A similarity I was able to point out in both readings is
based on both readings having similar ideologies. In "Learning to be
Silent" from the Zen Parables, four pupils of the Tendai school promise to
one another that they will observe seven days of silence. By the time the lamps
began to get dimmer on the first night, one of the pupils spoke, and the others
followed suit in a sort of domino effect, each breaking their promise to the
others. In Existentialism by Jean-Paul Sartre he says "...when we say man
is responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible for his
own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men." Sartre's idea
of responsibility for all connects to the pupils in "Learning to be
Silent" because once one of them broke the promise to speak, the remaining
three proceeded to do the same. The first pupil spoke without the consideration
that he could also cause the others to falter. A concept that seems to be
apparent in both pieces is that even if one sole person doesn't intend for
their actions to directly influence anyone other than themselves it's
inevitable that it will in some way. It is important for man to be aware of his
actions because chances are they will directly affect those around them, at the
very least.
A difference I noticed in the Zen Parables and
Existentialism is the difference in intent by the authors. The authors of the
Zen Parables attempt to leave their writings up for interpretation. They could
be simple lessons about self-control, overcoming fear, and the importance of
silence, but it’s purely up to be interpreted by the reader themselves. Sartre’s
Existentialism however seems, to me, to be more persuasive. Almost like he's
trying to say believe what you want, but this way of belief is better. He tries
to slyly point out why his point of view makes sense. He says existentialism
"...declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing."
In this he’s acknowledging that he sees the other side, but it’s pointless
because what he has to say makes more sense.
I agreed, I feel like the similarities between the Zen Parables and Existentialism is that the individuals have the responsibility to others. With the statement in the Zen Parables “…pupils could not help but exclaiming” which I think perfectly describes the situation unfolding the domino effect. The Existentialism statement “ … in making [the choice of choosing ourselves] he also chooses all men” ‘therefore one’s action effects every person. Jean-Paul Sarte’s concept of Existentialism was a popular widespread belief during the era of Modernism where he advocated that Existence is fundamental and important. The belief that “humans are what they make themselves” is shown in both the reading because many different choices are being made by many different individuals. I also agree with the differences in the readings you explained. The difference was that the Zen Parables is abstract and up for interpretation while Existentialism is a concrete concept that either is accepted or rejected. “Existence precedes essence” so actions serve are great determinations for results. But I feel that to convince a concept such as Existentialism is hard to perform because it brings such a huge assignment to people and instills fear because individuals are forced with responsibility. Also, Existentialism brings the idea that God does not need to exist and because of this, nothing in the God would change. Such an idea brings controversy as well as conflict because many will feel offended but ironically this also creates a domino effect just as the Zen Parables reading created
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. I think that both readings encompass the idea that man is responsible for their actions. But each reading differs in what "man is responsible" for. In the Zen Parables, we hold the responsibility of inferring a lesson or moral from the story. I feel like the Zen Parables all have to do with choice; the reader has to supply an understanding of each story on their own. In Existentialism, "man is responsible for himself... but he is responsible for all men." This ties directly into the "Learning to Be Silent" excerpt from the Zen Parables. Each man who spoke was indirectly responsible for the next man who talked. From Existentialism, we gather that all men are responsible of each other; not necessarily responsible in the sense that we all have to take care of one another, but when one person does something, it opens the door for another person to follow suit. The major differences of each of the readings are that, while the Zen Parables have more of a casual feel, Existentialism eludes to the tone of clarity and preciseness.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your analyses and comparisons between the “Zen Parables” and “Existentialism”. Existentialists believe that our actions can affect and influence ourselves as well as the people around us; therefore, we are responsible for those people. It is apparent that the author who wrote the “Learning To Be Silent” parable shared this same belief when he/she shows how the first student who broke his silence causes everyone else to break their silence. I think the “Muddy Road” parable and “Existentialism” have some similarities as well. In “Existentialism”, Jean-Paul Sartre says that “no general ethics can show you what is to be done; there are no omens in the world. You are free, choose, that is, invent.” He is basically telling us that we all have the freedom of choice; the decisions we make are not predetermined by our ideologies. This idea is expressed in “Muddy Road” when Tanzan carries the girl over the mud. Interacting with females violated the monks’ belief system, but this did not prevent Tanzan from deciding to help the girl. I can definitely see the differences that you pointed out between the “Zen Parables” and “Existentialism”. The purpose of the parables is to simply convey a message, and the audience must interpret this message in their own way. The authors of these parables are not trying to present a right or wrong answer like Sartre does in “Existentialism”. He isn’t directly attacking or opposing other philosophical theories or approaches on life, but he is trying to show the audience how existentialism is the better approach.
ReplyDelete