as moral or immoral than even inanimate objects would be capable of immorality.  If you are walking down the street and see a man run into an old lady and continue walking you will label that man as inconsiderate and rude, however, if you watch a rock roll down a hill and hit a smaller rock you will not label the rock as immoral.  Because actions in and of themselves cannot be moral or immoral it follows that there is no set criteria for morality and immorality therefore it is beyond reason to comprehend what creates and dictates the conception of morality.

In conclusion I believe that Hume has many valid points and that morality is based largely on emotional feelings rather than reasoned thought.  People all have different facts at their fingertips yet they all come up with similar moral codes around the world indicating that some form of evolution deemed our moral system as beneficial to society.  

On Marxism: A System for Angels

This post was made in response to my required reading for Foundations of Economic Exchange. On Fetishism by Karl Marx:

How can Marx see value in a good as how many hours went into it. Just because someone put 10 hours into making a shoe does not make it more valuable to me than a shoe that was professionally produced in 10 minutes. I want the good that is of higher quality and will give me more use and acceptance. Marx claims that goods do not have inherent value and the only use of trade is to exchange “social value,” that is the want of need of the producer to satisfy his life necessities. This, in and of itself, is to me paradoxical. If someone needs something to survive it obviously has value to them, some value that they have assigned to the meat of their neighbors cow or the wheat of their neighbors field. They will certainly be more willing to pay for the meat to feed their family than they will for the shoes that took the same amount of time to make as the meat, and under Marx’s assessment of value should therefore cost the same amount.

How could Marx overlook such a powerful motivator in people as survival? People will pay much more for a good that extends their life and well being than they will for a craft their neighbor made to sell. This flies right in the face of Marx’s entire theory that the only value of a good is social value. How Marx could have overlooked such a motivating factor as survival and comfort makes me question the rest of his thinking. How could he blatantly ignore something that seems so obvious to us?

People always have different tastes. No two people are going to look at a piece of art and experience the same emotions evoked by it. No two people are going to extract equal amounts of enjoyment out of a new game. No two people are going to eat the same food and feel the same way about. And likewise no two people are ever going to have the exact same value for a good they both see. People by goods based on what fits their lives best and what they see as most beneficial to them. Not to help other people. Marx describes the peasants working together to benefit the “community” at large. This seems like such an idealized and perfect concept of the world. No one puts the community above themselves and no one is going to value a good solely based on the hours someone put into it.

Now of course Marx claims that this value system I have just argued exists is “The Fetishism” of commodities, but this just seem like a way to ignore the real world and instead talk about his idealized, perfect society. Since the beginning of time man has traded what he has excess of for that which he has a need for. This example reveals again that things have values that people assign to them because it is the most efficient method. If someone has a lot of something already they are not going to want more of it just because someone spent a lot of time making it. Let us say, for example, that I have 500 pairs of socks, way too many socks for me to use in the foreseeable future. Now let us also say that my friend Fred makes socks. Now it takes him 5 hours to knit a pair of socks while I can make one table in about 50 hours. Now regardless of whether or not I really think this table is worth 10 socks I do not want those 10 socks and I will most likely not trade my table for them because I do not need more socks in my already overflowing drawer. Likewise, I will not trade someone something that I have no need for. If I never dig any holes I have no point for a shovel, even if my neighbor made it and needs to trade it for food or a table.

In conclusion, Marx’s system seems like one idealized and presented as what could be if everyone worked together and thought of the “community” before one’s self. But, since we live in a world where altruism is all but nonexistent we must face the fact that Marxism simply is not viable in modern society. So in conclusion if we were all selfless beings with no personal drive for self improvement than we could all live in peace and economic equality through Marxism. But then again that would make us something not human.

On Theology

Since my religion interests me more than almost anything else I guess the best place to start would be for me to describe to you all my theology.

Ever since I was a child I was raised in The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). In fact my whole family has come from this background. My grandparents on my father’s side were both DOC ministers and my other grandparents met at a Disciples’ Church. My Great Grandmother (father’s father’s mother) was also a missionary in India for the Disciples of Christ. So to say the least Christianity is in my blood.

I followed the teachings of my church and Sunday School blindly. To use the old cliche I had “the faith of a child”. It wasn’t until my grandfather died that I began to question my religion. The old teaching that God has a plan just didn’t work for me. Why would God have taken my grandfather without letting me get to know him in the way I wish I had? Anyways those were the first moments of questioning I had. My brother, Johnathan helped me see very soon that he wasn’t really gone. His spirit lived on in us and his soul wasn’t dead. Just this body. We would see my grandfather again. He was convinced and Johnny’s convictions obviously rubbed off on his impressionable little brother.

My doubts only really grew from there. I never questioned that God existed and that he had power the questions came from how he used these powers? why he didn’t use them all the time? what the afterlife was? to list just a few. I questioned and questioned and my grandfather was always there to listen to me. He guided my faith journey and would always listen to me. He would always share his own beliefs but never try to push them on me and that was something that really hit me. My grandfather helped me form my own ideas and thoughts on Christianity. I love him for that as well as for many other reasons and I miss him terribly.

Now on to what these years of questioning has led me. It has been nearly 10 years since my grandfather passed and I first doubted my religion and I still have no idea what is right but thanks to my grandfather and the rest of my family (nuclear, extended and church) I know what I believe and hope to be true.

First off, I do not believe in the traditional sense of heaven and hell. This is the basis of my religious beliefs and was also the basis of grandfather’s as well as my father’s. I believe that souls are eternal entities and that they pass from body to body learning lessons until they eventually become “enlightened” for lack of a better word. I believe that every soul is on a quest for fulfillment and knowledge and through this I have come to better understand the golden rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Secondly, I am not entirely sure on where I stand on what God truly is. I have spent nearly equal time pondering whether God is an entity in and of Himself (or Herself), whether he is an emotion (like love) or whether he is really the community we all share. My current beliefs are that he is all three. I feel like God has to be a separate entity in order for this world to have been created but I also feel like he wouldn’t be all that he is without the love and community created by the souls within each of us. I believe this because the times that I see God the most are when I am working in connection with other people, regardless of numbers. I feel God pulsing through all of us, uniting us, regardless of our difference in race, creed or anything else. God may be a separate entity but his presence on Earth, at least to me, is expressed through each of us.

Lastly, I believe that we are all one in God and God is within all of us. We are all on our way to “nirvana”, “enlightenment”, “inner peace” or however that phrase resonates best with each of you. Because of this, I do not believe that anyone should be hated, that anyone should be persecuted for what they believe, that anyone should be treated without the due respect you feel should be afforded to yourself. We are all fellow travelers passing through this life and many others and we must respect each other’s journeys. Each of us has fallen (once, twice or uncountable times) in our journey and we were assisted by those around us. Maybe in this life it is your turn to return the favor.

In conclusion this isn’t everything I believe, it is simply a basic overview; none of these beliefs are set in stone, I am always open to discussion and questions; and finally I do not believe that I should press these beliefs on anyone. I hope you read this post and better understand me. If these beliefs resonate with you I am glad I could touch your life. I hope you all enjoyed reading this and I love you all. Good luck on your journey.

Introduction

I really have never blogged anything before besides for classes so I really don't know what to do. I guess I will probably just write thoughts I have for the day. Now I want to put a disclaimer out there right from the beginning that just because I write something on this blog does not mean that I believe it. I will probably reiterate this a lot but keep it in mind. I don't have any specific topic for this blog so don't expect consistent themes. That's everything I will try to blog a detailed essay ever week or so.

Thanks for checking this out.