Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Professor Douglas Brooks's avatar

Below I commented on Google Gemini's characterization of the argument as pessimistic, and noted my objections and described my actual intentions. If you're interested, I hope you give that comment a close reading because I'm otherwise impressed (and don't like that I am) with the way AI described the argument. I would add here that the inspiration for this argument derives from a certain kind of epistemological strategy---a theory of knowing---about how to approach life. I assume a strategy I think is clearly implied by Krsna's opening arguments in the Bhagavadgita. The idea is simple enough: FIRST and ABOVE ALL ELSE, let's be honest, let's be candid even if it hurts and it seems dispiriting and impossibly awful but we must start with the truth of the matter. If we find those truths to be hard, depressing, painful, then so be it. Say YES to what you understand to be the case at hand. In the Gita, Krsna sees Arjuna, his friend and confidante, collapse under the weight of terrible truth: his cousins and much of his family, so many of his admired elders and others, have decided for tyranny, are complicit in nihilism, and have found themselves participants in evil. Arjuna weeps and laments and he has every reason to feel such despair. Krsna does not offer him some chimeric hope nor does he soften the blow. Rather, he lays it on the line: these beloved friends and family are doing evil and that must be understood, that must be stopped. It is sad, horrific, unconscionable but true. Worse would be failing to appreciate these terrible truths. Worse still would be melting down and resigning to them, which is why Krsna is so harsh in response. Arjuna must wake up to the facts and decide to act. That is the important point and that is mine here.

Jan Bidwell's avatar

…And invite friends to your garden so you can plan to help those unable to tend their gardens. Thank you for this. Miss you.

18 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?