Different ways to aim at the truth
As a philosophy student, I often ask the question "What is good?"
As a buddhist, I ask "What is the best way for me to achieve a good life?"
As a seeker of peace, I ask "How can I reconcile all these different viewpoints, so that we might all be accommodated as far as possible?"
First of all, allow me to dispel a certain myth:
That there is no such thing as an objective good. I fully believe that such a thing exists. I strongly believe, as many a Platonist does, that there IS a good that humanbeings strive for by their very nature, and when a person acts in a manner that can be deemed evil, they are doing so out of ignorance of the real good.
Greek philosophy offers many good arguements of this nature. Somebody once said "All philosophy is footnotes on Plato." Perhaps I do not quite agree here, but would venture to say that the thoughts that the Greeks expressed strike a meaningful and well documented chord with great thinkers the world over, regardless of culture and faith. The principles that Plato expressed ring in harmony with the principles of buddhism, and were adopted largely by the Christian faith, too. Where religions choose to explore good as a manifestation of the will of a God, the Greeks, as well as the Buddhists, chose to explore these by means of exploration of the human psyche and being. The Socratic dialogues are inconclusive, in my opinion, about whether or not a god exists, but regardless, convince the reader about the existence of an objective good, and refine the achievement of this good to a great degree, argueing to the reader that truest, and perhaps the only, path to good lies through wisdom.
The Buddhist way of life also promotes wisdom as the surest way to Nirvana, although this is not an exclusive means at all. A deluge of texts and treatises on the nature of good can be found in the historical shelves of mankind, and in my mind, more often than not, these texts are apt to agree with each other in the core. The differences lie only in the means to achieve good. The wars and struggles caused by the protective attitudes towards the means would cause the writers of these texts unnecessary grief. Much as Einstein, in developing nuclear technology unleashed the dark forces of pandora's box whilst aiming only at the element of hope at the bottom, was distressed by the impact of his discovery, so many great teachers, such as Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, etc, would be deeply distressed to find that the tools for creating harmony which they bequethed upon the world are instead used as platforms to wage bloody wars. Religion and ethics searches for the golden middle path. Humans search for arms and revenge, despite all evidence that points to the oneness of mankind.
Revenge.
People renounce the actions of their neighbours, often performed in ignorance of what is good, and perform the same action themselves. I would personally like to know where the leader inside the people is. Such an element of self-awareness should exist in all human beings, that are intelligent enough to be born with an ability to judge. How is it, that judging something to be wrong does not lead to the logical conclusion that it should not be done? Why is it, instead, that the wrong becomes justified the moment that a human falls victim to it? All the great teachers of the world had the iniative within them to apply their judgements to themselves, as they would to those they would weigh against the golden feather of a balanced life. More importantly, these great teachers did not use the skill of superior judgement to place blame upon their neighbours - they used this gift simply to ensure that they themselves led a moral life, and rejoicing in this peaceful life, imparted the knowledge upon those around them selflessly.
Vengeance belongs not to humanity, but to the gods.
As a buddhist, I ask "What is the best way for me to achieve a good life?"
As a seeker of peace, I ask "How can I reconcile all these different viewpoints, so that we might all be accommodated as far as possible?"
First of all, allow me to dispel a certain myth:
That there is no such thing as an objective good. I fully believe that such a thing exists. I strongly believe, as many a Platonist does, that there IS a good that humanbeings strive for by their very nature, and when a person acts in a manner that can be deemed evil, they are doing so out of ignorance of the real good.
Greek philosophy offers many good arguements of this nature. Somebody once said "All philosophy is footnotes on Plato." Perhaps I do not quite agree here, but would venture to say that the thoughts that the Greeks expressed strike a meaningful and well documented chord with great thinkers the world over, regardless of culture and faith. The principles that Plato expressed ring in harmony with the principles of buddhism, and were adopted largely by the Christian faith, too. Where religions choose to explore good as a manifestation of the will of a God, the Greeks, as well as the Buddhists, chose to explore these by means of exploration of the human psyche and being. The Socratic dialogues are inconclusive, in my opinion, about whether or not a god exists, but regardless, convince the reader about the existence of an objective good, and refine the achievement of this good to a great degree, argueing to the reader that truest, and perhaps the only, path to good lies through wisdom.
The Buddhist way of life also promotes wisdom as the surest way to Nirvana, although this is not an exclusive means at all. A deluge of texts and treatises on the nature of good can be found in the historical shelves of mankind, and in my mind, more often than not, these texts are apt to agree with each other in the core. The differences lie only in the means to achieve good. The wars and struggles caused by the protective attitudes towards the means would cause the writers of these texts unnecessary grief. Much as Einstein, in developing nuclear technology unleashed the dark forces of pandora's box whilst aiming only at the element of hope at the bottom, was distressed by the impact of his discovery, so many great teachers, such as Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, etc, would be deeply distressed to find that the tools for creating harmony which they bequethed upon the world are instead used as platforms to wage bloody wars. Religion and ethics searches for the golden middle path. Humans search for arms and revenge, despite all evidence that points to the oneness of mankind.
Revenge.
People renounce the actions of their neighbours, often performed in ignorance of what is good, and perform the same action themselves. I would personally like to know where the leader inside the people is. Such an element of self-awareness should exist in all human beings, that are intelligent enough to be born with an ability to judge. How is it, that judging something to be wrong does not lead to the logical conclusion that it should not be done? Why is it, instead, that the wrong becomes justified the moment that a human falls victim to it? All the great teachers of the world had the iniative within them to apply their judgements to themselves, as they would to those they would weigh against the golden feather of a balanced life. More importantly, these great teachers did not use the skill of superior judgement to place blame upon their neighbours - they used this gift simply to ensure that they themselves led a moral life, and rejoicing in this peaceful life, imparted the knowledge upon those around them selflessly.
Vengeance belongs not to humanity, but to the gods.