News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

Some thoughts on self-renunciation

Started by Mark_W, January 29, 2007, 10:07:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mark_W

Here's some jumbled thoughts, some of it paraphrased from the writings of Tolstoy. These ideas may fit in with Buddhism, and therefore may be atheist-friendly.

Before we act we must establish a relationship with world, and have a theory for life, some reason for doing the things that we do. Upon entering rational life, nobody can escape this establishing of some sort of relationship to everything and everyone around him or her. Most people, both “religious” and “scientific”*, organize their lives around a philosophy that we have a right to our lives and should therefore live for our happiness and the happiness of those close to us (friends and family) and, if possible, for the happiness of everyone else too. However, when we try to live for the happiness of ourselves and of those close to us, we find (if we don’t ignore the fact) that the worldly advantages we get can only be obtained by taking away from others. Also we realize that the more worldly advantages we acquire, the less they satisfy us and the more we desire for new ones. And the longer someone lives the more inevitable becomes the approach of death, destroying all possibility of worldly advantages. So this is an irrational way to live. The only way to true happiness and a rational life is through a process of self-renunciation, where you do not live for worldly advantages but for the good of everyone and devote your life to this cause. This is living solely to serve your conscience, as you know through experience and reason that living any other way will ruin true happiness, since you must live conscientiously for your heart to be at rest.

* The only question for true science is to determine how we should live; what should we do in life. Or, how to practically carry out what we have determined is the right thing to do.

MrE2Me

#1
Quote from: "Mark_W"However, when we try to live for the happiness of ourselves and of those close to us, we find (if we don’t ignore the fact) that the worldly advantages we get can only be obtained by taking away from others..
Can you expand on this?  It sounds like a big generalization to me...or perhaps I'm just not following you.  I guess it depends on what you mean by "taking away from others."
[size=92]I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts[/size]

Mark_W

#2
the economic principle that the rich and poor are correlaries, would be an example of what I am getting at with this. However much we consume vs. how much we produce, affects everyone in the world to a degree.
Maybe this helps a little.

Whitney

#3
Mark...have you read anything about deep ecology.  I forgot the name but one of the deep ecologists talks about extending the self to encompass all life rather than self renuciation....the idea is that if you extend what you view as the self to include everything then you would in turn make the desires of others your own desires.  To discuss more about what he said I'll have to find my textbook from environmental philosophy...it was interesting even if it gets a little weird since some people who promote this view think the self should also be extended to things like rocks.

edit:  I did a google search and found what I was talking about:
QuoteThe second component of deep ecology is what Arnie Naess calls the need for human self-realization. Instead of identifying with our egos or our immediate families, we would learn to identify with trees and animals and plants, indeed the whole ecosphere. This would involve a pretty radical change of consciousness, but it would make our behavior more consistent with what science tells us is necessary for the well-being of life on Earth. We just wouldn't do certain things that damage the planet, just as you wouldn't cut off your own finger.

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC22/Zimmrman.htm

I think this makes more sense than renouncing the self...although I am critical of Naess's view too.

Mark_W

#4
laetusatheos, this ecology idea is self-renunciation, just worded in a more new age way.  You are not renouncing life. You are renouncing everying selfish about yourself, and living out a happy, meaningful life. The difference between what I'm saying and the deep ecology is a focus specifically on other people, since if people won't even stop exploiting other human beings, how can we expect them to stop expoliting the earth?