Although the Eastern explanations for the extreme discrepancies in the conditions under which beings are born on this earth seem very reasonable, it does not seem to make sense that a psychopathic murderer is reborn a saint, or the other way around. In other words, where is the link that unites such different natures? It is very difficult to accept the doctrine of karma when we see individuals paying for acts that they would not be capable of committing. If the same essence has to manifest itself in different circumstances, something of itself has to subsist in order to be identifiable, that is, to be itself in a different circumstance. It does not seem plausible that, in each life, the same being develops a temperament that bears no resemblance to what it once was. If this is so, what, then, defines it? And how to admit the supposed “spiritual evolution” through which it must pass, if in each life, unrecognizably, it returns to square one? To these questions, the answers do not seem satisfactory…
Tag: philosophy
Miraculously Special
To notice the unfathomable extension of the universe, the scales that can only be represented by mathematics and that the mind itself is incapable of conceiving, all the distances, magnitudes, the number of stars that border infinity, and before all this, in something less than a point, invisible and insignificant, to notice that there reside beings provided with consciousness,—apparently the only ones,—capable of identifying themselves within this unlimited whole. It is an amazing contrast. The mind, if it reflects on it carefully, will end up judging the human condition as miraculously special. A lure? Perhaps. But, indeed, it is what it seems…
Ancient Philosophers…
Chamfort lines:
Ce que j’admire dans les anciens philosophes, c’est le désir de conformer leurs moeurs à leurs écrits : c’est ce que l’on remarque dans Platon, Théophraste et plusieurs autres. La morale-pratique était si bien la partie essentielle de leur philosophie, que plusieurs furent mis à la tête des écoles, sans avoir rien écrit : tels que Xénocrate, Polémon, Xentippe, etc. Socrate, sans avoir donné un seul ouvrage et sans avoir étudié aucune autre science que la morale, n’en fut pas moins le premier philosophe de son siècle.
Ah, ancient philosophers! Chamfort would be very sad to note the complete break with reality which, if it did not extinguish them in the West, made their appearance exceedingly difficult. Philosophy is doing today with “practical morality” what it does with all other themes: it is transforming it into an abstraction; it is wasting it as the foundation of a logical construction that is detached from the concrete. It is, in fact, the opposite movement. For this reason, it could not even be attributed to error; what happened was an absolute deviation of purpose. The désir of which Chamfort speaks no longer pulsates in the so-called Western philosophers who, certainly, would never see in a Socrates a similar one.
Taking Life Too Seriously
Says Chamfort:
Le théâtre tragique a le grand inconvénient moral de mettre trop d’importance à la vie et à la mort.
It is true… There is no denying that taking life too seriously brings numerous drawbacks, starting with the inevitable anguish. By giving too much importance to life and death and realizing that both are largely beyond its control, the spirit will experience despair. But one thing should be noted: emphasis is necessary for the theater to move; the message of a play will never have the same effect if it is devoid of dramatic exaggeration. To say with Nelson Rodrigues: fiction, in order to purify, needs to be atrocious. But perhaps these inconveniences are necessary not only for the theater, but for life itself, since in complete indifference man will always remain exactly where he is.