[my music: 1234 ~ Feist]
So yesterday I realized that the entire student population in my Philosophy of Life and Life After Death has come to a consensus that I am a negative person.
First I told the class that I don't believe in Heaven or Hell. I would much rather believe that the spirits of the departed remain among here, weaving in and out of the worlds of living individuals; as opposed to believing that if we commit adultery, or take the Lord's name in vain, then we are doomed to a fiery eternity of pain and torture. Or on the opposing end, I think an eternal existence among happy, cubby cherubs chilling in clouds, would become rather banal.
Then in a discussion regarding near death experiences, I expressed that i don't believe that the tunnel vision and the hearing of voices is anything significantly spiritual and religous. People across cultural and religious boundaries expereience the same things, and I believe that this can be explained by the simple connection that we are all human beings with the same general anatomy and body functions. When the body is shutting down and coming that close to actual death, I feel as though what people see and hear are simple the results of a the few sparks still going off in the mind of the individual. And the reason why some experience this and others don't is nearly similar to why some individuals recall dreams as positive or negative, while others don't recall their dreams at all. There are arguments that people having these experiences come back to life with a much different outlook on the rest of their earthly existence and resulting from a deeply religious awakening. Once again, I disagree with this statement. I think that people who come so close to losing their life simple come back with a different regard for the life which they lead. They now understand the frailty of life and the limits of time on such, which therefore will change the way they conduct the remainder of their days. It's only natural for someone to have a changed outlook and manner of handling things when they realize that it is actually limited.
Then last night, the discussion revolved around love. My professor wrote a book "The Loving Person," in which he explores the nature of loving, styles, concepts, then different parts of loving interactions: sex, marriage, friendship and death. Well there is an argument made by a philosopher by the name of Erich Fromm, that women love their children unconditionally because of the obviously physical contact between mother and child; while the father loves the child conditionally because the child needs to fulfill certain expectations of the father's, in order to receive his love.
I do believe that parents love their children differently, however I do not think it is fair to say that the mother's physical carrying of the child during those first 9 months is grounds to claim a closer connection. In some situations, the father can be closer to the child for any number of reasons (including postpartum depressions, work/occupation arrangements), and can then claim to love the child more than the mother does.
However, I do not believe in the existence of unconditional love. Unconditional by its very definition is: "not conditional; not contingent; not determined or influenced by someone or something else" (dictionary.com). Another aspect of unconditional love, not stated in this definition is that it would be witout compromise. To me, I do not see how someone could love anyone without certain conditions or compromise. In every loving situations, regardless of if it may be between mother and child, between lovers, friends, or family, you will have to compromise and maintain certain boundaries which are essentially conditions that love simply cannot pass. Many will claim to loving family members and even lovers unconditionally, but I feel that the claim is only because the boundaries were never breached and compromises never broken. I am not saying that the feeling of unconditional love cannot exists. I do feel however, that it is an illusion.
Maybe I am negative. Maybe I am mildly cynical. But I have reasons for believing these things, and I can argue my points just as easily as a relgious fanatic. And the way I think makes me who I am.
So yesterday I realized that the entire student population in my Philosophy of Life and Life After Death has come to a consensus that I am a negative person.
First I told the class that I don't believe in Heaven or Hell. I would much rather believe that the spirits of the departed remain among here, weaving in and out of the worlds of living individuals; as opposed to believing that if we commit adultery, or take the Lord's name in vain, then we are doomed to a fiery eternity of pain and torture. Or on the opposing end, I think an eternal existence among happy, cubby cherubs chilling in clouds, would become rather banal.
Then in a discussion regarding near death experiences, I expressed that i don't believe that the tunnel vision and the hearing of voices is anything significantly spiritual and religous. People across cultural and religious boundaries expereience the same things, and I believe that this can be explained by the simple connection that we are all human beings with the same general anatomy and body functions. When the body is shutting down and coming that close to actual death, I feel as though what people see and hear are simple the results of a the few sparks still going off in the mind of the individual. And the reason why some experience this and others don't is nearly similar to why some individuals recall dreams as positive or negative, while others don't recall their dreams at all. There are arguments that people having these experiences come back to life with a much different outlook on the rest of their earthly existence and resulting from a deeply religious awakening. Once again, I disagree with this statement. I think that people who come so close to losing their life simple come back with a different regard for the life which they lead. They now understand the frailty of life and the limits of time on such, which therefore will change the way they conduct the remainder of their days. It's only natural for someone to have a changed outlook and manner of handling things when they realize that it is actually limited.
Then last night, the discussion revolved around love. My professor wrote a book "The Loving Person," in which he explores the nature of loving, styles, concepts, then different parts of loving interactions: sex, marriage, friendship and death. Well there is an argument made by a philosopher by the name of Erich Fromm, that women love their children unconditionally because of the obviously physical contact between mother and child; while the father loves the child conditionally because the child needs to fulfill certain expectations of the father's, in order to receive his love.
I do believe that parents love their children differently, however I do not think it is fair to say that the mother's physical carrying of the child during those first 9 months is grounds to claim a closer connection. In some situations, the father can be closer to the child for any number of reasons (including postpartum depressions, work/occupation arrangements), and can then claim to love the child more than the mother does.
However, I do not believe in the existence of unconditional love. Unconditional by its very definition is: "not conditional; not contingent; not determined or influenced by someone or something else" (dictionary.com). Another aspect of unconditional love, not stated in this definition is that it would be witout compromise. To me, I do not see how someone could love anyone without certain conditions or compromise. In every loving situations, regardless of if it may be between mother and child, between lovers, friends, or family, you will have to compromise and maintain certain boundaries which are essentially conditions that love simply cannot pass. Many will claim to loving family members and even lovers unconditionally, but I feel that the claim is only because the boundaries were never breached and compromises never broken. I am not saying that the feeling of unconditional love cannot exists. I do feel however, that it is an illusion.
Maybe I am negative. Maybe I am mildly cynical. But I have reasons for believing these things, and I can argue my points just as easily as a relgious fanatic. And the way I think makes me who I am.
No comments:
Post a Comment