newest issue!
home
about nar
our mission
back issues
the staff
submissions
contacting us
 
Figure Out "Why" AND Live!

by Felix Bunke

This is in response to the article "Why?" which appeared in NAR 37 (the subliminal binary issue).

I was struck by the term "non-philosopher" that the author used. There's no such thing. The "non-philosophical" views that the author espoused are themselves part of a philosophy of how life ought to be lived and what a person's goals should be. There are many, many people who feel that such things as philosophy and religion are "impractical," but I feel that the term "practical" out of necessity carries with it ideas concerning what is useful and what are good goals to strive towards. These ideas are based on an underlying bed of philosophical ideas, even if they may be philosophical ideas that have become so entrenched in society that most people don't even recognize them as such anymore -- they just conform to them like sheep and assume that they're merely "obvious." Deciding what is "practical" requires serious thought (philosophizing!) concerning where you place your values, as well as your program disk! In other words, you must ask yourself, "Is having a girlfriend really worth the hassle? So what if I have a beer belly? What difference does smelly feet make?" Et cetera, et cetera.

Now, before you consider this a boldface attack, let me inform you that I, too, have had psychological problems similar to those that the author admitted to. I had an extremely thick "shell" for most of my life. (Growing up as someone who's a little "different" in a very conservative small Midwestern town will do that to a guy!) I suffered severe depression only a couple of years ago, and I am still amazed that I escaped out of that ordeal without doing myself in.

By the way, I, too, am a big South Park fan!

Also, I am not trying to promote any particular belief system. I myself am still "searching," trying to find my own answers. To that end, I must offer the following conciliatory notes.

Cloistering, as the author points out, is not an option -- well, at least not a very good one! However, it is not because you shouldn't "philosophize," it's because wisdom requires experience. In order to learn about life, you must first "get a life!" Americans tend to shun old age, but peoples of the East tend to put their senior citizens on a pedestal, and for good reason -- these people recognize that, since older people have more life experience, they are likely to have more wisdom, as well. Another trend in Eastern thought is to find "enlightenment" in the moment, i.e., from living, and that all forms of life experience can be used as part of the path to enlightenment. Taoism, for instance, often scorns scholars for their useless dependence on "book learning" and praises the simple farmer for learning from real experience. The process of gaining wisdom is often more important than the wisdom itself.

Okay, so you want an analogy to something more "practical" than Eastern philosophy, such as, oh, say, computer programming? I'm sure, this being a technical university in a computer-savvy age, that most of you are familiar with the acronym GIGO (i.e., "Garbage in, garbage out"). Cloistering yourself to do your philosophizing would be like mental incest. Your observations (data) would become very narrow and distorted, and so the end result would also be garbage.

To conclude, let me go back to Eastern philosophy, in particular the concept of Yin-Yang, i.e., the balance of seeming opposites and their dependence on each other. Life is meaningless without a personal philosophy, but true life wisdom cannot be gained without "living." Like almost everything else in life, these "opposites," thinking and living, must be kept in balance in order to achieve satisfactory results. This is why I find many things of value in Eastern thought. While Western philosophy is often fractured, narrow and dysfunctional, many Eastern philosophies strive, instead, to consider experience as a whole and not, as Westerners tend to do, seek to put discrete labels on things or think that you can only go to one extreme or another extreme instead of striving for harmony. A good cook must always remember to keep the ingredients in proportion, or else the customers will vomit! Now that's practical!



Back to Winter 1998 Table of Contents





North Avenue Review
A Georgia Tech Publication.