FINAL
1. Your real name.
Benedectus Juwono
-----------------------------------
2. Your user name.
einztein_o07
-----------------------------------
3. What GRADE did you get on the midterm? You can use my email to you as confirmation, if you wish.
you passed me on my C track with a chance for a B if i answered the B questions, but i haven't had the time to, so that keeps me on the C.
to quote your email: "This is a very fine start. I will pass this for the B track, provided you answer the B questions in the next week or so. nice work. dave."
-----------------------------------
4. What track are you on (A, B, or C)?
i was on the B track but the workload of this and the ethics class i am taking this summer has put me off the B track so now i am on the C track.
-----------------------------------
5. List all the books you read for this class this semester? How fully? Be honest.
THE UNIVERSE IN A NUTSHELL by Stephen Hawking --- read thoroughly the whole book.
THE BLANK SLATE by Stephen Pinker --- read thoroughly the whole book.
MY WICKED, WICKED WAYS by Errol Flynn --- read thoroughly the whole book, except the chapter titled "?????".
Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self Knowledge by Arthur Osborne --- read thoroughly the whole book.
LOOKING AT PHILOSOPHY by Donald Palmer --- read thoroughly the whole book.
RATIONAL MYSTICISM by John Horgan --- read thoroughly half of the book.
-----------------------------------
5a. LIST any extra credit films.
did none.
-----------------------------------
6. List ALL the posts you have done for this class (including EVERY POST YOU HAVE ONE).
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:04:14
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (1)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:44:18
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (2)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:44:11
Subject: Re: the down side of physics
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (1)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (2)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:48:03
Subject: Re: history, destiny, and space
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:28:06
Subject: Re: Re: Wishing I took physics
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 21:23:50
Subject: Re: I little closer to understanding.
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:49:36
Subject: Re: Pseudo Scientific Critique, by Carlos Vasquez (Week 2)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:48:25
Subject: Re: Re: Week One Post Three: Slightly Confused
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:01:57
Subject: on science and religion
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:07:20
Subject: Re: Re: Philosophy Done Well
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:39:42
Subject: Re: Re: on science and religion
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 21:32:19
Subject: Re: Re: The Black Hole
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:02:23
Subject: Re: Re: Do "I" exist?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:49:21
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (1)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:56:34
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (2)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:44:47
Subject: Re: Re: Human sexuality
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:27:34
Subject: Re: Re: Is time travel possible
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:15:13
Subject: epigenetic predisposition
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:42:05
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (1)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:25:08
Subject: Re: Hawking Changes His Mind on Black Holes
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:29:58
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (2)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 02:09:37
Re: Simply fool the masses
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:05:08
Re: women : blank slate
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:02:34
Re: How did you think of that?
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:07:53
Re: Hawking says black hole theory was wrong
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:13:40 -0700
Re: Morals
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 19:41:38 -0700
Re: Purpose
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:39:46 -0700
ramana maharshi and destiny
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:23:37 -0700
Re: ramana maharshi and destiny
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:12:04 -0700
Re: Gay Rights
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 22:47:59 -0700
Re: ramana maharshi and destiny
-----------------------------------
6a. WHAT GRADE DO YOU DESERVE FOR THIS CLASS AND WHY?
i personally feel that cramming 18 weeks worth of materials into 5 weeks has proven very strenuous. prof. lane was right when he said that this is the single hardest introductory philosophy class in the united states. i thought i could get at least a B in this class, but the reading assignment from my ethics class is just as tedious as this class. i am unable to keep up with the workload on the B track and the ethics class in 5 short weeks, so now i'm on the C track. however, i feel that i deserve at least a C+ or B- for my work in this class, because even though i have not managed to finish any of the readings in the B track, i have often participated in the group discussion and tried to give intelligent discussion to the very best of my ability. also, i read thoroughly each book in the track and not just skim through it. i feel that skimming might help me answer the questions in the midterm and final, but won't give me a good insight on what i am learning. when i take a class i want to be able to learn something, not just to be able to answer questions.
-----------------------------------
THE TOFU OF THE TEST:
ALL STUDENTS (whatever track, answer the following questions):
7. How would Nietzsche criticize Ramana Maharshi's philosophical and ethical system of thought? Be accurate and use quotes to back up your assertions.
ramana maharshi's and friedrich's philosophical systems are quite the opposite of each other. one that is quite obvious is that ramana maharshi bases all his teachings on divine reasonings, while nietzsche claims that there is no such thing as a divine being and that human beings have power to control their own life. ramana maharshi claims that our true self is the I, the deathless spirit that dwells within our body, while the body itself is disposable and of no significant importance. nietzsche will completely criticize this view since he himself regards the physicality as being superior. while maharshi thinks that the deathless self, the spirit, is what we should concern about and that we "attach too much importance to the body," nietzsche thinks that it is wrong to deny one's passions. he claims that "to exterminate the passions and desires merely in order to do away with their folly... seems to us today merely an acute form of folly." this line depicts clearly nietzsche's admiration for passion and desires, and that one should act accordingly to one's passion and desires because only in such a way can one get to the higher humanity level, which is the superman.
ramana maharshi's belief in destiny will be one main point that nietzsche would criticize. maharshi's idea of destiny undermines nietzsche's concept of will to power. nietzsche believes that man can only evolve for the better if he can will himself to power, and to master nature as a final goal. but maharshi's idea of destiny makes such a concept unconvincing because no matter how much a man tries to will himself to power, if destiny does not allow, he will not gain dominance over nature. another difference would be nietzsche's anti-god system and maharshi's pro-god system. nietzsche claims that god is dead while maharshi holds in highest regard god and spirituality.
-----------------------------------
8. In what ways is Errol Flynn more "honest" (think about this term before you plunge) than Ramana Maharshi in terms of life, nature, and truth? Be sure to substantiate your answer.
errol flynn, in his autobiography, exposes most if not all of the bad things he has done throughout his life, but not only that, he also admits that what he did was wrong. the one incident when he stole the jewels owned by the the woman he just slept with, he wrote down: "this is criminal. not the way to treat anybody. she has been wonderful, how the hell can you think of this?" at that moment, flynn had a struggle with his conscience. although flynn ended up committing the crime anyway, at least he did realize that he was doing something wrong.
sri bhagavan, never stole anything in his life like errol flynn. but one dishonesty that he commited was when he left the house to go to the holy hill, arunachala. ramana maharshi never actually admitted any struggle with his conscience when he was about to leave the house. he understands that "authority is very strong in a hindu household," but he did not feel guilty at all, leaving his entire family for an arguably selfish reason. sri bhagavan, knowingly lied to his family without any feeling of guilt. while it is true that there probably was a greater purpose to his leaving, yet he justifies lying to obtain something without even considering how his family feels about it. when later confronted by his brother, his response that claims he did not even know he was leaving seems like very inconsiderate to his family.
errol flynn has the guts to admit that what he did was wrong, while sri bhagavan uses excuses, sometimes divine ones, and never admits that he was being inconsiderate to his family for leaving home by guile.
-----------------------------------
9. Why did Ramana Maharshi leave home at 17? What truth did he discover?
he decided to leave home because he realized that if he decides to live as a sadhu, then he cannot enjoy the convenience of home. therefore he must leave. after experiencing the awakening, venkataraman neglected his school work and began spending more time on meditation. he realized that in order for him to be able to find the truth, he must fully renounce the physical world. the realization or awakening came after at one moment he was overtaken by the fear of death. he did not know how that happened, but the thought of death produced an immense fear for him. feeling afraid, he decided to seek the solution to conquer his fear and arrived at the conclusion that the death of the body does not mean the death of him. he develops the idea of "I," in which I is the deathless self, the spirit of the body. he proclaims that what matters for one is the spirit, the I, and not the body. having discovered the truth that he is not his body (quite like descartes' "i think therefore i am"), he decided to renounce everything of the world and live as a sadhu. he did not even bother giving pleasure to the body because he believes that he is not his body and his body is therefore disposable and should not be subjected to pleasure.
-----------------------------------
10. What was John Horgan's chief critique of Ken Wilber?
though horgan claims that wilber is an admirable person, this admiration only leads him to seek flaws in wilber. one conclusion that horgan made is that wilber is "mean to bugs" because he swatted one. but this isn't the reason why horgan is dismayed by wilber. horgan feels that wilber is really self-centered, regardless of how much he tries to be modest. one phrase that leads horgan to this conclusion is the one he found in wilber's book when doing research: "i'm enlightened, and you're not." wilber seems to think that he is the only one who has the ability to reach such level of enlightenment, and horgan thinks this is arrogant. however, when confronted, wilber seems to have realized that people think he is arrogant when he blurts out "an arrogant asshole!" and then tries to play down the sarcastic praise horgan uttered.
another reason that horgan was quite dismayed by wilber, aside from the ego, was the fact that horgan found some inconsistencies in wilber's argument. horgan claims that although wilber declares that enlightenment is not "omniscience" but "ascience," the way wilber talks imply omniscience and not ascience. another response that wasn't quite convincing to horgan was that wilber seems to be "denying the implications of his own experience," when confronted with the topic on god. wilber even makes a claim that "not even dalai lama can sustain nondual awareness through deep sleep... as he can."
-----------------------------------
11. How is Ken Wilber's philosophy similar to Huston Smith's? In what ways are they different?
both wilber and huston are proponent of perennial philosophy, which claims that despite the diversity and apparent contradictions of spiritual traditions across the world, there is one truth that is the same for all, hidden, and can only be extorted through mystical experiences. in perennial philosophy, implied is the notion that "mystical perceptions transcend time, place, culture, and individual identity."
although wilber and smith holds the same philosophical principle, the approach to it is different. wilber views science as "an ally" while smith doesn't. also, wilber does not take god into account in his approach to perennial philosophy like smith does. with regards to enlightenment these two also have different views; wilber thinks enlightenment is the final end that every one desires while smith thinks such a thing is not achievable and disregards its significance. ken wilber also differs from huston smith in their view on drugs use to catalyze mystical experience; wilber claims that such drug use is not safe and prefers meditation instead. wilber says that drugs "cannot lead to strable, long-term spiritual growth," while meditation provides a "more reliable route to mystical transformation."
-----------------------------------
12. Are drugs and mysticism connected? Yes or No? Either way use thinkers from Rational Mysticism to support your answer.
even after finishing rational mysticism, i am still not convinced that the visions that people are experiencing whenever they use drugs or hallucinogens are spiritual experience. hallucinogens produces hallucinations, just like the name says, and despite all the report from the studies of these drugs, i am still not convinced that these hallucinations are more than just hallucinations. i have never tried one myself, but if some people who use these hallucinogens are seeing objects that they cannot perceive completely, then maybe what these people are seeing is not much different than the little toy telescope that has an changing pattern whenever the objective lens is twisted. as for the case of those who did see clear and rich details (as in the case of stranislav grof), it is still possible that the LSD probably acts just as an enhancer to one's imagination.
regardless of my personal opinion, john horgan makes it clear that a good number of people do believe that drugs can propel human beings into a higher state of spirituality. horgan claims that indians from the native american church consume peyote cactus as sacrament, and ayahuasca also serves similar purposes for some sects in brazil. huston smith claims that drugs can help people experience such a state of spiritual experience that it will lead the user to strengthen their faith in their religion. but these people who regard drugs highly also have oppositions like ken wilber who claims that meditation proves to be a much safer method to reach enlightenment, yet able to bring one to the level of spiritual experience no drugs can induce. then there are people like steven katz who claims that drugs users do not experience mysticism; they are experiencing their "own consciousness."
personally, i would agree with katz that people who ingest drugs are experiencing drug experiences, not mystical experiences. if they take that to be something mystical and use such experience to better themselves, then good for them. but otherwise, drugs and mysticism are not related. the closest relation drugs and mysticism can have is that drugs, especially hallucinogens, enhances the imagination of the user and lets the user experience something of abstract nature and open to interpretation. this experience is then usually interpreted as a mystical experience.
-----------------------------------
13. Write a 700 word story using 6 philosophers from LOOKING AT PHILOSOPHY which discusses the issue of whether "man can know ultimate truth." You can create any fictional story you wish, but you must be accurate in describing how a philosopher may argue. For instance, don't have Nietzsche arguing FOR God and Saint Augustine arguing AGAINST God. Your discussion or fictional story is a way for me to see if you understand 6 different philosophers (of your own choosing) and their respective take on truth and man's capacity to know it. TAKE A RISK.
like bill and ted in "bill and ted's excellent adventure," i decided to go back in time and kidnap six philosophers from different era and bring them to my kitchen table to have a cup of tea together. and maybe some philosophical discussions. so i took with me heraclitus, plato, epictetus, st. augustine, immanuel kant, and friedrich nietzsche. some of them looked at each other with admiration, but some with contempt and disgust. i myself made six cups of tea and had them all seated. nietzsche seems to be getting agitated, so i started the conversation.
me: so gentlemen, i gather you all here tonight for some discussion regarding the ultimate truth. can us men know the ultimate truth?
augustine: that is not possible. only god holds the ultimate truth.
nietzsche: preposterous! surely men can.
plato: now, nietzsche, calm yourself down. i'm with you on this one, but i doubt we'll agree as to how.
kant: i have my doubts. and just how would you propose that man can know the ultimate truth?
nietzsche: man has the will to power. this world is pretty much the survival of the fittest; only those who are strong can survive. one simply has to strive and evolve for the better because only after one reaches the state of the ubermensch can one know the ultimate truth.
heraclitus: i'm sorry, what is ubermensch?
nietzsche: ubermensch is somewhat like a superman. it is the final evolution stage of a human being who has successfully carry out his will to power and gain domination over nature.
augustine: you seem to be forgetting about the concept of god.
nietzsche: god is dead. enough said.
augustine: what? how dare you--
nietzsche: my apology, augustine, but the christianity concept is for the weak. you christians are scared to face conflict. your teaching to "love thy enemies" are a concept against nature itself!
heraclitus: nietzsche is right. everything in this world happens as a result of creation and destruction process. there is no such thing as living peacefully. such a style of living will render the society stagnant.
nietzsche: thank you. and you yourself, augustine, why would you think that us men have no ability to know the truth? are you afraid to face the fact that we have free will and thus we do not need god?
epictetus: be careful with what you mean by free will there, nietzsche. you yourself believe that nature should be held with a high regard. are you not convinced that if freedom unites will and ability, then the only way for you to be free is to act accordingly to nature?
augustine: that is if you regard nature as the highest of all, epictetus. but that is where you are wrong, nietzsche. our free will was given by god. free will is a product of divinity. man may have free will and may act accordingly to his will, but no matter how hard man tries with his rational mind, he will never be able to understand the ultimate truth, the divine knowledge of god. the wisdom of god is beyond human rationality.
kant: i would have to agree with augustine on that. my synthetic apriori theory shows that there is a realm, a somewhat ultimate reality, beyond our physical world, that is just not perceivable by our mind. this ultimate reality is beyond our mind, but we know that it certainly exists.
plato: but how about the soul? socrates successfully had a slave boy finishing a complicated mathematical problem without giving the boy more education than just some simple logical questions. this proves that the boy KNOWS beforehand such knowledge. that inside his mind, the answer to the problem exists, he just doesn't know that it exists inside his mind. socrates' series of questions brought this answer out from the boy's mind and the boy becomes enlightened. i am certain that if we can bring out the truth from our minds, then we can eventually arrive at the ultimate truth.
augustine: but again, you are forgetting to take into consideration the concept of god. where do you get this ultimate truth hidden in your mind in the first place if not a divine being?
nietzsche: the concept of god contradicts what nature holds for us. nature teaches us to follow our passion, yet christianity tells us to not to. how can a concept that defies the course of nature can be correct?
epictetus: the ultimate truth that people seek is most likely to be in the form of happiness. now, even conflict is not needed to obtain such ultimate truth. if one is able to practice stoicism with a disciplined mind, and wanting simply what one has already have, then happiness, the ultimate truth, will be easily obtainable.
augustine: see, nietzsche. the concept of christianity does NOT defy nature in any way. like i have mentioned before, the wisdom of god is beyond our knowledge. we cannot use rational thought to justify things that god decides upon. this is where faith comes into play. you need faith if you want to understand the ultimate truth.
epictetus: now, i am not quite so sure about your god, augustine, but i agree upon the idea. there are things in nature that are within our control, but there are also ones that are beyond our control. our free will exists so that we can change those within our power, but for those beyond our power, all we can do is accept and understand the fact that we have no control whatsoever over those events.
nietzsche: that is ridiculous! men have domination over nature. the will of power will definitely allow men to force nature to bend accordingly to man's will.
at this point, i realized that nietzsche and augustine were not going to give up or give in. while the other philosophers seemed to be enjoying their tea, nietzsche and augustine seemed like they are ready to bring the fight to the next level: deathmatch. trying to avoid any unpleasantness, i stopped the discussion and used the time machine to bring these philosophers back to where they belong. maybe it would be better if they had never met.
-----------------------------------
14. Why was LSD so important in the word of Stanislav Grof?
grof seems to regard highly the ability of LSD to do many different things. at JHU, he did a test on LSD to see its potential in treating different disorders such as alcoholism, drug addiction, and depression. aside from these medical purposes, grof claims that although LSD does not always cause spiritual experiences, but he is certain that his experiences were nonetheless spiritual. in fact, he continues on to proclaim that LSD has helped him reach somekind of a "spiritual equilibrium." grof also makes a remark that "he knew many religious teachers from different traditions whose deepest spiritual experiences were drug-induced." another reason that makes grof considers LSD as important is that its ability to give the user a vision of his/her previous life. he claims that one of his LSD trips brought him to a place where he finds himself in "another century, another culture, identified with another person." the details of these visions were so rich and clear grof claims that they cannot be possibly induced by imaginations only. he also believes that LSD can help a person recall his/her birth, due to the number of tunnel visions that many LSD users experience. he gives an example about an autrian psychologist who had a vision of his own birth and a strong smell of leather, which was later confirmed by his mother that he was born in a shop that made lederhosen.
-----------------------------------
15. What was Kant's most significant contribution to philosophy? In what ways does a Kantian notion of truth alter the way religionists (of any persuasion) see or view ultimate reality? Use Kant to back up your point.
i believe that kant's most significant contribution is his categorical imperative. that is, categories that one can use to test one's action to determine whether it is moral or not. in general, kant's categorical imperative says that an action is only moral and should be done if one can apply the moral principle behind such action to be true for everyone else. principles that "survive" this test are the ones that form a person's duty, to which that person is obliged. the categorical imperative says "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." in other words, an action is only moral if it can be universalized. kant incorporates the notion of universality, which is the meat of his argument.
in explaining the ultimate reality, kant claims that human beings are unable to know the noumenal world (the ultimate reality) because our knowledge are limited to what is known as the phenomenal world, the physical world as we see it. kant also claims that it is impossible to concieve the world in terms of god, immortality, justice, and freedom, but human beings do know that such things exist. kant's view on the ultimate reality is somewhat similar to that of saint augustine. while kant did not really incorporate god into his theory as much as augustine does, kant also admits that human beings ---though they believe that god exists--- do not have the knowledge to perceive it. this is similar to augustine who proposes the idea that the wisdom of god is beyond human reasoning and no matter how much they try, human beings can never fully understand the wisdom of god.
-----------------------------------
Benedectus Juwono
-----------------------------------
2. Your user name.
einztein_o07
-----------------------------------
3. What GRADE did you get on the midterm? You can use my email to you as confirmation, if you wish.
you passed me on my C track with a chance for a B if i answered the B questions, but i haven't had the time to, so that keeps me on the C.
to quote your email: "This is a very fine start. I will pass this for the B track, provided you answer the B questions in the next week or so. nice work. dave."
-----------------------------------
4. What track are you on (A, B, or C)?
i was on the B track but the workload of this and the ethics class i am taking this summer has put me off the B track so now i am on the C track.
-----------------------------------
5. List all the books you read for this class this semester? How fully? Be honest.
THE UNIVERSE IN A NUTSHELL by Stephen Hawking --- read thoroughly the whole book.
THE BLANK SLATE by Stephen Pinker --- read thoroughly the whole book.
MY WICKED, WICKED WAYS by Errol Flynn --- read thoroughly the whole book, except the chapter titled "?????".
Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self Knowledge by Arthur Osborne --- read thoroughly the whole book.
LOOKING AT PHILOSOPHY by Donald Palmer --- read thoroughly the whole book.
RATIONAL MYSTICISM by John Horgan --- read thoroughly half of the book.
-----------------------------------
5a. LIST any extra credit films.
did none.
-----------------------------------
6. List ALL the posts you have done for this class (including EVERY POST YOU HAVE ONE).
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:04:14
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (1)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:44:18
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (2)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:44:11
Subject: Re: the down side of physics
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (1)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (2)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:48:03
Subject: Re: history, destiny, and space
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:28:06
Subject: Re: Re: Wishing I took physics
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 21:23:50
Subject: Re: I little closer to understanding.
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:49:36
Subject: Re: Pseudo Scientific Critique, by Carlos Vasquez (Week 2)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:48:25
Subject: Re: Re: Week One Post Three: Slightly Confused
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:01:57
Subject: on science and religion
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:07:20
Subject: Re: Re: Philosophy Done Well
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:39:42
Subject: Re: Re: on science and religion
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 21:32:19
Subject: Re: Re: The Black Hole
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:02:23
Subject: Re: Re: Do "I" exist?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:49:21
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (1)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:56:34
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (2)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:44:47
Subject: Re: Re: Human sexuality
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:27:34
Subject: Re: Re: Is time travel possible
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:15:13
Subject: epigenetic predisposition
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:42:05
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (1)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:25:08
Subject: Re: Hawking Changes His Mind on Black Holes
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:29:58
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (2)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 02:09:37
Re: Simply fool the masses
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:05:08
Re: women : blank slate
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:02:34
Re: How did you think of that?
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:07:53
Re: Hawking says black hole theory was wrong
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:13:40 -0700
Re: Morals
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 19:41:38 -0700
Re: Purpose
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:39:46 -0700
ramana maharshi and destiny
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:23:37 -0700
Re: ramana maharshi and destiny
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:12:04 -0700
Re: Gay Rights
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 22:47:59 -0700
Re: ramana maharshi and destiny
-----------------------------------
6a. WHAT GRADE DO YOU DESERVE FOR THIS CLASS AND WHY?
i personally feel that cramming 18 weeks worth of materials into 5 weeks has proven very strenuous. prof. lane was right when he said that this is the single hardest introductory philosophy class in the united states. i thought i could get at least a B in this class, but the reading assignment from my ethics class is just as tedious as this class. i am unable to keep up with the workload on the B track and the ethics class in 5 short weeks, so now i'm on the C track. however, i feel that i deserve at least a C+ or B- for my work in this class, because even though i have not managed to finish any of the readings in the B track, i have often participated in the group discussion and tried to give intelligent discussion to the very best of my ability. also, i read thoroughly each book in the track and not just skim through it. i feel that skimming might help me answer the questions in the midterm and final, but won't give me a good insight on what i am learning. when i take a class i want to be able to learn something, not just to be able to answer questions.
-----------------------------------
THE TOFU OF THE TEST:
ALL STUDENTS (whatever track, answer the following questions):
7. How would Nietzsche criticize Ramana Maharshi's philosophical and ethical system of thought? Be accurate and use quotes to back up your assertions.
ramana maharshi's and friedrich's philosophical systems are quite the opposite of each other. one that is quite obvious is that ramana maharshi bases all his teachings on divine reasonings, while nietzsche claims that there is no such thing as a divine being and that human beings have power to control their own life. ramana maharshi claims that our true self is the I, the deathless spirit that dwells within our body, while the body itself is disposable and of no significant importance. nietzsche will completely criticize this view since he himself regards the physicality as being superior. while maharshi thinks that the deathless self, the spirit, is what we should concern about and that we "attach too much importance to the body," nietzsche thinks that it is wrong to deny one's passions. he claims that "to exterminate the passions and desires merely in order to do away with their folly... seems to us today merely an acute form of folly." this line depicts clearly nietzsche's admiration for passion and desires, and that one should act accordingly to one's passion and desires because only in such a way can one get to the higher humanity level, which is the superman.
ramana maharshi's belief in destiny will be one main point that nietzsche would criticize. maharshi's idea of destiny undermines nietzsche's concept of will to power. nietzsche believes that man can only evolve for the better if he can will himself to power, and to master nature as a final goal. but maharshi's idea of destiny makes such a concept unconvincing because no matter how much a man tries to will himself to power, if destiny does not allow, he will not gain dominance over nature. another difference would be nietzsche's anti-god system and maharshi's pro-god system. nietzsche claims that god is dead while maharshi holds in highest regard god and spirituality.
-----------------------------------
8. In what ways is Errol Flynn more "honest" (think about this term before you plunge) than Ramana Maharshi in terms of life, nature, and truth? Be sure to substantiate your answer.
errol flynn, in his autobiography, exposes most if not all of the bad things he has done throughout his life, but not only that, he also admits that what he did was wrong. the one incident when he stole the jewels owned by the the woman he just slept with, he wrote down: "this is criminal. not the way to treat anybody. she has been wonderful, how the hell can you think of this?" at that moment, flynn had a struggle with his conscience. although flynn ended up committing the crime anyway, at least he did realize that he was doing something wrong.
sri bhagavan, never stole anything in his life like errol flynn. but one dishonesty that he commited was when he left the house to go to the holy hill, arunachala. ramana maharshi never actually admitted any struggle with his conscience when he was about to leave the house. he understands that "authority is very strong in a hindu household," but he did not feel guilty at all, leaving his entire family for an arguably selfish reason. sri bhagavan, knowingly lied to his family without any feeling of guilt. while it is true that there probably was a greater purpose to his leaving, yet he justifies lying to obtain something without even considering how his family feels about it. when later confronted by his brother, his response that claims he did not even know he was leaving seems like very inconsiderate to his family.
errol flynn has the guts to admit that what he did was wrong, while sri bhagavan uses excuses, sometimes divine ones, and never admits that he was being inconsiderate to his family for leaving home by guile.
-----------------------------------
9. Why did Ramana Maharshi leave home at 17? What truth did he discover?
he decided to leave home because he realized that if he decides to live as a sadhu, then he cannot enjoy the convenience of home. therefore he must leave. after experiencing the awakening, venkataraman neglected his school work and began spending more time on meditation. he realized that in order for him to be able to find the truth, he must fully renounce the physical world. the realization or awakening came after at one moment he was overtaken by the fear of death. he did not know how that happened, but the thought of death produced an immense fear for him. feeling afraid, he decided to seek the solution to conquer his fear and arrived at the conclusion that the death of the body does not mean the death of him. he develops the idea of "I," in which I is the deathless self, the spirit of the body. he proclaims that what matters for one is the spirit, the I, and not the body. having discovered the truth that he is not his body (quite like descartes' "i think therefore i am"), he decided to renounce everything of the world and live as a sadhu. he did not even bother giving pleasure to the body because he believes that he is not his body and his body is therefore disposable and should not be subjected to pleasure.
-----------------------------------
10. What was John Horgan's chief critique of Ken Wilber?
though horgan claims that wilber is an admirable person, this admiration only leads him to seek flaws in wilber. one conclusion that horgan made is that wilber is "mean to bugs" because he swatted one. but this isn't the reason why horgan is dismayed by wilber. horgan feels that wilber is really self-centered, regardless of how much he tries to be modest. one phrase that leads horgan to this conclusion is the one he found in wilber's book when doing research: "i'm enlightened, and you're not." wilber seems to think that he is the only one who has the ability to reach such level of enlightenment, and horgan thinks this is arrogant. however, when confronted, wilber seems to have realized that people think he is arrogant when he blurts out "an arrogant asshole!" and then tries to play down the sarcastic praise horgan uttered.
another reason that horgan was quite dismayed by wilber, aside from the ego, was the fact that horgan found some inconsistencies in wilber's argument. horgan claims that although wilber declares that enlightenment is not "omniscience" but "ascience," the way wilber talks imply omniscience and not ascience. another response that wasn't quite convincing to horgan was that wilber seems to be "denying the implications of his own experience," when confronted with the topic on god. wilber even makes a claim that "not even dalai lama can sustain nondual awareness through deep sleep... as he can."
-----------------------------------
11. How is Ken Wilber's philosophy similar to Huston Smith's? In what ways are they different?
both wilber and huston are proponent of perennial philosophy, which claims that despite the diversity and apparent contradictions of spiritual traditions across the world, there is one truth that is the same for all, hidden, and can only be extorted through mystical experiences. in perennial philosophy, implied is the notion that "mystical perceptions transcend time, place, culture, and individual identity."
although wilber and smith holds the same philosophical principle, the approach to it is different. wilber views science as "an ally" while smith doesn't. also, wilber does not take god into account in his approach to perennial philosophy like smith does. with regards to enlightenment these two also have different views; wilber thinks enlightenment is the final end that every one desires while smith thinks such a thing is not achievable and disregards its significance. ken wilber also differs from huston smith in their view on drugs use to catalyze mystical experience; wilber claims that such drug use is not safe and prefers meditation instead. wilber says that drugs "cannot lead to strable, long-term spiritual growth," while meditation provides a "more reliable route to mystical transformation."
-----------------------------------
12. Are drugs and mysticism connected? Yes or No? Either way use thinkers from Rational Mysticism to support your answer.
even after finishing rational mysticism, i am still not convinced that the visions that people are experiencing whenever they use drugs or hallucinogens are spiritual experience. hallucinogens produces hallucinations, just like the name says, and despite all the report from the studies of these drugs, i am still not convinced that these hallucinations are more than just hallucinations. i have never tried one myself, but if some people who use these hallucinogens are seeing objects that they cannot perceive completely, then maybe what these people are seeing is not much different than the little toy telescope that has an changing pattern whenever the objective lens is twisted. as for the case of those who did see clear and rich details (as in the case of stranislav grof), it is still possible that the LSD probably acts just as an enhancer to one's imagination.
regardless of my personal opinion, john horgan makes it clear that a good number of people do believe that drugs can propel human beings into a higher state of spirituality. horgan claims that indians from the native american church consume peyote cactus as sacrament, and ayahuasca also serves similar purposes for some sects in brazil. huston smith claims that drugs can help people experience such a state of spiritual experience that it will lead the user to strengthen their faith in their religion. but these people who regard drugs highly also have oppositions like ken wilber who claims that meditation proves to be a much safer method to reach enlightenment, yet able to bring one to the level of spiritual experience no drugs can induce. then there are people like steven katz who claims that drugs users do not experience mysticism; they are experiencing their "own consciousness."
personally, i would agree with katz that people who ingest drugs are experiencing drug experiences, not mystical experiences. if they take that to be something mystical and use such experience to better themselves, then good for them. but otherwise, drugs and mysticism are not related. the closest relation drugs and mysticism can have is that drugs, especially hallucinogens, enhances the imagination of the user and lets the user experience something of abstract nature and open to interpretation. this experience is then usually interpreted as a mystical experience.
-----------------------------------
13. Write a 700 word story using 6 philosophers from LOOKING AT PHILOSOPHY which discusses the issue of whether "man can know ultimate truth." You can create any fictional story you wish, but you must be accurate in describing how a philosopher may argue. For instance, don't have Nietzsche arguing FOR God and Saint Augustine arguing AGAINST God. Your discussion or fictional story is a way for me to see if you understand 6 different philosophers (of your own choosing) and their respective take on truth and man's capacity to know it. TAKE A RISK.
like bill and ted in "bill and ted's excellent adventure," i decided to go back in time and kidnap six philosophers from different era and bring them to my kitchen table to have a cup of tea together. and maybe some philosophical discussions. so i took with me heraclitus, plato, epictetus, st. augustine, immanuel kant, and friedrich nietzsche. some of them looked at each other with admiration, but some with contempt and disgust. i myself made six cups of tea and had them all seated. nietzsche seems to be getting agitated, so i started the conversation.
me: so gentlemen, i gather you all here tonight for some discussion regarding the ultimate truth. can us men know the ultimate truth?
augustine: that is not possible. only god holds the ultimate truth.
nietzsche: preposterous! surely men can.
plato: now, nietzsche, calm yourself down. i'm with you on this one, but i doubt we'll agree as to how.
kant: i have my doubts. and just how would you propose that man can know the ultimate truth?
nietzsche: man has the will to power. this world is pretty much the survival of the fittest; only those who are strong can survive. one simply has to strive and evolve for the better because only after one reaches the state of the ubermensch can one know the ultimate truth.
heraclitus: i'm sorry, what is ubermensch?
nietzsche: ubermensch is somewhat like a superman. it is the final evolution stage of a human being who has successfully carry out his will to power and gain domination over nature.
augustine: you seem to be forgetting about the concept of god.
nietzsche: god is dead. enough said.
augustine: what? how dare you--
nietzsche: my apology, augustine, but the christianity concept is for the weak. you christians are scared to face conflict. your teaching to "love thy enemies" are a concept against nature itself!
heraclitus: nietzsche is right. everything in this world happens as a result of creation and destruction process. there is no such thing as living peacefully. such a style of living will render the society stagnant.
nietzsche: thank you. and you yourself, augustine, why would you think that us men have no ability to know the truth? are you afraid to face the fact that we have free will and thus we do not need god?
epictetus: be careful with what you mean by free will there, nietzsche. you yourself believe that nature should be held with a high regard. are you not convinced that if freedom unites will and ability, then the only way for you to be free is to act accordingly to nature?
augustine: that is if you regard nature as the highest of all, epictetus. but that is where you are wrong, nietzsche. our free will was given by god. free will is a product of divinity. man may have free will and may act accordingly to his will, but no matter how hard man tries with his rational mind, he will never be able to understand the ultimate truth, the divine knowledge of god. the wisdom of god is beyond human rationality.
kant: i would have to agree with augustine on that. my synthetic apriori theory shows that there is a realm, a somewhat ultimate reality, beyond our physical world, that is just not perceivable by our mind. this ultimate reality is beyond our mind, but we know that it certainly exists.
plato: but how about the soul? socrates successfully had a slave boy finishing a complicated mathematical problem without giving the boy more education than just some simple logical questions. this proves that the boy KNOWS beforehand such knowledge. that inside his mind, the answer to the problem exists, he just doesn't know that it exists inside his mind. socrates' series of questions brought this answer out from the boy's mind and the boy becomes enlightened. i am certain that if we can bring out the truth from our minds, then we can eventually arrive at the ultimate truth.
augustine: but again, you are forgetting to take into consideration the concept of god. where do you get this ultimate truth hidden in your mind in the first place if not a divine being?
nietzsche: the concept of god contradicts what nature holds for us. nature teaches us to follow our passion, yet christianity tells us to not to. how can a concept that defies the course of nature can be correct?
epictetus: the ultimate truth that people seek is most likely to be in the form of happiness. now, even conflict is not needed to obtain such ultimate truth. if one is able to practice stoicism with a disciplined mind, and wanting simply what one has already have, then happiness, the ultimate truth, will be easily obtainable.
augustine: see, nietzsche. the concept of christianity does NOT defy nature in any way. like i have mentioned before, the wisdom of god is beyond our knowledge. we cannot use rational thought to justify things that god decides upon. this is where faith comes into play. you need faith if you want to understand the ultimate truth.
epictetus: now, i am not quite so sure about your god, augustine, but i agree upon the idea. there are things in nature that are within our control, but there are also ones that are beyond our control. our free will exists so that we can change those within our power, but for those beyond our power, all we can do is accept and understand the fact that we have no control whatsoever over those events.
nietzsche: that is ridiculous! men have domination over nature. the will of power will definitely allow men to force nature to bend accordingly to man's will.
at this point, i realized that nietzsche and augustine were not going to give up or give in. while the other philosophers seemed to be enjoying their tea, nietzsche and augustine seemed like they are ready to bring the fight to the next level: deathmatch. trying to avoid any unpleasantness, i stopped the discussion and used the time machine to bring these philosophers back to where they belong. maybe it would be better if they had never met.
-----------------------------------
14. Why was LSD so important in the word of Stanislav Grof?
grof seems to regard highly the ability of LSD to do many different things. at JHU, he did a test on LSD to see its potential in treating different disorders such as alcoholism, drug addiction, and depression. aside from these medical purposes, grof claims that although LSD does not always cause spiritual experiences, but he is certain that his experiences were nonetheless spiritual. in fact, he continues on to proclaim that LSD has helped him reach somekind of a "spiritual equilibrium." grof also makes a remark that "he knew many religious teachers from different traditions whose deepest spiritual experiences were drug-induced." another reason that makes grof considers LSD as important is that its ability to give the user a vision of his/her previous life. he claims that one of his LSD trips brought him to a place where he finds himself in "another century, another culture, identified with another person." the details of these visions were so rich and clear grof claims that they cannot be possibly induced by imaginations only. he also believes that LSD can help a person recall his/her birth, due to the number of tunnel visions that many LSD users experience. he gives an example about an autrian psychologist who had a vision of his own birth and a strong smell of leather, which was later confirmed by his mother that he was born in a shop that made lederhosen.
-----------------------------------
15. What was Kant's most significant contribution to philosophy? In what ways does a Kantian notion of truth alter the way religionists (of any persuasion) see or view ultimate reality? Use Kant to back up your point.
i believe that kant's most significant contribution is his categorical imperative. that is, categories that one can use to test one's action to determine whether it is moral or not. in general, kant's categorical imperative says that an action is only moral and should be done if one can apply the moral principle behind such action to be true for everyone else. principles that "survive" this test are the ones that form a person's duty, to which that person is obliged. the categorical imperative says "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." in other words, an action is only moral if it can be universalized. kant incorporates the notion of universality, which is the meat of his argument.
in explaining the ultimate reality, kant claims that human beings are unable to know the noumenal world (the ultimate reality) because our knowledge are limited to what is known as the phenomenal world, the physical world as we see it. kant also claims that it is impossible to concieve the world in terms of god, immortality, justice, and freedom, but human beings do know that such things exist. kant's view on the ultimate reality is somewhat similar to that of saint augustine. while kant did not really incorporate god into his theory as much as augustine does, kant also admits that human beings ---though they believe that god exists--- do not have the knowledge to perceive it. this is similar to augustine who proposes the idea that the wisdom of god is beyond human reasoning and no matter how much they try, human beings can never fully understand the wisdom of god.
-----------------------------------
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home