Originally Posted by S.W.:
...the last place that one should look for moral guidance would be in ancient "holy" books. Those would be the source of arbitrary, primitive and self-sacrificial principles that any sane person should reject just as any sane person should reject theism.
***
Steve, I'm 96% in agreement with you. My epistemology is still closely aligned to Objectivism (I believe you'll tell me I'm wrong). When it comes to metaphysics, I dissent somewhat, out of respect for the vastness and complexity of the universe. I assert that it's plain silly to think we humans on this speck of cosmic dust have figured out how the whole universe operates, and that we have anything near a comprehensive understanding of it. What we have observed could very well be a tiny fragment of a much grander, far more complex cosmos. To quasi-quote Somerset Maugham, it requires a good deal of information to discover one's ignorance.
Sure, the ancient, sacred texts of all religions are unreliable. We have all sorts of problems with dubious authorship, ambiguous and often disparate translations, and translations of translations; suspicions as to the authenticity of documents various and sundry; not to mention the prejudiced and no-doubt politically motivated selectivity of certain persons who were in charge of deciding what was canonical and what wasn't, what was heretical and what was the God's-honest-Truth, etc.
But on the other hand there are many profound things contained in these old writings. Isn't it interesting that Jesus - according to so-and-so - on certain issues completely contradicted the teaching of the old school? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Isn't it interesting that billions of people follow the teachings of a man who purportedly hung around with a prostitute [edit 1.25.14 was she? Did you know this, William? Or did you just assume it?] and prevented a mob of thugs from murdering her? Especially since Solomon of the old school explicitly warns us not to seek out the company of such women, because their mouths are the pit of hell? And since public stonings are condoned in earlier books? I think it's interesting, especially since, if I lived back then, and a bunch of thugs were planning to lob rocks at a young woman until she died simply because she took money for sexual favors, I'd sure as hell step in and try to stop them. I'm not sure if I'd have had those great words to say, but still, the game would be ON.
Even if there were no Jesus, if this person was an invention, the fact remains that someone back in those times had a grip on things, and could think rationally; and KNEW that throwing rocks at a human being with the purpose of killing them was INSANE.
Then again there's the fact that Jesus - according to so-and-so - talked about people going to hell, or into the fire, or wherever, for reasons that didn't seem justifiable at all. And some writers had Him say that you had to love Him more than your own mother and father, and various other things that didn't seem to make sense, that didn't gel with the really good things He was reported to say, like loving one another, like hey, take a look at these people over here, they have very little, life is difficult for them - show them some compassion, give them a hand, help them out. Once you start doing it, you realize that giving really is it's own reward. It doesn't have to be a duty. It can't be a duty. In fact, the Biblical Jesus would agree with Ayn Rand that if you give charity by force of law or duty alone, then: IT IS NOT charity. Giving, helping others, must come voluntarily. That's what charity means. Theft is not charity. These ideas were around, were in circulation, a long time ago. The ideas of value, and of currency, were in full swing, even then.
My personal belief is that greed really is a sin, and a really bad one. There's nothing wrong with being wealthy. Of course not! I'd LOVE to be wealthy! I hereby declare before the world that yes, I'd LOVE to be a billionaire. But on the other hand, it doesn't trouble me at all to know that I'll never be one. I don't care about money, in and of itself. I only care about the measure of freedom it can give me. That's its best and only purpose, really. If I had ten billion dollars given to me by a mysterious benefactor, I guarantee, promise, on my word as a father and a gentleman, that the first thing I'd do is figure out where and how and to whom I could give nine billion of it away. That'd leave me with a cool one billion. Even after dumping 90% of my wad I'd still feel ridiculously affluent.
That's if all that money was given to me. But it would also hold true if, let's say, I put a book of poetry out and all of a sudden I'm the greatest poet since Virgil...hell, since Homer! Boom! My books are going faster than popsicles in aitch ee double hockey sticks. I'd be the same guy I am now, only with a lot more free time on my hands and a lot less twisting in the guts. I'd still give 90% of it away, and keep for myself, my kids, my close friends and family, what I thought was adequate to maintain our level of comfort, happiness, security, and posterity. This is just a round about way of saying that the world still is, as it always was, rife with money-grubbing, greedy bastards, who do not fully grasp the principle and value of money, but love money for its own sake.
Even if the Judeo Christian bible never existed, there are the Hindu and Buddhist texts, in which there is often great wisdom. I'm not saying we need to read them all and pray over them and make a big to-do; all I mean to say is we need not throw them out or hand-wave them away. There are plenty of people in the world who'll seek out those writings for the poetry in them, the beauty of language, all that stuff.
We just need to be balanced and level-headed. To recognize bullshit when we see it, and also those occasional points of light, the sparks of genius.
No comments:
Post a Comment