Reply
Sat 28 Aug, 2004 10:10 pm
Somehow, on the politics board, a discussion of how the value of a human life is measured.
Is it defined by the person or by the people whom the person influences...or by some other means?
Van Gogh provided the world with a wealth of beautiful art, and yet killed himself. At his death, the world had yet to appreciate his gift, and this, in part, led him to suicide. After his death, the world came to greatly honor and appreciate his talent. A valueless life, or a life of value?
If no one had ever discovered his masterpieces, would his life, as an artist, have been without value?
Is the measure of our lives the number of people who read our poems or hear our songs?
Interesting question, Finn. I must think about what you have said, because I am still taking a measure of my own life. As for Van Gogh, he was a troubled man to begin with, and his art, to me, was his way of purging demons and coping with deprivation. "......and that one talent which is death to hide, lodged with me useless..." Milton.
In the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.....
I am minded of the Zen tale of the man who was not listened to, not respected in his own time. He was so convinced he was correct, he preached to the stones when no humans would listen.
I feel that if the polarity of the planet has been shifted in the positive direction, ever so slightly (or in a profound manner); a life has been made to 'count'!
[when the tears of effort and joy, melt finally into the world's vast oceans; we can but compare the quality of the water, with what went before!]
What you leave behind, perhaps. Well raised, happy productive children. Books written, or songs, or art? Trees planted? Other people loved or helped? Accumulated wealth left to educate your grandchildren, or as a legacy to your favorite charities, instead of debt?
I was debating this with a friend the other day and these are my conclusions:
A person's human value is the same for all of us. It's the same loss if Bush dies than if I die.
But, there's another kind of value... measured by the power, wealth and influence one has on others. That would clearly make Van Gogh's life one of value, it would make Bill Gates' life more valuable than the guy next door, and so on.
If no one had ever discovered his masterpieces, would his life, as an artist, have been without value?
Yes, even now he is of no value to me. In fact I think he owns me money for wasting my time.
Is the measure of our lives the number of people who read our poems or hear our songs?
The measure of our death to others is the number of people who read our poems or hear our songs.
What would have been the value of Van Gogh's life when his art had never been discovered, or appreciated as it is now?
It seems coming has the same question as I have :wink:
by my standards barely explained above... if no one had discovered Van Gogh's works then his life would be of much lesser value than what it is today.
Warrior of Zen
"Suzuki Shosan is among the most dramatic personalities in the history of Zen. A samurai who served under the Shogun Tokugawa leyasu in the 17th century, he became a Zen monk at age 41 and evolved a highly original teaching style imbued with the warrior spirit. The warrior's life, Shosan believed, was particularly suited to Zen study because it demanded vitality, courage and "death energy", the readiness to confront death at any moment. Emphasizing dynamic activity over quiet contemplation, Shosan urged students to realize enlightenment in the midst of their daily tasks, whether tilling fields, selling wares, or confronting an enemy in the heat of battle. Long popular in Japan but little known to the West, Shosan is presented here to Western readers in a sparkling translation and with a comprehensive introduction that brings alive his unique and colorful teaching."
My personal favourite anecdote was when he nearly died from malnutrition and battle wounds because he stuck to the Buddhist vegetarian diet. Meat broth saved his life, and changed his perspective. The measure of one's life is how you measure it, for better or worse.
The measure of your life, IMO, is whatever you get out of it.
This part really doesn't have anything to do with that, but I found this (possibly unintentionally) philosophical snippet at the end of a Terry Pratchett book: In Discworld, when you die, Death comes and gives you whatever afterlife you believe you'll get. At the end of The Truth, a professional thug who has killed many many people finally comes to justice and dies. He has a beleif that if you are really, truly sorry for everything you did, and if you have a potato, you will be reincarnated. He's standing before Death, and he asks, "Is this the part where I see my life as it flashed before my eyes?" and Death replies, "No, that was the part just now, between the time you were born and the time you died. This is the part where you see your life as it flashed before everyone else's eyes."
There's a thought that I like out of that though - this is your chance to judge your own life - while you're living it. Waiting until after you die is a little late.
Are you content to be who you find yourself to be, if you've bothered to look? If so, your life is worthwhile. I consider any other measurement to be unworthy of consideration . . .
Being
Setanta you mean like Suzuki Shosan who realise a vegetarian life is worthy of a meat broth everyday.
I have often told people "I'm vegetarian, but not strict. I eat meat."