abstract: The debate between St. Augustine of Hippo and the British monk Pelagius is a famous event in the history of Christianity. While Pelagius emphasized the idea that we could achieve salvation via our own free effort, Augustine argued for the opposite: That due to original sin, humans are unable to reach liberation alone and must be saved by God's grace. Augustine won the debate, and the doctrine of original sin became a key theological cornerstone of Western Christianity. What is (...) less well known is that two philosophical positions within the Buddhist tradition corresponded to this debate. One from the Buddha Shakyamuni himself, who taught that all could attain nirvana freely, and one from the medieval Japanese monk and philosopher Shinran, who, disagreeing with his master, taught that we live in a fallen era. We are unable to achieve enlightenment ourselves and thus must rely on the saving grace of Amida Buddha to transport us to a place where the goal is achievable. This paper seeks to highlight these similarities between these two debates and, in the process, show that the philosophical issue of free will versus determinism is one that crosses the boundaries of Eastern and Western thought. It is hoped that the revelation of such a shared debate will increase understanding between Christianity and Buddhism, as well as between other diverse traditions of thought. (shrink)

A great deal of scholarship defines rational thought in terms of probability theory. An important problem with such an approach is that disasters, particularly large disasters, do not provide us with a meaningful distribution of events that would approximate a normal curve. Here, I propose that using possibilistic thinking can helpfully complement probabilistic thinking regarding risk and disaster. Possibilistic thinking highlights consequences of actions or events, while not ignoring their likelihood of occurrence. I point out the myriad ways that individuals (...) and organizations use possibilistic thinking, even if they do not recognized it as such. I propose several conceptual tools to help discipline a possibilistic approach. (shrink)

The paper identifies a view of work that has become prominent in recent years: The view in question is that work is “split” into two main forms: “manual” and “intellectual.” These two forms of work are seen socially as being completely opposed to one another and stereotypes abound on both sides about the people who do them. The paper calls this view “The Manichean View of Work” after the Ancient Persian religion. It is argued that this view is based on (...) an erroneous philosophical position of dualism, a split between mind and body, that derives from the Greeks and was formalised by such thinkers as Ibn Sina and Rene Descartes, which has filtered down into all of Western society. A new, more inclusive definition of work is offered, along with criticisms of the “Manichean View.” Lastly, as a counter to the Western view, an argument based on Zen Buddhist philosophy, which views manual work positively, is given before some practical ways by which the split can be healed as a conclusion. (shrink)