Philosophy

Woridviews serve a purpose for the individual to exist and adapt to our daily lives, by supposing that certain beliefs are authentic, and within these truths, we move through our world, adapting as necessary. Most of us depend upon woridviews without conscious thought, and it is only when we openly dare to examine our belief system that we are able to define what makes up our core. How we come to develop and accept these beliefs is a highly individual manner, and yet within that thought, we can not disregard the social and ethical mores offered by the family, the schools, the society we live in.

    Kant stated that the mind is a blank slate at birth, and while I believe there is some merit to this claim, it is not without personal reservation. We have no choice as to what family we are born into, and to that degree, we are adopted into the familys current set of beliefs. We do not choose our name, our religious affiliation, if any, nor our sense of what is normal, our normative ethics. Without it being stated outright, to adapt and accept these norms can shape our personal relationships, even our happiness within the family unit. Jean Piaget, who developed the theory of constructive learning, suggested that children make connections with objects, and it is through interaction with these objects that children assimilate norms.

    However, as a child develops, there can be a conflict with these objects, especially in terms of developing experiences that shape our personality. It is akin to a balancing act, not only with our relationship to objects, but with what is presented to us from the world around us. Balancing these two creates intellectual growth. Piaget, like Maslow, argued that intelligence and thought are similar to stacking blocks of information, with Maslows belief that as long as our basic needs are met, we can then move on to more complex concepts of thought.

    I find that I can not ignore Leibniz who argued that each of us has innate knowledge or leanings that are incorporated into our developing sensory, emotional, and ethical ideas given to us through a variety of ways, including the actions versus ideas we witness by our parents and other relevant factors in our environment. I was born into a traditional North American family, and use that term loosely based on the fact that the ethical considerations of my parents mimicked those of a common societal belief system. I was introduced to a belief in a biblical God that is all knowing, but at an early age, remember questioning the contradictions in the bible, such as the commandment Thou shalt not kill, when my parents would condone capital punishment. When I queried this contradiction, I was told that even God would agree to putting to death, those who have taken the lives of others.

    If my parents could accept these seeming contradictions, why could not I As with  Leibniz theory, I believe that I was born with an innate knowing that not everything presented was true. Though I did not openly argue with my family, I continued to build upon my personal philosophy that even religious theory is fallible, and open for personal interpretation. I remember considering the life those charged with murder, and the family norms they accepted. Perhaps, due to their own experiences, and intelligence, they acted in a way that, while not outright spoken, paralleled the belief in an eye for an eye -- something that can be argued biblically.

    In this regard, I consider myself a rationalist, though at times, have found evidence to support a social constructivist leaning. Though I consider myself to be an intellectual, my woridviews include a common sense approach, one in which a person applies himself to do what is ethical and to conduct himself in a manner that does not infringe upon the rights of others. This may seem like a simplistic stance, however, my personal challenge offers a level of distress when I experience unfairness in the choices of others. At times, I have relied upon a belief in a bigger picture -- some may say mystical -- to deal successfully with what I can not logically justify. In this regard, it is necessary for me to question the All knowing God concept presented to me by my parents, who believe that God is behind what we have difficulty understanding, and to honest, though I do not see myself as a religious person, adapting these view has at times, given me comfort -- while at the same time, some confusion.

    Nietzches theory calls into play the question of evil, stating that morality is more of a matter of herd instinct. Thus does evil actually exist Personally, I do not believe that a person is born evil, and that we can not ignore early assimilation that may not be vocalized. As well, mental illness, which can be inherited from genes, must be considered. In addition to this, what we consider evil can be gauged according to the timeline of humanity, and the conditions in which we find ourselves. During war, killing another who has had no choice in terms of birth, hence called the enemy is not considered murder. These events have been celebrated. The same war hero, to kill men he considers evil, such as pedophiles, is according to our laws, murder, though the pedophile may simply be repeating what was earlier assimilated as a norm. Hence, it is the herd mentality that often makes these choices, and it can take tremendous power to ultimately make these decisions for oneself, despite their popularity or lack of.

    In conclusion, I live my life in a way that allows a liberal analysis of thought, knowing that essentially, my development of thought may fluctuate with continued experience, and age. Meanwhile, my woridview entails the realization that I cannot ignore my early environment and personal choices,  therefore, I fall back upon my own definitions of common sense, and conduct myself in a way that offers the greatest good both to myself and my fellow man.