- mags
-
I am a congenital optimist.
|
Does Atlas Shrugged count?
everyone in the idf must die
(USER WAS PERMABANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 04:43
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2024 18:42
|
|
- mags
-
I am a congenital optimist.
|
real post, i had to read one of her short stories for a philosophy class and now i'm really interested in her writing, i almost picked up a copy of the dispossessed
everyone in the idf must die
(USER WAS PERMABANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 05:00
|
|
- mags
-
I am a congenital optimist.
|
this was the short story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas
everyone in the idf must die
(USER WAS PERMABANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 05:05
|
|
- mags
-
I am a congenital optimist.
|
When you finish it, let me know which path you would choose, and we can discuss it. 
everyone in the idf must die
(USER WAS PERMABANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 05:14
|
|
- mags
-
I am a congenital optimist.
|
I think it is more of a thought experiment on the differences between pragmatism, non-violent resistance, and violent resistance.
First, is the exploitative system acceptable due to the overwhelming ratio of greater good to suffering? How few can benefit before it becomes morally unbearable to you if this is the case?
Second, if you couldn't live with the child's suffering, do you condemn the populace to suffering and free the child? Are you no better for forcing people to suffer?
Or do you simply leave the city? If enough people leave, doesn't the system break down?
I see that final choice as non-violent resistance; setting an example. The wild unknown outside the city is the future, where our resistance could bring prosperity, personal suffering, or death. Yet it is our choice alone, we don't force anyone else to do as we do.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 05:28
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2024 18:42
|
|
- mags
-
I am a congenital optimist.
|
I really like the story and have given it a decent amount of thought. I would be interested to know what the author intended, of course, and if someone can share I would appreciate it. I've come to my own views about the contradiction it encapsulates. From a utilitarian perspective you would have to say that minimizing suffering to one being is a maximal outcome; that if you were given a choice of a society to live in without knowing what your role would be, and you knew that there was a 99.99999% chance you would be free of suffering and a .00001% chance you would be suffering all the time so that everyone else did not have to suffer, you might well choose to live in that society. Such is earthly and human logic.
But I also view it from another perspective, the bodhisattva's vows, which basically states a purpose or commitment to do the impossible and not rest until earthly suffering is eliminated from all sentient beings:
Sentient beings are numberless,
I vow to save them.
Desires are inexhaustible,
I vow to put an end to them.
The Dharmas are boundless,
I vow to master them.
Enlightenment is unattainable,
I vow to attain it.
. . . or some variation of the above. So by this view the ones who walk away from Omelas are bodhisattvas: not content with the utilitarian maximum but living a more profound, perhaps alogical, commitment to enlightenment. Or maybe more specifically commitment to the process of striving for enlightenment, rather than enlightenment as an end or goal in itself.
Honestly neither is a particularly terrible goal for society to dedicate itself to, as compared to the way our world, as a whole, exists right now. IMO.
I am not too familiar with Buddhist philosophy, so this interpretation is very refreshing!
everyone in the idf must die
(USER WAS PERMABANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 13:32
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 04:43
