Insight Spring 2020

Insight

Spring 2020

Insight

Religion & Philosophy

Masthead

Editorial Board Jimmy Chen ’20 Vincent Huang ’20 Liana Raguso ’20

Praneel Chakraborty ’20 Cherie Fernandes ’21 Matthew Kutam ’22 Sid Ramachandran ’21

Faculty Advisor Dr. Jason VonWachenfeldt

Foreword in·sight /ˈinˌsīt/ Oxford English Dictionary 1.

Internal sight, mental vision or perception, discernment; in early use sometimes, Understanding, intelligence, wisdom.

2.

The fact of penetrating with the eyes of the understanding into the inner character or hidden nature of things; a glimpse or view beneath the surface; the faculty or power of thus seeing.

Mission Statement The student-run journal Insight, founded by the Department of Religion & Philosophy in 2015, aims to enhance the spiritual and intellectual experience at Lawrenceville by: Cultivating a deeper appreciation and interest among students for religious life, Exposing the student body to a comprehensive range of philosophical and religious work, Offering an open forum for the exchange and consideration of diverse beliefs, Showcasing the foremost written work of the Department’s students.

Contribution to Insight is open to the entire community, including students, alumni, and faculty.

5

Letter From the Editors The first Insight board created Insight with the goal of allowing students to share their work in religion and philosophy with the rest of the community in a way that had been impossible before. After a brief hiatus, the second Insight board revived this mission, and the third Insight board continued using Insight to give voice to student ideas and foster student involvement in religion and philosophy, creating a tradition of written engagement with religion and philosophy on campus. Now, as the fourth board of Insight, we aim to continue reaching toward these goals. With the help of Dr. VonWachenfeldt, we seek to serve as an outlet on campus for students’ passions and ideas by publishing the best religion and philosophy papers produced this year. The ideas expressed within this year’s Insight are divided into two sections: papers addressing questions in philosophy and papers exploring world religions.

In philosophy classes at Lawrenceville, students grapple with both ancient, fundamental questions about the human condition and pressing, modern problems. The philosophy papers in this year’s Insight tackle topics from political polarization to the information revolution, from ableism to the protests of Colin Kaepernick. Each paper contains an original philosophical argument, using logic and knowledge of philosophical systems to analyze and provide solutions to real-world problems. In writing these papers, students draw on the works of thinkers from Darwin to Kierkegaard to Marx to apply a range of theories to some of the most important issues we face today.

Lawrenceville students, harking from all regions around the world, engage with religious matters and questions from many varying perspectives. They have taken the initiative to learn about religious studies in order to better understand the context and culture of religious life. Students have undertaken the opportunity to explore the similarities and the differences between religions, examining the intersection between various religions and their application in our real world. This section contains of an analysis of the self and selflessness in Buddhism and Hinduism, as well an examination of power in Buddhism and Islam.

6

We would like to give several important thank-you’s: to our mentor, Dr. VonWachenfeldt for all his guidance and support in the creation of this year’s Insight and for inspiring Lawrenceville students to solve real-world problems; and to the entire religion and philosophy department for working tirelessly to share its knowledge with the student body and generate a love for deep, critical thought. Lastly, we would like to thank everyone who submitted to Insight this year. We received many more high-quality papers than we had space to publish, and we deeply appreciate all the thought and hard work that went into them.

One final reminder: if you have written a thoughtful paper addressing topics in religion or philosophy, whether written for a class or not, please reach out to cfernandes21@lawrenceville.org, mkutam22@lawrenceville.org, or sramachandran21@lawrenceville.org. We welcome all insightful ideas.

Sincerely, The 4th Insight Editorial Board

7

Table of Contents Student Work:

Philosophy Dami Kim ’20… Is Colin Kaepernick a Knight of Faith?: An Application of Kierkegaardian Criteria

10

Aileen Cui ’20… Medical Aid in Dying: A Letter to Governor Murphy

14

Dami Kim ’20… Teaching Darwinian Evolution: Preserving Enlightenment Thought

20

Areeq Hasan ’20… Theistic Evolutionism in Islam: Syncretizing Darwinism & Qur’anic Ontology

24

Oliver Udy ’20… Fear and Trembling: A Solution to Political Polarisation?

29

Areeq Hasan ’20… The Information Revolution: A Marxist Analysis

33

Jimmy Chen ’20… An Analysis of Disability and Ableism From a Marxist Perspective

37

Religion Sid Ramachandran ’21… A Divine Dilemma

43

Dhruv Kurjekar ’22… The Interconnectedness of Two Central Concepts in Buddhism and Hinduism: Anatta & Atman

46

Matthew Kutam ’22… Power in Buddhism and Islam: Jailer, Prisoner, or Both?

50

Sophia Sachar ’22… Letters from the Surgeon to Home

55

Nikita Coppisetti ’22… Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy in Sikhism and Hinduism

60

8

PHILOSOPHY

9

Is Colin Kaepernick a Knight of Faith?: An Application of Kierkegaardian Criteria Dami Kim ’20 Who is a Knight of Faith? Abraham, according to Søren Kierkegaard. In the Biblical story, God promises Abraham that he will father generations of a great nation. And despite the couple’s doubts about conceiving a child at their old age, Sarah finally conceives Isaac. Soon thereafter, however, God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on Moriah. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard explicates Abraham’s dilemma, claiming that the patriarch’s method of obedience to God’s will qualifies him as a “Knight of Infinite Resignation” and subsequently a “Knight of Faith.” In his other works that criticize institutionalized Christianity, Kierkegaard makes clear that not all churchgoers qualify for either knighthood. The question arises, then, who does? Must he be of Christian faith? Follow a typical “religion?” Although Kierkegaard has an unmitigated personal commitment to Christ, he prioritizes the virtues that stem from the individual’s relationship with the absurd over institutionalized Christianity, revealing that one can achieve the Kierkegaardian absolute without a faith in Jesus.

Kierkegaard intentionally distances himself from Christendom, criticizing the system for leading Churchgoers astray from true Christian virtues.

In The Attack Upon “Christendom,” Kierkegaard criticizes institutionalized Christanity. He claims that Christian values are “fundamentally falsified in what he calls Christendom (the rationalization of Christian values in pagan terms)” (Polka 53). First, he finds fault in the fact that the system attempts to “rationalize” eternal values that are absurd––by its very nature, the absurd escapes comprehension by human faculties. Moreover, much like Kant, who believes that enlightenment cannot occur by systematically educating the public, Kierkegaard “most respectfully [refuses] all theocentric helpers and the assistance of helper’s helpers to help [him] into Christianity” in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript (Kierkegaard 16). He claims that the generalized title of “Christendom” misleads the public to believe that it has achieved the Knight of Faith status merely by attending weekly services. The Church cannot simply indoctrinate the public with values; the individual must actively pursue them. Furthermore, in The Attack, he commands his readers to “shun the priests [...] those abominable men whose livelihood it is to prevent thee from so much as becoming aware what Christianity is, and who thereby would transform thee, befuddled 10

Makers of the Modern Mind by galimatias and optical illusion, into what they understand by a true Christian, a paid member of the State Church, or the National Church, or whatever they prefer to call them” (468). Kierkegaard continues his condemnation of “pagan” priests who deliberately deceive the Churchgoer, demanding conformity to a corrupted system which prioritizes worldly profit over Christian values.

The true Knight of Faith endeavors to establish an individual relationship with the absurd, reclaiming the freedom to act upon its virtues. Central to Kierkegaard’s criticism of Christendom is that “one secures oneself against all sorts of inconveniences and discomforts” (437), trapped in an “assured, nonpassionate faith, which, in comparison to the concrete life and sacrificial spirit of Christianity in the New Testament, he [judges] as ‘playing Christianity’” (Fitzpatrick 259). Kierkegaard claims that the security that Christendom offers churchgoers induces complacency. He once again echoes Kant’s sentiments that true Knight of Faith status requires freedom from certainty and comfort. A genuine relationship with the absurd “throws the life of human beings into crisis—in demanding choice, freedom, decision on their part regarding what he calls coming into existence” (Polka 54). Kierkegaard encourages this “crisis,” or “angst,” which indicates that the individual is on the right path. In Fear and Trembling, he claims that one must become a Knight of Infinite Resignation by completely giving up earthly desires prior to entering the realm of the absurd because only then does “eternal validity become transparent” (Kierkegaard 75). At this point, the individual must rely on his relationship with the absurd to provide him a telos, or purpose. And importantly, one exists in a perpetual state of angst, never knowing for sure that one’s decision was the right one to fulfill one’s telos. Indeed, even Kierkegaard expressed his uncertainty, manifesting under a pseudonym in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript: “I, Johannes Climacus, born and bred in this city and now thirty years old, an ordinary human being like most folk, assume that a highest good, called an eternal happiness, awaits me just as it awaits a housemaid and a professor. I have heard that Christianity is one’s prerequisite for this good. I now ask how I may enter into relation to this doctrine” (15). Johannes Climacus turns to Christianity in search of the “highest good,” but Kierkegaard leaves room for interpretation about what “faith” may be.

For instance, football players like Colin Kaepernick who knelt during the U.S. National Anthem can be considered Kierkegaardian Knights of Faith. First, it is important to recognize the “angst” that the players must have experienced, uncertain about what may be their teleological course of action. While they could have stood with aesthetic motivations to pre11

serve their physical self-interest (i.e. to protect their reputation), they also could have stood to serve the universal standard of morality to show respect to what the flag and anthem symbolize: patriotism for America and its institutions. With countless potential motives and courses of action, the kneelers became Knights of Infinite Resignation when they committed to a telos beyond the aesthetic or universal. Both options have the same result, but Kierkegaard addresses the universal (more common) alternative in Problema I of Fear and Trembling. He claims that a Knight of Faith, like Abraham, experiences “teleological suspension of the ethical,” in which the individual becomes higher than the universal (95). He explicitly ranks the absurd above the ethical, which is rationally accepted by social conventions. Thus, when the players kneeled to fulfill their telos, they embraced the “interiority that is incommensurable with the exterior” despite the consequences of defying social norms (97). They put their individual loyalty to the American values over the superficial facade of patriotism to a corrupted system. If they had stood to display respect to the flag and anthem, they would have fallen into the trap of a “fundamentally falsified” illusion of the American identity (Polka 53). The players did not owe allegiance to an American institution like a discriminatorily violent police force that betrays American values like equity and justice. In fact, they followed the Kierkegaardian faith model by acting upon what they believed was their telos as Americans: protecting those very values despite challenging the institution.

Thus, they became Knights of Faith who determined that their relation with the absolute depends on serving American virtues, undeterred by very real and dire consequences.

Like Kierkegaard criticizes institutionalized Christanity for limiting the freedom to pursue his eternal telos, Colin Kaepernick acted upon American virtues to protest the racism of the police who betrayed their telos. Labeling the Christian world “Christendom,” Kierkegaard accuses the system of attempting to indoctrinate churchgoers with corrupted worldly values rather than Christian ones. He claims that Christendom hinders the public from living in angst in search of a direct relationship with Christ or any other manifestation of the absurd. However, his criteria for the title of “Knight of Faith” can be applied beyond Christianity in today’s world.

For instance, football players like Kaepernick who knelt during the U.S. anthem transcended the aesthetic and universal realms, acting upon what they determined was their telos. By undermining the American institution, they displayed commitment to American values of equity and justice.

While Kierkegaard demonstrates a deep personal connection with Christ, his preference for an individualized relation with the absurd over insti12

Makers of the Modern Mind tutionalized Christianity suggests that the Knight of Faith title may be awarded to those of non-Christian faith.

Works Cited Fitzpatrick, Mallary. “Kierkegaard and the Church.” The Journal of Religion, vol. 27, no. 4, 1947, pp. 255–262. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/ stable/1198867. Accessed 2 Mar. 2020.

Kierkegaard, Søren. “The Attack Upon Christendom.” A Kierkegaard Anthology, edited by Robert Bretall, New York, Random House, 1946, 434-68.

Kierkegaard, Søren. Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong, Princeton University Press, 1992.

Kierkegaard, Søren. “The Expectancy of Faith.” Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses, edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong, Princeton University Press, 1990, pp.7-30. Kierkegaard, Søren. Fear and Trembling. London, Penguin Books, 1985.

Polka, Brayton. Rethinking Philosophy in Light of the Bible : From Kant to Schopenhauer, Lexington Books, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/lawrenceville-ebooks/detail. action?docID=183267.

13

Medical Aid in Dying: A Letter to Governor Murphy Aileen Cui ’20 This assignment was the culmination of our work in Medical Aid in Dying.

In August of 2019, Governor Phil Murphy signed into law the “Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act,” which allows doctors to offer lethal doses of drugs only to patients with less than six months to live. Our task was to choose a point of view (list included economist, palliative care specialist, psychologist, and disability rights advocate) and argue our position on the proposed law.

Dear Governor Phil Murphy, Hello, my name is Aileen Cui, and I am an employee at Bausch Health Pharmaceuticals, formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals. I thank you for inviting me to the New Jersey Bioethics Panel and valuing my opinion.

Based on my twenty years in the pharmaceutical company industry, I can safely say that despite international precedence, I have inherent hesitations about the implementation of New Jersey’s “Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act.” Bausch Health is a pharmaceutical company dedicated to improving people’s lives and advancing global health by marketing products in the therapeutic areas of eye care, gastroenterology, and dermatology (About Us Who We Are). The company has a location in New Jersey, so the passing of the bill has a direct impact on the company’s running and allocation of resources. This is largely due to the fact that our company has sole ownership over the drug Seconal. Originally, Seconal was used as a sedative or treatment option for insomnia, but it has since become the standard drug that doctors prescribe to patients who are seeking Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) (Riley). Suddenly, the drug is prescribed for an “off-brand” purpose: death and essentially, its benign intent is completely changing. By intent, I mean the reasoning behind the determination to act in a certain way. As I previously mentioned, the well-minded intention of Bausch Health is to provide drugs that help alleviate pain, prevent infection, maintain health, and cure disease. In the case of MAID and the bill, the medication that our pharmaceutical company manufactures is being used for something that it was never designed for. Consequently, the drug and our company become inextricably linked to delivering death rather 14

Bioethics than good health. I do not want to obstruct the use of the drug, but I fear that the drug or the company’s practices will be misconstrued. Fundamentally, pharmaceutical companies make medicines to save and improve patients’ lives, so, the use of these products to end lives is counter to the industry’s objectives.

The intent of the user and prescriber may be to eliminate pain. In reality, because of scientific limitations, sometimes the lethal drugs fail and patients suffer as a result. Standard MAID protocol in the USA involves the prescription of a lethal dose of a barbiturate, typically pentobarbital or secobarbital (commonly known as Seconal), to be consumed by the patient in liquid form (Riley). The New Jersey law explicitly states that the patient must obtain the approval of an attending physician and consulting physician before self-administering the cocktail in order to retain autonomy and dignity (Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act). I have two concerns.

The first involves the occurrence of “botched” MAID. Neurologically, the barbiturates put patients to sleep by slowing down the brain’s electrical activity by stimulating the gamma amino butyric acid (GABA) receptors (Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act). Stimulation of these receptors initiates an inhibitory response, reducing the firing of neurons (Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act). Eventually, breathing slows down and ceases, leading to death. Barbiturates vary in how fast they act and how long they last, which creates major discrepancies concerning potential patient pain during death (Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act). What is even more unsettling is that sometimes the drug fails at killing the patient.

There are six reported instances where patients ingested lethal medications, went unconscious, and awoke sometimes days later (Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act). Now, some may argue that this number is far too low to extrapolate any significant conclusions, but we cannot overlook the potential pain of a patient. The occurrence of such cases warrants a need for an investigation on drugs like Seconal, which now have a completely new purpose However, obtaining relevant clinical data on these drugs for lethal purposes remains an unsolved issue. Due to the ethical infeasibility of performing clinical trials, physicians can only rely on lethal dose indicators for mice or anecdotes of past instances, not monitored human patients (Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act). All of this is to say that very little is known about the process of dying. Eventually, science could tell us more.

My second objection lies with the prescription and administration of the drug. According to the New Jersey bill, a patient can obtain lethal medications if he or she “is capable and has been determined by the patient’s attending physician and a consulting physician to be terminally ill and has 15

voluntarily expressed a wish to receive a prescription” (Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act). The bill defines capable as “having the capacity to make health care decisions and to communicate them to a health care provider” (Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act). I find an issue with this definition because the medical community shares little consensus when it comes to diagnostic criteria for a patient to be considered mentally “capable (Ganzini). Moreover, suicidal tendencies and a desire to die with dignity and end suffering can become conflated, so psychiatrists may have a difficult time discerning the true mental state of the patient (Jones). Furthermore, an attending physician is defined as “a physician licensed who has primary responsibility for the treatment and care of a qualified terminally ill patient and treatment of the patient’s illness, disease, or condition,” while a consulting physician is “qualified by specialty or experience to make a professional diagnosis and prognosis regarding a patient’s illness, disease, or condition” (Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act). Australian pharmacists argue, and I agree, that a more interdisciplinary health team, including physicians, pharmacists, psychiatrists, and palliative care professionals need to be involved in such a complex decision with many nuances (Isaac).

In an ideal medical team, decisions concerning the dosage of the drug are in the realm of a pharmacist’s specialty, determining the patient’s mental stability falls within the expertise of a psychiatrist, and a discussion of other treatment options happens with palliative care specialists. Through this approach, the patient receives a more comprehensive set of information.

Moreover, the approach ensures that no health care professionals makes decisions about topics outside of their specialties. Once the patient obtains the prescription, I believe that a trained doctor, not the patient, should administer the drug. While this takes away patient autonomy, it also better ensures safety, efficacy, and monitoring.

What I have said should not scare you. The drug does do what it is supposed to do, but now the use is being diverted to a more uncertain purpose.

I am worried about the value of the product, how it bounces back on the Bausch Health brand, and even how it could harm patients if the drug continues to be used in this way. If the drug were to fail, it damages our brand, a brand lauded for delivering quality medications for those in need.

The last thing that we need as a company is for any potential controversy surrounding MAID to overshadow all of the other work that we do.

While I am on the point of controversy, I want to clarify something about the pricing practices of our company. Michael Pearson, the former CEO, had the business strategy of acquiring a drug and increasing its price (Thomas). This is what happened with Seconal: around 2015, a lethal pre16

Bioethics scription for the drug cost around $1500, but when Bausch Health gained sole ownership the price doubled (Dembosky). Now, states such as Oregon and Washington have adopted bills similar to New Jersey’s, putting us in an interesting position because the bills promote the use of a drug that alienates a part of our customer base. People may see us as tacitly supporting a policy that allows premature dying or a company trying to make a profit out of death. But, with so many moving parts in the production of a drug, including problems of mass production, expiration dates, and costs of keeping the drug on the market, pricing becomes a very complicated matter that gets oversimplified or written off as corporate greed.

Currently, we are trying to navigate the ethical concerns surrounding the pricing points. I cannot deny the commercial imperative here. After all, the firm must make a profit to remain competitive in the market, but as more states adopt similar bills, the production of Seconal may prove more costeffective. In the present, however, there are many obstacles that stand in the way of providing a more affordable Seconal. One of the most compelling counterarguments I have come across is the commonality of “off-label” prescriptions. According to the AMA Journal of Ethics, “off-label” drug use commonly refers to “prescribing currently available medication for an indication (disease or symptom) for which it has not received FDA approval” (Furey). Once a drug has been approved for the FDA, it can legally be used for any other indication. The practice is not uncommon. In fact, about 10-20% of all prescriptions written are “off-label” prescriptions (Furey).

For example, off-label use of antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and antipsychotics is high amongst patients’ advancing in age to mitigate symptoms of agitation or paranoia. Some may say that since “off-label” prescriptions are not uncommon, the “off-label” use of Seconal should raise no concern either. To them, I’d ask for them to look at intent and scientific data.

In the case of drugs being prescribed to the elderly to treat their agitation, the intent of the user is to alleviate symptoms and increase their quality of life: there is no shift in intent. When a user ingests a lethal dose of Seconal, the intention is to kill. This is a shift from the “on-label” purpose of Seconal. Seconal was primarily prescribed as a viable treatment option to insomnia, but now, it is being used as a lethal medication. The drastic change differentiates the use for Seconal to other “off-label” prescriptions.

As for my point on scientific data, “off-label” prescribing is legally permissible and justified when “scientific evidence suggests the efficacy and safety of a medication for an indication for which it does not have FDA approval (Furey). In the case of Seconal, however, I’ve already mentioned that there is a lack of clinical data when it comes to Seconal being used as 17

a lethal medication because of the nature of the trial. Doctors and pharmacists must then rely on anecdotal offerings or evidence from mice when making their decision about the dosage. The drug is being used in a way that is not consistent with the original testing of the company. Without any credible or published scientific data that supports the use of Seconal as a lethal medication, we cannot justify the use of Seconal for MAID. In conclusion, I believe that the “Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act� should not have been passed in New Jersey. As an employee for a pharmaceutical company, I have always believed that medicines should be used to heal patients and alleviate their symptoms, not to kill them. Furthermore, I cannot support the use of the drug being used this way because I know of its limitations. There are, in fact, cases where a lethal dose of the drug fails to kill the patient and subjects them to potential suffering. To minimize these risks, I believe that a trained doctor should be the person who administers the drug and monitors the whole process. In general, I worry about how the new use of this drug will reflect back on Bausch Health brand. The company has faced scrutiny following the increase in the price of Seconal, and I do not believe that further inquiry will do anything good for the respectable brand.

Once again, I thank you for the invite to join the New Jersey Bioethics Panel and I hope you consider what I have to say.

Sincerely, Aileen Cui

18

Bioethics Works Cited “About Us Who We Are.” Bausch and Health, Bausch Health Companies Inc, www.bauschhealth.com/about-us/who-we-are. Accessed 12 Feb. 2020.

Dembosky, April. “Pharmaceutical Companies Hiked Price on Aid in Dying Drug.” KQED Science, KQED, 22 Mar. 2016, www.kqed. org/stateofhealth/163375/pharmaceutical-companies-hiked-priceon-aid-in-dying-drug. Accessed 9 Feb. 2020.

Furey, Katrina, and Kirsten Wilkens. “Prescribing ‘Off-Label’: What Should a Physician Disclose?” AMA Journal of Ethics, June 2016, pp. 587-93, https://10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.6.ecas3-1606. org. Accessed 12 Feb. 2020.

Gawande, Atul. Being Mortal. New York, Metropolitan Books, 2014.

Isaac, Sami, et al. “Australian pharmacists’ perspectives on physician-assisted suicide (PAS): thematic analysis of semistructured interviews.”

BMJ Journals, vol. 9, no. 10, 30 Oct. 2019, https://10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028868.prg. Accessed 10 Feb. 2020.

Jones, Roland M., and Alexander I.F. Simpson. “Medical Assistance in Dying: Challenges for Psychiatry.” Front Psychiatry, vol. 9, no. 678, 10 Dec. 2018, https://10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00678.org. Accessed 10 Feb. 2020.

McCormick, Thomas R. “Principles of Bioethics.” UW Medicine, University of Washington, depts.washington.edu/bhdept/ethics-medicine/ bioethics-topics/articles/principles-bioethics. Accessed 10 Feb. 2020.

New Jersey State, Legislature, Assembly. “Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act”. Aug. 2019. 1504th Legislature, Assembly Bill 218 (enacted).

Riley, Sean. “Navigating the new era of assisted suicide and execution drugs.” Journal of Law and the Biosciences, vol. 4, no. 2, 28 Sept.

2017, pp. 424-34, doi:10.1093/jlb/lsx028. Accessed 10 Feb. 2020.

Thomas, Katie. “Valeant Pharmaceuticals Picks Joseph Papa, PerrigoChief, as C.E.O.” The New York Times [New York City], 25 Apr. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/business/valeant-pharmaceuticals-chief-executive-joseph-papa-michael-pearson.html. Accessed 12 Feb. 2020.

19

Teaching Darwinian Evolution: Preserving Enlightenment Thought Dami Kim ’20 Living in a Darwinian world, students learn evolutionary science in school starting with Darwin’s journey to the Galapagos on the Beagle. Their curricula introduce the concepts of survival of the fittest and natural selection as a “nurturing” force, typically introducing the example of finches with different beak shapes. As students absorb the information like they do arithmetic rules, they accept evolutionary theory as knowledge. This is an epistemologically dishonest method of education. For a proposition (i.e.

Darwin’s evolutionary theory) to be considered knowledge, it must satisfy three requirements: 1) proposition is true; 2) subject believes proposition is true; 3) subject is justified in believing that proposition is true (Steup).

Darwinian evolution fulfills only the second criterion. While evolutionary theory draws attention to logical flaws in other explanations of the universe’s origin, they conversely identify flaws in Darwin’s. Thus, when schools do not discuss the gaps that may undermine evolutionary theory, they lock away progress and modern thought through passivity. Although Darwinian evolution is widely accepted in contemporary science, educational institutions should guide students to critically evaluate the validity of Darwin’s and other theories of creation in light of their logical flaws, preserving epistemological honesty in Kantian enlightenment fashion.

Darwinian evolutionary theory undercuts the validity of intelligent design, providing an exception that destroys its deductive logic. Intelligent design claims that there must be some entity that created the universe.

William Paley, one of its proponents, argued that a watch found in the middle of a heath reveals “that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose” unlike a mere rock, suggesting that there must be “an artificer who understood [the watch’s] mechanism and designed its use” (Paley 43). Employing teleological reasoning, Paley proposed a traditionally religious answer: There exists a God who intends a purpose for His creations. Darwin, like many scholars of his time, studied Paley’s Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, which contains the watchmaker analogy.

As such, Darwin’s rejection of intelligent design theory epitomizes enlightenment thinking, as he bravely challenged a preconceived, long-held belief in Creationism. Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species drew much outrage, especially because his evolutionary theory refuted Paley’s religiously 20

Makers of the Modern Mind founded claim that specialization of parts needs a Creator. Instead, Darwin claimed that the struggle for existence and variation leads to complexity, “which may be effected in the long course of time by nature’s power of selection” (Darwin 124). He anthropomorphized nature, not God, as the force (through the process of natural selection) that gives rise to the intricacies of a specialized existence. Paley and popular religious theory had long held authority as a deductively logical explanation, but Darwin identified a gap in Creationism. Consequently, Richard Dawkins calls Darwin’s natural selection the “blind, unconscious, automatic process” or the “blind watchmaker” (Dawkins 303). Dawkins underscores the imperfection of intelligent design, supporting Darwin’s new, alternative explanation that seems to promise greater validity.

However, Darwinian theory is not infallible and has been challenged by modern discoveries. While Darwin pointed to natural selection as the ‘blind’ watchmaker, he had also conceded that “any complex organ[...] which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications” would destroy his theory (Behe 593). Indeed, Michael Behe presents the blood clotting cascade as “an irreducibly complex system” that is the exception to Darwin’s theory (Behe 593). Darwin claimed that natural selection works over a long period of time with slight modifications, but like the watch, the blood clotting cascade would be useless in a prior form.

Behe asserts that “any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” and therefore, an extremely complex organ would break down with even the slightest modification (593). Behe, like Darwin did to Paley, provides the one exception that disqualifies his theory from being deductively logical. In addition, Phillip E. Johnson criticizes defenders of evolutionary theory who render the whole idea unfalsifiable. He argues that Darwinian supporters enter the conversation with ears closed, conceding that “any theory can be improved, and that our understanding of naturalistic evolution may one day be much greater than it is now” (Johnson 585). Johnson points out that at a certain point, evolutionary theorists also lose logical credibility by attempting to force new discoveries into the mold of evolutionary theory. For instance, Bill Nye quickly dismisses Ken Ham’s challenge that wood encased in rock were reported to be 1,000 years apart because of incorrect dating methods (“Bill Nye Debates” 1:30:50). Nye labels this instance an exception rather than attempting to reconcile the discrepancies between science and Darwin’s theory, effectively aiding Ham’s claim that evolutionary science is a belief and not knowledge (1:34:35). Just as Darwin rendered intelligent design a theory lacking deductive logic, contemporary critics do the same 21

to evolution.

Darwinian evolution ought to be taught as a likely theory rather than knowledge to preserve epistemological honesty. When defining key terms describing the nature of science, the National Academy of Sciences emphasizes that scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses” that is “the end point of science” (National 290).

Thus, the organization effectively labels Darwinian evolution the pinnacle of scientific argument. However, such branding doesn’t allow for the fact that evolution is disputable and logically comparable to intelligent design.

Within the paradigm of Darwinian evolution, it is difficult to recognize its flaws. Regardless, teaching Darwinian evolution as knowledge without evaluation of its validity is inconsistent with Darwin’s own brave venture into modern thought. Kant defines enlightenment as “man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity,” an often dangerous endeavor (Kant 1). By publishing On the Origin of Species, Darwin did just that. Despite his hedging and modest language, Darwin nevertheless presented a new and challenging idea, expecting and eliciting much anger from religious readers of his era. The many contemporary educational institutions that deprive students of the opportunity to do the same reveal their hypocrisy.

Kant asserts that “the public use of one’s reason[...] alone can bring about enlightenment among mankind,” but schools imprison students within the bounds of popular belief, manipulating young minds into considering Darwinian evolution knowledge (2). In fact, it is one of many other possible explanations of the universe’s origin (i.e. intelligent design). Because each theory discredits the logic of the other, it is a matter of which is more likely true. Thus, schools have a responsibility to teach students how to critically evaluate Darwinian evolution, not that it is knowledge.

Darwinian evolution is foundational in contemporary science curricula, but schools must modify the method through which it is taught. While evolutionary theory identifies shortcomings in intelligent design, the converse is also true. Thus, neither qualifies as knowledge as justified truth. If schools teach evolution in the same way they do addition or multiplication, they not only deny the epistemological deficiency but also deprive students the opportunity to strive towards Kantian enlightenment. In a Darwinian paradigm, students will not challenge the popular theory if they believe it to be a justified truth. The age of modern thought can only continue through a change in teaching methods of evolution. Although Darwinian evolution is taught as science in schools, institutions seeking epistemological honesty ought to acknowledge the flaws in its deductive 22

Makers of the Modern Mind logic, enabling students to critically evaluate the validity of each claim in true enlightenment fashion.

Works Cited Behe, Michael. “Darwin’s Black Box.” Darwin, edited by Philip Appleman, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, pp. 592-600.

“Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official).” YouTube, uploaded by Answers in Genesis, 4 February 2014, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI. Darwin, Charles. “On the Origin of Species.” Darwin, edited by Philip Appleman, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, pp. 95-174.

Dawkins, Richard. “Explaining the Very Improbable.” Darwin, edited by Philip Appleman, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, pp. 201-303.

Johnson, Phillip E. “Darwin on Trial.” Darwin, edited by Philip Appleman, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, pp. 581-585.

Kant, Immanuel. “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?”

In-class handout.

National Academy of Sciences. “Evolution and the Nature of Science.”

Darwin, edited by Philip Appleman, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, pp. 289-300.

Paley, William. “Natural Theology.” Darwin, edited by Philip Appleman, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, pp. 41-44.

Steup, Matthias, “Epistemology.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2018 Edition, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford. edu/archives/win2018/entries/epistemology/.

23

Theistic Evolutionism in Islam: Syncretizing Darwinism & Qur’anic Ontology Areeq Hasan ’20 The quest to establish an ontological narrative that wholly explains the natural phenomena of the observable universe has long driven intellectual development across many cultures. In this epistemological endeavor, however, the notions of inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning are frequently conflated as means to resolve questions of the same nature. This fallacy has driven many to adopt scientific theory, as an alternative to philosophical frameworks and religious paradigms to ineffectively derive meaning by inductive, objective means despite the notion that meaning can only be assigned deductively. This issue of conflation manifests in the centuries of controversy surrounding the philosophical implications of accepting the Darwinist paradigm, as it seemingly conflicts with various religious ideologies such as those of Christianity and Islam. Despite increasing creationist and anti-Darwinist sentiment present in contemporary Islamic thought, the Qur’an establishes a theistic evolutionary framework by which Darwinian evolution can be syncretized with the Islamic ontological narrative.

In order to determine the means by which the Darwinist paradigm and Islamic ontology intersect, it is necessary to establish the assumptions of each ideology. Darwin’s argument posits the Lamarckian notion of a zerosum limitation of resources in an ecosystem in his definition of the carrying capacity, the maximum population size for a species in its environment.

Such limitations lead to a “struggle for existence,” (Darwin 54) or competition among the members of a population. In addition, Darwin claims the existence of hereditary variations among the characteristics of the members of a population, the laws of which, he argues, are “infinitely complex and diversified,” (21) which we now ascribe to genetic mutations arising out of random, chance processes that may be advantageous or disadvantageous to an organism’s reproductive success in the context of its environment. The combination of limited resources and hereditary variations results in the “preservation of favourable variations and the destruction of injurious variations,” a mechanism Darwin refers to as natural selection (78). This process of selection causes a gradual divergence of a species from its common parent that eventually becomes significant enough for humans to classify as a distinct species out of convenience. Thus, it logically follows that life originated from “one” or “a few forms,” regardless of whether the origin 24

Makers of the Modern Mind of these primordial forms are explicable by natural selection (425). Thus, Darwinism outlines a mechanism that relies on variation and competition to gradually diverge species from ancestors by maximizing reproductive success. It is important to distinguish between this maximization of reproductive success as a mechanism by which evolution functions (a process that can be determined by inductive means) and the goal of evolution (a purpose that can be only determined by deductive means). Darwin’s theory states that maximizing reproductive success is a mechanism of evolution, but leaves room for infinite possibilities of evolutionary teleologies as it does not and fundamentally cannot make the claim that maximizing reproductive success is the ultimate goal of evolution. Such a question of whether evolution is purposefully directed is unanswerable in Darwin’s inductivist theory, given that this would be a question of telos or purpose. Darwin himself, despite his agnostic and atheistic views, acknowledges his theory’s compatibility with theism by discussing the perfection and beauty in the products of natural selection, wondering whether “nature’s productions” were “far ‘truer’ in character than man’s productions” and “infinitely better adapted to the most complex conditions of life…, plainly bear[ing] the stamp of far higher workmanship” such as that of divine power (Darwin 80).

The ontological narrative presented in the Qur’an, while intentionally vague in order to preserve the applicative universality of the text, presents an origin for all life on Earth as well as a distinct ontology for human life and specifies a gradual means for change in creatures over time, allowing for a compatible understanding of theistic evolution as founded in a Darwinist framework. In regards to the period prior to the creation of humans, Allah states that there was “a period of time” in which there was “nothing worth mentioning” regarding “man” implying that, for a time, either humans did not occupy the Earth or humans of unremarkable characteristics occupied the Earth (Qur’an 76:1). Both the notion that humans did not exist at the inception of the universe and the notion that unremarkable humans, interpretable as the parent ape species, existed for a time prior to the creation of humanity are consistent with the single evolutionary chain postulated in the Darwinist paradigm. In Surah An-Nisa, Allah further states that humanity was created from “from a single being,” another idea consistent with the Darwinian understanding of the common ancestor of all life (Qur’an 4:10). Even the modern understanding that life originated in the ocean finds basis in Surah An-Nur where Allah states that He has “created every animal from water” (Qur’an 24:45).

Frequently, opponents of theistic evolutionism in Islam posit the ex25

ceptionality of the creation of humanity in Qur’an as antithetical to the exceptional unexceptionality of natural selection. However, the Qur’anic description of the creation of Adam in the context of the body-self dualistic paradigm in Islam appears to be a spiritual, non-material creation that is manifest physically in a distinct process. Allah states, in Surah Al-Hijr, that Adam was brought to life in the heavens, not on Earth, when Allah “had a spirit of [God’s] creation breathed into” Adam after which Adam was given Ma’rifa, knowledge of the Divine, and taught the nature of things (Qur’an 38:72). As such, this narrative depicts the spiritual creation of Adam. In order to syncretize this ontology with the material existence of Adam, we must re-evaluate the notion of variation that is central to Darwinian evolution. Genetic variation and mutations are attributed to the mechanism of chance which is seen as random-- intrinsically unpredictable. Nonetheless, chance is a mechanism with no objective, inductively without ascribable direction and purpose. That task lies with deductively-reasoned teleological frameworks, such as a predeterminist paradigm that supposes God as an agent instrumentalizing the mechanism of chance itself in order to exercise omnipotence such as exemplified by the concepts of Qadr & Qada in Islam. Hence, the genetic variation and mutations central to Darwin’s theory of natural selection can be said to be driven by the agency of God. If we understand God’s spirit infusing into Adam’s material body as described in the Qur’an as materially rendered as a hereditary mutation resulting in intellectual development that allows for the rise of consciousness, or receptiveness to Ma’rifa in humans, then we have effectively syncretized the Qur’anic ontology of the human soul with the Darwinian notion of the common ancestor of all life.

Despite controversy regarding anthropological origins between the Islamic ontological and Darwinist framework, the Qur’an clearly establishes theistic evolution as the nature of life in a manner compatible with natural selection. In Surah Fatir, Allah states that He “made angels messengers with two, three, four [pairs of ] wings,... [and] He adds to creation as He will” meaning that Allah not only adjusts and modifies his creation, but specifically increases the complexity as indicated by His increasing the number of wings on angel messengers, causing them to become more efficient at their task of delivering messages (Qur’an 35:1). This notion of an increase in complexity to the benefit of a species is a Darwinian concept at the crux of natural selection. Furthermore, in Surah Nuh, Allah states that He “has created… in diverse stages,” and that He has “caused [creation] to grow from the earth a [progressive] growth” (Qur’an 71:14-15). The Surah continues to say that He alone has “strengthened [the] forms [of creation]” and 26

Makers of the Modern Mind “can change their likenesses with [complete] alteration,” meaning that creation occurred gradually, which aligns with Darwin’s posited geologic time scales for natural selection as well as with the biodiversity and vast range of the characteristics of species that Darwin discusses in The Origin of Species (Qur’an 76:28). Moreover, In Surah Al-Infitar, Allah refers to “creat[ion],... proportion[ing]..., and… balanc[ing]” as separate processes with a temporal separation between each, further reinforcing the notion that the process of creation as a whole has spanned a long period of time (Qur’an 82:7).

Allah also refers to Himself as “al-Bari” in Surah Al-Hashr, meaning The Fashioner, with the connotation of creating out of pre-existing matter that can be interpreted as “The Evolver” (Qur’an 59:24). As such, clearly the Qur’an establishes a form of theistic evolution that is compatible with Darwinian natural selection.

It has become commonplace in modern society to adopt scientific theory, an instrument for the analysis of pure mechanism by which meaning cannot be derived, as an alternative to philosophical frameworks, instruments for the metaphysical analysis of phenomenon, ineffectively attempting to derive meaning inductively even though meaning can only be ascribed deductively. It is as a direct repercussion of this that theistic ontologies are found to seemingly conflict with the mechanisms constituting scientific theory such as Darwinian evolution. It is only by rejecting this fallacy, and ascribing the mechanism of genetic variation and mutation a purpose through deductive, teleological frameworks, such as a predeterminist paradigm, that we can effectively syncretize the Islamic ontological narrative and Darwinist framework.

27

Works Cited “Al-Qur’an Al-Kareem.” Al-Qur’an Al-Kareem, 2020, https://quran.com/.

Accessed 14 Jan 2020.

“Are Islam And Evolution Compatible?” Beliefnet.Com, 2020, https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/islam/are-islam-and-evolutioncompatible.aspx. Accessed 14 Jan 2020.

Darwin, Charles. On The Origin Of Species. Alma Books, 2019.

“Evolution In Islam.” Answering Islamic Skeptics, http://www.answeringislamicskeptics.com/evolution-in-islam-overview.html. Accessed 14 Jan 2020.

IslamReligion.com, Aisha. “The Story Of Adam (Part 1 Of 5): The First Man.” Islamreligion.Com, 2020, https://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1190/story-of-adam-part-1/. Accessed 14 Jan 2020.

Munawar Mir, Atif. “Quranic Concept Of Evolution”. Alislam.Org, https://www.alislam.org/topics/quran/QURANIC%20CONCEPT%20OF%20EVOLUTION.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2019.

Varisco, Daniel. Darwin And Dunya: Muslim Responses To Darwinian Evolution.

Lindenwood University, Saint Charles, 2020, https://www.lindenwood. edu/files/resources/14-39-darwin-and-dunya.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2020.

28

Makers of the Modern Mind

Fear and Trembling: A Solution to Political Polarisation?

Oliver Udy ’20 “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision: let doubt prevail.” - Bertrand Russell Political discourse in the ‘West’ has become increasingly tribal and aggressive in recent years. The growing canyon emerging between the two political parties in the U.S. has made genuine bipartisan interaction almost impossible. Perhaps a reason why this has become the default mode of operations is a feeling of security one gets with having a ‘home’ of ideological comfort. The bliss of being absolutely certain in one’s outlook on the world certainly relieves the mental torture endured by being unsure about a particular issue society faces. Nonetheless, in order to maintain a healthy democracy, citizens must have a degree of angst: A certain level of faith in our own ability to rationally grapple with complex dilemmas and fractures within society. In order to even attempt to tackle a problem which is so deeply rooted in a human being’s conception of self and his or her purpose as an individual—as well as in relation to the collective—we must see it through a philosophical lens, through the lens of Søren Kierkegaard. We must evaluate the legitimacy of his claim that one should fall between the aesthetic, with a purely egocentric focus, and the universal, conforming to societal norms and expectations of society. Ultimately, it is only through understanding and following Kierkegaard that we can comprehend a solution (if one even exists) to current political polarisation.

However, before exploring the idea more fully, it is important to point out a potential contradiction in this very argument. Kierkegaard’s “Preamble From the Heart” points out the “monstrous paradox that is the content of Abraham’s life” (Kierkegaard 62) in the sense that philosophy is not faith, nor can it give us faith by attempting to make us understand the paradox of faith that leaves Johannes “virtually annihilated.” If someone were to extend this idea to the argument that proposes a concrete solution to the problem of an unstable political landscape, it may be stated that they are compromised. They put an unhealthy amount of faith in this new system which was created by “the proudest human being, the philosopher, [who] thinks (wrongly) that he sees the eyes of the universe telescopically 29

focussed from all sides on his actions and thoughts” (Nietzsche 43). This is a valid objection. The dangerous certainty, which comes from the notion that one single philosophy can cure the ills of society, does compromise that system’s ability to ever claim the status of a knight of faith. By becoming comfortable that this new, seemingly novel, approach will ‘solve’ the ills of society, we crucially lose the sense of angst required for the approach to work in the first place. Nonetheless, if we are to evaluate this argument with some degree of angst and faith in our own rationale, then it may still retain some strength.

Kierkegaard’s conception of submission to the universal’s preventing us from true freedom can perhaps be understood in relation to societal expectation of voting patterns. This can be seen most clearly with two key driving factors behind voting behaviour. The first factor is some sense of conformity to voting in accordance with characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, social class or geographical location. In a way, these characteristics may instil in us a sense of a loss of choice regarding the candidates we vote for. For example, a Muslim may feel compelled to vote for whoever is running against Donald Trump, a president who famously imposed a travel ban to the U.S. which primarily affected six largely Islamic countries. While this example may seem excessively simplistic or even reductive, it is simply a fact that Trump has only a 10% approval rating amongst this demographic. In this instance, members of this group may feel they have no other choice but to reject him as a presidential candidate in 2020.

However, this kind of thinking, Kierkegaard would argue, limits individual freedom. In the process of resigning ourselves to making a decision because of the apparent absence of choice, we ignore the idea that no person or thing (such as a voting pattern based on ethnicity) should be telling us our relation with the absolute, which, in this instance is our own rationality.

Furthermore, if we are asked to justify our voting decisions, we fall back into the ethical. In the same way that if “Abraham [had] simply renounced his claim to Isaac and done no more, he would have uttered an untruth,” we should not need to explain our voting choices, especially in regard to society’s expectations of our behaviour (142). While the introduction of ‘secret’ voting in the U.S. has reduced this problem substantially, there is still the issue of presumed voting intentions based on physical attributes. This problem has been made even more severe by ‘fake news,’ which encourages a warped perception of other people’s understanding of such societal norms and makes it seem necessary to protect one understanding of universal principles from another. This phenomenon has resulted in increasing polarisation and even more rigid voting patterns, thus worsening our sense of 30

Makers of the Modern Mind freedom to choose.

The second factor leading to a perceived lack of choice is resignation to a two party system promoted by a first-past-the-post electoral system. With 94.3% of the American population voting for either the Republican or the Democratic Party in 2016, the notion of casting your vote for another party seems illogical. If, for example, an individual wanted to vote for the Green Party, they would in many ways actually be helping the Republican party to get into office by splitting the Democratic vote. Here, there is an apparent lack of choice in whom somebody could vote for. If we stretch Kierkegaard’s model of aesthetic motivation at one end of the spectrum and universal dedication at the other, it becomes increasingly difficult to exist in the middle in a two party system, The ability to exist in a constant sense of angst and faith in the absurd becomes almost untenable. Yet again, we are faced with another paradox that Kierkegaard explored in Problema II: the paradox of faith that “the inner determination of feeling, mood, etc...” is more important than exterior action (97). In other words, simply by adhering to Kierkegaard’s idea of resignation to the absolute (in this case, our own reason), we may not ‘fix’ the political problems we face. Even if we are internally torn on whom to vote for, the current system in place promotes a submission to the universal expectation that we should vote for one of two parties.

Finally, our ability to truly be in the middle between the aesthetic and universal realms is made more difficult by society’s recent glorification of this position. Individuals like Senator John McCain, or more recently Mitt Romney with his vote for impeachment, have been held up by large sections of society as the moral bastions which the rest of Washington should follow, therefore entering the ‘universal’ realm. It is therefore difficult to simplify Kierkegaard’s model to our notion of a political spectrum, where the ‘best’ place to be is supposedly in the middle. When this position becomes universally admired, our conception of choice is, again, taken away and our ‘leap of faith’ in our own rationale becomes contaminated.

To conclude, Kierkegaard offers useful lessons on the dangers of conformity to universal principles. In an increasingly divided political climate, our societal norms and expectations differ so much that we must tribally reside on one side or the other. In order to attempt to reform this hazardous discourse, we must first tackle the issue of the human being’s natural tendency towards being ‘right’ and the security that comes with that. We should embrace the feeling of angst and uncertainty instead of clinging to the tried and tested, for that is the only way that we are truly free.

31

Works Cited Kierkegaard, Søren. Fear and Trembling. Translated with an introduction

by Alastair Hannay. Penguin Classics, London, 2003.

Chouhoud, Youssef. “Which Muslims Voted for Trump.” Institute for Social and Political Understanding, www.ispu.org/which-muslims-voted-for-trump/.

Nietzsche, Friedrich, and Walter Kaufmann. On Truth and Lie in an ExtraMoral Sense. New York, Pinguin Classic, 2006, pp. 42-51.

32

Makers of the Modern Mind

The Information Revolution: A Marxist Analysis Areeq Hasan ’20 The restriction of information to the scope of the individual has as long been integral to the successful survivalistic tendencies of the human species as has been the breaching of data secured by competing individuals.

Indeed, it is out of the struggle to dominate this very information gradient that the power structures intrinsic to human society have emerged, manifested as the Marxist notion of class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. For millennia, the statistical range of this information gradient has remained similar given the statically classical nature of the collection and storage of data. Amid the current technological climate of rapidly increasing global interconnectedness and the real-time flow of information recursively supplying and demanding big-data storage solutions and data analysis mechanisms, however, human society appears to be approaching a revolution in information that is fundamentally altering social mechanics by means similar to the dialectic transformation of the global superstructure as propelled by elementary alterations in the societal base during the First Industrial Revolution. As a direct repercussion of this novel, nonlinear growth in the collection and storage of data, the bourgeoisie, as regulators of information flow, have become exponentially strengthened in their instrumentalization of information as a means of manipulating the proletariat who are constant generators of data, creating a divergence in the information gradient and, thus, socio-economic divide between the bourgeoisie and proletariat that ultimately provides a means to establish the conditions for a global revolution in hierarchical dynamics.

In order to apply Marxism to interpolate the social sub-mechanisms constituting the revolution in information, the relevant postulates of Marxist social theory must first be established. The exploitative characterization of the bourgeoisie as a collective entity interested solely in material gain at the cost of the proletariat is directly stated in Marx’s Communist Manifesto, wherein he claims that the bourgeoisie “has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest” via “shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” of the proletariat (Marx 15-16). Despite the fact that, in a modern context, the bourgeoisie consists, in part, of the large private enterprises of the tech industry from Alphabet Inc. to Apple Inc. and Facebook Inc., hegemonic forces only showcase the direct benefits these companies 33

provide us, specifically in the form of physical product. The bourgeoisie masks their exploitative tendencies, as shown by their mass data theft and intentionally implementing algorithmic biases to maximize profit despite negative repercussions on the client-end. Furthermore, Marx claims that the “bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society” (16). One instrument of production is the data collection and analysis techniques built into proprietary technological systems, altering the bourgeoisie-proletariat social dynamic by allowing the bourgeoisie to more effectively manipulate the proletariat.

Marx even claims that this phenomenon creates a universal social dynamic through the penetration of the world market by bourgeois entities claiming that the “bourgeoisie… through its exploitation of the world market,” “[give] a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country” (16). With rapidly globalizing companies such as Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and Samsung Group, this notion is more applicable than ever before in the tech industry. In addition, Marx states that an “immensely facilitated means of communication” and the “extensive use of machinery” characterize the movement of the bourgeoisie in its ‘constantly revolutionizing’ of ‘the instruments of production’ and directly highlights the optimization of information transfer, communication, as manifested today in 5G technology, low-latency streaming services, and the real-time flow of information recursively supplying and demanding big-data storage solutions (18). Furthermore, Marx emphasizes the means by which the bourgeoisie functions as a collective, stating that no “sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie…” (18). This notion is clearly manifested in the collusive efforts of mass data theft. Finally, Marx claims that as the proletariat “direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves,” destroying products “that compete with their labour” and smashing “machinery” to pieces (18). This characterizes modern-day ethical or “white-hat” hacking as performed by organizations such as the decentralized international hacktivist group Anonymous and the international media organization and associated library WikiLeaks as dedicated to liberating information from the manipulative control of the bourgeoisie and eradicating the information gradient to re-engineer the bourgeoisie-proletariat social dynamic. As such, it is clear that Marxist social theory effectively establishes a framework by which to analyze the information revolution, and we can use it to interpolate social dynamics in 34

Makers of the Modern Mind recent milestones in the revolution.

Rapid globalization and the real-time flow of information dialectically supplying and demanding Big Data storage solutions and data analysis mechanisms has allowed for the bureaucratic collection of private information. The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal, for example, demonstrates the intention of the bourgeoisie to psychoanalytically manipulate the proletariat. In 2015, Ted Cruz embedded Cambridge Analytica, a small data analysis firm, into his presidential campaign to “gather detailed psychological profiles about the US electorate using a massive pool of mainly unwitting US Facebook users” matching individuals’ traits with existing voter datasets and “build[ing] sophisticated models of users’ personalities without their knowledge” amid “longstanding ethical and privacy issues” (Davies 1). In line with Marxist social theory, Cruz’s campaign, a constituent of the bourgeoisie, colluded with Cambridge Analytica and Facebook using behavioral microtargeting based on the vast amounts of profile information stored in Facebook’s databases to optimize their advertisement efforts without the consent of targets in order to politically influence the proletariat in favor of their campaign, as well as creating economic profits for Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. If not for Facebook’s vast data repositories storing an immense quantity of interaction microfeatures regarding Facebook users as made possible by the real-time collection of information, Big Data storage solutions, and data analysis mechanisms such as Deep Learning networks and Artificial Intelligence systems, Cambridge Analytica would not have had sufficient feature information for successful behavioral microtargeting. The information revolution is allowing for the bourgeoisie to more easily exploit the consent and privacy of the proletariat for their own gain by making information more accessible to the collusive bourgeoisie.

Furthermore, companies are beginning to ignore developing algorithmic biases on the server-end to maximize profit despite potential negative repercussions on the client-end, as demonstrated in a plethora of social media platforms, namely YouTube. YouTube uses deep learning neural networks to recommend content and maximize a viewer’s session time, recording many engagement and interaction micro features from liked videos and watch history to view duration and saved playlists. The recommendation algorithm appears innocent, collecting information regarding users only in order to determine what content to advertise. However, significant repercussions arise out of this system. Deep learning neural networks develop correlations betweens their training data and their performance, and biases present in the training data are reinforced and amplified in an attempt to 35

maximize performance. As such, YouTube’s algorithm, in the words of sociologist Zeynep Tufeksi, is “one of the most powerful radicalizing instruments of the 21st century,” promoting, recommending, and disseminating content “in a manner that appears to constantly up the stakes” (Friedsdorf 1). As such, a consequence of the algorithm is recursively increasing one’s intellectual depth, locking the individual into a mindset while decreasing intellectual breadth. Nonetheless, the deep learning algorithm proves extraordinarily effective at maximizing session time, and, as such, this repercussion is disregarded as trivial, rendering it yet another means by which the bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat for their own economic gain.

The struggle to dominate this very information gradient, from which the power structures intrinsic to human societal mechanics have emerged, manifests in the Marxist notion of class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Although the statistical range of this information gradient has remained similar for millenia, the revolution in information collection and analysis has fundamentally altered social mechanics. As a direct repercussion of this novel growth in the collection and storage of data, the bourgeoisie have become strengthened in their instrumentalization of information as a means to manipulate the proletariat, creating a diverging widening in the information gradient and therefore the socio-economic divide between the bourgeoisie and proletariat.

Works Cited Davies, Harry Fox. “Ted Cruz using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users.” The Guardian, 11 Dec. 2015. The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/11/senator-ted-cruzpresident-campaign-facebook-user-data. Accessed 8 Feb. 2020.

Friedersdorf, Conor. “YouTube Extremism and the Long Tail.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/ youtube-extremism-and-the-long-tail/555350/. Accessed 7 Feb. 2020.

Madrigal, Alexis C. “How YouTube’s Algorithm Really Works.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/11/ how-youtubes-algorithm-really-works/575212/. Accessed 7 Feb. 2020.

Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. Marxists Internet Archive, www. marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf. Accessed 8 Feb. 2020.

36

Makers of the Modern Mind

An Analysis of Disability and Ableism From a Marxist Perspective Jimmy Chen ’20 Walking through Lawrenceville, I see how all of our academic buildings have elevators and how many of our classroom signs are written in braille. Supposedly, our campus is quite disability-friendly, and the world outside our gates appears aware of those living with disabilities as well. The whole front of a public bus is reserved for the elderly and the physically impaired, most commercial businesses reserve parking spots closest to the entrance for the disabled, and many government-funded buildings such as courthouses and clerkhouses have wheelchair ramps. Although we attempt to integrate the lives of those living with disabilities with the lives of the able-bodied, the proportion of disabled people employed in the workforce is 19.1%, which is strikingly lower than the 65.9% figure representing the employment of able-bodied people (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).

Evidently, ableism, societal discrimination against those living with disabilities, is rampant. According to Fiona Kumari Campbell, a leading figure in disabilities studies who serves on the faculty at the University of Dundee, Scotland, ableism is “a network of beliefs, processes and practices that produces a particular kind of self and body (the corporeal standard) that is projected as the perfect, species-typical and therefore essential and fully human. Disability then is cast as a diminished state of being human” (44). But what exactly is “disability?” The two most common models used to define “disability” are the medical and social models. The medical model defines “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment of the individual and its personal and social consequences,” while the social model defines disability as “a relation between an individual and her social environment: the exclusion of people with certain physical and mental characteristics from major domains of social life” (Wasserman et al.). Although these two models are different, they are interrelated. The former is the more colloquial use of the word, while the latter contextualizes disability as a basis for ableism. Since ableism is a social discrimination practice that comes as a natural consequence of our capitalist society, I will show through a Marxist framework that our conventional models of “disability” are perpetuated by our societal norms and conventions, suggesting that ableism is best solved by dismantling our equation of economic value to human value.

First, I will establish Marx’s model and critique of capitalism. In “Wage 37

Labour and Capital,” Marx writes that the worker sells his “labour power” to the capitalist in exchange for wages (Marx 204). Because the worker’s “sole source of livelihood is the sale of his labour power, [he] cannot leave the whole class of purchasers, that is the capitalist class… it is his business to dispose of himself, that is, to find a purchaser within this capitalist class” (Marx 205). Within this capitalist class, the worker’s labor becomes a commodity that is bought and sold, and the price of his wage will correspond to fluctuations of the market’s supply and demand (Marx 206). Eventually the worker’s wage will settle as “the price of the necessary means of subsistence” (Marx 206). The worker’s wage is driven down to a point where the wage merely suffices for the worker to support himself day to day, but ultimately, the worker is unable to accumulate wealth, or capital, for himself.

Marx writes further in Capital, “The directing motive, the end and aim of capitalist production, is to extract the greatest possible amount of surplusvalue, and consequently to exploit labour-power to the greatest possible extent” (385). The capitalist class is not driven by individual motive—it is driven by the collective forces of the market. Labor is simply another commodity in this market, devoid of human faces and character.

Our capitalist society hastens the creation of disabled workers. As Marx states, “In handicrafts and manufacture, the workman makes use of a tool, in the factory, the machine makes use of him” (409). The proletariat class is forced to work extensive hours each day to subsist. These long hours take a toll on the workers’ physical health. Marx writes in Capital that “Modern Industry, indeed, compels society, under penalty of death, to replace the detail-worker of to-day, crippled by life-long repetition of one and the same trivial operation, and thus reduced to the mere fragment of a man” (413). Marx acknowledges that the worker has no real choice as to whether or not he will work the increasingly long hours—if he does not, he will fail to generate the wages necessary to cover his subsistence; if he does, he is merely feeding back into the capitalist class, generating more capital for the bourgeoisie, cementing their position of control and exploitative power.

Even our modern day concepts of “full-time,” “part-time,” and “work day” are “institutional manifestations of time-spending as the means by which one secures personal livelihood” (Pass 53). Ingrained in our common rhetoric is an obligation for work in order to subsist.

A valid objection to Marx’s argument that the so-called bourgeoisie exploits the disabled is the fact that there are numerous policies in place whose purpose is to protect the disabled workers’ rights, and in some cases, promote their employability. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 guarantees that “people with disabilities have the same rights and opportu38

Makers of the Modern Mind nities as everyone else,” and the The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits the discrimination against people with disabilities in employment (U.S. Department of Labor). However, these policies may not actually protect the disabled as well as they advertise—instead, the disabled are placed in a position of structural disenfranchisement because of these policies. For example, an employer can pay a disabled worker much less than the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (A. Campbell). In effect, the employer is actually tapping into a labor market that he previously could not access due to the minimum wage. Instead of paying an able-bodied person to complete the work at the minimum wage, current US federal law allows employers to pay a disabled person as little as $1 per hour for this very same productive output (A. Campbell). There are multiple consequences of this. First, this is a clear exploitative maneuver to undercut workers and further drive the market price of labor down, thereby increasing the profit of the capitalist and further increasing workers’ competition to sell their labor. The second, more minute yet crucial detail is that this action seems to be an act of good faith, a company employing those deemed “unemployable,” as “Capital consists not only of means of subsistence, instruments of labour and raw materials… it consists just as much of exchange values. All the products of which it consists are commodities. Capital is, therefore, not only a sum of material products; it is a sum of commodities, of exchange values, of social magnitudes” (Marx 208). The capitalist generates social authority from their business practices and receives praise from the public.

Such positive response from the public regarding the payment of disabled people under the minimum wage, in turn, continues to feed the capitalist ideology that disabled people are inherently less valuable because of their inability to produce as much as able-bodied people. Out of our two models of disability, the social model provides us a better understanding of what is truly occuring on the most fundamental level of the capitalist society.

Through industrial capitalism, “a new class of ‘disabled’ who did not conform to the standard worker’s body and whose labour-power was effectively erased” was created (Russell and Malhotra 213). “Disability” is simply a social division mechanism born out of capitalism which keeps influence in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Since our societal norms and conventions define what “disability” is and perpetuate ableism within our capitalist society, we must scrutinize where we derive value in humans. While the capitalist class derives human value from the productivity of workers, I contend that a derivation of human value based on market value is not sufficient or even inherently useful. The market makes arbitrary distinctions between humans based on a human’s 39

Makers of the Modern Mind capability to run a machine to its maximum production capacity. These arbitrary distinctions ultimately create two classes known as the “able” and “disabled.” This class distinction is perpetuated through societal conventions such as the legalization and normalization of paying the “disabled” seven times less than their “able-bodied” counterparts. To make a meaningful step towards eradicating ableism, we cannot simply provide accessibility parking spaces and ramps for those we deem as “disabled.” Instead, we must make a fundamental change to our understanding of the relationship between economic value and human value.

Works Cited Bengtsson, Staffan. “Out of the frame: disability and the body in the writings of Karl Marx.” Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, vol.

19, no. 2, pp. 151-60, DOI:10.1080/15017419.2016.1263972. Accessed 6 Feb. 2020.

Campbell, Alexia Fernández. “A loophole in federal law allows companies to pay disabled workers $1 an hour.” Vox, Vox Media, 3 May 2018, www.vox.com/2018/5/3/17307098/workers-disabilities-minimumwage-waiver-rock-river-valley-self-help. Accessed 8 Feb. 2020.

Campbell, Fiona Kumari. “Inciting Legal Fictions: Disability’s Date with Ontology and the Ableist Body of the Law.” Griffith Law Review, vol.

10, 2001, pp. 42-62.

Hall, Melinda C. “Critical Disability Theory.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta, 21 Dec. 2019, plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/disabilitycritical/. Accessed 7 Feb. 2020.

“Laws & Regulations.” U.S. Department of Labor, www.dol.gov/general/ topic/disability/laws. Accessed 8 Feb. 2020.

Marx, Karl. Capital, Volume One. 1867. The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C. Tucker, 2nd ed., New York, Norton, 1978, pp. 294-438.

---. “Wage Labour and Capital.” 1847. The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C. Tucker, 2nd ed., New York, Norton, 1978, pp. 203-17.

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. 1848.

The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C. Tucker, 2nd ed., New York, Norton, 1978, pp. 469-500.

40

Pass, Lauren Elizabeth. “The Productive Citizen: Marx, Cultural Time, and Disability.” Stance: An International Undergraduate Philosophy Journal, vol. 7, Apr. 2014, pp. 51-58, DOI:10.5840/stance201475. Accessed 6 Feb. 2020.

Russell, Marta, and Ravi Malhotra. “Capitalism and Disability.” Socialist Register 2002: A World of Contradictions, vol. 38, 1 Jan. 2002, pp.

211-28, socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/view/5784/2680.

Accessed 6 Feb. 2020.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics Summary.” United States Department of Labor, 26 Feb. 2019, www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm. Accessed 7 Feb. 2020.

Wasserman, David, Asch, Adrienne, Blustein, Jeffrey and Putnam, Daniel.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition). Edited by Edward N. Zalta, 21 June 2016, plato.stanford.edu/archives/ sum2016/entries/disability/. Accessed 7 Feb. 2020.

Wolff, Jonathan. “Karl Marx.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta, 21 Dec. 2017, plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/marx/. Accessed 6 Feb. 2020.

41

RELIGION

42

Religious Studies for Lawrentians

A Divine Dilemma Sid Ramachandran ’21 Devotional music has been a set piece in Christian orthopraxy. One of these works, titled “How Far is it to Bethlehem?” (HFB), written by Frances Chesterton, is a traditional English Christmas carol. This song, also known as “The Children’s Song Of The Nativity,” features music based on a 16th-18th-century tune called the “stowey.” The song has numerous simple questions—some answered, and some left for the singer or listener to answer on his own. Two contrasting theories provide different lenses of understanding the song. Deconstructionism is a theory devised by Jacques Derrida which questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth with the intent of finding contradictions in a text. It asserts that words can only refer to other terms and attempts to organize a text hierarchically can subvert deeper meanings. On the contrary, Peter Elbow’s Believing Game is the “disciplined practice” of accepting and trying to believe everything that one encounters on the premise that any analysis devalues the originally intended thought (Introduction to Religion for Lawrentian Reader). Although the believing game theory, supported by traditional music, suggests that the song “How Far is it to Bethlehem?” honors the divinity of God, the deconstruction of the open-ended questions in the song casts doubt about God’s omnipotence.

The believing game is a tool to help us find the “hidden virtues” found in weakly supported positions (Introduction to Religion for Lawrentian Reader). In HFB, which is about infant Jesus, the various questions such as the stable room being “Lit by a star?” imply that the baby is divine (“Christmas-Songs.org”). Rhetorical devices are employed to express joy and anxiety experienced by someone who is about to meet their creator.

When the performer/composer asks, “Will he awake?,” the human form of God is highlighted, and the believing theory suggests that God has taken the form of a baby and has human-like behaviors, including following the circadian rhythm. Furthermore, the song refers to “God” sleeping in his mother’s arms and all the babies sleeping with the satisfaction of their fulfilled desires, implying that the chief appeal of all living beings is to meet God (“Christmas-Songs.org”). The believing game suggests that the song is about God’s arrival and connotes an affirmative response to all the questions. However, systematic analysis of the text and its inner meaning provides a reasonable middle ground to dissect a verse intellectually.

43

Deconstructive criticism is more appropriate for understanding subtext and suggests that the singer/composer humanizes God and doubts his abilities when he says, “If we touch His tiny hand will He awake? Will He know we’ve come so far just for His sake?” (“Christmas-Songs.org”) If the baby is God, he is omniscient and thus well aware of the arrival of his visitors and their sincerity. The uncertainty of the narrator shows the narrator’s sense of inadequacy and self-doubt, and the narrator tends to project the same on God as well. The overlaying of human tendencies such as materialism on God by wondering if he will acknowledge the “Little smiles and little tears” of the masses over the “precious gifts” from “Great Kings” boxes God within man’s insecurities and boundaries (“ChristmasSongs.org”). Such projections on God also explain religious barriers that are an extension of the cultural practices of a community. If God is the all-knowing, all-powerful being, then such fears and even questions are unnecessary. If he is not and has to be placated by material means, then his superior position beyond all reason becomes questionable. The deconstruction highlights that analysis of the text alone limits God to the projections made by man. Derrida coined the term “signifying chain” to explain the role which unclear aspects play in analyzing a text. The signifying chain of this song is the disunity between conventional ideations of God as beyond worldly desires, and the distinct impression of a discriminatory god, projected by our narrators.

The convincing aspect of HFB comes from the duality between the song’s lyrics and music. HFB is written in a tune called a “stowey,” and the piano prelude is written in G-major, while the singer’s key is E-major.

The cadence structure of the piece is relatively basic; however, the use of an imperfect I-V cadence at the end of each line is a bit unorthodox. The melody’s overall tone is one of inviting warmth befitting devotional music.

It leaves the listener with a sense of peace, with the strategic use of “Sleep, as they sleep who find/ Their heart’s desire,” as a final lyric (“ChristmasSongs.org”).

The devotional carol, “How Far is it to Bethlehem?” is a holy and soothing melody heralding the birth of Jesus Christ. The divine event is highlighted by the bright star, arrival of great kings, and by the devoutness of domestic animals. The musical melody and chorals create heavenly imagery and reinforce a belief in the glorious birth of the divine child. The aspects unraveled by the deconstruction theory only serve to limit this divinity by the restrictions in the human mind.

44

Religious Studies for Lawrentians Works Cited “Christmas-Songs.org.” Christmas Songs Lyrics, Music and Videos, christmas-songs.org/.

Introduction to Religion for Lawrentian Reader.

45

The Interconnectedness of Two Central Concepts in Buddhism and Hinduism: Anatta & Atman Dhruv Khurjekar ’22 On the surface, Anatta and Atman are the literal opposite. However, the two are inextricably woven and one cannot be comprehended without the full context of the other. Although the creation of the two concepts is chronologically separated by centuries, they are deeply connected, with one creating the need, and conjured to alleviate its unintended consequences, for the other. Atman, “the Self, Soul, and Indwelling spirit,” is a central concept in Hindu philosophy (Bhaskarananda 202). Anatta, literally translated as “non-Soul”, is the absence of a Soul and is relevant in Buddhist teachings (Fronsdal). This simplistic contrast between Atman and Anatta deserves careful delineation rather than simply treating them as antonyms because of the very different contexts in which the two were introduced.

After exploring these two keystone concepts of Hinduism and Buddhism, I find that the two ultimately serve the common purpose of leading a practitioner onto a similar spiritual path of selflessness.

The Hindu teaching regarding Atman, both in the early scriptures as well as in subsequent literature to this day, has been consistent in characterizing Atman as the quality of the self that is unmanifested. Atman is distinct from the physical, mental or intellectual qualities of human beings in the form of their body, mind or thought (Radhakrishnan). Once these outer layers of appearance, imagination, and emotion are removed from the Self, the Soul or Atman remains. Due to every individual having an Atman within, devoid of the external differences, it is the universal equalizer to obviate hate or hierarchy or any reason for any entity in the universe to not love the other and co-exist in harmony. At its essence, Atman has been explained as the inner God, the true Self that is one with Brahman, the universal God, and therefore every being in the universe is essentially a manifestation of the Brahman via the Atman, which resides within the Self (Radhakrishnan). This elegant exposition of Atman continues to form the basis of the core philosophy of Hinduism, Vasudeva Kutumbakam, which means the whole universe is a family and therefore guides the practicing Hindu on the path of selfless love for the universe as a means towards true happiness (“Vasudeva Kutumbakam”).

46

Introduction to Religious Studies Chronologically, Atman predates Anatta by hundreds of years, allowing the concept to have already evolved over the centuries before the Buddha.

It was first documented in the Rigveda and was expounded upon in the other Vedas and the Upanishads (Deussen 91). By the time the Buddha was reaching enlightenment and trying to make sense of the world around him, even though the philosophical concepts of the Vedas and Upanishads might have been cogent and intrinsically sound, he did not see their direct benefit to society. The suffering, hatred, sorrow, and violence that the Buddha observed in the world is what motivated him to pursue his spiritual journey in the first place. He questioned and critiqued all of society’s philosophical concepts that were available yet inadequate to improve people’s lives. He had to design a philosophy that provided solutions to the problems he saw rather than merely follow what was accepted as pure and accurate in elite Hindu scholarship.

A Buddhist’s journey is to acknowledge suffering, understand its cause, and transcend it by knowing that it can end. He did not believe that focusing on Atman would help one to achieve Nirvana, but rather needed a construct to define one’s journey away from the Self. According to Mrs. Rhys Davids, a late British writer and Buddhist text interpreter, the concept of Anatta is an example of the Buddha deliberately de-emphasizing or apparently negating the core tenet of Atman which focuses on the Self, while the Buddha’s teachings implore us to not do so because attachment to the Self is a cause of suffering (Davids as qtd. in Radhakrishnan 384). There is evidence of the Buddha discussing Atman in his early discourses and struggling to find a way to make it a usable and practical tool for the journey that he believed in towards attaining Nirvana. He feared both extremes of the use of Atman: one was the nihilist outcome of people not caring about their lives because the body, mind, and intellect did not ultimately matter; the other was the danger of eternalism in which people would indulge in superficial pleasures all their lives because the Soul was immortal anyway (Radhakrishnan 386). Rather, the Buddha wanted to impart the transcendental doctrine while still reminding people of the misery of attachment to life and rebirth. Since true happiness comes from detachment, he had to carefully balance the use of Atman in his discourse and eventually relinquished its use without rejecting it (Radhakrishnan 386). Ultimately, Anatta was derived from Atman over time. And because Atman was not able to directly control the physical, emotional or intellectual faculties, nor was it easy to appreciate as a metaphysical construct, Buddhism gradually discarded Atman as unworthy and hence focused on Anatta.

Yet it is telling that the Buddha never repudiated or rejected the concept 47

of Atman. In fact, as explained in the Buddhist Vacchagotta Sutta, he was asked about it twice directly, and he did not answer the questions either in the affirmative or the negative; he was merely silent (Vacchagotta Sutra as qtd. in and transl. by Radhakrishnan 386). While the Buddha agreed with the concept of Atman for his time, with the unintended consequences of people’s actions to feed their self ego, he deemed the concept limited, inadequate, and perhaps a detriment to his teachings. He needed a construct that could free the human from his self and set him on a path to Nirvana.

He considered it so important to remove one’s attachment from one’s Self that he included the literal opposite of the Soul, the true Self, Anatta or “an-Atman” in his discourse (Radhakrishnan 389). Even in doing so, he leveraged both concepts to further support his teachings. They were both preached by the Buddha himself depending on the doctrine of choice, as described in Nagarjuna’s interpretation of the Prajnaparamita Sutra: “He taught the existence of Atman when he wanted to impart to his hearers the conventional doctrine; he taught the doctrine of an-Atman when he wanted to impart to them the transcendental doctrine” (Nagarjuna transl. from Prajnaparamita Sutra, qtd. in Radhakrishnan 389). The irony of this choice is palpable: both Atman and Anatta aim to achieve the same objective, which is to help an individual move away from superficial worldly attachments and aim instead to attain the universal truth of detached harmony.

Atman and Anatta both lead to salvation or Nirvana through a journey of renouncing worldly pleasures and experiencing the universe with detached appreciation.

The scholars of Hinduism have discussed and debated Atman and its centrality in the religion’s philosophy, especially its oneness with Brahman, thus creating a seamless continuum from an individual to the ultimate God. This elegance helps string together much of the worldly religious guidance that shaped the early Indian or Hindu way of life and guides practicing Hindus even today. On the other hand, Buddhist scholars have taken the Buddha’s disinterest in Atman and dwelled on Anatta as a way to focus on the actionable tenets of Buddhism, with the ultimate goal being Nirvana. The state of Nirvana is not much different than the ultimate Hindu spiritual objective of life. Despite the differences in approach of the two conjoined concepts in Hinduism and Buddhism, the religious paths of guidance from Atman and Anatta both lead to a similar spiritual objective. This interconnectedness reflects the nuanced character of Buddhism as a religion. Out of its many responses to and departures from Hinduism, Anatta stands out as one that may appear as a challenge to Hinduism. After digging deeper, however, it is discovered to be the other side of the same 48

Introduction to Religious Studies coin, thus revealing the value in studying this concept through the lens of Hinduism. Ultimately, one may say that neither Buddhism nor Hinduism conform with the western guidelines of being a religion—rather, they are ways of leading one’s life and spiritual institutions that define the purpose and objective of that life. As we can see after exploring only a few threads that are woven into the thick fabrics of each religion, there are a countless number of paths that lead one to this holy grail.

Works Cited Bhaskarananda, Swami. The Essentials of Hinduism: A Comprehensive Overview of the World’s Oldest Religion. Indian ed., The President, Sri Ramakrishna Math Printing Press, Mylapore, Chennai-4, 1998.

Deussen, Paul. The Philosophy of the Upanishads at Google Books, Dover Publications, pages 86-111, 182-212.

“Ethical Idealism of Buddhism: The Individual Self.” Indian Philosophy, by S. Radhakrishnan, vol. 1, Oxford University Press, 1999.

Fronsdal, Gil. “Anatta and the Four Noble Truths.” Insight Meditation Center, Insight Meditation Center, 1 Oct. 2002, www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/anatta-and-the-four-noble-truths/. (adapted from a talk by Gil Fronsdal).

“Vasudeva Kutumbakam.” Yogapedia.com, Yogapedia, 30 Jan. 2019, www. yogapedia.com/definition/6372/vasudeva-kutumbakam-yoga.

49

Power in Buddhism and Islam: Jailer, Prisoner, or Both?

Matthew Kutam ’22 From the Gaza strip border to the airstrikes on the Kashmir border to the 2019 Christchurch shooting, the world’s religions appear in constant conflict against one another. In these acts of violence, the perpetrators believed that only their form of religion could lead them up a metaphorical mountain of truth and enlightenment while other religions, or paths, fall short in that quest (Prothero 30). By analyzing one religion through the lens of another religion, nevertheless, one can begin to see something special in one religion that only uncovers itself via this comparative analysis. One religion’s views on, for instance, the role of women or life after death, derive from its worshipped oral tradition and written text, so comparing these sacred works provides a way to perceive a religion’s beliefs more closely. This paper seeks to understand the power and role of the individual in Buddhism by contrasting the Sutras, brief aphorisms of Buddhist principles, with written Islamic beliefs. In reading the Dhammapada, a minor Sutra, through the lens of Qur’an and Tafsir readings, the teachings of Buddha accentuate how only the Buddhist individual has the capability to control themself and jail their own desires, not how the individual lies at the mercy of an ultimate jailer, God. One must play the believing game, “the disciplined practice of trying to be as welcoming….to every idea we encounter,” at first when comparing the two religions and their religious texts (Elbow 134). The believing game helps find parallels in the Dhammapada and Islamic texts, parallels that will serve as a control for which the paper will expound upon and then discover telling differences regarding the individual’s power in Islam and Buddhism. For one, both the Dhammapada and the Tafsir readings call for the individual to achieve a high level of wisdom, one that transcends the living world entirely. In the Dhammapada’s chapter about the Wise, Buddha tells that “those who have well developed with right mind the factors of complete awakening….are emancipated in the world” (Dhammapada 89). His instruction here calls its readers to think and to meditate in order to achieve “complete awakening.” Buddha places the emphasis on wisdom as a way to free oneself from worldly human suffering. In the Eightfold Path, wisdom, or Panna, even encompasses the first two parts of the “Right Understanding” and “Right Resolve,” demonstrat50

Introduction to Religious Studies ing the Buddhist focus of wisdom (Keown 55). Islam too, believes in the idea of superseding sensical desires, not to obtain wisdom, but rather join Allah’s vision.

Written by Al Bahr Al Madīd (a Moraccan mystic and scholar), a section called “Sincerity” similarly asks Muslims to “make opaque what is subtle, while the reality of intellective vision is to make subtle what is opaque” (Tafsir 72). Despite the use of “vision” instead of “wisdom,” both texts stress the importance of wisdom as a way to deepen spirituality. Al Madīd even writes that when engaging this “intellective vision” and making “subtle” the “opaque,” we unite ourselves with Him and allow Allah to overflow us in His “Ocean of Infinite Oneness” (Tafsir 72). Therefore, Buddhist and Islamic teachings imply that both religions require the individual to put on finer lenses to fully immerse yourself in a way that transcends superficial belief. Yet the contrast in the ways one pursues wisdom entail different power relationships in the religions, especially how much power the individual has over himself.

Given the hindsight of the Qur’an, the Dhammapada reveals that the Buddhist individual serves himself, not some God, because he only knows himself the best. In the translation of the Dhammapada, the scripture instructs that “the self is the friend of self, for what other friend would there be? When the self is well-trained, one finds a friend that is hard to find” (Dhammapada 160). In a part of a chapter labeled “Self ”, the Buddha suggests that by forming a “friend” in oneself, one attains wisdom because that person finds a “friend” that will teach them and guide them.

That “friend” ultimately will lead that person to the cessation of all suffering and thus, the fulfillment of the Four Noble Truths, the essence of Buddha’s teachings over spiritual joy and liberation (BBC). Notably, the Dhammapada underlines that wisdom, enlightenment, and even selffulfillment endures once a person understands oneself to a point where they have faith and comfort in their own soul. Our narrative changes in Islam though because fundamentally, a Muslim only gains prudence and happiness from following Allah and putting all trust in Him. In the Qur’an, Allah commands that “whoever fears Allah, He [Allah] will make for him the way out and will provide for him from where he does not expect” (Surah 65:2-3). As Islam translates to “submission”, the Qur’an indicates that if one submits himself to Allah, he will find comfort and joy in what Allah provides. The one that fears Allah can then find his own caring “friend” in Allah. Through the comparison of the two texts, the fact emerges that Buddhism centers itself around the individual’s, not God’s, ability to serve himself, to comfort himself, to love himself, and in 51

the end, cleanse himself.

The process of cleansing yourself and removing sin also differs in the two religions, with Buddhism placing the focus again on personal refinement from within the individual. In the chapter called “Yourself ” in the Dhammapada, Buddha explains, “by oneself is a wicked deed left undone, by oneself is one purified, purity and impurity come from oneself, for no one can purify another” (Dhammapada 166).

The individual, thus, has both aspects of good and evil rooted inside him. Due to the fact that he himself must eliminate all suffering on the inside, Buddhism offers the Eightfold Path as the perfect guide to do so. Whether to achieve higher morality, mindfulness, or wisdom, individuals follow the Eightfold Path in the belief that each step helps to undergo the process of eliminating all impurity, augmenting all purity, and eventually, removing all suffering. In Islam, the way to remove sin and gain wisdom contrasts because the religion directs itself towards the will of Allah. The first verse of the Surah named Al-A’la, or the Most High, proclaims, “Exalt your name of the Lord, the Most High, who created and proportioned and who destined and [then] guided” (Surah 87). The use of the word “exalt” here not only means to verbally praise, but also implies to make your actions and deeds representative in the name of Allah. The Five Pillars of Islam, from verbal proclamation to zakat (mandatory charity to the poor) to performing the Hajj, all stress this proclaiming Allah or this manifesting of Allah through action.

Purification in Islam comes from worshipping God over Iblis, the devil, not from trying to cleanse the divine and evil within you. We again can comprehend that in the search for wisdom and inner peace, Buddhists look deep to remove individual desire and dissatisfaction in place of looking above to satisfy God. Referencing a metaphor made by Michel Foucault, a 20th century French philosopher, the role of power in religion can be often illustrated by the panopticon, a prison with circular structure and the guard’s office in the middle. The guard can see every prisoner through small windows in his office, so while he can never look at everyone at once, all prisoners lie under the impression that the guard always watches them (Nye 72).

In Islam, you have this pantpticon model since Allah sits in the middle of the universe as he observes humankind constantly. In the Qur’an, the word of God writes that “And conceal your speech or publicize it; indeed, He is Knowing of that within the breasts” (Surah 67:13). Allah alone omnisciently sees all actions, all intentions, and deems us to hell or heaven like a guard that punishes perverse prisoners who do not abide by the 52

Introduction to Religious Studies rules. When understanding Buddhism, you see that the guard embodies the prisoner, that the one in power mirrors the one without power. According to a poem from the Afiguttara-Nikaya, the Buddha says that “the wise priest knows he now must reap” (Warren 217). That wise priest plays the role of prisoner because on one hand, he submits to temptation and has to face punishment like a criminal; but simultaneously, he also plays the jailer, that watchful eye, because he must enforce that punishment in a pursuit to better himself and keep his sinfulness caged in a cell. Once we look at Buddhism and Islam together that we realize Buddha’s emphasis on finding enlightenment, finding a “friend”, and finding joy within oneself, for one acts as both prisoner and guard in an endless relationship to ultimately find purification.

Despite all the evidence to prove all religions differ, the conversation of one text with another shines a more perceptive light on a religion.

In this case, the Dhammapada and Islamic law in conversation emphasized the individual’s power in Buddhism to serve and purify themselves without the presence of an ultimate. Mahatma Gandhi once wrote in All Religions are True, “Cultivation of tolerance for other faiths will impart to us a truer understanding of own” (Gandhi 44). Instead of looking at religions as right or as wrong, true knowledge of our own religions comes only when we have the courage to not doubt but to find the common ground between our religion and others. Only then, can we know our own religion and whether we play jailer to ourselves, prisoner to God, or both in our ways up the same mountain.

53

Works Cited Al-Madid, Al-Bahr. The Opening, and Other Meccan Revelations. Translated by Abdul Aziz Suraqah, Al Madina Institute, 2015.

BBC. “Buddhism.” Religions, 17 Nov. 2009, www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/ buddhism/.

Elbow, Peter. “The Believing Game - Methodological Believing.” Selected Works of Peter Elbow, Jan. 2008, pp. 1-11, works.bepress.com/peter_elbow/20/. Accessed 1 Mar. 2020.

Gandhi, Mohandas K. All Religious Are True. Mumbai, Bharitiya Vidya Bhavan, 1962.

Keown, Damien. A Very Short Introduction to Buddhism. Oxford University Press, 2013.

Nye, Malory. Religion: The Basics. 2nd ed., Oxfordshire, Routledge, 2008.

Prothero, Stephen R. God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter. New York, HarperOne, 2010.

Qur’an. Pro Bono, 2016. Quran, Pro Bono, quran.com/. Accessed 1 Mar. 2020.

Tipitaka. Sutta Central, suttacentral.net/. Accessed 1 Mar. 2020.

Warren, Henry Clarke, translator. Buddhism in Translation. Harvard University Press, 1979.

54

Introduction to Religious Studies

Letters from the Surgeon to Home Sophia Sachar ’22 After watching the documentary, “Hajj: The Journey of a Lifetime,” IRS students wrote a Hajj reflection letter from the view of one of the three followed people: Mohammad Maruf, Sandy, and Dr. Armina. This set of letters intends to record the journey of Dr. Armina, a converted Muslim and neurosurgeon working in London.

Dear You, I have always known that life ebbs and flows, but lately the tides have not been receding, but rather drying up underneath the London sky. To put it simply, I am in a spiritual rut. I realized this in the center of Piccadilly Square as I caught a glance of my chapped lips and windswept hair in the window of a Godiva chocolate shop. Suddenly, I realized: I am here. I had been overrun by work until the concept of my being only contained my pale, slim wrists and cuticle-laden nail beds. The surgical table has become an extension of myself, and I cannot sleep without seeing blood pooling and hearing a patient’s heavy breath. When I think about God, all I can do is wonder—where was Allah in that room lit with embers? Where was Allah when the heart machine hummed? Where was Allah when that boy’s pulse snaked through his ribcage? Where was Allah when the boy’s mother ruffled his hair back and choked on the words “mercy, please?” And so I realized, I will have to find Allah again.

Love, Yours “Those who leave their homes in the cause of God, and are then slain or die,- On them will God bestow verily a goodly Provision: Truly God is He Who bestows the best provision” (Salazar 22:58).

Dear You, “I am going to be joining two and a half million people in the desert, wearing white, and looking for God” (Hajj: The Journey of a Lifetime).

55

There was a time when people draped in white would journey east, only to be swallowed by the sun and sky. That will not be me. This marks the third time I have undertaken the journey to Mecca. Physically, I know what to expect. I can feel the thrum of prayer building on top of the mountain. I can see the faded flowers of the mats on the tent floor. My body is filled with coils of muscle memory. My mind, however, will submit to Allah and transform. I will leave my body behind on the Hajj. I will don the creased fabric, and all my body will undergo is the sting of sand and rocks underneath my back. I do not have to focus on staying alive to find Allah—that is a high luxury. I ache for those who went to search for Allah but joined Him too quickly.

Love, Yours Dear You, As I write to you, I am on the first leg of my journey. London’s huddled masses of skyscrapers creep from tangible structures to dark blurs from the view of my airplane window. I am seven miles above the ground. My fingers curl into tight fists, turning white as the blood stops circulating. Allah envelops me with no regard for the hold gravity has on me, no matter what. I unclench my hands from my palms. Blood rushes back in. My nails left indents like slivers of crescent moons. I let myself breathe. Under my breath I whisper, “Let them worship the Lord of this House, Who has fed them, [saving them] from hunger and made them safe, [saving them] from fear” (Surah 106).

Love, Yours Dear You, Just got off the plane! I’ve been at the airport for the past ten hours, but I don’t feel discomfort—only anticipation for what is in store. I know that my anxiety is not an inconvenience, but rather of Allah’s will. The entirety of this journey is Allah’s will. I remember the hadith: “Be mindful of Allah, and you will find Him in front of you. Recognize and acknowledge 56

Introduction to Religious Studies Allah in times of ease and prosperity, and He will remember you in times of adversity.” This hadith kept circling through my mind on the plane ride over. Did I keep Allah in mind during my time of ease? Perhaps if I did not, that’s why dread has become lodged in my abdomen.

Love, Yours “Seest thou not that God sends down rain from the sky, and forthwith the earth becomes clothed with green? for God is He Who understands the finest mysteries, and is well-acquainted [with them]” (Salazar 22:63).

Dear You, I was on the mountain top overlooking the sea of people praying, rising on their knees and lowering, bodies sifting, rolling like the crest of a wave before sinking into the sand. And I too joined their tides. I prayed. I prayed for mercy. To have Allah wash my sins away. To leave me pink and raw and new. I surrendered myself to the sky. I opened myself to the sky and let it fill all my cracks and jagged edges. And then it rained. It rained, and I knew Allah had heard me. I was being bathed in His mercy.

Love, Yours Dear You, I’ll be leaving for home soon. I’m excited to take a long hot bath and slather on some lemon-grass scented lotion, but I will miss Mecca. Leaving Mecca behind feels like unlodging my heart from my chest. I’ve heard the Song of the Reed by Rumi before, but last night I heard someone reciting it in a tent near mine. Never before have I truly understood the pining of the reed: “Listen to the story told by the reed, of being separated.

‘Since I was cut from the reedbed, I have made this crying sound.

57

Anyone apart from someone he loves understands what I say.

Anyone pulled from a source longs to go back’” (Song of the Reed, Rumi).

Love, Yours Dear You, I am on my way back to London. As I look through my plane window, the buildings of Saudi Arabia seem to melt to the ground, not because of the plane’s height, but because my eyes have misted over with tears. One tear of profound longing for the closeness I felt to Allah on the mountain top. One tear because I realize that Allah is always with me. One tear for my yearning to stay in the home of my people. One tear because I have missed the home I made in London. And then I smile. I smile not just because Allah showed me mercy, but because I have forgiven myself. One time, a sleepy patient asked me about the Hajj. She asked me why we were searching for Allah—was He lost? And I thought about it and said, “No, it is us who are lost” (Hajj: The Journey of a Lifetime). I realize that I am found now. I once felt hollowed out, like that little boy scooped some of the life out of me and brought it with him when he left and joined Allah (or the God of his choosing). But I must forgive myself and understand that certain intricacies stay only privy to Allah. With Allah’s blessing, I will go and let live.

Love, Yours

58

Works Cited Salazar, Abdul. “Hajj: The Journey of a Lifetime.” Youtube, uploaded by Bil Ashraf, 28 July 2017, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=pRVNYZ5Zkus.

Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought. “The Holy Quran.” Altafsir.com, ALTAFSIR, www.altafsir.com/Quran.asp?SoraNo=22&A yah=63&NewPage=0&img=D. Rumi. “Song of the Reed.” On Being, 8 Mar. 2012, onbeing.org/poetry/ song-of-the-reed/.

59

Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy in Sikhism and Hinduism Nikita Coppiseti ’22 Rumi once mused, “The lamps are different, but the Light is the same.”

This saying about observing similarities in differences can be translated onto viewing texts, more specifically Sikh and Hindu texts. Sikhism veers away from Hinduism in the sense that God is inherently part of everyone regardless of status, whereas Hindus’ connections to God are restricted by caste level. However, these contrasting religions are rather similar in many ways. Both the Guru Granth Sahib, the central sacred text of Sikhism, and the Bhagavad Gita, a section of the Hindu epic Mahabharata, stress that God is an all-knowing creator with the ability to demolish evil. The writings give prominence to similar orthodoxies about God. Furthermore, Guru Nanak’s three teachings highlight that to be on the path to God, one must share, remember God, and work hard to earn an honest living. Similarly, bhakti yoga and karma yoga focus on the way to God as loving God and acting without selfishness. In reading the Guru Granth Sahib through the lens of the descriptions of God in the Bhagavad Gita and in examining Guru Nanak’s three teachings through the lens of the practices of bhakti and karma yoga, the revelations uncovered suggest that the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of Sikhism and Hinduism emphasize related ideas, implying that the two religions are more fundamentally similar than they are different.

The Guru Granth Sahib and the tenth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, “Divine Splendor,” both pronounce God an immortal who can terminate malevolent thoughts or actions. Where the Guru Granth Sahib states that God is “[t]he creator,” Krishna calls himself “the source from which the gods and sages / come” and “the Lord of all / creation,” another example of Sikhism and Hinduism agreeing on a major orthodoxy about God (Bhagavad Gita 52). Furthermore, the Guru Granth Sahib expresses God as an “Eternal Being… Beyond birth and death… [and ] Time / And Space,” and Arjuna describes Krishna as an “eternal spirit” who is “unborn / and infinite” (Fisher 444, Bhagavad Gita 53). These core ideas regarding God’s nature appear in both Sikhism’s sacred text and the Bhagavad Gita. Moreover, the Guru Granth Sahib proclaims that God is “[t]he ruthless destroyer / Of all pride and evil,” and Krishna declares, “I destroy the darkness / of [my followers’] ignorance” (Fisher 444, Bhagavad Gita 53). These two 60

Introduction to Religious Studies texts concur about this fundamental concept of God’s vast power to eliminate selfishness and unacceptable traits in people. In sum, when analyzing the Guru Granth Sahib through the lens of the Bhagavad Gita, the two texts reflect similar essential ideas about what God is and what God does, making the orthodoxies of Sikhism and Hinduism similar rather than divergent.

Two of Guru Nanak’s three teachings accentuate the significance of earning an honest living and remembering God in order to find a path to God, as do Hinduism’s bhakti yoga and karma yoga. Bhakti yoga focuses on japa, “the practice of repeating God’s name,” by singing, praying, meditating, and reading about God in order to find a way to God (Smith 29). The orthopraxy followed by all Sikhs as per Guru Nanak’s teaching to remember God mirrors the goals of bhakti yoga. Thus, this finding suggests that when looking through the lens of bhakti yoga, Sikhism and Hinduism are similar. Further, Guru Nanak encourages Sikhs who want to find a way to God to earn an honest living while working hard, and bhakti yoga prompts Hindus to find a way to God by loving. Looking at the idea of connecting to God through love more deeply, bhakti yoga inspires its followers to “love God for no ulterior reason… not even to be loved in return” (Smith 29).

By interpreting Guru Nanak’s teaching to earn an honest living, the underlying significance derived is that this principle just means being truthful in actions helps one discover God. Just as bhakti yoga desires its followers to have no concealed intentions to eventually reach God, Guru Nanak wishes Sikhs to be genuine in their actions. Here, it can be perceived that bhakti yoga’s central message coincides with Guru Nanak’s teaching about honesty, showing that the similarities between the orthopraxy of Sikhism and Hinduism are illuminated by looking through the bhakti yoga lens. Likewise, karma yoga proposes that the way to God is to “work in ways that carry [one] toward God, not away from God” by acting “without thought for [one]self ” which “diminishes [one’s] self-centeredness until nothing separates [one] from the divine” (Smith 32). Karma yoga puts emphasis on being selfless, and followers can interpret that being honest will set one on the right path to God. In this way, these two practices intersect considering both motivate followers to be sincere and unselfish, elucidating the shared orthopraxy of Sikhs and Hindus. On top of that, in karma yoga, acts should be “performed as a service to God,” for “they are regarded as prompted by God’s will and powered by God’s energy” (Smith 32). In looking at Guru Nanak’s advice to remember God through the karma yoga lens, it is conceived that these Sikh and Hindu practices mirror each other, by virtue of every behavior should be done in the name of God. To conclude, through 61

looking at Guru Nanak’s teachings to remember God and earn an honest living by working hard through the lenses of bhakti yoga and karma yoga, Hinduism and Sikhism share many similarities in orthopraxy.

In browsing the Guru Granth Sahib through the lens of the portrayal of God in the Bhagavad Gita and in evaluating Guru Nanak’s three teachings through the lens of the traditions in bhakti and karma yoga, readers perceive that these two religions are relatively similar in orthodoxy and orthopraxy. This insight is significant because it can help bridge the gap between two distinct religions and promotes followers of any religion to be pluralistic, in that they can borrow ideas and even share beliefs with other traditions. Hopefully, seeing the similarities in distinct religious traditions can promote unity, leading to a more peaceful and harmonious world.

Works Cited Eknath, Easwaran. The Bhagavad Gita. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1985. Print.

Fisher, Mary Pat. Living Religions (8th Edition). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall, 2010. Print.

Religion and Philosophy Department, The Lawrenceville School. “Introduction to Religious Studies Reader,” 2019. Print.

Smith, Huston. The Illustrated World’s Religions: A Guide to Our Wisdom Traditions. HarperOne, 1995. Print.

62

63