December 30, 2005

• Socrates Cafe Topics #19, #20, #21

  

  Topics #19, #20, and #21

  I feel remiss in having missed the past few Socrates Cafe blogring entries, so I will attempt to answer the three questions posed this week in this entry. As usual, I am late in responding. The Topics appeared on Monday, Dec. 26th, and I am answering nearly a week later, on Friday the 30th. I did promise to participate in an earlier entry on this blog, and being such a lover of homilies that I am, "better late than never" comes to mind. So here goes.

  
  Topic #19: Is it better to give than to receive?
  In a perfect society, the concepts of "giving" and "receiving" would be moot. Everyone in the society would produce or service, to the best of his ability, and in doing so, he would "give" to the society. By the same token, he would "receive" what was needed in order for him to survive and be happy in that society. The terms would be equally reciprocal, and nobody would feel as if they were "better off" than anyone else. Sadly, society is not perfect, hence the need for philosophizing about said perfect society for millennia. In the world society in which we live, the concepts of "giving" and "receiving" help to intensify the feelings of charity in the "giver" and help to slake the need of the "receiver". I will offer my opinion that it is just as "good" to give as to receive, depending upon one's "needs" or "feelings of charity." A "rich" person, who holds much wealth, might not "miss" what he is able to "give". But a "poor" person, who has little, might actually feel a better sense of charity, if he were to "give" away something he needed himself. This is the spirit of human kindness. Sadly, this concept, like that of the perfect society, doesn't exist in actuality all that much. True, there are some that are filled with charity, and give of themselves and their belongings where it is needed. These people are few, which leads me to believe that "giving" itself, the "act" of charity, does not enlighten most "normal" humans on the planet. The act of "receiving" or "getting" the excess wealth or nutrition, safety, and shelter, from those who are capable of "giving", can be just as righteous as the act of "giving", if one is truly in need.
  To return to the "perfect society", it is almost impossible to gauge how much each citizen "needs" to offer or to obtain in order for said society to operate. One can "receive" what one needs to exist, and still not be "happy" in his life.
  If I were to put myself in a hypothetical situation, in which I was needy, and starving, and I were to "receive" sustenance and shelter, then my "graciousness" at these acts would be stimulated, and I would feel good. If I were the "giver", my feelings of charity and love would similarly be stimulated, and I wold feel good. I cannot in all honesty say that I would feel more enlightened as a person as either the "giver" or the "receiver". I would feel equally as enlightened as both. Therefore, it is not necessarily "better" to "give" than to "receive" depending upon the circumstances.

  
  Topic #20: What is the purpose of tradition?
  The idea of "tradition" can be traced to the societies of early man. Early men were tribal, and those in the tribe who could "remember" the turn of the seasons and the lay of the land, became the seers and prophets of early society. The "calendar" was a religious icon in many early societies, because it told when crops could be planted, and harvested, thereby sustaining the life and vigor of the tribe. Traditions as we know them today stemmed from these simple facts of early tribal life.
  When we read about religious "holidays" (holy days) we usually find, as with Christmas, that a lot of the "history" of said holidays goes back to pagan practices, most of which were founded upon the "traditions" of the turning of the seasons. As mankind developed, his "celebrations" of these "traditions" morphed and magnified until in some cases, the actual "reasons" for a lot of "traditions" were lost in translation and time.
  Tradition has no "purpose" save for the idea that mankind needs his "timetables" to tell him when to plant, harvest, and eat, to distill this subject to it's basest and simplest of roots. The timetables have grown over time to include "celebration" in good times, and '"sacrifice" in bad times. In early societies, when weather or geologic conditions (i.e. earthquakes, tsunamis) caused a "bad year" when not enough sustenance could be had for the society, sacrifices were "traditionally" made in order to appease the "gods" who had seemingly stalled the bounty. By sacrificing, there was more of the meager stores to go around, and hopefully the society could sustain itself through another harsh winter. Throughout mankind's history, "traditional" celebrations and sacrifices have helped him to ponder his place in existence, and to explain why this was sometimes difficult for him to survive.
  As religion supplanted tribal traditions, more "pomp and circumstance" was foisted upon simple acts of historical import and time tested practices, and gaudy costumes, hedonistic revelry and liqour was added to the mix. Other traditions, based in steely religious resolve, went the other way, and stoicism, deprivation, and prayer goverened these traditions. Throughout history, the "primal" or "tribal" reasons for "traditions" gave way to religious "purpose". Sometimes, as in the case of Christmas, the secular, which grew from early pagan religious practice, and the religious, or "holy" traditions subsisted side by side. This is true in most cases of "tradition." Two people who wish to live together and bear progeny are usually "married" in the "traditional sense". The "rite of passage" into becoming an adult is a "tradition" that is celebrated in most of society in different ways.
  As the earth became "smaller" because of world travel and instant communication, traditions from one segment of society would melt with those of others, and become "new" traditions. If anything, the "purpose" of tradition, like the "purpose" of religious belief, manners, and societal existence, is to help sustain a life of health and happiness.
  
  Topic #21: Non-Christians celebrating Christmas? What do you think Jesus would do?
  Since the "tradition" of celebrating a "winter holiday" goes back farther in time than before Christ walked the earth, this question seems a mite strange to ask. Christians absorbed the winter holiday, changed the date of the birth of the Savior because they wanted to be able to integrate an already existing holiday, and named it "Christ Mass" which has followed in this "tradition" ever since. Jesus wasn't even a "Christian." The Christian religion was founded after his death. He was a Jew and practiced the Jewish faith during his life. The concept of "Christmas" as a holiday wasn't "celebrated" in those days. The Romans, under whose "empire" Christ was born, celebrated Saturnaila during the winter solstice. But Jesus worshipped Jehovah, and not Saturn, so I'm sure he didn't "celebrate" Saturnalia. The question "What would Jesus do?" is usually asked in order to imply that something as practiced by supposed "believers" is not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus Christ, who, even though he was Jewish, did "teach" and "preach" dogmas and ideas which were later integrated into the "Christian" faith. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that by using the term "Christmas" in this question, we are designating the holiday as one that is "purely" Christian (which it is not) and wondering if Jesus would "mind" that non-Christians were celebrating his holiday. The first thing he woud do is probably argue why his birth is celebrated six or eight months after it happened, but again, I find this question as asked  a very strange one, and cannot help but inject some levity each time I think about 'what Jesus would do.' From the interpretation I receive by reading the Books of the Gospels in the New Testament, I don't think Jesus would make a big deal about anyone celebrating in their own way, no matter what the holiday or what the  circumstance. Jesus preached tolerance and love. The only thing he did not "tolerate" if memory serves was the practice of moneylending in the Temple of Jerusalem, so he probably wouldn't spend Christmas in Vegas, but I am beginning to joke again. My apologies. I will conclude by saying that this question is just too full of holes for me to answer. That should sum up my feelings. Jesus would not make as big a deal about the separation of secular and religious traditions because he wasn't a secularist or a Christian. He was a Jew who followed the high holy days of the Jewish culture, of which Christmas was not a part. Even Peter didn't "begin" the practice of the Catholic Faith. And modern Born Again Christians, "protestant" in nature,  who seem to be "fighting" to keep "Christ" in Christmas, were not even around when Catholic Dogma was first presented , in the early days of the Church, after Peter's death. Jesus would probably question why this is even important.

  • 8:28 am
  • 33 Comments