For one of my psych classes I need to analyze my own life through the perspective of a personality theory of my choice. I think what im going to do is impress my professor by choosing not one theory, but blending together two seemingly contrasting theories, and describing myself in that light. To clear my head and get things organized, I just wrote out a few paragraphs about what I believe to be the nature of the relationship between my choices-buddhism and (Maslow) humanism. Please read the following if your familiar with both theories, and tell me if what I say is remotely true! thanks! A common theme in both Buddhism and Humanism is the concept of change. They both recognize that people are flawed and that a certain change is necessary in order for happiness to endure. The desired results of both-enlightenment and self-actualization, respectively-are one in the same. They are both states of being where the person has reached his or her potential completely, and is utterly desireless. They are transcendent states, characterized by contentment to the highest degree, and most importantly, a loss of the sense of self. Humanists know this state as a Òpeak experienceÓ, while Buddhists call it ÒsatoriÓ. Both traditions acknowledge that this experience must be understood through experience rather than discourse, but it can be roughly described as a loss of the illusion of self, the feeling of unity with everything, and an underlying feeling of peace and tranquility. Indeed, many other traditions have prized this experience as the ultimate mental state. Yet this commonality is an expression of the end result, and says nothing of the cohesion of the theories as a whole. If these theories-humanism and Buddhism-are to be characterized by the means by which they attain their ends-then to say that they are different would be an understatement. They are polar opposites. Humanism uses desire as a vehicle to propel a person into transcendence, while Buddhism meets this same end through elimination of desire. ÒSelf-actualizationÓ is contingent on the existence of desire, while ÒenlightenmentÓ is only possibly through its absence. Yet, oddly, they arrive at the same goal.
one more paragraph. let me know if this is confusing, and if its true To clarify this difference, let me provide an example. Picture two cups, both halfway filled to the top with water. Your goal is to arrange them both so that each cup is filled to capacity, yet you must think of different methods for each. For the first cup, you add water until it has reached the top. For the second, you expose the cup to a flame until the top half has burned away and all that remains is the half that already had water. In the end, both cups are filled to capacity, yet they managed this in opposing ways. One added water, and one removed the need for more water. Humanism can be represented by the first cup, while Buddhism can be represented by the second. Humanists ascend their hierarchy by adding working to match a constantly increasing desire, while Buddhists descend their hierarchy by consistently reducing their desire, therefore eliminating any need to match it. The cups ended up in a state where they had reached their potential for water, just as the theories in question ultimately lead to a state where one has reached his potential for fulfilling desire.
dude..i didn't know there was more..i smoked a bowl inbetween now i can't read that..asked pressed rat
Interesting....and this is for a psychology class? Seems more like a philosophy paper to me, but I suppose in many ways ones philosophy extends to their psyche as well... To be honest, I'm not entirely familiar with humanism. You are fairly close in your assessment of buddhism - the goal is (more or less) to reduce suffering by reducing desire - however, I think philosophically these two differ greatly. Buddhism places no value in the constructs of the human mind such as society, law, etc., while humanism regards mankind as an extraordinary work and therefore values all of the constructs of man and society. I sort of understand where you are going with this, that ultimately both seek contentment, but isn't that what every philosophy seeks? I don't think you can justify ignoring the means to an end because in most cases it is the means that makes up the philosophies. That is, everyone's ultimate goal is to experience happiness, and all philosophies and religions are a possible means to that end. BTW, this may get a better response in the philosophy forum...
Also, one of the core beliefs of eastern philosophies is that desire is insatiable. That is in direct conflict with humanism, which (apparently?) believes that desire is satiable.
every philosophy seeks "happiness", which is a pretty vague thing. most of the personality theories that we have discussed in class would more accurately seek to end neurotic behavior rather than anything else. Humanism and buddhism are unique in their dealings with healthy people rather than most other theories (those of freud, jung, addler, sullivan, etc etc) who deal primarily with neurotic individuals. Also, buddhism and humanism are unique in that they both emphasize the importance of experiencing mental states, rather than merely learning about them. so for that, they are on a par in my mind but i will not ignore how they are different. in my essay i hope to elaborate on their differences greatly, maybe exposing the inherent weaknesses of one construct and glorifying the other (im gonna bash humanism for the sake of exploring buddhism).
you got me on the defensive when you said "apparently". So I want to prove it. my textbook opens on the subject of humanism by saying Maslow "described the human being as a "wanting animal" who is almost always desiring something. Indeed, as one human desire is satisfied, another arises to take its place" Now, that is pretty solidly AGAINST the core tenet of buddhism, no? cheers
Actually, that just reinforces the philosophy of buddhism, IMO. Because "as one human desire is satisfied another arises to take its place" it makes it unreasonable and indeed undesirable to even TRY to satisfy the desire....why? Because undoubtedly another desire will fill it's place. This should be no surprise. Why do people want a BMW? Lexus? Ferrari? Isn't a Chevy enough? They both serve the same purpose, right? So if one desire is replaced by another, the only way to end the cycle is to get rid of desire itself, and that is what buddhism recognizes and tries to accomplish. My point is that if humanism tries to suppress the desire by satisfying it another, probably stronger desire, will arise. According to your quote, it would seem that Maslow agrees with this. Like I said, I'm not very familiar with humanism, but are you sure they try to quench desire? It's good to see you take the "road less traveled" in approaching this though, as I'm sure your classmates will not.
Well, as I said, I'm coming at this issue from a buddhist philosophical approach - I have never really studied psychology so I'm not sure what the psychological views of such philosophies are. I would say one of their similarities is that both of these philosophies believe humans have within themselves the ability to reach the peak of their existance, be it nirvana or whatever. That is, both typically reject the idea of a supreme being. As I said, however, humanists appreciate and believe in all of the constructs of man while buddhists vehemently reject them. Hell, I dunno if I'm helping or hurting, but hopefully I'm at least sparking some thought. Good luck with the paper, it should be interesting!
there is no need for you to prove the legitimacy of buddhist teachings to me, i believe them to be true. The ideas of Maslow only reinforce Buddhist teachings when they FAIL. They DO contradict buddhism. Maslow believed that this urge to fulfill desires is GOOD because it takes you higher and higher up his "hierarchy of needs". he believed that at the top of this heirarchy is the only point where a person can be without desire. it is in our nature to desire, and we must yield to it, and while we will spend most of our lives chasing this goal, there IS a point where, if we are persistent enough, we will finally reach our potential as humans and no longer have any desire thanks. im always trying to not be like everyone else and your definetly helping. i put this thread here in the hope that someone would play devils advocate. its the only way to see the weaknesses. cheers friend
Okay, I showed my lack of knowledge regarding Maslow and simply extracted the quote out too far. Obviously he very much does contradict buddhist philosophy. I definitely see more of the connections in your thinking now, thanks. Just because I'm curious, do you believe both of these philosophies lead to the same point? Beyond the superficial "lack of desire" of course.... I'll have to read some Maslow as I'm interested in his thought process in believing that there is some point of peak desire which can be overcome. I'm definitely more of the buddhist school of thought that desire is insatiable, but it'd be interesting to read.
