Saturday, April 21, 2012
Biological Repression
One member of the MCLA class of 2015 has been posting on various social networking sites that he is fasting from food for entire days. He has also been posting that he is an ex-bisexual (which is awkward because sexual orientation is not a choice, and he is making it appear as though it is), which seems strange given that most of his posts are about sex, which leads many to think that he is constantly thinking about sex. He is also, apparently, neglecting education, he has said a few times that he could care less about education over God. At any rate, he thinks that fasting/abstaining/neglecting from these things will help him to grow spiritually. I disagree with him, and instead agree with the Buddha. I think that you can only work on spirituality when you are not repressing your basic biological needs. The sexual repression, it seems, is especially leading to interference with spirituality with him. Given that at least 80% of his posts are about sex, and not about god, it's apparent that repressed sexuality is hogging up most of his thoughts. There is also the fact that sexual repression and fasting can have severely negative affects on a person's health. I hope that, if there is indeed a god, he is not the kind of god who supports sexual repression, starvation, and depriving oneself of knowledge just for him.
Paths Don't Pave Themselves
In response to Rachel - Full post here
While I certainly think that it is up to you to make your own choices, I would advise you to be cautious about this idea of path. Paths do not pave themselves. You, and only you, pave the path. You are always paving a path, even when you try not to pave the path, you are paving it by trying not to. What I mean is that inaction is a type of action. Your actively choosing to not pursue your education license, is paving another path which may or may not have worse affects on you. I think that the main point behind this meditation is that you should be okay with the choices that you make, not that you give up on something because something has changed. A Buddhist would probably tell you to do what feels right, and I would agree. Continuing briefly, and I'm not sure why, or to what end, I think that a Buddhist would say that striving for your teaching license despite the change in requirements can be the proper path just as much as graduating regardless of the status of your teaching license. Remember that the best path may not be the easiest path
You cannot know, beyond a shred of doubt, what the future is; therefore you cannot know, beyond a shred of doubt, what your path in life is. Choosing to pursue your teaching license may make you incredibly happy in the future, or it could turn out to be completely useless and a waste of time. Likewise, giving up on the teaching license could make you incredibly happy, or it could end with you being unhappy. The choice is yours to make, you cannot know if somebody has already chosen a path, so you must make a choice of your own. Simply, accept your choice and be willing to go with the flow.
While I certainly think that it is up to you to make your own choices, I would advise you to be cautious about this idea of path. Paths do not pave themselves. You, and only you, pave the path. You are always paving a path, even when you try not to pave the path, you are paving it by trying not to. What I mean is that inaction is a type of action. Your actively choosing to not pursue your education license, is paving another path which may or may not have worse affects on you. I think that the main point behind this meditation is that you should be okay with the choices that you make, not that you give up on something because something has changed. A Buddhist would probably tell you to do what feels right, and I would agree. Continuing briefly, and I'm not sure why, or to what end, I think that a Buddhist would say that striving for your teaching license despite the change in requirements can be the proper path just as much as graduating regardless of the status of your teaching license. Remember that the best path may not be the easiest path
You cannot know, beyond a shred of doubt, what the future is; therefore you cannot know, beyond a shred of doubt, what your path in life is. Choosing to pursue your teaching license may make you incredibly happy in the future, or it could turn out to be completely useless and a waste of time. Likewise, giving up on the teaching license could make you incredibly happy, or it could end with you being unhappy. The choice is yours to make, you cannot know if somebody has already chosen a path, so you must make a choice of your own. Simply, accept your choice and be willing to go with the flow.
Consumption is Justification
In response to Jess - full post here
I agree with the main point of your essay; there is essentially no difference between sacrificing animals and slaughtering them for consumption. I find it amazing that people could be so offended by animal sacrifice, but not blink an eye at the slaughterhouses in America. I suppose the problem with animal sacrifice is largely its association with barbaric tribal practices of the past; people who practice sarcophagy, it seems, are offended when people don't use animals explicitly for consumption. Modern Western society seems to justify meat consumption at the expense of severe animal cruelty.
I do disagree, however, with the view that we cannot get rid of slaughterhouses. Society is made up of individuals. The slaughterhouses will all fail if the majority, and preferably all of humanity, agrees that vegetarianism is preferable to the consumption of meat. You did miss a key point in that whole section about animals consuming other animals: not all animals consume other animals. As omnivores, we don't actually have to consume animal flesh; actually, humans are more biologically similar to herbivores than most other omnivores. As such, slaughterhouses are not necessary, but are, rather, a luxury of sorts.
I think that if a person is against animal abuse, they should become vegetarian. If a person finds that kicking a dog is unacceptable, they should be appropriately moved to find the slaughter of the more intelligent pigs to be equally, or perhaps more, unacceptable.
I agree with the main point of your essay; there is essentially no difference between sacrificing animals and slaughtering them for consumption. I find it amazing that people could be so offended by animal sacrifice, but not blink an eye at the slaughterhouses in America. I suppose the problem with animal sacrifice is largely its association with barbaric tribal practices of the past; people who practice sarcophagy, it seems, are offended when people don't use animals explicitly for consumption. Modern Western society seems to justify meat consumption at the expense of severe animal cruelty.
I do disagree, however, with the view that we cannot get rid of slaughterhouses. Society is made up of individuals. The slaughterhouses will all fail if the majority, and preferably all of humanity, agrees that vegetarianism is preferable to the consumption of meat. You did miss a key point in that whole section about animals consuming other animals: not all animals consume other animals. As omnivores, we don't actually have to consume animal flesh; actually, humans are more biologically similar to herbivores than most other omnivores. As such, slaughterhouses are not necessary, but are, rather, a luxury of sorts.
I think that if a person is against animal abuse, they should become vegetarian. If a person finds that kicking a dog is unacceptable, they should be appropriately moved to find the slaughter of the more intelligent pigs to be equally, or perhaps more, unacceptable.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)