"Is Everything Determined?" and "Parables of the Kingdom"

I think that the views expressed in “Is Everything Determined” and “The Ten Virgins” are similar because they both touch on the subject of uncertainty.  Stephen Hawking believes “the uncertainty principle of quantum physics means that there is not just a single history for the universe but a whole family of possible histories.” These different multiple histories lead to the randomness in our lives.  “The Ten Virgins” parable teaches us that we must be prepared for uncertainty. When the foolish virgins asked God to open the door, He said, “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” This means that the time of Jesus’ return is uncertain. The foolish virgins did not bring any oil to light their lamps; therefore, they were not prepared for his return. The way the views are expressed in these readings are very different. Hawking’s ideas on determinism are written out like a persuasive essay.  He presents us with an argument, makes claims, explains why his claims are true, and then he summarizes his argument in a conclusion. He also takes a scientific approach when explaining whether or not everything is determined. For instance, he uses evolution and the development of DNA as examples to help him explain whether or not anything we say is determined by theory. The parables are much more spiritual and religious.  They place a lot of emphasis on God and how He can determine different outcomes throughout our lives.

Determinism

I first read the parables of the kingdom, and during the whole time I read it was that there is something or someone who has in a way predetermined the way we think and the decisions we make.  I grew up in a family that was heavily involved in the church and attended regularly, so I have heard these parables all before.  Once I read the Stephen Hawkins paper “Is everything determined” I immediately made a connection.  He starts out by saying, “The argument for preordination used to be that god was omnipotent and outside time, so god would know what was going to happen.”  By saying this I feel like Stephen is making a direct reference to the Parables of the Kingdom I first read, and is trying to say that up until just a short time that most people believed that god, or a ultimate being controlled and determined everything we did, and nobody really thought to much about it and lived there life.  Stephen never really comes out and eliminates the possibility at their being an all-powerful that makes our decisions for us, but does hint he feels there are much more mathematically sound possibilities.  In the first reading of the parables they are taken from the bible, so everything about them supports the claim that there is an all-powerful god that created us and is controlling everything we do.  Stephen Hawking’s being the genius he is and believing in the laws of science over everything else offers a different theory of his own understanding of determinism; so that is a pretty evident difference in the two.  Stephen also gives a lot of textual support and good examples for us as the reader to use to better grasp what he is saying, but I also like how he never really says that the idea of a god is not true, and keeps that door open.  Its as if he is saying that is a possibility but there is also another possibility in this other way in which he believes more strongly.  That to me is almost a perfect example of people unsure if they actually have free will and if the decision they make is the right decision, and if that decision was ultimately decided that they would choose it before they even came to it.

During my reading of both of the stories I noticed a similar theme throughout, and that is the choices we make. In Steven Hawking's writing he ask the question, "are we really masters of our fate? Or is everything we do determined or preordained?". He later then answers the question that everything is predetermined but in the end it doesn't matter because in the end we do not know what was determined. He also asked the question about whether people are to be held responsible for their actions/crimes? In the determinist view of things people shouldn't be held responsible because their decisions weren't made by themselves. I don't agree with this point of view to be correct. If this were the case then people shouldn't be rewarded for performing righteous actions either. While reading the "The Ten Virgins" the ten virgins were divided into two groups of 5. One group took spare oil with their lamps and the other did not. When the second group left to buy they missed out on what the wise group got to attend. "The Ten Talents" had a very similar meaning. The one person that did nothing with his given talent was made to suffer instead of prosper as did the people who used their talents to produce more. This is the same as in the real world. If someone doesn't use what they are given or work for their future they will in turn suffer for their actions or their lack of. I don't think the world we live in is predetermined. I believe we make our own path. Therefore I also believe we will reap the benefits or the consequences of the actions we act on. In this sense the readings are different in that the second the people are held accountable for their actions and the second describes how people shouldn't be.

These two readings discuss free will in a sense and us as humans trying to understand the divine. in the Parables of the kingdom each story has to do with a decision to doing something in one a son leaves his father and the other staying after being gone for a while the son that leaves comes back with everything gone, the father welcomes him with open arms and gives him everything while the son that stayed got nothing the father then replied that he should be happy that his brother is back that he was dead but now alive, lost but now found. In Is Everything Determined? the author talks about the choices we make and whether or not its right or wrong he even goes to talk about natural selection the darwinism theory and that we developed our choices into what they are today. The authors talk about our decisions we make and that they are up to our will depending on how you look at it just we ae are either responsible according to one or not from one it is our responsibility to chose what we feel is right and whether or not its the right path we can never figure out our actions because when it comes to figuring out our behavioral actions we conniver get past just a few factors beyond a couple it becomes harder and harder to figure out it ends up becoming assumptions. we can look at it however we want but there is no determined outcome.

Similarities and Dissimilarities

The views expressed in the Zen Parables and those expressed in Existentialism by Jean-Paul Sartre are similar in that they show that the world can be viewed in a completely different way. They both give examples and different situations where someone is actually thinking about the world around them or doing something that gets them to come to a realization that the world is that as was presumed. In The Zen Parables, there is a story where a man is running away from a tiger in a field. This man tries to escape the tiger by grabbing a hold of a root hanging from a ledge. Unfortunately there is another tiger waiting for him at the bottom. This man knows he’s in between a rock and a hard place, but he notices a strawberry on one of the vines. He eats that strawberry and says, “How sweet it tasted”. This man realized he was in a really bad situation but decided to think about the good things in life and not worry over past or future. Similarly in Existentialism, Sartre talks about anguish and how you must accept the consequences even though it might have negative effects towards others. In this case the man accepted that he was going to be eaten and instead decided to enjoy what little bit of life that he had.

            The Zen Parables are different from Existentialism by using parables to describe how the world can be seen differently. In the first parable, Muddy Road, the writer uses the story to show how things can be seen differently if we put our minds to it. Ekido was so attached to the idea that monks are not supposed to go near females, that he forgot that monks are also supposed to help people in need. In the Existentialism reading, Sartre uses his own philosophical ideas of anguish and freedom, and the idea that existence precedes essence to try to make sense of the universe in which we live.

Comparison

In the first reading from the book ( the three short stories) the moral of the first short story is when someone holds on to an idea of how the world should be it gets in the way of how the world really is. The second man didn't even know that the first man put down the woman because he was so worried about him breaking the rules. In the second short story the moral is to live in the moment and to not worry what is in front or behind you, life is best when you just live in the moment. And in the last short story the moral is not to worry about other people messing up because by worrying about them it causes you to mess up. The second story in the Norton Reader is about "existence precedes essence" meaning basically, we exist first and then we do things that define ourselves and live our lives in whatever way we choose, and this determines our essence, and what it means to be a human being. These two stores are similar in the fact that they both bring to point that our decisions are affecting the world and everything we do people will react and so our actions are what affect the worlds actions.

Compare and Contrast

The three parables by Zen and The Existentialism are very similar. The moral of the first parable Muddy Road was that when we hold on to the past or always worrying about the future we will get caught up and won't take action on the present which is what we should be focusing on. The monk decided that he needed to what was best even though monks weren't suppose to go near females. Once he got the woman across the muddy water he never thought of it again but the monk that was with him kept questioning him and kept bringing it back up when the first monk had already moved on from that point. The second parable was also about how we need to focus on the present and not worry about what has not happened yet. The third parable was mainly about impatience, ignorance and ego. Once one man made a mistake they all made a mistake because they wanted to point out the others mistakes and not their own. The Existentialism was all about how existence precedes essence meaning that what we do in our life is what defines who we are. We have the choice to pick how we are going to live and what we are going to do which ends up determining who we are as a whole. The four readings are all about how our decisions and actions that we choose to do for ourself also affect everybody else around us even though we sometimes do not notice it. The four readings do not have any differences that I can point out except for that The Existentialism was mostly about what we do in our lives is defining who we are while the other three short stories were more about how we need to focus on the present and not look back.