Interview Meme: Daniel
Mar. 1st, 2007 03:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackofallgeeksMore interview meme. As before, you can comment here if you want me to ask you questions, but you only get one shot; you don't get 5 more questions if you comment here AND on the last post.
1. Would you vote for an atheist for president? (In some sort of reasonable situation - i.e., s/he had political views that you otherwise liked better than the opposition's, but it's not a silly sort of contest like "atheist vs. Hitler!")
Well, that would depend on a lot of factors, I guess. First you'd have to define what you mean by atheist; it seems to me there are a lot of people who believe quite disparate things who all claim to be atheists (and many of those claims I would dispute, but...). Someone who was actively, passionately against the idea of god, here meaning any supreme being or higher reality, would make me really uncomfortable. It would be akin to someone vehemently decrying the existence of, say, Australia. That having been said, it depends on what else was involved; what else said Atheist believed, how they ran their politics, and how much their atheism informed their policies. Not to mention who else they were against, which points the opposition held that I was against, and how all of that stacked up against the point on atheism.
In sort, I guess my answer is 'possibly.' I'd like to say that religion can generally be left out of politics, but many people (yours truly included) define themselves at least in part be the religious beliefs they do (or do not) hold, and these sorts of things are defining characteristics of the person, as such.
2. See. I got both subjects out of the way in question 1. Anyway... have you ever considered doing missionary work?
I don't think I really ever have. I'll admit it, I'm comfortable where I am, and I like being comfortable. I think that I could probably benefit a lot from it, though; it's been my understanding that missionary work often isn't about what you take to the people, but what they teach to you. And when it comes down to it, I think I'm a little bit afraid of what I might learn; I'm pretty sure it would involve dealing with bits of myself I'd sooner ignore.
3. If you could change one thing about human nature, what would it be?
One thing about human nature. Wow. Saying 'nothing' would be a cop out, and it wouldn't be true, either, but... It's such a complex thing. Almost anything I can think of has both it's positive and negative aspects. I don't think I could even say something like "our tendency to reduce complex issues into gross simplifications," because how would we function? I've met people who walked on eggshells to be perfectly clear always and in all ways about what they were saying and what it was in reference to: imagine a world of such people. No, sometimes I think it's better to lose details in simplifications than to be overwhelmed by the particulars of life.
But I think I might say something about our tendency to internalize the words and behaviors of others as denoting flaws in ourselves. I'm not sure it's a universal aspect of humanity in general, but it seems to me that people are apt to make assumptions an their own being based on the way other act and react; and I think it would benefit people if we were better able to look at the actions of others objectively, and not ever and always in reference to ourselves.
Does that even make sense?
4. Aside from religious texts, what book has had the most influence on the way you live your life?
Well, as a point of fact, I can't think of any religious texts that have influenced the way I live my life except indirectly -- I've never even read the Bible in full, or even in majority.
But a book that's influenced the way I live? Really, the first one that comes to mind is "The Perks of Being a Wallflower." I owe that one to my friend Anastasiya, which is to say I didn't read it until I was a Junior in College, but still... Among other observances, the book says something about the subjective nature of misery, and how yeah, sometimes what's bothering you is pretty small in the big picture, but that doesn't mean it hurts any less. And that goes for other people, too, and other subjective values. Things are important and meaningful to people despite objectivity. And that's kind of stuck with me. -shrugs-
Part of me wanted to say something like "Plato's Republic" or Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics" or some similar philosophic work; but in each case, I don't think the books impressed anything on me so much as reinforced the way I already perceived the worlds. Perks, silly as it sounds, was more of an epiphany.
5. If you were designing the universe from scratch, what do you think would be the most appropriate fate for human beings after death? (E.g.: reincarnation according to their deeds? Eternal reward and/or punishment? Judged according to some set of standards - which? One-ness with the divine? Etc.)
-laughs- "What do you think humanity deserves after this life?" That's a pretty heavy question. I'm not sure I can really say; I think it kind of boils down to a question of "what is the meaning of life," at least for me. Why is it we do what we do? What are we expecting when this ride is over? It's a question I think everyone answers for themselves, at least once during their lives if not on a daily basis.
Reincarnation? No offense to anyone who thinks otherwise, but that seems a little absurd; I mean, who's to say this or that incarnation is 'higher' or 'lower'? Frankly, I don't know that I'd mind living as, say, a cat, but I'm not so hot on the idea of being a dog. Others would opine the reverse. What incarnation would we be striving for -- and if there *is* a final state, isn't that the "afterlife" we should be positing, not one of reincarnation?
Similarly, to be judged implies some reward or punishment; you can't be judged without some sentence to give the judgment meaning. I think, maybe, that this makes more sense that reincarnation, but not a whole bunch of sense by itself. It seems to me to boil down to a case of "play this game, but we won't tell you the rules, and in the end we'll either give you a boat ride of whip you. No, we won't tell you how to win, but we'll give you clues if we must." That doesn't st well with me, and if that's how some view Christianity, I can imagine why they're left with a sour taste in their mouths.
Nor do I like the idea of one-ness with the divine; I'm too attached to my individuality for that to do anything but frighten me into insensibility.
My own philosophy is some variation of "we're given what we ask for." The trouble being that we, as a race and as individuals, don't know what it is we want, let alone what we need. And I think the purpose of life is to some extent or another for figure that out, and to ask for it. Which of course all feeds into my belief in a spiritual reality of one stripe or another.
So, as that's the belief I hold, in general terms, that's how I would build the universe. If you ask for annihilation, you'll receive it. If you ask for one-ness with the divine... well, some might argue the one is as good as the other. -shrugs- I don't really know what I'd ask for. That's kind of the point.
1. Would you vote for an atheist for president? (In some sort of reasonable situation - i.e., s/he had political views that you otherwise liked better than the opposition's, but it's not a silly sort of contest like "atheist vs. Hitler!")
Well, that would depend on a lot of factors, I guess. First you'd have to define what you mean by atheist; it seems to me there are a lot of people who believe quite disparate things who all claim to be atheists (and many of those claims I would dispute, but...). Someone who was actively, passionately against the idea of god, here meaning any supreme being or higher reality, would make me really uncomfortable. It would be akin to someone vehemently decrying the existence of, say, Australia. That having been said, it depends on what else was involved; what else said Atheist believed, how they ran their politics, and how much their atheism informed their policies. Not to mention who else they were against, which points the opposition held that I was against, and how all of that stacked up against the point on atheism.
In sort, I guess my answer is 'possibly.' I'd like to say that religion can generally be left out of politics, but many people (yours truly included) define themselves at least in part be the religious beliefs they do (or do not) hold, and these sorts of things are defining characteristics of the person, as such.
2. See. I got both subjects out of the way in question 1. Anyway... have you ever considered doing missionary work?
I don't think I really ever have. I'll admit it, I'm comfortable where I am, and I like being comfortable. I think that I could probably benefit a lot from it, though; it's been my understanding that missionary work often isn't about what you take to the people, but what they teach to you. And when it comes down to it, I think I'm a little bit afraid of what I might learn; I'm pretty sure it would involve dealing with bits of myself I'd sooner ignore.
3. If you could change one thing about human nature, what would it be?
One thing about human nature. Wow. Saying 'nothing' would be a cop out, and it wouldn't be true, either, but... It's such a complex thing. Almost anything I can think of has both it's positive and negative aspects. I don't think I could even say something like "our tendency to reduce complex issues into gross simplifications," because how would we function? I've met people who walked on eggshells to be perfectly clear always and in all ways about what they were saying and what it was in reference to: imagine a world of such people. No, sometimes I think it's better to lose details in simplifications than to be overwhelmed by the particulars of life.
But I think I might say something about our tendency to internalize the words and behaviors of others as denoting flaws in ourselves. I'm not sure it's a universal aspect of humanity in general, but it seems to me that people are apt to make assumptions an their own being based on the way other act and react; and I think it would benefit people if we were better able to look at the actions of others objectively, and not ever and always in reference to ourselves.
Does that even make sense?
4. Aside from religious texts, what book has had the most influence on the way you live your life?
Well, as a point of fact, I can't think of any religious texts that have influenced the way I live my life except indirectly -- I've never even read the Bible in full, or even in majority.
But a book that's influenced the way I live? Really, the first one that comes to mind is "The Perks of Being a Wallflower." I owe that one to my friend Anastasiya, which is to say I didn't read it until I was a Junior in College, but still... Among other observances, the book says something about the subjective nature of misery, and how yeah, sometimes what's bothering you is pretty small in the big picture, but that doesn't mean it hurts any less. And that goes for other people, too, and other subjective values. Things are important and meaningful to people despite objectivity. And that's kind of stuck with me. -shrugs-
Part of me wanted to say something like "Plato's Republic" or Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics" or some similar philosophic work; but in each case, I don't think the books impressed anything on me so much as reinforced the way I already perceived the worlds. Perks, silly as it sounds, was more of an epiphany.
5. If you were designing the universe from scratch, what do you think would be the most appropriate fate for human beings after death? (E.g.: reincarnation according to their deeds? Eternal reward and/or punishment? Judged according to some set of standards - which? One-ness with the divine? Etc.)
-laughs- "What do you think humanity deserves after this life?" That's a pretty heavy question. I'm not sure I can really say; I think it kind of boils down to a question of "what is the meaning of life," at least for me. Why is it we do what we do? What are we expecting when this ride is over? It's a question I think everyone answers for themselves, at least once during their lives if not on a daily basis.
Reincarnation? No offense to anyone who thinks otherwise, but that seems a little absurd; I mean, who's to say this or that incarnation is 'higher' or 'lower'? Frankly, I don't know that I'd mind living as, say, a cat, but I'm not so hot on the idea of being a dog. Others would opine the reverse. What incarnation would we be striving for -- and if there *is* a final state, isn't that the "afterlife" we should be positing, not one of reincarnation?
Similarly, to be judged implies some reward or punishment; you can't be judged without some sentence to give the judgment meaning. I think, maybe, that this makes more sense that reincarnation, but not a whole bunch of sense by itself. It seems to me to boil down to a case of "play this game, but we won't tell you the rules, and in the end we'll either give you a boat ride of whip you. No, we won't tell you how to win, but we'll give you clues if we must." That doesn't st well with me, and if that's how some view Christianity, I can imagine why they're left with a sour taste in their mouths.
Nor do I like the idea of one-ness with the divine; I'm too attached to my individuality for that to do anything but frighten me into insensibility.
My own philosophy is some variation of "we're given what we ask for." The trouble being that we, as a race and as individuals, don't know what it is we want, let alone what we need. And I think the purpose of life is to some extent or another for figure that out, and to ask for it. Which of course all feeds into my belief in a spiritual reality of one stripe or another.
So, as that's the belief I hold, in general terms, that's how I would build the universe. If you ask for annihilation, you'll receive it. If you ask for one-ness with the divine... well, some might argue the one is as good as the other. -shrugs- I don't really know what I'd ask for. That's kind of the point.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-03-02 12:05 am (UTC)A couple reactions: Yeah, I tried to specify question 1 enough to make it meaningful, and I guess I had in mind something like, "you otherwise like the person's policies but not more than you usually like the Republican candidate's policies more than the Democrat's or vice versa." Though, in fairness to us atheists, I think being an atheist is a little bit more of an epistemologically reasonable position than denying Australia.
Re: Religious books. I just wanted to specify that one so that it was definitively not a religion question. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-03-02 12:10 am (UTC)Re: religious books -- yeah, I figured that. I just thought I'd throw that bit in there, as I'm fairly certain it'd be an interesting point to someone. Somehow I have a reputation for being significantly more whateveritis than I really am.