The thread of comments we’ve exchanged on Anish’s most recent post got me thinking:
Why do I value the things I do?
Why do I value selflessness above selfishness? Why do I consider honesty more ethical than lying? Why do I struggle to achieve self-control instead of satisfying my immediate desires? Why do I admire sincerity more than acting skills?
What is it that prompts me to value moral development more than intellectual enhancement, and to value intellectual effort more than social aptitude?
In essence, how can I know that my value judgements are correctly placed?
There are several ways for me to justify my beliefs. Here are three:
1. Scripture: For those who like to see a scriptural basis for beliefs, Chapter 12 of the Bhagavad Gita outlines the qualities of the ideal devotee; Chapter 16 describes both divine and demonic qualities. For many, this itself might be reason enough for many to strive for such ideals.
2. Universality of the Ideal: For me, what has been a stronger reason to follow Sri Krishna’s suggestion is the universality of those beliefs –as I pointed out in a previous post, it seems like many of the world’s religions seem to project the same image of the ideal. The idea that so many religions, through so many different paths, have arrived at similar conclusions, is really comforting to me. And more than comforting, it serves (for me, at least) as a sign that there is some validity to these suggestions.
3. More recent figures — Sri Ramakrishna, Gandhiji, Mother Teresa — have practiced such ideals and the difference in their lives is apparent.
Ultimately, I think the question of whether these ideals are legitimate or not comes down to this: does practicing them make me better off? Do I feel stronger, do I feel happier, do I feel more confident, as a result of following these ideals?
I have found that struggling to put things into practice is sometimes painful — it is easy to stumble and fall, to get in over your head, to misinterpret and distort reality and fool yourself into thinking you are working towards your goal, to fall prey to fear and lack of self-confidence, to let the feeling that you are the only one that cares about this stuff get to you — but the joy of actually practicing what you preach is immeasurable. The feeling of calm that you get when you know you are in control of your emotions and reactions, for me, is infinitely better than worriedly awaiting the stresses of life; the power you get from living in the moment and comforting someone who may not be able to return the time you’ve invested in them is uplifting…Small glimpses of what it would be like to constantly practice these ideals are what have kept me dedicated to continuously struggling to reach what I have chosen as the ideal.
At the same time, I understand why it is easy to question whether such struggle is worth the effort — most of us are at a stable equilibrium point before embarking on such journeys, so why bother changing that? I’m not sure what made me willing to disturb that equilibrium and search for something better. And, what alarms me is that I’m not sure how exactly I chose what I’ve come to define as “better.” Somehow, these seemingly arbitrary values that I’ve picked (influenced by Hindu scripture, my culture, and the lives of those I admire) have become a huge part of me — and luckily, the occasional successes I achieve have shown me that perhaps my judgment wasn’t misplaced.
Still, the question remains — is there a more logical way to pick what we think of as ideal?
Related posts:
4 Comments
That is a good question, Sonali! I think that choosing our ideal is an entirely emotional assertion. I don’t think there is a more logical way to pick what we think of as ideal, because logic implies a motion from premises to conclusions — so premises are inherent to that which is logical. I believe that premises can only be asserted through emotion, not constructed from logic.
For example, suppose I embark on this logical quest to achieve a better ideal. Why be detached from results? “Being detached is good because it causes less stress.” Why is it good to have less stress? “To have better health.” Why is it good to have better health? “Because life is good.” Why is life good? “I don’t know why, it is my fundamental belief.” For me, the deepest premise is always emotional — I don’t have a reason for it, I just feel that it is right.
So to answer the question of “Why?” it is because, after the dust of logical analysis has settled, I feel that it is so.
The big benefit of this is that it creates a stable platform on which to validate an ideal — the platform of emotional assertion.
The big issue with this is that it seems to preclude the possibility of a universal ideal, if the ideal is based on the subjectivity of an individual’s emotional assertion.
Thoughts?
My last question/answer is a bit different:
…Why is it good to have good health? Because it is a source of freedom.
It is up to you what you want to do with the reduced stress, the better health — but I think most people would agree that anything that frees them (whether from the stress of ill health, from the tension of worrying about the consequences of our actions, from the problems caused by attachment to transient things, etc…) is an improvement — so while it may be difficult to actually get to it, I think the freedom itself must be worth it for all people, because freedom isn’t binding, each person can do with it what they want.
Does that make any sense?
Though, Saketh, I just realized that ultimately, your question is the right one — in the end, it comes down to whether you value life or not.
If not, then there is no point to this development, other than that it makes the time that you are alive infinitely more bearable…But for those who do plan on living, and want to make their time on Earth as joyful as possible, I don’t see any harm (and in fact, lots of benefit!) to living in a way that brings us to freedom.
I agree.
Post a Comment