![]() If he had used a better example, the point would have been clear. Much like Satanists are just angry at Christians, and many pagans are just angry at industrialization. And like Sisyphus he will be rolling that to his grave. He's got what we use to call a 'chip on his shoulder'. He belittles science, in what I feel is a reaction to years of Science belittling religion and philosophy. One of the first things you learn to know is how much you don't know, and further, how much you can never know. His example is migration and I'm sure science will be able to walk Hoff through all the variable steps of how it works, and his example is a terrible one because in Judge Judy fashion he passes such stern judgement without understanding things that seem basic to you or I. Not just for the Tao, but for all people of all philosophies. As arrogant or ignorant as you'd like to suggest.īut behind it is a very important message. In this, Hoff is just being a bit too human. Even wise teachers and the self-ascribed 'enlightened' are apt to human behavior. Everyone has a line they draw in the sand to say us and them, and it's so tempting to look down our noses at 'them'. The intelligent belittle the "idiots", and the not-so-intelligent disdain the "arrogant eggheads". The theists say how wonderful religion is and how stupid science is. The athiests say how wonderful science is and how stupid religion is. I've studied a lot of religious and philosophical works across the board over years. While you can certainly find fault in Benjamin Hoff's contempt for science, there's a message behind the words that is very important. Why I'm posting this here is because I think I may be overlooking something, or over complicating something. ![]() I could dig deeper into this, but I feel as if my case has been made. Couldn't that style of living be the tao for an individual? The author continues to talk about how scientist walk through the world peering through an electron microscope which is "nearsighted" and "never finds the answer to anything." This alone seems to violate the tao. Not to mention that "instinct" wouldn't be the full answer. Not because I was in rage or furious, but because this seems so blatantly ignorant. Curious: "Why do birds fly south for the winter?" "Genes"? "DNA"? Just scratching the surface. Science likes to strut around and Act Smart by putting its labels on everything, but if you look at them closely, you'll see that they don't really say much. Now, the last part of the principle: "Why does the chicken, I don't know why." Why does a chicken do what it does? You don't know? Neither do we. However, during last nights reading I stumbled upon a passage that read If Benjamin Hoff (the author) finds science useless, it shouldn't be of my concern. That rubbed me the wrong way a little bit, but I figured that we are all entitled to our own opinions. ![]() I noticed in the beginning that the author called scientists and scholars "boring" and other words of that nature. I jumped right into it and loved the simplicity of the Taoist philosophy. ![]() I was lucky enough to receive the Tao of Pooh for Christmas. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |