Date:	2006-03-06 00:13
Subject:
Security:	Public
Mood:	tired

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

I just whipped this up in a couple of tired hours. I hope its interesting.



The Ideal Human Being
The moral Islamic philosopher, Yahya Ibn Adi who lived up until the late 900’s believed that humans are rational beings and should “acquire every virtuous trait (shimah) and avoid every vicious one, so as to achieve perfection in the refinement of his character” (Fakhry 100). Ibn Adi then came up with lists on how to keep the vicious traits he spoke of in check and then kept a record of these characteristics that contribute to a perfect being entitled, The Portrait of a Morally Perfect Man. Ibn Adi claims that the points he lays out to follow is a path towards virtue, morality, and perfection, and “it will enable such a man to shun evil and derive gratification from the knowledge of his own perfect virtue” (Fakhry 100). His list of traits resonates with me as lacking a vital understanding of society, injustice, and compassion. My opinions differ tremendously on the philosopher’s concept of perfection, and I believe that many of the qualities claimed to be held by perfect beings are contradictory to one another.
It seems to me that the path this philosopher speaks of, at times, attempts to coerce one to carve out a part of their inherent being in order to strive for perfection. I believe we are born with traits that many societies have deemed evil, bad, or deficient and flawed. This struggle to suppress certain natural tendencies because they are seen as substandard is a personal one for me. I often wonder if holding in all anger and always acting pleasant towards others is good for my health. I went through a time where I refused to allow myself to become angry with anyone or anything. I would -- and still do-- strive for understanding as to why an individual acted in a certain way that may have offended or hurt myself or another. I believe this to be a great exercise in realizing, understanding, and relating to ‘the other’. Then again, I feel that I may have taken this notion of being good, of holding my tongue even in good-hearted jest, of smiling through injustices I’d seen, of keeping my passions (including anger) at bay, to a nerve-racking extreme. Looking back, I suppose I was happy, peaceful even. I was always smiling (sometimes I would put one on just for show because I thought I should), upbeat and completely giving of myself, but I was lacking something that I had forgotten about, that my core being was not simply craving, but hungering for. In always striving for goodness, I had practically obliterated and snuffed out the fire that’s inside of me. That constant fever that pushes and moves and compels one towards change was quickly waning. I don’t want to say I had cut out a piece of myself because I don’t believe this a possible task to complete. This feverish state I speak of is not a tumor growing on the surface of any being, it surges through our veins, and its there for a purpose other than to be overcome and extinguished; it propels humanity to stand up and move, and I believe that when we try to hold back our passions, we begin to wither away and die.
For a long while I have been intrigued with the idea of perfection. Ibn Adi advises that one must shun that which keeps him from perfection. What is perfection? Can there be a universal law that outlines all good and decent traits? If it exists, how will we ever find it and how will we know if we do? How will we ever decide and agree on these ideals when one society treasures what another holds in contempt? I often times settle on the idea that there is no such thing as a flawed being. I believe it safe to say that Ibn Adi and many others have set the standards impossibly, even painfully, high. So high, in fact, that no living creature may ever attain the goal.
If while striving to reach a goal it is necessary to cut off one’s arms and legs and cut out one‘s lung and kidney, is it a goal one would even wish to tackle? The grain of nature should tell us that obliterating parts of ourselves that aid us in living life would be foolish. In a book entitled, Illusions: The Story of a Reluctant Messiah by… two of the characters have a conversation on perfection. Perfection is often times seen as a finish line, its something one reaches and then that’s it, you’re done. It’s a plateau, a stagnant, static place. The character in the book looks up to the sky and asks if its perfect. The other man proclaims that, yes, the sky is always perfect. If this is true, then in a sense, it can be seen as a template for perfection. The sky, the clouds, the air, the sun, the moon are not stagnant objects; they are ever-evolving yet exude perfection every moment of the day. How can one look up at a cloud and claim that it is less perfect than another? There is no mold for clouds. There is no perfect type, shape, density, or color for a cloud to strive towards. Is a cumulus more perfect than a cirrus? I wonder what if there was an imperfectly shaped cloud. What fate would it succumb to? Would it not continue to collect moisture until it became too saturated to hold its form? Would it not then rain down upon the earth simply because it was shaped “imperfectly”? Would those water droplets that rained down be any less wet, would they be anything less than water?
What is perfection other than the occurrence of a preferred outcome? If an individual makes a perfect choice it is because the result is the one that was desired by the individual. Two people may arrive at the same destination, one elated at her arrival, the other sorely disappointed. One sees the journey’s end as satisfactory while the other sees it as insufficient. One will return home and declare that the trip went perfectly while the other will see it as far less than perfection. In short, perfection is in the eye of the beholder.
Some of the attributes that the philosopher claims are traits of perfection seem overly selfish or contradictory. We should cultivate a deep love for all of humanity, but remember to keep our distance from those that act frivolously. Is it possible to love something that one feels she must stay away from? I understand Ibn Adi’s idea of surrounding oneself with those who will aid in the pursuit of perfection, but the task of consciously segregating oneself from another group of people seems dangerous to society in some senses. What if Jesus did this? Or Gandhi? Or Martin Luther King Jr.? All of those individuals were true pioneers who touched the hearts and changed innumerable amounts of people with their words. Who would they have been if they had chosen to only mingle with those on the same or higher thought level as themselves instead of choosing to become immersed with those who were oppressed, unfortunate, and uneducated? Ideas of change and improvement in society most often times trickles up from those stuck at the bottom of the hole. To present a deaf ear and a blind eye to those individuals would result in a sick, stagnant society and the notion of superiority.
Ibn Adi also states that one should be aware of and meditate on the “ludicrous demeanor of the irate, their stupidity, and irrationality when seized by anger” (Fakhry 104). In my eyes, this does not promote encouragement or change where it is most needed. This line of thought leads my mind to believe these people are lost causes. It’s acceptable for them to be that way because they’re too dumb to know better. Keep your distance, lower your gaze and just continue on your way.
How can one educate an individual if she refuses to be near him for fear of him pulling her down to the bottom of the pit? This seems like a recipe for intellectuals to become more intellectual and the uneducated to remain ignorant. I would preach that, in order to help a man out of a hole, it is not necessary to descend to the bottom and struggle to pull him out therefore endangering yourself of also succumbing to the muddy pit, but that its more than acceptable-- and probably more helpful-- to simply throw down a rope and instruct him how to climb it.
I firmly believe that to completely omit an entire part of one’s being is to suffer, including anger and lust. I have found that my happiness is at its highest when I learn how to incorporate all parts of my self into my life. Ibn Adi’s path tends to lead it’s followers, at times, far off to the left or the right. My biggest concern with the list of traits congruent with a perfect being is the lack of compassion. The theories tend to omit kindness and promote avoidance while also seeming to assume that all are born into the same privileges and are all working to build off of finished, even foundations. Ibn Adi’s philosophy does not encourage or seek to foster the needed changes throughout the world, and his voice echoes as one that has never tasted the bitterness of injustice or oppression.

Why, according to Paul Kurtz, do people practice the common moral decencies and strive for the ethical excellences? In your view, does his position have merit?


The philosopher Paul Kurtz believed that “morality is independent of religion” and that a human being can be moral without the fear of God (250). Kurtz claims that there are two levels of morality, the first being common moral decencies, and the second including ethical excellences.

Common moral decencies are basic rules learned mostly through enculturation which guide our relationships with others so as to coexist peacefully and cooperate for a mutual advantage, and can be found in all societies. The need for these morals arose through evolution, yet one needs a certain foundation in their upbringing in order to have full awareness and insight into these needs. These include, truth, tolerance, thankfulness, reliability, fairness, and restraint from inflicting harm. In order to live harmoniously, the people voluntarily adopt these attitudes.

Ethical excellences are character traits of a morally developed person that strives for self-reliance and respect, creativity, and a path to happiness. The objective is “to live fully and creatively, sharing with others the many opportunities for joyful experience and moral conduct”, not to simply graduate as a higher being or to be accepted into a heaven after death (253). What is important is the moment at hand.

My first thought is to agree with Paul Kurtz that to be moral one does not have to participate in a religion, or need the fear of God or idea of heaven to be moral. I do not follow a religion, fear any kind of god, nor do I even fear ultimate retribution for any wrongdoings I have committed or may commit in the future, yet I continue to live a relatively moral existence. Although I do notice many of those deeply entwined with religion have a tighter grasp on these ideas and also tend to exude the higher ethical excellences of which Kurtz spoke. My experience has been that since I’ve been merely studying (not following) religions, I have become a more fulfilled, compassionate being.

This leads me to wonder if morals were placed in the category of religion simply because the major prophets spoke of and practiced them, and, therefore, those attributes were heavily rewarded to those religious figures. Maybe an ultimate meaning has been attached where it does not belong; one does not necessarily imply the other. Living morally does not imply one is religious, just as one who is religious is not necessarily moral.

Pavlov’s dog assumed that with every ring of a bell came food , but that was not reality. Just because food was given after the bell was rung did not imply that with every ring of the bell, food was present. Similarly, people assume that when morality is present, so is God, but just because God can be associated with morality does not necessarily imply that morality can only be found in God.

I have realized that there may be no society without a religion. This, in turn, makes the assumption that without religion, there is no morals, or the opposite assumption that there are morals outside a doctrine and a fear of God, impossible. If every life has, in even some minute way, been touched by a religion or by a person who has been touched by religion, then neither can be proven or disproved.

Kurtz believed that these needs or morals arose through evolution, yet one needs a certain foundation in their upbringing in order to have full awareness and insight into these needs. Well, what does that foundation consist of? Undoubtedly, the child will be introduced, in some form or another, to religion or, at the very least, the morals that accompany it, so maybe the foundation needed is one of religion. At the core of the four main religions, compassion, love, and honesty are taught as top priorities. But did those prophets need God in order to know these things? Maybe they simply needed the idea of God. But then, where did the idea come from? It would seem it had to be placed there presumably by God. Then again, that would mean that it’s inside us all whether we accept God or not, or does it possibly lie dormant or stunted until the person allows God into their life?

It’s difficult for me to soundly proclaim that I would still have the morals I do today if I had never been introduced to religion. Although I have never truly followed one, I have been immersed in the idea of them from birth. When I was younger, I was a Christian who knew nothing of her faith; I was immoral and showed little compassion, but after taking a few courses on religion in college, I was transformed. I cannot recall the last time I’ve felt hatred, and in its place I’ve found acceptance and empathy. I have become a calm, rational, compassionate, simple being merely by being exposed to religion. Perhaps religion merely enhances or polishes morals but does not necessarily create them.

This is the unfortunate comment I have received for the post I placed on the animal rights LJ pleaing for human compassion:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What brought this about?

Ever sit in a classroom full of students, listening to the teacher berate everyone about "horrible" test scores or a combined danger of failing ["You all need to start thinking about midterms! This foolishness is going to cost you to repeat this class," etc.] when you have straight As in the class and always give it your all? I have been there, and it pisses me off. That's kind of what this felt like.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I tried to post this resonse to a mean-spirited girl's journal entry on an animal rights group's Live Journal, but I apparantly have to be accepted as a friend in order to state my opinion. I have nothing else to do with it, so I guess I will just post it here for the time being...


I was shocked about 7 months ago into becoming vegan because of the sorrow and outrage I felt for slaughtered animals and then quickly moved up to the position of president of an environmental and animal rights group on campus. When I read up on it, I realized that our bodies are not well-equipped to handle meat consumption indicating that it is not necessary for us to kill any animal for food.

For months the only thing on my mind was to change everyone I came into contact with into a vegan. I was head-strong and tried my best to squash their life-long held assumptions.

I quickly realized that the way to get through to people is not by attacking them, or calling them names, it's best to empathize. Unless you were raised vegan, there was a time in your own life that you were simply unaware of animal suffering, so do your best to recall what it was like before the idea of animal rights was presented to you, and then approach people while in that frame of mind.

Now, I am by no means "stupid". I am a well-educated 20 year old female, and am continuing to learn everyday, just as you probably are. We cannot expect to be educated on every part of life at any given time, and should definately not expect this of others. If you believe your message is the right one, then make yourself heard, educate these people the best way possible, and make it count. Don't put others off from becoming vegan or vegetarian by being cynical and pushy. Be compassionate in the process, just as you would be compassionate to any other animal.

Do not neglect the fact that humans suffer also, and do not neglect that you are one of them. Take advantage of the fact that you know how to speak your mind and can convey your message in a way the ignorant can understand. Also don't be discouraged or hateful towards those who refuse the knowlege, because I was one of those people. If someone would have sat down and talked to me rationally on the subject, I may have changed years ago.

You cannot place animals above humans; they are of equal importance. All things have their place on Earth, and it would NOT be a better world without us! Humans have the advantage of changing the world quickly, and you should want them on your side. They deserve the same respect you give the animals.

Pushing one down in order to bring another up always ends in a power struggle and a hardening of defenses, which results in the unwillingness to accept new beliefs. Put all animals (including humans) on the same level and see how far your message will travel.

~Katie