Spectator Vs. Participant
A word about Unitarian Universalists...
Spectator vs. Participant
...of the achingly-profound-and-deliciously-provocative Philosophy 30 Midterm!!!
"The Spectator may be wiser but the Participant lives a better life."
Rita has established for us that it is not possible for a person to be both spectator and participant at once: Where the participant is playing on the field, and the spectator is on the sidelines trying to understand the game.
When being objective, it seems a person has to remove [him]self before he can truly understand what it is he is trying to be objective about. Erego, if he is trying to be objective about himself and understand himself, does he not have to remove himself FROM himself? And then does he still retain his identity, while freed from emotional involvement?
"The Spectator may be wiser, but the participant lives a better life."
I think it is important to think about what the phrase above means: what is involved in leading a better life? What does "better" even mean? What would make the participant's life better?
These characters: The Spectator and the Participant, represent the philosopher and the average Joe, with his BMW and 6-figure cheque. For Joe, life is great. He has everything he could possibly want. He's happy. The Philosopher however, can stand back and realize that these material things aren't what make life worth living... that "the man who dies with the most stuff is still dead."
Who decides who leads the "better" life? Who has that power? that right? Or does it depend? Will they both just go on, looking at each other and thinking "I live the better life, because I'm happier." Or is the spectator happy at all? Is [he] content with his ruthless search for a "better song"? Is being removed from life in an objective way like that fulfilling? Can it ever be?
Among people my age, misty eyes form when reminiscing about the good ol' days when nap time and yellow crayons were the be all and end all of life. They wish that they were five again for various reasons: -Life was easier then.
-They didn't have to worry about money or university or the big scary world.
-They fear death, and getting older reminds them of their mortality.
-"Those were years of innocence that we'll never get back."
But I disagree. I think that our pursuit needs to be not BMWs and tons of money, but that childish wonder we lost in grade one. It's been downhill ever since. Children ARE the spectators, yet are perfectly happy being so. THAT is what we have to strive to achieve. That youthful understanding yet constant excitement.
So! In conclusion (finally), "The spectator may be wiser but the participant lives a better life" is a crock.
Thank you. (bow)
Spectator vs. Participant
...of the achingly-profound-and-deliciously-provocative Philosophy 30 Midterm!!!
"The Spectator may be wiser but the Participant lives a better life."
Rita has established for us that it is not possible for a person to be both spectator and participant at once: Where the participant is playing on the field, and the spectator is on the sidelines trying to understand the game.
When being objective, it seems a person has to remove [him]self before he can truly understand what it is he is trying to be objective about. Erego, if he is trying to be objective about himself and understand himself, does he not have to remove himself FROM himself? And then does he still retain his identity, while freed from emotional involvement?
"The Spectator may be wiser, but the participant lives a better life."
I think it is important to think about what the phrase above means: what is involved in leading a better life? What does "better" even mean? What would make the participant's life better?
These characters: The Spectator and the Participant, represent the philosopher and the average Joe, with his BMW and 6-figure cheque. For Joe, life is great. He has everything he could possibly want. He's happy. The Philosopher however, can stand back and realize that these material things aren't what make life worth living... that "the man who dies with the most stuff is still dead."
Who decides who leads the "better" life? Who has that power? that right? Or does it depend? Will they both just go on, looking at each other and thinking "I live the better life, because I'm happier." Or is the spectator happy at all? Is [he] content with his ruthless search for a "better song"? Is being removed from life in an objective way like that fulfilling? Can it ever be?
Among people my age, misty eyes form when reminiscing about the good ol' days when nap time and yellow crayons were the be all and end all of life. They wish that they were five again for various reasons: -Life was easier then.
-They didn't have to worry about money or university or the big scary world.
-They fear death, and getting older reminds them of their mortality.
-"Those were years of innocence that we'll never get back."
But I disagree. I think that our pursuit needs to be not BMWs and tons of money, but that childish wonder we lost in grade one. It's been downhill ever since. Children ARE the spectators, yet are perfectly happy being so. THAT is what we have to strive to achieve. That youthful understanding yet constant excitement.
So! In conclusion (finally), "The spectator may be wiser but the participant lives a better life" is a crock.
Thank you. (bow)