like_mike (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} like_mike) wrote,@ 2006-02-27 21:50:00 |
|
Brandon's "Three Pillars of Altruism"
According to Nathaniel Brandon's "Basic Principles of Objectivism" there are three basic principles which werve as the pillars of Altruism (Altruism, meant in the Objectivist sense):
1. Existence is evil
2. Man is evil
3. Happiness is evil
I thought that this was a pretty stunning revelation. Not stunning in the sense that it is new to people who have read Ayn Rand, but stunning in its arrangement and presentation. I don't remember seeing it quite so bluntly. Furthermore, I think that this provides a pretty accurate description. Take Christianity. The first principle is demonstrated by the idea of the world as a "vale of tears" where we are all condemned to suffer until we get to the wonder that is heaven, which is, by the way, in many ways opposite to earth. The second principle just is orriginal sin. Finally, the third principle is found in the idea that there is merit in suffering, and the more you suffer, the more your heavenly reward.
When listening to the lecture, especially in any discussion of #1, I had to think of Buddhism. Buddhism wasn't mentioned explicitly, probably because the lectures were taped in 1958, well before Buddhism took off in the USA. What may be the Buddhist varriant of #1 happenes to be what is called the First Noble Truth and is often sumarized as "Life is Suffering". A more detailed statement of the "First Noble Truth" is as follows:
This is the Noble Truth about suffering. Birth is suffering. Ageing is suffering. Sickness is suffering. Death is Suffering. Sorrow, pain, grief, and despair are suffering. Association with what is unpleasant and separation from what is pleasant is suffering. Not getting what one wants is suffering. In short, the whole process of attachment is suffering.
As someone who sees benefit in both Objectivism and Buddhism, this clash seems somewhat difficult. To be clear, The First Noble Truth is not that existence is evil or that Life is suffering. A more accurate translation would be that suffering is a necessary part of life. An even more accurate explanation would be that life necessarily gives us problems that cause people to suffer, but we don't have to suffer, if only we train ourselves in meditation.
However, this still leaves us with the problem. Objectivism is posative. It aims at achieving happiness. It focuses on the posative. Buddhism instead places a primary on suffering and how to alieviate it. It takes a darker view of what the world or existence is. Perhaps I am not a Buddhist, or negative enough to be such. Or maybe I just wish I weren't that nevative. In any case, I am left with the problem, and no answers. Maybe this is why the life of a full time Buddhist contemplative doesn't even appeal to me.
Buddhism still seems valuable. Perhaps life strategies to reduce suffering can be used to enhance success, achievement, and happines in a very worldly way. I know that there is some acknowledgement and resistance to this in Buddhist circles. Perhaps this is why Therevada is frowned upon by Mahayana.
According to Nathaniel Brandon's "Basic Principles of Objectivism" there are three basic principles which werve as the pillars of Altruism (Altruism, meant in the Objectivist sense):
1. Existence is evil
2. Man is evil
3. Happiness is evil
I thought that this was a pretty stunning revelation. Not stunning in the sense that it is new to people who have read Ayn Rand, but stunning in its arrangement and presentation. I don't remember seeing it quite so bluntly. Furthermore, I think that this provides a pretty accurate description. Take Christianity. The first principle is demonstrated by the idea of the world as a "vale of tears" where we are all condemned to suffer until we get to the wonder that is heaven, which is, by the way, in many ways opposite to earth. The second principle just is orriginal sin. Finally, the third principle is found in the idea that there is merit in suffering, and the more you suffer, the more your heavenly reward.
When listening to the lecture, especially in any discussion of #1, I had to think of Buddhism. Buddhism wasn't mentioned explicitly, probably because the lectures were taped in 1958, well before Buddhism took off in the USA. What may be the Buddhist varriant of #1 happenes to be what is called the First Noble Truth and is often sumarized as "Life is Suffering". A more detailed statement of the "First Noble Truth" is as follows:
This is the Noble Truth about suffering. Birth is suffering. Ageing is suffering. Sickness is suffering. Death is Suffering. Sorrow, pain, grief, and despair are suffering. Association with what is unpleasant and separation from what is pleasant is suffering. Not getting what one wants is suffering. In short, the whole process of attachment is suffering.
As someone who sees benefit in both Objectivism and Buddhism, this clash seems somewhat difficult. To be clear, The First Noble Truth is not that existence is evil or that Life is suffering. A more accurate translation would be that suffering is a necessary part of life. An even more accurate explanation would be that life necessarily gives us problems that cause people to suffer, but we don't have to suffer, if only we train ourselves in meditation.
However, this still leaves us with the problem. Objectivism is posative. It aims at achieving happiness. It focuses on the posative. Buddhism instead places a primary on suffering and how to alieviate it. It takes a darker view of what the world or existence is. Perhaps I am not a Buddhist, or negative enough to be such. Or maybe I just wish I weren't that nevative. In any case, I am left with the problem, and no answers. Maybe this is why the life of a full time Buddhist contemplative doesn't even appeal to me.
Buddhism still seems valuable. Perhaps life strategies to reduce suffering can be used to enhance success, achievement, and happines in a very worldly way. I know that there is some acknowledgement and resistance to this in Buddhist circles. Perhaps this is why Therevada is frowned upon by Mahayana.
