pura vida

Lending Balance to Principle

by
Benjamin Berry

For most positions that an individual takes in regard to a philosophical ideal there is often a countering position lending balance to the pursuit of truth. This is why it is difficult to assert that Thoreau’s perspective in Walden on “what is necessary of life” holds no truth whatsoever (10). More accurately, Thoreau’s principles are enlightening for the consideration of mans soul, but lack impetuous in their practicality.
Thoreau contends that what is necessary for life is to keep the fire burning within the human being. To this end, he suggests that food and shelter are absolutely essential to keep the warmth within man (Thoreau, 11). Beyond this, Thoreau holds that every other “necessity” is guarded by philosophy; “…to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust” (12-13). While these principles for Thoreau are both theoretical and practical, balance would suggest that much can be learned from them, but that they are contingent upon other principles that may seem paradoxical.
Simplicity is, in some ways, contingent upon complex methodology. The axe that Thoreau implements is a result of complex collaboration among skilled workers, and his independence is not void of interdependence for much the same reason. I find that in all human beings, regardless of race or creed, and self not excluded, there is a tendency toward personal bias which shadows the overarching truth from our vision. It seems that Thoreau’s vision excludes societal relationships as “necessary of life” while, for me, it is absolutely essential for my development and wellbeing emotionally. Still, personal retreat is also of great importance as well as not contributing to societal pressures that shackle the individual.
In conclusion, following the utopian ideals of Thoreau is much like leading one’s life with the use of only one leg. While we may lean on one leg from time to time, in my opinion, it is never advisable to rely on one leg solely for support.

The question is what is evil? If one is so obliged as to attempt to answer this problem they are then faced with answering the question where did evil come from?

I have been attending a study on the major belief structure of man; an individuals pursuit of truth. Key to an individual’s major beliefs is the question where do I come from? I like to think that everyone addresses this question in their own way, but that no one goes through life without coming to some sort of conclusion they are willing to live with. Sadly, “I don’t care” will suffice for some.

There are really only two major categories that really supply any viable possibilities. First, there is no supernatural and we came from nothing. The second is that there is the supernatural and we came from something that always has been. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

Anything that has always existed defies natural boundaries and can be considered to have god properties. Something that comes from nothing is equally unfathomable, yet implies that god properties have no bearing in reality.

If answering this question of where we come from was not difficult enough, when we add evil to the mix answering the question become even more convoluted. Still, answering the question of what is evil and where it came from can give us insight into where we believe we came from; the supernatural, or the natural.

There are a number of ways the individual who believes in the supernatural can attack the question of evil, but I wonder, how does the humanist contend with the problem of evil? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist Mind you, I am not asking what solutions do humanists have for the problem of evil, but rather, where did evil originate? Why does it exist? Does it exist? I don’t know what humanists think in regard to this or others like them that deny the supernatural existence of god properties. My guess is that they believe evil is a result of ignorance, doubt, confusion, etc. That does not address why people often do what they intrinsically believe is wrong. Perhaps then humanist might believe that evil just came into exist in much the same way that the natural world just came into existence. If evil just came into existence, then is it really wrong? Perhaps survival of the fittest suggests that evil is necessary. That would suggest to individuals, however, that if they can do something wrong and get away with it, then it was, in fact, the right thing to do. Now that’s a cobbled up mess.

I find that individuals often like to believe in the natural world without hesitating to consider the supernatural because it’s convenient, but when something tragic happens in their life they like to believe there is something more transcending. Some universal truth that what just happened to them was wrong and ought not to be. Unfortunately, those who choose to believe in a closed system where the natural world is the end all, tell all should not, in my opinion, surmise to have such a hope.

More on this later…
Give me your thoughts.