[Buddha-l] The arrow: its removal and examination

[Richard Hayes]

On Tuesday 26 June 2007 12:57, curt wrote:

> The original intent of philosophy is simply to ask, and to the extent
> possible answer, the question "how should I live?"

Back in 1964 or so I took my first undergraduate philosophy course. The 
professor of that course said almost exactly what you wrote. In his mind, 
there was nothing at all important in philosophy other than asking oneself 
how to live. Alas, said professor answered the question by both word and 
example, showing us how to justify racism by appealing to Darwin, how to 
justify sexism by appealing to what he called "common sense", how to justify 
war by appealing to the law of the jungle, and how to have contempt for 
religion by appealing to what he called critical thinking. He called himself 
a child of the Enlightenment. He gave us all a fine prescription for how to 
live, but few of us bothered taking it to the pharmacy.

Fortunately, there was another professor in the department who also believed 
that there is nothing at all important in philosophy other than figuring out 
how to live. He claimed to have no firm answers, but he showed us by example 
how to undermine racism and sexism and warfare and how to embrace religion by 
dealing with everyone with what I can only describe as a willingness to 
listen with something very close to unconditional love and respect. He was a 
Quaker.

You know how students are, eh? They lack refinement and civility. So we 
students incessantly mocked the child of the Enlightenment behind his back. 
We mimicked the way he walked and the way he talked. We spoke of the Quaker 
behind his back, too, but in reverential tones, and, come to think of it, 
most of us found ourselves trying our best to imitate how he walked and 
talked. 

Two philosophers asking the same important question and coming up with 
different answers, I eventually learned, is pretty much par for the course. 
Even later I learned that Buddhists also get pretty much the same par for the 
same course. To this day I have a hard time telling the difference between a 
good philosopher and a good Buddhist, and an equally hard time telling the 
difference between a mediocre philosopher and a mediocre Buddhist. But hell, 
I reckon the most mediocre of us will eventually become pretty good, just by 
eventually getting tired of the results of being mediocre.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico