Team Minotaur
Is Everything Determined/Parables of the Kingdom
World views are very diverse for the most part but I believe
in these two articles that they are similar in the argument that everyone is
responsible for our own actions. Hawkins makes states this argument as the
third problem he see with determinism. We claim to have free will but he
believes this could be just an illusion. Furthermore, he state that the human
brain is subject to the uncertainty principal. We have an element of randomness
in human behavior and we cannot predict human behavior. Hawkins summaries this with, we must adopt what
he labels the “effective theory” that one has free will and is responsible for
one’s actions. Jesus in, “Parable of the Kingdom”, and under “Ten Talents”, gave
special number of talents to three servants. These servants we to make good of
these talents and return back to his lord. Two to these servants utilized the
talents and produce double talents upon their return and we allowed to enter in
the kingdom of heaven. There was one that did not utilize the talent but buried
this away and out of his sight. When he returned to his lord he did not have
talents to offer and was denied to enter as the other servants had. His lord
said to him “For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have
abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
I interpret this as we are in control of our own destiny and we are responsible
for our personal outcome. If you don’t contribute to a better way of life and
don’t work hard for the things you desire, then you will not be rewarded with
such. This is not to say that some people aren’t born with a “silver spoon”,
but someone in the ancestors worked for this outcome and provided this
lifestyle from their hard work. Even those that did not have to work as hard as
family members before them will often lose the fortune or gifts if they too don’t
work hard to keep it. You get in what you put forth. If you make bad decisions
there will always be a consequence for your actions.
I completely agree that a lot of the substance in both writings were very similar and made a lot of the same arguments. The interesting thing is the form in which they provide these arguments. Jesus gives us extended metaphor which makes people think and problem solve to come up the conclusion that Hawkins breaks down and deconstructs. It seems to me that these styles kind of fit with the times in which they were written. Jesus lived in ancient times when semantics weren't nearly as complex and narrative was far more important. With Hawkins people live in a world where every idea has already substantial amounts of ink from multiple authors, so he needs to solidly block down his ideas to, for lack of a better phrase, spoon feed the reader his ideas.
ReplyDeleteI to agree with the similarities of the two articles. In Existentialism, the author provides his views on man and what is right, while Zen parables provides one poem that describes the good a man shows even though is it seen wrong in his culture. Both of the articles show how it is up to man himself to display what he believes is right and how he should act. We are the forces behind our selves that form the man we are supposed to be. Our personalities are not always set and determined, our values do change and the power is up to us. Also, I agree with Melisa, when she states “we are in control of our own destiny and we are responsible for our personal outcome. If you don’t contribute to a better way of life and don’t work hard for the things you desire, then you will not be rewarded with such.” We are have control on our life and we are solely responsible for the outcomes that occur. We cannot blame others for how our life turns out to be, we are the control center for entire life and the purpose of it all. If one does not try to make there life better for themselves it is their fault for the outcomes. Although they may not want these outcomes to occur, it was in their power to make it happen. We have the power for all things that happen in our lives.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that these to reading are similar because there are a lot of conflicting view points in each reading. These readings were tough for me to understand however what I did grasp definitely opposed each other. In Parables of the Kingdom it is from a very religious view point and there are varying logics being played with. The last sub story The Prodigal son is referencing to a man who has confessed his sin and was offered forgiveness however it conflicts with The Ten Talents when the man who let fear dictate his decisions, was sent to hell. In Jean-Paul Sartre’s, “Existentialism”, he seems to be describing very particular personality traits that also conflicted with one another. While one was from a very strict religious standpoint, I consider religion to be somewhat of an obligation rather than a lifestyle. The other was from more of a lifestyle type of stand point, they were materialistic beliefs towards the world in a sense.
ReplyDeleteI think that both “Zen Parables” and “Existentialism” have things in common. For example, in both the “Muddy Road” and “Existentialism”, they talk about resignation and how the kingdom of man is not of this world. In the parable Ekido tells Tanzan how he was wrong for carrying that girl, and that he should be resigned to not go near females, while Sartre talks about being resigned to everybody’s interest. And both references come from a religious point of view. On the other hand, Sartre talks about the denial of God, viewing him as useless and costly hypothesis according to Heideger, which is the total opposite of the intent of the Zen Parables. They both talk a little bit about the feeling of despair, Sartre mentions that the possibilities one considers are not rigorously involved by our action and that we have to reckon only with what depends upon our will, same way Buddha tells the parable in a sutra. Even though there are some similar ideas, Sartre talks more about being free and how man own individuality. It seems to me that in the Zen Parables these men are trapped in their religions and they are not free men. Although at some point in both readings religious seems to be the reason why people find the answer to their values. It is hard to really compare these two readings because the parables are not explicit and each of us can deduce a different lesson from them, meanwhile Sartre and his “existentialism” shows explicit ideas and quote different authors to explain his points.
ReplyDeleteI think the two readings are similar when regarding Sartre’s statement that “[The existentialist] will never agree that a sweeping passion…fatally leads a man to certain acts and is therefore an excuse. He thinks that man is responsible for his passion.” In the Zen Parables, particularly the one titled “Learning to be Silent,” the four boys forget to adhere to their promise of staying silent because they’re caught up in their own excitement/passion; the first boy telling the servant to fix the lamp; the second boy telling the first to be quiet; the third boy telling the second and first that they’re stupid; and the last boy bragging to the others. They get “caught up in the moment” and decide that their comments are more important than their promise to remain silent. Similarly, in “Muddy Road,” Ekido’s passions are brought to surface when he scorns his friend for carrying the girl across the road only to discover that he had made up the entire scenario in his head. His friend responds, asking him, “Are you still carrying her?” His concerns for the girl unable to cross the road trumped the “rules” of being a monk and led him to disobey them -- if only in his mind. Ekido decided that helping the girl was a more important ethic to follow than the rules of monkhood, which correlates to the idea in ‘Existentialism’ that “Even if God did exist, that would change nothing” about our own values and code of ethics. That said, this might just be me drawing conclusions about the Zen Parables for the purpose of the assignment.
ReplyDelete