In my note, Meaning and Purpose, I made the observation that many people find their own personal meaning and purpose in altruism despite the fact that our species is arrogant, violent, destructive and self-centered. What is the difference? We are all, like it or not, members of that arrogant, self-centered species known as homo sapiens.
There are two premises at which we must look. Firstly, that there are altruistic people. I don't think this is hard to establish. Just look at the number of not-for-profit organizations and those who gladly give their time, talent and money to the cause. Many people seem to live for the cause which tells me that they find it meaningful and a fulfilling purpose.
The second premise; viz that humans, as a species, are arrogant, self-centered and destructive; seems equally easy to observe for me, but I believe that there would be some objections. I do believe that the main reason for any objection is that to acknowledge this truth means that we are describing ourselves. None of us wants to be a part of such a nasty species.
The philosopher, Juddi Krishnamurti, uses the word environment to express what I would call social environments or social systems, to distinguish from a natural environment. He defines these as family, religion, government, economy, etc. These, he teaches, are the source of our unhappiness and psychological suffering. He also teaches that all of these environments have their own agendas which includes controlling the individual. It seems absurd to say a religion is arrogant, self-centered and not altruistic. Nevertheless, if we look at a religion as a social system and not the individual members, we see the truth of Krishnamurti's premise. They are arrogant and self-centered. Many require strict adherance and regimentation and insist that they are the only true religion. That's pretty arrogant and self-centered. They are not altruistic. They almost always have an other-worldly goal, apart from controlling members. An altruistic act may help a member achieve the prescribed goal but it is not the primary purpose of the religion.
Christians, for example, claim to be followers of Jesus. All evidence is that Jesus was a fierce social advocate - feed the hungry, be kind to your enemy, accept peoples' differences, etc. The religion that claims to be his followers do not insist upon social advocacy and an amazing number of its members have not only never been altruistic but shun those who are, yet are arrogant and self-centered enough to be certain that they are going to heaven because they follow their church's rules.
I don't think we have any problem seeing the arrogance and self-centeredness in the other social systems. Governments, politics in general and the wealthy capitalist are the ultimate definition of arrogance and selfishness.
With this I am going to assume the validity and truth of these two premises.
That brings us back to the question of how we can account for the reality that an altruistic person can be a member of such an arrogant and self-centered species.
The answer might well lie in the discussion of the premises. There is no denying that the social systems, which seem to be behind and advocating for arrogance, violence, destructiveness and self-centeredness, are created by and run by humans. There seems to be no denying, although it is yet another premise one could debate, that these social systems are the primary manifestation of and advocators for human arrogance, violence, destructiveness and self-centeredness.
Krishnamurti holds that these social systems are in conflict with us and are the source of our suffering and that we only find relief when we question them and stop trying to escape. I'm not sure what he expects when we stop trying to escape, but I find real validity and truth in his assertion that we can only find relief when we stop and question. My first question would be to question their validity.
This brings me to a question for which I thought I already had the answer; viz. Is it our species that is arrogant, self-centered, violent and destructive or is it the social systems that control our species? The dog breeds Pit Bull, German Shepherd, and Doberman are not born vicious. They are made that way. Are we modern humans the product of our social systems?
This question was totally unanticipated when I started this essay, but it might just contain the answer to my original question. If we look back in human history we find strong evidence that we have not always been our current despicable species. This conclusion can be supported by hunter-gatherer groups that still exist today. There is no doubt that we are controlled and manipulated by Krishnamurti's (social) environments; what I am calling social systems. Therefore it would follow that there can be people who, despite the power, pressure and control of the social environments, act in a natural and altruistic way that is meaningful, purposeful and fulfilling for them.
While this answers my original question it raises others: (1) is the species we observe as a manifestation of the social systems different than the original homo sapiens? (2) Who are the beneficiaries of social systems? (3) Are we other than our social systems? (4) If so, can a group of humans live together without any social system(s)?
FOOTNOTES:
(i) see essay What Constitutes a Social System?
No comments:
Post a Comment