I stopped this morning for my morning bagel at my usual spot...and saw outside the usual panhandler, bundled up against the cold. My practice is to not give money to panhandlers, but sometimes I offer to pick something up from wherever I'm headed. So that's what I did this morning--"I'm heading to the bagel place. Can I get you a bagel?" "Get me some cake" was the reply.
Of course I switched (in my head) into always-right Mama mode. Cake? You're sitting outside asking for money and you don't want some protein, some vegetables? Maybe a nice egg sandwich?
On the other hand, sometimes I feel like eating cake. So after a confirmation that cake was indeed what he wanted, cake is what I bought him: apple cinnamon coffee cake, because he didn't specify and because I thought that way at least there'd be some fruit.
It's a funny dance we do, reaching out to help those in need but wanting to do it in a way that's consistent with our values, with our needs. And who's to say we're wrong? I offer to buy food because I don't want my money being spent on alcohol, and I think that's fair. I also support homeless services organizations, because I know they're part of the real answer...that even apple cake is never going to solve the problem. (For a good conversation on panhandlers in the DC area, check out Petula Dvorak's column from a month ago, and for information on the very cool Housing First model of homeless services, read this posting from the NYTimes).
Every time I stop for a bagel, I ask myself what the right response is. What I'm realizing is that there might not be one right response, that connecting and helping in a difficult situation might not ask for a right, but just a kind, or a right-for-today, response. Maybe instead of getting caught up in exactly what's right, we should just buy the cake some days and hope that it's enjoyed. It surely won't solve homelessness and panhandling. It might make someone a little happier.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Philosophy on a Tuesday morning
Some of you might have seen a new series in the NY Times, called The Stone. It's looking at philosophical questions with a slant toward modern life. I must say I resisted reading it, not generally considering myself much of a philosopher...but I gave in this week. And it's great! So good I'd like to comment a bit on it here, and try to do so each time a new topic comes up. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the original essay and on my comments, too.
This week the essay tackled nihilism, the idea that our old concepts of morality are gone and we are now foundering with no way to move forward. The most famous example of this is Nietzsche's pronouncement that "God is dead."
The author of this essay debated two possibilities: that we have indeed sunk into nihilism and everyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves, or that we have actually moved past nihilism into a post-monotheistic understanding of the world where we find meaning in our own particular lives without the need to universalize them.
I'd like to think the latter is the case, and not just because it's a nicer view of the world. I actually think it's a distinctly Ethical Culture view, or perhaps one shared by a number of liberal religious traditions. It depends on the idea that we can experience our own truth without necessarily applying that truth universally...and it values the unique perspective that each person brings, a core tenet of Ethical Culture.
Of course there can be tricky parts to this post-nihilistic, post-universal understanding of morality and the world. As we acknowledge the validity of other truths, we can feel our own truth tested. But I think that can be a good thing--both because it forces us to constantly re-affirm our faith and our values, and also because it opens us up to the possibility of transformation if we experience a different kind of truth that holds more meaning for us than our own.
Is this wishful thinking? Can society really function as a community of people with individual truths, trusting and caring for each other despite their differences? The philosopher in me thinks it's an interesting question. The practical leader in me thinks we'd better work pretty hard to make sure.
This week the essay tackled nihilism, the idea that our old concepts of morality are gone and we are now foundering with no way to move forward. The most famous example of this is Nietzsche's pronouncement that "God is dead."
The author of this essay debated two possibilities: that we have indeed sunk into nihilism and everyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves, or that we have actually moved past nihilism into a post-monotheistic understanding of the world where we find meaning in our own particular lives without the need to universalize them.
I'd like to think the latter is the case, and not just because it's a nicer view of the world. I actually think it's a distinctly Ethical Culture view, or perhaps one shared by a number of liberal religious traditions. It depends on the idea that we can experience our own truth without necessarily applying that truth universally...and it values the unique perspective that each person brings, a core tenet of Ethical Culture.
Of course there can be tricky parts to this post-nihilistic, post-universal understanding of morality and the world. As we acknowledge the validity of other truths, we can feel our own truth tested. But I think that can be a good thing--both because it forces us to constantly re-affirm our faith and our values, and also because it opens us up to the possibility of transformation if we experience a different kind of truth that holds more meaning for us than our own.
Is this wishful thinking? Can society really function as a community of people with individual truths, trusting and caring for each other despite their differences? The philosopher in me thinks it's an interesting question. The practical leader in me thinks we'd better work pretty hard to make sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)