Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_je3g4cq wrote

Reply to comment by Background_Dog_2534 in Our age of crises needs Bollnow’s philosophy of hope by ADefiniteDescription

Well, yeah. Suffering is a prerequisite to hope.

3

cybicle t1_je3ubut wrote

Buddhism, as I understand it, considers suffering to be the inevitable result of desire. However, the Buddhist definition of desire may be more restrictive than the more broad or fundamental concepts of desire (thirst, hunger, warmth, etc), and refer to desires for things which exceed a person's basic needs.

Meanwhile, I think a person can have hope based on a desire that preceded their suffering (like a climber in your summit fever analogy), or they might just be trying to meet their basic needs for survival, which is suffering that has preceded their desire.

I'm not sure how hope relates to Buddhism, but in my mind, hope is tangential to desire and suffering, rather than the result or cause of them.

At the end of the day, it may boil down to semantics, because hope, suffering, and desire, can all be interpreted and connected in so many different ways.

2

[deleted] t1_je5wz9f wrote

[deleted]

1

cybicle t1_je6br95 wrote

Thank you for the clarification, u/Melodic_Meringue_506. You obviously understand Buddhism better than I do.

My assumption was that Buddhist desire didn't apply to biologically reflexive wants, such as thirst caused by dehydration -- so hope for a drink of water was a desire resulting from suffering, not vice versa.

I think your introduction of the concept of connection is what had been missing, since the first post in this subthread of the main thread. It clarifies the semantics of the of Buddhist concepts regarding hope, and seems better than using desire, in this context.

Obviously, my gut level understand isn't very good. I take Buddhism lightly, because, like Maslow's Hierarchy (the subject of this post), it seems like the goal is not relative to most people's life.

At less aspirational levels, I think both ideologies offer good advice, as long as you don't focus on the basically unattainable pinnacle. Many other philosophies offer similar advice without beating you over the head with such a big carrot.

Is there something similar to hope, which people who are able to practice Buddhism (at the gut level) can use to bolster their resilience, without fostering attachment?

1

[deleted] t1_je6dlyo wrote

[deleted]

1

cybicle t1_je7t1zh wrote

I think the point of the original article was that Maslow's goal of self actualization wasn't was something which almost nobody could reasonably be expected to achieve.

It went on to support the idea that something akin to a person's resilience may be a better measure for how successful their life has been.

Buddhism's goal of transcendence (or whatever the correct term is) is also something out of the question for most people, even if they haven't "been taught from birth and socially conditioned into limbic capitalism to be a worker and to desire and consume".

Like Malsow's Hierarchy, Buddhism has some valuable insights into the human condition. However (following the same logic which the article applied to Maslow's Hierarchy), many people may be better served by a different way of measuring their success.

Edit: wrong word in first sentence

1

[deleted] t1_je81xbj wrote

[deleted]

1

cybicle t1_je8o6x8 wrote

I made a typo, and I just corrected it. The sentence you quoted should have said: >Maslow's goal of self actualization wasn't was something which almost nobody could reasonably be expected to achieve.

I don't see how believing you are already self actualized is a prerequisite for becoming self actualized.

If you flow like water, you'll just be a puddle. People are complex, both internally and in their relationships with each other and the world around them.

All water always follows the same simple rules, and has no control over the rules it follows. It is passive, and it requires energy from an external source to move from a resting state.

People follow complex behaviors (which they seemingly are able to control) and interact with the world in a myriad of ways. They can harvest potential energy, and use it to change their circumstances.

It's bad to be too preoccupied with the past or future, or with things you can't control. But a Buddhist who stayed living entirely in the moment would starve to death; they most definitely are attached to their traditions, amongst other things; and if transcendence was attainable by the masses, then no other religion would exist.

1