![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The Human Condition, Chapter 2
This will be an update as I read this damn thing.
Suffice to say, I'm becoming fast annoyed at this outlook on life. A footnote says that freedom was understood to consiste of a) status, b) personal inviolability, c) freedom of economic activity, d)right of unrestricted movement. As a result, the slave is completely out, a craftsman isn't even mentioned because the craftsman is limited by his compulsion to work, and a merchant is out because os his compulsion to keep accumulating shit. This means the only people who're actually free are those who freely i) enjoy a life of consuming the beautiful, ii) devote their life to the polis (politics?) which produces beautiful deeds, and iii) devotes their lives to thinking about eternal, beautiful thing (good because it doesn't produce or affect current beautiful things).
Firstly, this devalues pretty much 90% of the human population who support that last 10%, ON THEIR BACKS. I can't believe how petty and ignorant this is. And this is Aristotle! I can't believe that a thinking philosopher would be so arrogant to believe that he is better than 90% of the population simply because he has leisure time to sit and think - there is a reason why he had no economic limits, and the reason was because of the 90% of people then! This harkens back to both Marilyn French and the current book I'm reading ("When God Was A Woman") on why men are so powerful: because women were too busy working in the domestic space to notice men were getting big-headed about their free time and what exactly the free time meant. I don't know how more time spent in public space means greater autonomy and thus superiority, but that's pretty fucked.
This is some serious being-out-of-touch with the common man here. Just because you've got time and inclination to go vote for (and participate in the politics of) how to rule everybody else doesn't make you better.
Even with the disappearance of the city-state, action wasn't becoming valued, but contemplation was seen as the ideal "free" way of life. The ideal of Christians (and many other religions too) that contemplation is superior to action is a move to be free from worldliness, but it doesn't exclude it to a small ruling elite; religion made it a right of all people. Why? Well, it's just easier to keep people in line if you promise them something beyond death, so they shouldn't complain in this life.
I'm actually rather irked by the idea that contemplation > action. It's true that if a person doesn't contemplate, their actions won't really have much thought nor quality behind them. But to think without acting is impotent and equally as worthless. You can have all the opinions you want, but you better stand up for what you believe.
Okay, here's a direct statement:
JUst as war takes place for the sake pf peace, thus every kind of activity ... must culminate in the absolute quiet of contemplation.
That is. Wow. A TERRIBLE ANALOGY.
Here's a paraphrase of a statement:
The reason why contemplation > activity is because anything a human does / produces could never measure up to the perfection of the cosmos, which govern themselves. This perfection, however, is visible only when the human mind is completely quiet and contemplative.
Suffice to say, I'm becoming fast annoyed at this outlook on life. A footnote says that freedom was understood to consiste of a) status, b) personal inviolability, c) freedom of economic activity, d)right of unrestricted movement. As a result, the slave is completely out, a craftsman isn't even mentioned because the craftsman is limited by his compulsion to work, and a merchant is out because os his compulsion to keep accumulating shit. This means the only people who're actually free are those who freely i) enjoy a life of consuming the beautiful, ii) devote their life to the polis (politics?) which produces beautiful deeds, and iii) devotes their lives to thinking about eternal, beautiful thing (good because it doesn't produce or affect current beautiful things).
Firstly, this devalues pretty much 90% of the human population who support that last 10%, ON THEIR BACKS. I can't believe how petty and ignorant this is. And this is Aristotle! I can't believe that a thinking philosopher would be so arrogant to believe that he is better than 90% of the population simply because he has leisure time to sit and think - there is a reason why he had no economic limits, and the reason was because of the 90% of people then! This harkens back to both Marilyn French and the current book I'm reading ("When God Was A Woman") on why men are so powerful: because women were too busy working in the domestic space to notice men were getting big-headed about their free time and what exactly the free time meant. I don't know how more time spent in public space means greater autonomy and thus superiority, but that's pretty fucked.
This is some serious being-out-of-touch with the common man here. Just because you've got time and inclination to go vote for (and participate in the politics of) how to rule everybody else doesn't make you better.
Even with the disappearance of the city-state, action wasn't becoming valued, but contemplation was seen as the ideal "free" way of life. The ideal of Christians (and many other religions too) that contemplation is superior to action is a move to be free from worldliness, but it doesn't exclude it to a small ruling elite; religion made it a right of all people. Why? Well, it's just easier to keep people in line if you promise them something beyond death, so they shouldn't complain in this life.
I'm actually rather irked by the idea that contemplation > action. It's true that if a person doesn't contemplate, their actions won't really have much thought nor quality behind them. But to think without acting is impotent and equally as worthless. You can have all the opinions you want, but you better stand up for what you believe.
Okay, here's a direct statement:
JUst as war takes place for the sake pf peace, thus every kind of activity ... must culminate in the absolute quiet of contemplation.
That is. Wow. A TERRIBLE ANALOGY.
Here's a paraphrase of a statement:
The reason why contemplation > activity is because anything a human does / produces could never measure up to the perfection of the cosmos, which govern themselves. This perfection, however, is visible only when the human mind is completely quiet and contemplative.
no subject
This may be true of Buddhists for whom meditation and obtaining enlightenment (a psychological rather than active state) are important, but this is not the case for most religions, which push action above all else.
In the Hindu faith, the very word "karma" means action. Every single act you take from washing the dishes to punching a little kid in the face has its own karma. It is entirely upon their actions that the faithful are judged. Thinking holy thoughts never add up like action does. They've got to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
The same goes for the Judeo-Christian faith:
In the Old Testament, this could not be more clear in such passages as Isaiah 1:13-17
“Bring your worthless offerings no longer,
Incense is an abomination to Me.
New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies—
I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly.
14 “I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts,
They have become a burden to Me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 “So when you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide My eyes from you;
Yes, even though you multiply prayers,
I will not listen.
Your hands are covered with blood.
16 “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight.
Cease to do evil,
17 Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Reprove the ruthless,
Defend the orphan,
Plead for the widow.
In other words, God says: "I hate your church services where you sing my praises, but you don't do anything about it. I won't even listen to the prayers of the lazy self-righteous. STOP BEING EVIL AND GO OUT AND DO GOOD! Protect the innocent!"
Jesus confirms this message in the New Testament in many passages including Matthew 21:28-31 :
[Jesus said,] "What is your opinion?
A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, 'Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.' He said in reply, 'I will not,' but afterwards he changed his mind and went.
30
The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, 'Yes, sir,' but did not go.
31
Which of the two did his father's will?" [The lazy self-righteous] answered, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you."
In this passage, Jesus is scolding the pious Pharisees (religious conservatives/legalists) by pointing out that people who are imperfect but get the job done are far better than those who say "We love you, Lord!" but don't lift a finger to do His will and show it.
The fact that so many religious people are apathetic and more concerned with their own psychology than getting out there and extending compassion and aid... Well, that shows that the followers are doing it wrong, not that the religion itself is wrong.
If you meet a Muslim (or Pagan, or anything else) and they're the most awful, uncharitable person you've ever met, that doesn't mean that their faith does not promote charity. It just shows that they are subject to human selfishness and (like most agnostics and atheists as well) are putting their own needs ahead of the charity they should be doing.
If religious faithful are a bunch of creeps, it could be because they're bad students, not because they had a bad teacher.
no subject
Actually, now that I'm reading that again, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I better go check what it was I was reading...
no subject
no subject
Welcome to my boring academic journal XD
no subject