all you need is love

In class on Wednesday, we opened with the question, "if love is the only answer, why are there so many questions?" While that is a very broad question, many classmates were able to bring some interesting answers to the table. One said that there are different kinds of love, which I thought was a very good response. It's true, different kinds of love can answer different questions. It can answer meaning, doubt, etc. I don't believe that love is the only answer, unless we live in a way to make it that. I'm not talking math equations or the distance between two points. I'm talking about questions of self-worth. And, in context with chapter one from Who Are We, if we are Christians than love should be the answer to our questions. I think what Paul was trying to say is that for the questions in life where are left wondering or lost, we should know that there is someone who loves us, and that that love gives us meaning. In that respect, than love could be the answer to our questions. But if that is the case then when love answers, are we to stop questioning? 

Arguments

At the beginning of class today, someone mentioned that we should respect people for their opinions. Ok, that's fine. Then it was carried onto a person who can make an argument should be respected. All right, but then it was said that an argument itself should be respected. I'm fine with respecting people for their opinions and thoughts. 

I thought it was very important that someone said that it should depend on the argument. People who argue that the Holocaust was for a good reason, or slavery is okay, should then the argument not be respected? And if our arguments reflect personal beliefs then should we not respect the people who make those arguments? 

If an argument is made and it is well thought out, and a lot of time or effort or belief is put into it then certainly you can appreciate the effort someone placed on their viewpoint, extreme as it may be. But some people are very good at making an argument, without much thought or insight, namely for the sake of it. Are they, too, to be respected?

Some people are thinkers and not arguers, do they lose this respect because they don't argue. 

This was only what came to mind when we touched upon that in class earlier. I simply wanted to point out that there are so many different ways to look at that rather than just a crafty argument should be respected. 

I'm not saying that the points that came up in class aren't valid. I agree that we should be respectful of someone's opinion. 

So that was just a thought I wanted to throw out there. 

Karma

After reading Chapter 6 on Buddhism and Hinduism, the idea of Karma was a thought that lingered with me. I always thought that Karma was that when you did something wrong, something bad would happen to you. Or when you did something good, something good would happen to you. Which is where the phrase "Karma will get to them" I would assume came from.

But after the reading, it became clear that that wasn't really the case. So the idea then behind Karma, if I'm understanding it correctly, is that if you do something bad during your life, then when you die and are reincarnated you will come back in a "lower" form. Or the opposite if you lived a good life. 

This concept could be compared to the Christian idea that if you lead a good life you'll get into heaven. But there's also the idea of salvation there through Jesus. 

So a question from my Q&A that I didn't get a chance to bring up in class was, is there something that is similar to the savior in the Christian faith, in Hinduism? Or is it more of a good works/good life/ good person idea?

Intuition vs. Rationality

In his introduction to the book Who We Are, Pojman lists eight questions of philosophy. One of which is, how shall we live? As our instructor brought up, Socrates claimed that an unexamined life is not worth living. The discussion that followed really intrigued me. It amazes me how our conversation branches in class, and the topics that come up. At one point in our discussion the difference between intuition and rationality came up. I will naively admit that I never saw such a large differentiation between the two. Some difference maybe, but technicalities at the most. Perhaps that is because there are such broad definitions for both of them. For intuition one definition I found was a quick, keen insight. Another then explained intuition as a direct perception of truth independent of any reasoning process. In class intuition was described both as ignorant, and as part of human nature. Now while intuition could be both ignorant and a part of human nature, I think that it is not a matter of ignorance. I think intuition is a natural characteristic of humans that is more like a gut feeling about something. 

It's possible that intuition and rationality are linked rather than one or the other. Using our rationalizing about our intuitions, or using a gut feeling to rationalize something. I see them more as dependents of each other in many cases, rather than two separate entities. 

Those were my thoughts anyway. Please feel free to tell me what you think : )