| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Zach Wilson
Newcomer
3 Posts |
 Posted - Apr 02 2009 : 4:20:41 PM
|
I was pondering a certain passage in the Mitchell text, that is: "When people see some things as good, other things become bad." This seems to imply that "goodness" and "badness" can only be present together, not because they actually exist, but because one of the labels naturally excludes some things, which then become labeled with the other word. In other words, our view of good and bad is relative, and there is no real "good" or "bad." Thoughts? Are good and bad relative, or do "goodness" and "badness" really exist?
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
Liz Lowe
Newcomer
3 Posts |
|
|
Zach Wilson
Newcomer
3 Posts |
|
|
Liz Lowe
Newcomer
3 Posts |
Posted - Apr 19 2009 : 1:56:12 PM
|
I definitely agree! Both translations seem to be saying that bad only comes after we see something as good. I think humans strive to have a better understanding of the world, and forming categories allows us to make better sense of the world. When we deem that an object is good, it is because we view the qualities it consists of as good as well. But if a second object lacks qualities which we deem as good, it cannot be good because it does not fit our schema of what good is. Therefore, it must be bad. Then we have a list of bad qualities as well, so we can categorize other objects more easily the next time.
In reading about the Zen tradition in addition to that of the Dao, I think that they are very similar with regards to this idea of opposites. One particular quote stuck out to me in the segment from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones called Centering. "Number 110: Since, in truth, bondage and freedom are relative, these words are only for those terrified with the universe. This universe is a reflection of minds. As you see many suns in the water from one sun, so see bondage and liberation" (209).
Zen Flesh, Zen Bones: A Collection of Zen and Pre-Zen Writings. Grand Rapids: Tuttle, 1998.
[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
 |
|
|
Carrie Williams
Fledgling
11 Posts |
Posted - Apr 20 2009 : 4:02:20 PM
|
I agree, Zach, with your interpretation that good and bad are relative—relative not to each other, but relative to a person's experience. It puts me in mind of the saying: one man's trash is another man's treasure. Yes, "good" and "bad" may be the arbitrary labels society chooses to slap on that which infuses happiness into our souls and that which drains our lives of their vita,l happy lifesource. I believe, Zach, that when you say that they are relative, you are saying that the degree to which something is experienced as "good" is proportional to the degree to which it is experienced as not bad. Proportionately equal and opposite, or inversely proportional.....the idea of yin and yang.
I'm reading you as saying that how bad or good something seems to you is directly related to your experience of the things that seem to you to be good or bad. For example, you have a terrifying experience as a child where you almost drown. For the rest of your life, water, the ocean, sudden thunderstorms -- anything unexpected having to do with water -- brings back horrible feelings. You, unlike the person next to you, will avoid swimming and boat rides -- for a very good reason: to you water means danger and fear. You are aware that you have a phobia, yet your emotions cannot let you relax and see water in a pleasant way. You may eventually see water as a soothing and relaxing thing, once you have overcome your fear of it, but until then, water for you is only a nightmare.
I believe this is why society -- mostly religion and the like --has created laws and moral codes for everyone to abide by that regulate the way people behave. Your water phobia makes water seem bad to you.....but water isn't bad in the sense that swimming might cause you to commit a crime or harm someone so that it is against the law.....it is just a not very good thing for you.
A somewhat different matter, which was mentioned in class today, is norms of morality in relation to public and private life. An example: the open practice of religion. In private, Satan worshippers can worship their deity to their hearts' content, and to them it's good, even great. If they were to start worshipping Satan at an altar in the middle of a shopping mall, people of other religious persuasions would probably stop, stare, and walk away, perhaps even calling the cops about the weird people making a scene in public. There is no unspoken rule in society that no matter what you do in your private life, well, it's private and no one is yearning to see whatever it is you do in private displayed in a full, theatrical performance. What if you like to clog dance because of the delight you take in endless monotony, or sing show tunes. If most people don't normally do it in public, then you should probably keep it to yourself in your cramped thin-walled apartment on the floor below the midnight tuba player.
Christians would see the Satan-worshippers and say, well that is a bad thing. Not only are they worshipping Satan, but they are right out here in front of everyone being demonic. Bad Satan-worshippers! Bad people! From their perspective, all the Satan-worshipper is represents that which is bad. From his perspective, he is a faithful servant of his lord, and proud of it. I know that this is a dramatic way to put my point. But I truly believe that there are so many personal experiences that shape our morality and our ideas of what good and bad are that society has had to step in to regulate public and sometimes private behavior sufficiently to keep the peace. You can only imagine how truly different people's private lives are....but we really will never know here in America, because that's ... private. :0)
[Edited to enhance readability.] |
|
|
|
Carrie Williams
Fledgling
11 Posts |
|
|
Zach Ramey
Newcomer
4 Posts |
|
|
Zach Wilson
Newcomer
3 Posts |
Posted - May 05 2009 : 4:38:37 PM
|
Carrie, I have to agree with the other Zach on this one....
I would say it could be argued that the "universally accepted" norm to which you are referring is, to begin with, not universally accepted, because nothing is. But in addition to this, laws that tell us what is wrong and right are created by the person or persons in power. Consider, for example, a law that--oh, I don't know--makes a person do a push-up every time he or she says another person's name (to take a completely arbitrary example). Is this law a "good" or "bad" thing, or is it something that people see as a good thing, and are they therefore going to see anything that it bans is bad?
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
The Tao Te Ching and Goodness
Forum Locked
