 |
A small circle: Toute prise de conscience est-elle libératrice ? |
Category: Thoughts 3 comments 13 Jun 2007 @ 22:21 by b : Realizationis not always liberating but sometimes provides closure. Becoming aware sometimes one gains in perspective. Tres jolie pour moi. Adeau Francis, ami. 14 Jun 2007 @ 19:49 by Hanae @69.33.46.10 : 4 hours doesn't seem like a lot... ... and 18 (the typical age at which one sits such an exam) also seems like an interesting time in one's life for such a question. Qu'est-ce que "prendre conscience"? And who might best relate to the question in terms of their own "awareness" and personal life experience? People often speak of the innocence of children, the energy of youth, the cynicism of middle age, or the experience that comes from old age. Is a child "prise de conscience" less intense or meaningful in its consequences than the "prise de conscience" of an older person, or is it the other way around? Does it matter? Not insofar as the Baccalauréat exam is concerned - the purpose of the test is to evaluate students' ability to organize and articulate their ideas, and not about judging their beliefs. Beliefs come under many shapes and many colors, for some it is found in the Bible or in the Koran (or in Scientology, like for our good friend b - above comment), for others it is connected to some transforming personal experience, some rely on what they like to refer to as "reason" (a contentious term), other rely on Science, and there is always the ongoing dispute (as oftentimes seen on NCN) between the rationalists and the empiricists over the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. And I am sure that Buddha would have had his own way of answering the question and he would probably not require 4 hours either, lol. But what would young prince Siddhārtha Gotama have answered? Strangely enough I find that my curiosity leans more toward young Siddhārtha's answer than to the supreme Buddha's. And very much to the point, the famous Buddhist admonition comes to mind, "if you see the Buddha on the road, kill him." Which raises up another interesting and somewhat relevant question: La certitude est-elle un signe de pensée morte? And is there "freedom" in dead things - I mean "dead things" (like in the "living dead") as opposed to death itself which is pretty much part of the cycle of the renewal of life (Death makes room for new growth and it is, in part, from such renewal that new "prises de conscience" emerge.) I also like this quote from Bergson: "On appelle liberté le rapport du moi concret à l'acte qu'il accomplit." The history of sentiency - of life in general, and of Humanity specifically - can be in some ways looked upon as a succession of "prises de conscience." Has it been liberating? The short-comings in this stage of life-development on Earth and of the human civilization is often attributed to some deficiency or dysfunction in humanity's "prise(s) de conscience" individually and collectively as a species (or synergistically as a system or civilization.) By the same token, it has been presented that as new "prises de conscience" emerge, humanity will transcend the shortcomings of the current civilization. Or will it, now? "Toute prise de conscience est-elle libératrice?" 14 Mar 2017 @ 06:11 by Exam collection @103.255.4.94 : Education Thank you very much for this valuable contribution and informative.
|
12 Jun 2007 @ 18:22, by D