AdamWho

In starting this discussion, I have to admit I was looking to rant about Buddhism from a more objectivist point of view.

Buddhism / Taoism was my first stop after dumping Christianity. I like the teaching a lot but last summer, while seeing the Dali Lama, I got all creaped out, the monks, the canting, and the overly flowery meditative visualization made it seem like I was seeing the pope. The compassion in also Buddhism seems a little hollow when you consider that Guatama and his followers begged for a living. "Fundamentalist" Buddhists in my life really complete a feeling of being trapped in a religion.

I can't help but feel suspicious, I judge by the actions of the followers.

victorialis

Any religion will develop its outward forms (priesthood, icons, scripture, ritual) to give support and encouragement to the believer. Some believers invest most of their spiritual "capital" in the forms, which is where fundamentalist behavior kicks in. People argue about the package decorations and forget all about the content.

I sympathize with your creepy feeling; the forms don't really interest me because even though they are well-meant, they can turn into something that believers use for thumping each other on the head, criticizing one another's practice or holiness.

Any religion or philosophy can be used privately as a set of personal ethical guidelines. But when it's made to serve as a social calling card -- as a basis for relationships or social activity -- it will meander into the realm you've described.

Objectivism is no less prone to this. The objectivists of my acquaintance are very much concerned with orthodoxy (that is: right thinking), and evangelize for reason no less tiresomely than the religious people they think they're so different from.

Eudaimonist

My knowledge of Ayn Rand's Objectivism is guiding my choice of questions to an extent. I suppose I could rant in a kneejerk fashion, but I'd rather learn patiently first. I always find that much more productive in the long run. It's not like Ayn Rand is the only person in history to make valid observations about life. Far from it.

Objectivism and Buddhism are in some surprising ways quite similar, even though there are some clear differences. I have found that learning about a worldview similar in some ways to one's own can give one a novel and useful perspective on one's own worldview. I have already discovered this through careful examinination and reflection on Greek eudaimonisms, such as the ethical schools of Aristotle, the Stoics, and some others. Buddhism may yield a similar result.

Eudaimonist

Oh, it's more than that. Ignore, for the moment, the issue of evangelization. Objectivists are not above symbolism. For most people, the sign of dollar ($) is a symbol that most people will probably interpret negatively as "greed", but for Objectivists this is a positive symbol that stands for the trade of values between independent equals, as opposed to master-slave relations. The sign of the dollar is in a way the "Jesus fish" of Objectivists. Notably, someone brought a gold dollar symbol for public display at Ayn Rand's funeral, a symbolic gesture she would likely have appreciated.

The <a href="http://www.objectivistcenter.org/" target="_blank">Objectivist Center</a> recently had a symposium titled something like: "What should we worship?" Anyone who has read the introduction to Ayn Rand's novel The Fountainhead knows that Rand found valuable meanings in traditionally religious words such as "reverence", "sacred" and "worship". She thought that the emotions reflected in these words need not be generated through the contemplation of gods, but could be generated by contemplation of heroic human potentials. Considerable attention was given at the symposium to the possible benefits of religion -- benefits that might be offered for Objectivists within a non-theistic Objectivist context.

And then there's the <a href="http://www.kindreason.com/" target="_blank">Fellowship of Reason</a>. While this group isn't an Objectivist-only club, the founder and most founding members are Objectivists. The Fellowship of Reason is a practical application of the sort of insights gleaned at the symposium I mentioned. It isn't a religion, but it does take advantage of some of the features of religion, such as moral communities, rituals, celebrations, and symbolism.

I'm even involved in the creation of a symbol for the Fellowship of Reason. Below is a crude symbol I created for the organization.



I'm working with my girlfriend (a more talented computer artist) on an improved symbol. It's not finished yet, but will probably look something like this:



If you are curious about the symbolic meaning of the wreath-and-shield, it represents human flourishing (in Objectivist-speak: man's life qua man, in Aristotelian terms: eudaimonia). The plants symbolize life and the importance of personal change and growth. The golden shield symbolizes the wholeness, harmony, and radiant happiness characteristic of flourishing.

I think it is very easy for atheists to become "allergic" to certain practices simply because they are identified with religion, and for no better reason. If something does not have to be religious (i.e. ineluctably associated with belief in the supernatural), and satisfies a real human need, I see no reason not to make use of that.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>

victorialis

Eudaimonist... I'm confused. You've begun your post by saying "It's more than that," but in what follows, what I am seeing is not more; it is the same.

With respect, and without irony or sarcasm, I must ask: Is this not evangelizing?

How is the beautiful symbol you've displayed different in its function from an image of Avalokitesvara? Are both not icons representing certain values and beliefs, intended to reinforce and encourage the believers and to solidify and broadcast their identity?

I wonder sometimes how archaeologists of the future will avoid concluding that Tommy Hilfiger was some sort of minor deity, prophet or holy man. He wasn't just a brand, but a lifestyle!

The atheist allergy to which you refer is a sort of Mobius loop, resolvable only by agreeing on the definition of terms. To equate religion with belief in the supernatural sits okay with me, for the purposes of discussion. But the replacement of belief in the supernatural with a belief in reason seems only half a solution to me -- and no less religious a solution in its nature.

Belief in reason is still belief. Or, if I can risk being really rude here -- it is still faith, because it is to be depended upon, to the exclusion of any alternatives.

Very interested in your views on this, if you don't find the semantics tiresome.

muon

I started a discussion of some of the negative sides of Buddhism some time ago. You can find it at:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=000084" target="_blank">Former Buddhists</a>

Eudaimonist

Whenever I think of evangelizing, I think of some person preaching to people using words. I've never thought of a symbol by itself as having the power to evangelize. A symbol is too... passive. Notice how I had to explain the meaning of my symbol. I doubt you would have guessed without my verbal explanation. But I see your point. I suppose a symbol could be thought of as a form of evangelization.

I don't follow you at all. Are you saying that in order to be non-religious, one must not discriminate between the use of faith or reason? One must see both as of equal usefulness?

I don't use the word "faith" to mean something that one depends on to do something. I'd say that a faith is a set of beliefs held regardless of the state of evidence, and reason is a method by which we judge beliefs on the quality of the evidence. This tends to be the way atheists will use the terms.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>

Eudaimonist

Oh, yes! Thanks for reminding me of that topic. I found this quote of yours the most troubling:

This worries me about Buddhism. To be fair, I see the lurking potential for this life-denying aspect closer to home in the ancient Greek eudaimonistic philosophy of Stoicism. (Which is one reason why I am not a Stoic.)

The elevation of tranquility to a supreme goal is one of my biggest worries, since it's all too easy to value inner peace so much that one is afraid to pursue goals for fear that one might become agitated by failure.

Might some goals even be worth the risk of a little suffering?

AdamWho

Wow, thanks for all the responces.

victorialis:
Belief in reason is still belief.

Yes but it should be the first and last "leap of faith" of a rationalist. [Popper, Defence of Rationalism], a great essay.

oser:
Thank you for the heads up.

Eudaimonist:
I feel trapped by your evalgelism already -
A nice symbol, ever think about adding stars, as in reaching to the stars, symbolizing infinite possiblilites for the individual?

Eudaimonist

I hadn't thought of it, but I think it's a creative idea. Thanks for the suggestion.