Skip to main content

Life as 'a journey' is a hoax: short video with Alan Watts

This is great. Life as journey is 'a dreadful hoax' … Thanks to Blakeley Nixon.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Not to be a wet blanket, I've always found Alan Watts's talks a bit glib. Life begins at birth and ends at death. I would call that a journey. Sure, you can smell the roses along the way, but there's no getting off the train. I think Christopher Hitchens (whom I admire for his honesty, intellect, wit and courage, even though I don't share his atheism) displayed a perfectly natural reaction when he spoke about his own death:

"I am badly oppressed by the gnawing sense of waste."

Watts's remark about heaven at the end of that video is typical of his shallow rhetoric. Not everyone believes that heaven is a reward for living a 'good' life. Christians (at least of the Calvinist persuasion) believe that their place in heaven isn't determined by what they do:

Ephesian 1:4 "For he chose us in him BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD to be holy and blameless in his sight."

For such a Christian, this life is not a means to an end. It has a very clear purpose:

Ephesians 2:10 "For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to DO GOOD WORKS, which God PREPARED IN ADVANCE for us to do."

Such Christians are not striving to win a place in heaven, they are doing good works because they care about the Good. It wouldn't surprise me if Christopher Hitchens is in heaven right now (though he would be very surprised). In many respects, he led a more exemplary life than many Christians.

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Paul P. Mealing said…
Actually, if I understand it, it's life as a journey with a 'destination' that is the hoax.

I don't believe we define our 'self' or our 'life' by the job we do, and I think this is the 'con' that society spins us so that we contribute to that great political machine called the economy, which none of us can live without. And I'm caught up in that as much as anyone else, otherwise I wouldn't even have a roof over my head or be able to feed myself. Yet, there are some brave souls who choose to escape this as demonstrated by Kevin Mcleod's Escape to the Wild programmes.

This is about finding meaning in one's life, which I think is essential, and, I suspect, most people find meaning through having a family and growing children into adults. But I'm only surmising - I don't really know - because I've never done it.

So I find meaning through all the people I meet and the interactions I have whether they be work colleagues or chance meetings, like the one I had just last week with a young woman who had just returned from 20mths in Somalia with her two children, one a teenager and one pre-teen. Over a cup of coffee we discussed her country and its issues and her children, so for a short instance we were part of each other's life and we both feel slightly enhanced by it. That's what we live our lives for and everything else is incidental.

Regards, Paul.
Ken said…
The video is about not obsessing with the rat race. Reminds me of the Adam Sandler movie "remote"'
Ken said…
The video is about not obsessing with the rat race. Reminds me of the Adam Sandler movie "remote"'
Mindvalley said…
This video is very good. There is motivation for others.

Alan Watts

Popular posts from this blog

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o