The nature of science is a complete matter that many individuals have attempted to explain. One such person was Karl Popper, a philosopher of science who proposed a way to demarcate science and pseudoscience (Mitra, 2020). When studying at the University of Vienna, Popper examined Freudian and Marxian theories alongside Einstein’s theory of relativity and determined that the latter had an “intrinsic risk” that could cause potential falsification (Mitra, 2020, p. 2). Consequently, Popper suggested that falsifiability could be used as the benchmark to distinguish science from non-science (Mitra, 2020). Popper’s principle of demarcation represents his understanding of the specifics of science and is a topic for a broad discourse.
To comprehend the significance of Popper’s principle, one must analyze the philosopher’s logic. Popper stated that problems generate scientific theories, which aim for satisfactory explanations that come in a dialectic manner (Onebunne & Umeogu, 2022). Consequently, he declared that people make testable conjectures that can be refuted to formulate new ones, meaning that hypotheses are scientific when they are falsifiable (Koskinen & Rolin, 2022; Onebunne & Umeogu, 2022). As a result, Popper’s principle has started many controversial discussions. For instance, Fernandez-Beanato (2020) proposes that falsifiability as a criterion is likely to be too weak or overly strong and is not a necessary condition. Accordingly, although Popper has provided an explanation for his declaration, his proclamation is being argued nowadays.
To conclude, Karl Popper’s demarcation principle is based on the purpose of scientific theories. The philosopher suggested that falsifiability can be considered a sufficient benchmark to differentiate science from non-science. Although Popper has presented a thorough explication of his principle based on his investigation of other theories, thus offering a better understanding of science, his declaration has raised many discussions, some of which are contradictory.
Onebunne, C. K., & Umeogu, B. (2022). Understanding Popper’s conception of science through critical analysis of his key concepts. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 20(2), 85-100.
James Shelley’s thesis brings into perspective various dimensions of understandings that have been used to situate the problem of tragedy in different contexts. Tragedy has been associated with pain and pleasure, which are the core drivers in every individual that influence the quest for a solution in every problem. However, the solutions must meet a set of confines that determine how the problem can be solved. The thesis categorizes these confines into four major categories. One of the restrictions is that pleasure must stem from one source of relief. In this case, tragedy can only be assessed in the light of its own version of pleasure and relief. Pleasure must have the qualities of being associated with some relief from a particular thing. In essence, relief should stem from backward reflection where relief in a certain situation or past event can be associated with tragedy generated from another thing. The same case applies to the pleasure of relief.
Another confine that can be used to explain the solutions in tragedy is that the solution must contain elements of pain and pleasure at the same time. Solutions under this category present a complex approach to the problem by embracing the two elements in equal measure. However, in pain-pleasure solutions, pleasure is presumed to overwhelm the pain. On the other hand, no-pain approach to tragedy yields more pleasure compared to the level of pain in such a solution.
Apart from pain and pleasure approaches to the problem, another restriction is that the solution must be in tandem with the highest value of tragedy that has been accorded by traditions. In this case, the no-pleasure solution to tragedy is portrayed as an approach that denies the role of pleasure in valuing tragedy. However, the approach enables individuals to provide explanations of high esteems that traditionally influence the high ranked tragedies. The fourth restriction posits that pain and pleasure must have some internal relationship. This approach categorizes pain-pleasure solutions into two major groups. The first category asserts that there is a relation between the two elements while the second group posits that the two elements must take place at the same time. The second category can be associated with the fact that it is the content of tragedy that generates the pain. However, this will depend on the form of the tragedy.
Measuring public opinion is a complicated task. It is critical to define how public opinion should be interpreted in order to understand what the object of measurement represents. Thus, Converse (1987, p.513) suggests an explicit description of the term saying that it is “a kind of complex organic whole which mirrored the organization of society into functional groups.” From this perspective, the subject of measurement is more complicated than a simple reflection of the shared views and beliefs. Therefore, the survey aimed at measuring public opinion can assist in getting a better idea not only of the targeted issue but the structure of the modern society as well.
As long as the measured issue is connected with politics, one is particularly concerned about the survey design. Researchers note that political polls are prone to inaccuracies due to the ambiguous character of the subject (Soroka & Wlezien 2010). Therefore, the key aim of the paper is to provide a valid questionnaire, the design of which will be able to assure valid results that reflect the reality in an accurate manner. The focus will be put on the selection of variables as the latter determine the survey’s outcomes.
The principal idea resides in the presumption that the support of the use of force is determined by the political views of the respondents (Everts & Isernia 2001). The relevant assumption is scientifically based and supported by numerous researchers and sociologists (Jentleson 1992). As a result, all the variables will essentially have political connotations.
Explanation of the Political Views – the Support of the Use of Force Relationships
Political views determine a large scope of social opinions. The tendency to shape one’s views in accordance with political preferences has always been popular in developed countries (Baum 2014). Therefore, people evaluate different events and phenomena relying on their political convictions that are often stronger than religious beliefs. In the meantime, there are other important variables that should be necessarily considered, they are represented in the diagram below.
Casual Diagram
Diagram 1 “The Support of the Use of Force”.
Understanding the Variables
Nationality
People of different nationalities can have various views on the support of the use of force. National identity might determine the extent of the support due to the fact that residents of different countries interpret this question through the lens of the politics that their government pursues. Statistics show that a large percentage of people are inclined to agree with the government in terms of its principal decisions (DeRouen 1995).
Religious Beliefs
Different religions have different implications for aggressiveness. Whereas some religious beliefs disapprove of militarist ideas, others consider force to be an appropriate tool for problem-solving. As a result, it is supposed that religion might have an impact on the character of the respondent’s general disposition – the more aggressive it is, the more likely the respondent is to support the use of force.
Age
The following variable is presumed to be critical because it provides some insights into the respondents’ political knowledge. It is assumed that school students have less political experience than adults.
Sex
The relevant variable is included due to the natural psychological differences in genders. Hence, it is commonly assumed that men are more likely to approve of military interventions and force implementations than women (Baum 2014).
Mass Media
Mass media shapes the views of society considerably. The general public appeal streamlined from the news supports the use of force, particularly in the framework of the events in the Middle East. Therefore, it is assumed that the respondents that tend to rely on the media experts’ opinion are more apt to support the use of force.
Attitude to Foreign Aid
The use of force is commonly regarded in relation to foreign aid. Politicians explain the necessity to employ military force by the intention to help a particular government solve its inner problems. Such public appeals have strong implications for the spread of democratic values worldwide (Eichenberg 2005). Moreover, the attitude toward foreign aid implies the respondents’ interpretation of welfare. Practice shows that there is a widespread assumption that military expenses have a negative impact on the nation’s welfare. For instance, DeRouen (1995, p.672) notes that there is a consistent “link between the economy, politics, and the use of force”. Thus, many people are inclined to consider that the money spent on the use of force should be reallocated to other sectors for the benefit of the residents. Therefore, public support of the use of force depends largely on the attitude to foreign aid.
The support of the Use of Force in Syria
The support of the use of force in Syria is a direct indication of the support of the use of force in general. In the meantime, some people might approve of the political strategy in Syria only in theory. Therefore, in the framework of the proposed survey, the attitude to this side of politics will mainly focus on the financial side of the force employment. Analysts note that the public evaluation of the expenses in the force sector is the most objective characteristic of the real attitude to the political strategy in this field (Leander 2005).
Political Knowledge
Political knowledge is important in terms of the support of the use of force. Profound knowledge in this field lets one evaluate the problem more complexly. Meanwhile, measuring political knowledge is rather problematic. Thus, it can be performed with the help of the questions about particular laws and politicians. Specialists point out the fact that the majority of people find it less problematic to express their opinion on specific issues rather than on general phenomena and notions (Norrander 2001). Practice shows that the public support of the use of force is reflected by the residents’ attitude to the implementation of particular laws and regulations (Neack 2002).
Political Views
Finally, it is critical to determine the respondent’s political views. It is assumed that liberals that belong to the left-wing are less likely to support force (Art & Waltz 2004). Meanwhile, the Republicans, which commonly belong to the right-wing, are historically more supportive in the question of force employment (Kohn 1994).
Variables Explanation
Measuring Internal Factors
The variables of sex, nationality, religious beliefs and age are measured with the help of Q1-Q4 correspondingly. Q1-Q4 represents open questions that do not require any specific knowledge or clarifications.
Measuring Mass Media’s Impact
This variable is measured by Q13. The question does not require any specific knowledge. It is the last question in the survey; thereby, it is assumed that the respondents’ motivation is likely to be relatively low at that point. As a result, the respondents are offered a closed question instead of an evaluating scale.
Measuring Attitude to Foreign Aid
The public attitude toward foreign aid is measured with the help of Q5 and Q6. In Q5, a closed question is employed in order to receive a precise idea about the respondents’ opinions. The question does not only ask whether respondents support aiding foreign countries but also has strong implications for its financial side. Thus, the respondents are initially informed about the expenses required for military services.
It is assumed that the relevant posing of questions will help to receive a more realistic view of the public attitude. Researchers note that a large percentage of people express the support of the use of force until they get acquainted with the financial side of the question (Lian & Oneal 1993). Therefore, the question is posed in such a way that it initially prompts the respondents to consider all the aspects relating to foreign aid.
Despite the common critics of closed questions and the assumption that they do not provide the reflection of public opinion, it is assumed that in this particular case, this type of question is the most appropriate (Schuman & Scott 1987). The question is posed in such a way that it does not imply any specific knowledge of the subject or require any thorough evaluation. It is also critical to point out that it is the first question in the survey, thereby, it is important that the respondents answer it quickly and easily. Otherwise, the necessity to spend a lot of time on considerations might discourage the interviewed and have a negative influence on their general motivation (Krosnick 1991).
One of the principal risks of data corruption is connected with the position of the question in the survey. Hence, practice shows that respondents tend to be less attentive at the very beginning trying to cope with the first questions in the shortest time possible (Bradburn & Sudman 1979). Therefore, some data might be inaccurate due to the willingness to pass on to other points in the survey.
Q6 focuses on welfare interpretation. The general attitude to welfare is measured by Q6 in the survey. The respondents are offered to express their opinion on the basic nature of welfare with the help of a ten score scale. According to the relevant scale, score “1” reflects the conviction that people can only benefit at others’ cost; whereas score “10” stands for the belief that there is enough welfare in the world to be equally spread.
In the framework of the examined subject, the support of the use of force, it is assumed that people that evaluate their position at 1-5 will be less inclined to support foreign aid, and thus, the use of force, than those that choose the 5-10 scores. The assumption is based on the research’s results that reflect the interconnection between the social interpretation of welfare and their willingness to share it (Whitaker 2008).
The measuring scale is employed in order to let the respondents express their views in a maximally accurate manner. The scale allows people to avoid judgmental definitions, which is highly important for questions with moral implications. According to Streb et al. (2008, p.80) people tend to give socially desirable answers when dealing with “controversial issues.” Thus, it is important to avoid asking this question directly.
It is, likewise, critical to note that the question is asked at the beginning of the survey. Various studies of evaluating public opinion show that specific questions requiring particular knowledge tend to have a negative impact on the respondents’ motivation in further answers (Rowe & Frewer 2000). The fact that answering this question does not imply any specific knowledge but bases exclusively on the personal convictions provide a guarantee that the respondents’ motivation will not decrease significantly at the survey’s beginning.
The key risk of data corruption resides in the fact that the question has ethical implications. Thus, it is assumed that some people would either give inaccurate assessments or would provide a completely reversed evaluation in order to avoid being blamed for immoral and unethical views of social welfare.
Measuring the attitude towards the support of the Use of Force in Syria
The general attitude to the support of the use of force in Syria is measured by Q9, Q11, and Q12. Q9 is posed in such a manner that it initially offers three options for the respondents. The latter are welcomed to evaluate national politics from the perspective of the amount of money it can potentially spend on foreign aid. It is assumed that those people who consider the expenses to be excessive do not support the use of force, whereas those, who suppose them to be too little or enough, show a larger extent of support.
The type of question offered, in this case, is determined to maintain the respondents’ motivation to continue the survey. Thus, the structure that includes the possible answers is aimed at facilitating the answering process and minimizing the risks of inaccurate or illegible responses (Groves 2006). Another reason why the question is not utterly opened is that the provision of potential answers is likely to simplify their interpretation.
Q11 and Q12 are placed at the end of the survey when the expected motivation will be rather low. Thus, it is offered to employ closed questions in this case. In the meantime, it is critical to point out the high risk of inaccuracy. Data corruption might occur due to the fact that answering the relevant questions requires specific knowledge about the expenses on foreign aid and the situation in Syria. As a result, it is expected that a certain percentage of the interviewed will either provide the answer at random or miss the question at all.
Measuring Political Knowledge
The relevant variables are measured by two questions in the survey: Q7 and Q10. Question 7 offers the respondents to evaluate the policy pursued by a particular politician, David Cameron. The expected answers to this question are “I approve”, “I disapprove”. Question 10, in its turn, suggests expressing one’s opinion on the implementation of the Monetary Control Bill. In this case, the respondents are asked not only to show their approval or disapproval but to precise its extent. It is assumed that those respondents that support the use of force are likely to express their approval of David Cameron’s policy and the Monitory Control Bill (Dodds & Elden 2008).
Both questions are supposed to provide valuable insights into the studied issue as they are connected with particular political individuals and events. Practice shows that respondents find it easier to evaluate a particular phenomenon in case they are offered the relevant association (Converse 1964).
Q7 is not completely opened as it contains potential answers. The relevant choice is determined mainly by the position of the question in the survey. As long as it is offered in the middle, one assumes that the respondents might find it discouraging to provide answers for an utterly opened question at this point. The structure of the Q10 is more complex. It implies choosing between two options – “approval” and “disapproval” – and clarifying the extent. As long as this is one of the final questions in the survey, it is expected that the respondents feel more engaged in the process at this point; thereby, they will give the question a profound consideration.
The principal risk resides in the fact that both questions require possessing a highly specific knowledge. Therefore, the respondents will not be able to provide relevant answers unless they have at least some ideas about David Cameron’s work or the key functions of the Monitory Control Bill. It is, consequently, expected that a certain part of the answers provided will not reflect the real opinion of the respondents.
Measuring Political Views
The political views of the respondents are measured through Q8. The relevant question offers a similar scale as in Q6. According to this scale, respondents can characterize their views as either “left” or “right” and indicate the extent of their belonging to one of the groups. Statistics show that political views play a significant role in social surveys as they determine largely respondents’ attitudes to a particular issue (Atkeson 1999). As a result, it is assumed that those respondents who describe their views as left-wing are more likely to express their support of the use of force than those interviewed that share conservative right-wing views.
The structure of the question is determined by the intention to provide the respondents with multiple answering options. The relevant question implies revealing discreet political beliefs; therefore, some respondents might reject to answer, in case, it has a standard closed structure. Practice shows that employing a scale is the best solution for those questions that deal with contradictory or excessively sensitive issues (Page 1994). Moreover, answering this question does not imply having any specific knowledge; instead, it deals with the personal evaluation. As a result, the respondents can provide an accurate assessment of their views.
The key risk in the relevant case is determined by the character of the information required. Thus, the interviewed are suggested sharing information of a relatively discreet character. Practice shows that many people express unwillingness when they need to reveal their true political beliefs (Feldman 1988). As a result, the potential outcome might be that a large number of respondents prefer either to leave out the question or to define their pertaining to one of the “wings” at the score 5. The average score is highly undesirable in any survey as it provides no information on the respondents’ views. It is highly problematic to indicate whether the respondent chose this score because it best matched his attitude or pointed it at random in order to avoid missing out on the question.
Conclusion
In order to carry out a reliable public opinion measurement, one has to consider a series of critical factors such as the character of questions, the key variables, the general survey structure and the question’s posing.
The proposed survey is aimed at measuring public opinion on the support of the use of force. The main idea resides in the assumption that the support of the use of force is determined by political factors. As a result, there are five key variables implemented in the structure of the survey: public attitude to welfare, social opinion on the foreign aid, the public view of the national policy and specific strategies from the prospects of foreign aid, and the political convictions of the respondents.
The questions in the survey are designed with due consideration to their position in the poll, as well as the character of information required in potential answers. Thus, some of the questions offer the respondents a multi-score scale, whereas others represent closed and opened types of questions. While working out the survey’s designed one tried to adopt the best practices of scientific research and avoid the most common mistakes. Therefore, most of the questions are posed in such a way that they help to keep the respondents motivated till the end of the survey. In the meantime, data corruption is likely to be present in some cases where a question requires specific knowledge or deals with particularly sensitive issues that the respondents might not want to discuss.
Reference List
Art, RJ & Waltz, KN 2004, The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.
Atkeson, LR 1999, ‘”Sure, I Voted For the Winner!” Overreport of the Primary Vote for the Party Nominee in the National Election Studies’, Political Behavior, vol. 21, no.3, pp. 197-215.
Baum, MA 2014, ‘How Public Opinion Constrains the Use of Force: The Case of Operation Restore Hope’, Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 34, no.2, pp. 187-224.
Bradburn, NM & Sudman, S 1979, Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design – Response Effects to Threatening Questions in Survey Research, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, California.
Converse, PE 1964, The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics ‘, in D Apter (ed), Ideology and Discontent, Clifford Geertz, New York, pp. 206-261.
Converse, PE 1987, ‘Changing Conceptions of Public Opinion in the Political Process’, The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 51, no.2, pp. 512-524.
DeRouen, KR 1995, ‘The Indirect Link: Politics, the Economy, and the Use of Force’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 39, no.4, pp. 671-695.
Dodds, K & Elden, S 2008, ‘Thinking Ahead: David Cameron, the Henry Jackson Society and British Neo-conservatism’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 10, no.3, pp. 347-363.
Eichenberg, RC 2005, ‘Victory Has Many Friends: U.S. Public Opinion and the Use of Military Force’, International Security, vol. 30, no.1, pp. 140-177.
Everts, PP & Isernia, P 2001, Public Opinion and the International Use of Force, Psychology Press, London.
Feldman, S 1988, ‘Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: The Role of Core Beliefs and Values’, American Journal of Political Science, vol. 32, no.2, pp. 416-440.
Groves, RM 2006, ‘Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys’, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 70, no.5, pp. 646-675.
Jentleson, BW 1992, ‘The Pretty Prudent Public: Post Post-Vietnam American Opinion on the Use of Military Force’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 36, no.1, pp. 49-74.
Kohn, RH 1994, ‘Out of Control: The Crisis in Civil-Military Relations’, The National Interest, vol. 35, no.1, pp. 3-17.
Krosnick, JA 1991, ‘Response Strategies for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys’, Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 5, no.1, pp. 213-236.
Leander, 2005, ‘The Market for Force and Public Security: The Destabilizing Consequences of Private Military Companies’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 42, no.5, pp. 605-622.
Lian, B & Oneal, JR 1993, ‘Presidents, the Use of Military Force, and Public Opinion’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 37, no.2, pp. 277-300.
Neck, L 2002, ‘The “Essential Domino” of Military Operations: American Public Opinion and the Use of Force’, International Studies Perspectives, vol. 3, no.4, pp. 417-437.
Norrander, B 2001, ‘Measuring State Public Opinion with the Senate National Election Study’, State Politics and Policy Quarterly, vol. 1, no.1, pp. 111-125.
Page, B 1994, ‘Democratic Responsiveness? Untangling the Links Between Public Opinion and Policy’, Political Science and Politics, vol. 27, no.1, pp. 25-29.
Rowe, G & Frewer, LJ 2000, ‘Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation’, Science Technology Human Values, vol. 25, no.1, pp. 3-29.
Schuman, H & Scott, J 1987, ‘Problems in the Use of Survey Questions to Measure Public Opinion’, Science, vol. 236, no.4804, pp. 957-959.
Soroka, SN & Wlezien, C 2010, Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy, Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.
Streb, MJ, Burrel, B, Frederick, B & Genovese, MA 2008, ‘Social Desirability Effects and Support for a Female American President’, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 72, no.1, pp. 76-89.
Chinese calligraphy is one of the premier practices of Chinese art and is considered an essential feature of Chinese culture. This technique is used by the artists to transmit their thought, and at the same time, present the abstract magnificence of the line. Chinese calligraphy presents rhythm as well as line and structure in a strong and flawless manner. Calligraphy requires a quiet mind and deep concentration. The beauty of calligraphy is realized only when we combine the expressions of the words with the external resemblance (“Calligraphy”, par.1).
In his lecture at Independence High School, Charlotte, U.S, the Director of the Confucius Institute at Pfeiffer University, , Prof. Yan emphasized the need to learn Chinese calligraphy for the proper understanding of traditional Chinese philosophy. According to him, “Both practicing Chinese calligraphy and the ways to appreciate it embody Chinese philosophy” (qtd. in Tu, par.6).
Chinese calligraphy is an expression of the calligrapher’s thoughts, hence, it promotes creativity. It allows the writer to think from different point of views. It also helps in establishing a systematic connection of thoughts (Tu par.7).
Chinese historical records reveal that Chinese calligraphy originated in its real form somewhere between the second and fourth century. Chinese civilization has evolved through several dynasties and Chinese calligraphy has also developed with this course of development. Initially, during the Shang Dynasty period, it emerged in the form of Shell bone writing known as Jiaguwen, and bronze inscriptions called Jinwen.
Later, it evolved to regular hand called Kaishu and running hands called Xingshu during the Three kingdoms period. In course of time, the art converted to the mainstream with the advancement of cursive hand known as Caoshu, running hand referring to Xingshu and regular script known as Kaishu These styles took place of the seal script and the official script. Several calligraphers such as Ouyang Xun, Liu Gongquan emerged with their different styles during this period. Wang Xizhi was the most prominent calligrapher of that time. He inspired several upcoming calligraphers even until the Tang Dynasty with his creative accomplishments.
During Tang Dynasty, this art flourished and significant theories on Chinese calligraphy were published. The succeeding periods of Five Dynasties and Yuan Dynasty had to witness great political turmoil. The disturbances caused by wars and political unrests, definitely, had an adverse impact on the development of calligraphy. However, Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty again saw the booming of calligraphy as an art and produced important calligraphic pieces that inspired the later generations of calligraphers (Ren, par.2).
Thus, Chinese calligraphy evolved through several dynasties and established as an art having five main calligraphic styles:
Seal Script (ZhuanShu): This style is considered to be an early style that resemble with a picture.
Official Script (Li Shu): It was developed during 722-230BC. The characters are similar to the present Chinese characters.
Regular Script style (Kai Shu): It is the most common style and is used for printing purposes.
Running Script style (Xing Shu): This style is applied in handwriting.
Swift Script style (Cao Shu): This style is also used in handwriting and allows easier and smooth flow in style. The strokes in calligraphy are perpetual and persistent; hence, require cautious planning and assured application (Li 194).
Chinese philosophy and development of Chinese calligraphy
Chinese calligraphy has bloomed through several years and is practised by more people in China when compared to the other forms of art. However, past few decades have witnessed a significant and sweeping change in the art of calligraphy. This ancient valued art has gone through the most vibrant developments.The classic Chinese philosophies mainly, Taoism, Zhuangism, and Confucianism have a great influence on Chinese calligraphy.
The basic principles of Chinese calligraphy represent the Taoist perception. Further, the abstract beauty of Chinese calligraphy is also an interpretation of the basic principles of Taoism. The Confucian line elucidates mainly the social and moral values.Zhuangism underlines the notion that perfection can be attained through practice; however, it also supports the idea of spontaneity and free expression. These ideas have been the prominent basis of interpreting Chinese calligraphy of late (Wu and Murphy 320).
Taoism and Chinese calligraphy
The idea of Tao as the basic principle of calligraphy is to have harmony of the calligrapher and the nature. In the second century, developments in philosophy and literature gave way to the involvement of pure aesthetics in the Chinese calligraphy. It was then considered more than merely a skill and was associated with the aesthetics of the human spirit. Ti’ai Yung was a great scholar and calligraphist of the second century who laid down the principle that calligraphy is stimulated by one’s internal calmness. He said that the desire of creativity or idea of writing comes from within and calligraphy is a medium through which one can release one’s self.
According to him meditation and contemplation help in bringing spontaneity and naturalness to one’s brush- work. Ts’ai Yung’s idea of meditation and contemplation for the utmost accomplishment in art is influenced by the Taoist teachings. According to Chang Yen-Yuan of the Tang Period, Ts’ai was the one, who originated Chinese calligraphy as an art and taught it to his daughter Wen Chi. Thereafter, it was passed on to many teacher- pupil generations. In the seventh century, Yu Shih-nan expanded the Taoist philosophy on calligraphy. According to him, “Calligraphy contains the essence of art. The action of moving the brush follows the principle of wu-wei (non-assertion). Based upon the idea of Yin and Yang (non-action and action), the brush moves and stops” (qtd.in Chang 261).
Harmony of Yin and Yang form the basis of Taoist philosophy.According to Tao percept Yin and Yang (qi) is the foundation of life and keeps it moving. Ying and Yang symbolise that dualities in nature are complimentary to each other.Chinese calligraphy highlights qi in all its strokes and characters that makes the piece of calligraphy vigorous and sprightly. Taoism stresses that a calligrapher requires having qi from the beginning till the execution of the work.
The famous artist XieHo established a new concept of extending qi into qiyun that referred to the rhythmic and lively motion of qi. The theory of qiyun was basically meant for the art of painting, however, it has a significant influence on Chinese calligraphy. The excellence of the calligraphic work is attained by moving one’s mind into the state of tranquillity or xukong. This typical Taoist percept emphasises that the state of tranquillity can be achieved by withdrawing oneself from the worldly affairs (Wu and Murphy, 321).
Chinese philosophy asserts that the calligraphist or any other artist could attain the utmost level of accomplishment through transformation of the mind. According to Yu Shih-nan, “The art of calligraphy is mystical and subtle. It bases itself on the spiritual infusion, not upon artificial exertions. It requires the enlightenment of one’s mind but not sense perception” (qtd.in Chang 261).
Tao is the law of nature that guides the Chinese people to understand the philosophical and secret principles. Chinese writing or calligraphy represents Taoist aesthetic ideology while presenting the distinctive features of Chinese arts. According to Li, those features include, “high symbolism, simplicity, idealism, abstraction, and delicate refinement in cooperative harmony” (192).
Chinese calligraphy requires the calligrapher to establish coordination between his mind and body to implement the best style for presenting the subject. Thus, it benefits the calligrapher with vital mental workout. Li mentions that “A Chinese calligrapher has to sit upright, and has his elbow resting the desk with the arm, the wrist, and full five fingers acting in concert to control the movement of the brush. It is the most relaxing yet highly disciplined exercise, yielding benefits for one’s physical well-being” (194).
Calligraphy is helpful in the refinement of one’s personality. A calligrapher learns several personality traits like self-control, patience and perseverance through the practice of calligraphy. Chinese history provides evidences of Chinese calligraphers who have got benefitted with this art and lived long and vibrant lives. Chinese calligraphy has been a popular art that has not restricted to the Chinese borders. Many other countries of Southeast Asia such as Japan and Korea assimilated Chinese calligraphy into their cultures; however they established their own schools and styles in course of time.The west was also influenced by the sparkle of Chinese calligraphy.
Famous artists such as Picasso and Matisse acknowledged that they were highly impressed by Chinese calligraphy.Picasso went to the extent of saying that he would have grown into a calligrapher rather than a painter, had he initiated with the knowledge of Chinese calligraphy. Henri Matisse’s work also shows influences of Chinese calligraphy and strokes (Li 195).
A philosophical position called Natural Law Theory contends that nature contains an inherent moral law. In her work, Yvonne Raley examines the underlying ideas of this theory, examining its historical roots, core ideas, and ethical dilemma consequences. Raley claims that the origins of the Natural Law Theory can be found in the writings of Aristotle and his idea of teleology or the evaluation of purpose. However, the medieval theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas developed the most significant variant of this theory. Aquinas argued that, besides heavenly revelation, humankind could infer immutable moral principles from reason, nature analysis, and other sources.
The idea that there is an instinctual order to the universe that symbolizes the designs of a divine creator is one of the central principles of natural law theory. This sequence can be applied to moral problems through reasoning. For instance, homosexuality is regarded as immoral because it does not entail the possibility of procreation, which is the natural objective of human sexuality.
Raley proceeds by pointing out that several ethical orientations, such as opposition to abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage, have been supported by the theory. Nevertheless, the theory has also come under fire for its dependence on a specific conception of nature and its propensity to confuse normative claims about what should be with descriptive claims about what is. Natural Law Theory is criticized for being too rigid and failing to consider the intricacy and variance of human experience.
Natural Law Theory continues to be a major ethical framework in modern philosophy and theology despite its drawbacks. It offers a logical framework for determining moral principles founded on divine revelation and natural order. However, applying it to particular ethical issues requires a careful evaluation of opposing values and viewpoints.
In conclusion, the Natural Law Theory asserts that one can deduce objective moral principles from a natural order that reflects a divine creator’s purposes. The theory has been criticized for being conservative and having a limited understanding of nature. It raises important questions about the function of logic, tradition, and diversity in moral decision-making by its implementation to ethical problems.
Contemporary philosophical schools of thought about self-cultivation hinge on the works of various philosophical thinkers, such as Confucius, Mencius, Xunzi, and Zhuangzi. These philosophers have had different assumptions and approaches about life and about the process of self-cultivation. They have expressed these arguments based on different conceptions of ethics, epistemology, spatial inferences, and temporal assumptions of self-cultivation. In the context of this essay, we present the concept of self-cultivation as the process of a human being acquiring new knowledge and using the same to inform his/her actions. The basic assumption we use in this definition is that people always want to better themselves, or live their lives in a noble and ethical way.
Building on the above definition, in this paper, we review the works of Confucius and Zhuangzi as two major philosophers who have informed Chinese thinking of self-cultivation. In this text, we show how these two philosophers comprehend and explain the concept of self-cultivation and how they encourage people to live their lives within different ethical, moral, and spatial inferences. We also compare how the views of the two philosophies differ and contrast to have a more holistic understanding of where their views merge, or differ, in thought. The last section of this paper explains the larger conclusions drawn from this comparison and contains a self-assessment process that reviews the process involved in undertaking this review.
In the Analects (Confucian)
In the Analects, Confucius argues that human beings are identical at birth; however, based on their environments, values and beliefs, they grow up to be different. He explains this concept by highlighting the Junzi, which literally means a noble person. A translation of the same concept draws our attention to the concept of the profound person, which is also a direct translation of the Junzi. The opposite of this person is the “small person,” who is often motivated by profit. Relatively, this description points out that the actions of the profound person are guided by moral principles, while the actions of the “small person” are informed by the pursuit for profit. Therefore, the Junzi is the profound person because he manifests traits associated with ren (jen). They also manifest the quality of the Yi (i) in their actions. These two factors are the main graphic elements in the description of the works of Confucius.
Many people often misunderstand the concept of the ren to mean how people should treat one another. Understandably, it is easy to see why they may do so because the concept of the ren is abstractly termed as the ability of human beings to be benevolent or humane. However, such a description is shallow because the concept is mainly instructive. If we take this understanding to be true, we find that the concept of the ren could abstractly mean co-humanity. How the Junzi treat other people highlights the key tenets of Confucius’s model of self-cultivation, which is depicted, by a hierarchical model of relations. To highlight this fact, Confucius says the Junzi is like the wind, while the small person is like the grass. When the wind blows, the grass bows.
In sum, ren means an attribution of agents, while yi mostly refers to the motivation for people’s actions. In the second category of self-cultivation, we find that people’s actions are defined by what is fitting, or righteous, in the eyes of one person. This understanding helps to ascertain the link between different terms that Confucius uses in his analogy. The terms are li, de, and junzi. Using this analogy, we find that the Junzi helps to identify the moral force that should persuade people to take specific actions, depending on what they deem fit or right. Here, what is fitting simply means what is morally of socially acceptable. By identifying these actions, ren manifests. In other words, the virtue of co-humanity manifests in a co-dependent way where many people need one another to survive, or where people need to develop co-dependent relationships to thrive. Two passages in the Analects article explain the above narration. One of them is representative of Confucius’s understanding of the path towards self-cultivation, which he increasingly used, in 15 century China to advance his moral and philosophical ideals. This passage appears below.
From the age of fifteen on, I have been intent upon learning; from thirty on, I have established myself; from forty on, I have not been confused; from fifty on, I have known the mandate of Heaven; from sixty on, my ear has been attuned; from seventy on, I have followed my heart’s desire without transgressing what is right.
The other passage in the Analects article that emphasizes the same point says, “The Master’s Way is nothing but other-regard and self-reflection.”
The first passage above shows a long-term view of what self-cultivation is all about. For example, in the article, Confucius chronicles the process of self-cultivation that occurs from a person’s teenage years up to their old age. Throughout these stages, five stages of self-cultivation occur. The first stage includes a metamorphosis from intention to learning. Intention is zhi and learning is xue. The second metamorphosis happens from knowing the mandate of heaven, which is defined by the concept of Tianming to undertaking desired actions, which is defined by the process of yu. The last stage involves turning what is desired to what is right (yi).
Zhuangzi follows Confucius’s teachings by using the above principles to depict his understanding of self-cultivation. His remarks and arguments have mostly been a summary of his philosophy (Dao). Nonetheless, intricate details of his teachings will appear in later sections of this paper. Comparatively, Confucius has taught the concept of the “other regard,” which is defined by the concept of zhong. His other teachings have focused on explaining the concept of self-reflection, which he explicitly mentions as shu.
When highlighting the concept of the “other regard,” Confucius simply alluded to the concept of loyalty, which a ruler, or somebody in authority, may enjoy. In the fullness of the term, Confucius confers the meaning of loyalty based on how people interact with one another and, more importantly, how people in authority would relate to those who are subject to their authority. While explaining this fact, Confucius says that self-reflection is an important part of self-cultivation. In fact, he points it out as a golden rule. Within this framework of discussion, he also says that people should refrain from participating in actions that are detrimental to other people because they would not want the same to be done to them. It is only through self-reflection that people can truly understand the magnitude and effects of their actions towards other people. Indeed, people should not think that what is undesirable for them could possibly be desirable for others.
Based on this analysis, correctly, we could argue that Confucius’s concept of the self is deeply reflective in the sense that it strives to change the relational component of human interaction without outer virtue. In an unrelated analytical lens, we could argue that the Confucius concept of the self is that which compares itself with the moral framework of the society to identify areas of conflict or mergers. This concept of the self seeks to maximize ren through apprenticeship to li. The aim is to exercise de in a way that befits a Junzi. This philosophy is rarely contradicted in Chinese philosophical schools of thought because the Chinese rarely suffer from a mind-body problem. Different researchers have investigated this fact. One of the most prolific researchers to have delved into this discussion is Herbert Fingarette. This researcher has argued that there is no dichotomy between the inner and outer self. Therefore, the Confucian principles highlighted in this paper do not only apply to the self, but the society as a whole. In other words, the Confucian principles of self-cultivation also apply to social and cosmic aspects of a human being.
Zhuangzi
In my reading, I established that the philosophical teachings of Zhuangzi about self-cultivation were largely borrowed from Confucius principles. In his teachings, Zhuangzi presents a holistic philosophy of life. He tries to present a pure form of the self, which is devoid of the artificialities of socialization. Although his text appears complex, mythical, and poetic, it argues for the cultivation of our ancestral potencies and skills. The outcome is the ability of human beings to live simple, but fulfilling lives. Nonetheless, this philosopher does not assume that all people are bound to agree on the same school of thought because people come from different cultures and philosophical schools of thought. He also recognizes the fact that there is an inherent lack of an independent metric for evaluating the different cultures and philosophical thoughts. Therefore, when presenting his views of self-cultivation, he encourages people to have an open-mind, or to have a common understanding of philosophical matters without advancing a common system of comparative evaluation. Consequently, he encourages people to maintain a provisional and pragmatic attitude towards philosophical matters pertaining to self-cultivation.
Holistically, the teachings of Zhuangzi point out the fact that the process of self-cultivation needs to happen within the framework of what nature would allow. The philosopher enshrines some of these principles in the concept of Daoism, which promotes two descriptive claims. One claim is that ethical principles based on formulas and concepts are inherently flawed because they are not hinged on nature and its constituents. The second claim is that conscious deliberation cannot yield fruitful outcomes (by itself) when it comes to self-cultivation. The premise of this argument is hinged on Zhuangzi’s teachings, which encourages people to create the right conditions for creating spontaneity, as opposed to pursuing spontaneity as a goal in itself. He encourages this path of self-cultivation because he believes that the mere act of pursuing spontaneity is self-defeating.
Zhuangzi also encourages those who subscribe to his school of thought to go beyond their primary focus by trying out new things, or shaking up social norms. He termed this concept as the Yao, which means “distance” or “going beyond.” Abstractly, this statement means going beyond the familiarity of matters, which may be contextualized in social norms, beliefs, values, and such-like frameworks of social control. Zhuangzi proposed the concept after seeing that many people were afraid of going beyond what they already knew, or trying out new things that were beyond their primary framework of understanding, or knowledge. Therefore, people need to outstretch these limitations if they are to understand the nature of things. They also need to do the same to have fruitful interactions with other people.
Zhuangzi highlights the importance of understanding the limits of human beliefs when espousing the importance of self-cultivation. He says that human beliefs and values often change and limit people’s actions, based on what they know; however, knowledge does not have the same limits as values do. Therefore, people should strive to expand their knowledge base at all costs. He highlights this fact in a passage, which says,
Your life has a limit, but knowledge has none. If you use what is limited to pursue what has no limit, you will be in danger. If you understand this and still strive for knowledge, you will be in danger for certain!
Conclusion
The views of Confucius and Zhuangzi about self-cultivation are similar in the sense that they were both borne from a historical time of social chaos in Asia. However, their differences on the same concept (self-cultivation) emerge from their different worldviews. The fundamental point of departure emerges from their conception of how people should approach worldly things. Confucius argues for the participation in worldly affairs, presumably to impact social change, while Zhuangzi argues for the retraction from a busy and worldly view to a more personal one that is in touch with nature. Confucius wanted people to participate in social change by reforming the conception of self-cultivation. He aimed to meet this goal by encouraging people to return to the rites.
Zhuangzi’s philosophy on self-cultivation differs from those of Confucius because he is not concerned with society’s issues, but family issues. In other words, Zhuangzi encourages people to embrace their free will/spirit and not worry much about what society thinks. Although these views highlight significant differences between Confucius and Zhuangzi, their different schools of thought merge on the premise that both of them appreciated the need for self-cultivation and underscored the importance of evaluating this concept as a prerequisite for personal growth.
Self-Assessment
In one sentence, what is your central argument?
My Central argument is that Confucius was more inclined towards pivoting his concept of self-cultivation on worldly goals, while Zhuangzi focused on encouraging the masses to turn away from the world and focus more on themselves, or what nature had to offer.
In one sentence, why is it worth arguing for? What is at stake?
It is worth arguing for some of the principles highlighted in this paper because different philosophers have unique schools of thought about self-cultivation and, depending on one’s culture or beliefs, it is easy to get lost in the complexities of life if one lacks a common direction.
If you had additional time to work on this paper, would you want to change it? Explain.
Yes, if I had additional time on this paper, I would have reviewed how the philosophies of Zhuangzi and Confucius related with the works of other philosophers, such as Mencius and Xunzi, who have explained the concept of self-cultivation as well.
Bibliography
De Bary, Theodore, and Irene Bloom. Sources of Chinese Tradition. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013.
Fingarette, Herbert. Confucius: The Secular as Sacred. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press Inc., 1998.
Knoblock, John. Xunzi. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994.
Mencius, Mengzi. Mencius. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2005.
Zhuangzi, Zhou. Zhuangzi: Basic Writings. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2003.
The problem of belief is considered to be very complicated and doubtful. Considering such works of the masters of philosophical ideas as William James’ “The Will to Believe” and William K. Clifford’s essay “The Ethics of Belief”, it is difficult to come to conclusion whether it is necessary to believe without arguments or not. Having read these two essays, I came to conclusion that there are cases when people have to believe without evidence. One of the main examples of such belief is religion. People do not need any evidence when they speak about religion as this is the notion which presupposes unreasoned powerful motivation. Religion is one of the best examples in debate about the necessity of argumentation in belief.
When people speak about religion, they do not need any arguments, they are not required any proved and events which can firmly prove the existence of God. In most cases people just believe, without any argumentation. Otherwise, they would have to stop believing but it is impossible. No matter how people reject the existence of God, they still make the possibility that there is something out there. Belief does not require any argumentation as in this case it is going to be supported with arguments idea.
If people do not believe, the presence of argumentation is not going to convince them, they will require more and more evidence. Religion and particularly belief in God is higher than any argumentation. A person should trust the words of those who have studied religion and its history, the words of those who know the most important facts about religion and can interpret these facts for the benefit of those who use this religion.
Speaking of the necessity of evidence for making a person to believe, it should be said that in this case, a person will be presented with the reasoned personal idea. Each time a person provides arguments, he/she expresses personal opinion. In this case, one believes his/her opinion. And this is not argumentation, it is still a belief without evidence of the point of view presented by another person. Thus, it turns out that no matter whether a person is presented arguments or not he/she does not get any argumentation.
The facts in our life are not numerous, each time a person considers any fact, he/she adds particular idea to it, support it with some characteristics and additional arguments which have already been considered from personal perspective. Each argument is personal treatment of the fact Thus, when a person is presented with the arguments, he/she is presented with the specific points of view which are also to be checked. It is impossible to present straight argumentation without additional color.
Therefore, it may be concluded that belief is an abstract notion which cannot be supported with the arguments. People are to believe without reasons and even if people demand for justification, they are going to be provided with strong and emotional personal opinion. Arguments are going to be colored from the point of view of a person who presents them, as a result, a person anyway trusts without argumentation. So, if there are no strong facts without personal opinion, why do people need them? People got used to doubt otherwise, they would trust others. Asking for any argumentation, think that they use those facts for believing. However, if people doubt they are ready to believe, they just need additional facts which are not facts in reality.
The existence of God has been a subject of discussion among modern philosophers. The nature of God requires one to actually believe without seeing and reason with the various natural occurrences. However, McCloskey believes that there is enough evidence to prove that God is a myth whose existence will never be proved. After studying various religions and their believe systems, McCloskey has come to a conclusion that such religious believes have only been created to enhance morality in the society. The fact that they are contradictory in nature makes McCloskey convinced that there can be no specific supreme being inclining to such confusing believes (McCloskey, 1968). There is nothing special about people of different backgrounds and religious believes. A person’s lifestyle and their way of thinking mainly depend on where they were born and brought up. A person has been brought up learning a particular system, which at times is followed by threats, and consequences that will follow if they do not incline to them.
McCloskey recommends that people reason out for themselves instead of simply following what they were taught. Such arguments of existence should be analyzed and approved. Most religions claim that God manifested many years ago in flesh and currently exists as a spirit. This, according to McCloskey cannot be proved as none of the people that witnessed him in person exists. There could be people, as well, who came up with literature or just rules to influence the society. This could have also been influenced by the need to bring order in the society by dictating what is right or what is wrong (Evans & Manis, 2009). Another argument is based on the equal treatment that all people are subjected to. The rewards promised are mostly farfetched and out of this world, a proof that can only be confirmed by the dead. Since death is a destination with no return, there is no one to confirm the eternal happiness or damnation.
On the Cosmological Argument
The very existence of the universe and the living creature there in has been the basis of confirmation that God exists. This is simply because nothing just came into existence; there must have been a force behind such existence. McCloskey however argues that it cannot be the evidence. Even if there is a force behind such existence, it was brought about by necessity rather than a supreme being. McCloskey explains that whenever there is a need for something, nature gives provision for its existence. This may come through human invention or natural selection (McCloskey, 1968). Evans and Manis argue that there was an initial force, the designer of the universe, which led to the existence of other inventions. This hence implies that the existence of a supreme power cannot be disputed.
The cosmological argument looks at the nature of the universe and the natural events occur. The times and seasons at which they happen is enough proof that they do not just occur but are influenced by a force. Even though scientist have come up with strategies to predict and explain such occurrences, they are either contradictory or are not as accurate. In response to the arguments, it could be concluded that the frequent changes happening in nature is one of the sovereign ways through which God wants to prove his existence (Evans & Manis, 2009). The fact remains that no matter the predictions that are made and the precautions taken, nature has its own way of surprising humans and shaming their very intelligence.
On the Teleological Argument
McCloskey disputes all evidence brought forth on the existence of God. McCloskey has been engaged in various studies and observed all existing religions to come up with his conclusion. McCloskey believes that everything is influenced by nature. Science acts as absolute evidence that nothing just happens but is caused by certain forces. Such forces are not divine but rather prompted by man’s activities. This undisputable evidence, according to McCloskey is simply a way to justify his personal believes and a way to influence the rest (McCloskey, 1968).
The strongest evidence I observe on the designer of the universe are the new developments that occur in the field of science. Scientists have always maintained that they discover and not create. This simply implies that what is being done is a revelation of what was already there. Since there is no convincing study of how they came into existence, it is clear that God was a designer who not only created the universe but also placed the galaxies where they are currently situated.
Evolution in its sense is a study that cannot be proved. There are no clear guidelines to prove that what is being termed as an evolution could actually be a different creature that was designed. The role of scientific evolutions is to simply explain to the ordinary mind what was previously created. Evolution can be considered as an invention that the designer of the universe waited to reveal to the people (Evans & Manis, 2009). The issue is when scientists try to imagine that they created the idea when they simply discovered it.
The existence of good and evil is undisputed fact yet it does not disqualify the existence of God. In fact, this is clear evidence that there are two forces influencing the actions of humans. The urge to behave in a particular way is an internal rather than an external influence. The internal force is the spirit of man, which is influenced by a higher spirit of either good or bad. It is through the consequences that a person gains from the actions that will influence their subsequent actions. Consequences of evil are always negative, prompting a person to engage in good acts.
On the Problem of Evil
It is unfortunate that most atheists use the existence of evil and suffering in the world to disqualify the existence of God who is described as good. It of course disturbs to see an innocent person such as a child facing all manner of suffering when God is there. On the contrary, this serves as a proof that a force influences evil in the world. In as much as the force of evil is strong, it can always be overcome by good. The existence of evil is simply to prove that there is good. This can be done through humans or even divine intervention when such evil or suffering is eliminated by acts of goodness. People can only appreciate the good that is in the world when they taste the evil (McCloskey, 1968). This is why evil cannot be eliminated from the earth.
God is the sovereign creator and even though he is a good God, he initiated evil for a purpose. This was mainly to distinguish between the forces as well as give people the ability to choose between what they believe is right. God did not just design evil and good but ensured that there were consequences attached to the actions. For man to understand the sovereignty of God and to shame the evil in the world there had to be two contradicting sides, which ultimately influence the decision of man. There is absolute peace and satisfaction in doing well despite how costly it may be. Man usually has a conscience that prompts him or she to do well, this is a God given conscience a violation of which brings guilt.
On Atheism as Comforting
Atheism is only comforting in the sense that a person is able to ignore the guilt feeling of not obeying his conscience. It is clear that we live in a world that give us the liberty to do what we believe is right. However, realizing that we have to co-exist with each other also creates in us that conscience not just to think about ourselves but also others. Atheistic thought is based on individualism where one has to assume that they are the only ones existing and hence not bothering about the person next to them (Evans & Manis, 2009). This in essence is impossible, as man can never exist alone. This is the very reason that we depend on each other for our very existence. Consequently, we can never co-exist if we care less about the people around us. In conclusion, atheism is simply an excuse for people to live individually and justify their actions through such selfish reasoning.
Reference list
Evans, S. & Manis, Z. (2009). Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith. London: Inter-Varsity Press
McCloskey, H. J. (1968). On Being an Atheist. Philosophy and Contemporary Issues.
Through the course of history, many outstanding philosophers changed people’s world understanding. Such philosophers as Plato, Socrates, Kant, Freud, and others contributed to social development and explored different philosophical issues of human nature. These distinguished personalities’ works are appreciated and applied even today. People have their unique life philosophies and often discuss superficially philosophical issues during conversations. However, there are only a few people who are keen on philosophy. This number is small because philosophy is a complicated subject to explore. Moreover, there are dangerous consequences that can appear as a result of careful philosophy exploration. The change of character, social rejection, and ultimate despair can be possible negative implications of the philosophy investigation.
Critical continuous thinking and analysis of people’s behavior are the essential criteria of philosophy exploration. The person who desires to investigate this field also should be ready to read and comprehend a vast number of complicatedly written literature. Each outstanding philosopher used uniquely particular aspects of terminology and writing language (Cottingham, 2021). Therefore, it will be challenging to explore even famous philosophical concepts. The massive variety of the different philosophers’ opinions can have a significant impact on the person. This influence can be both positive and negative because it depends on personal understanding of such changes. People are highly influenced by the opinions they read and analyze; thereby, philosophy-devoted people will develop a diverse worldview (Cottingham, 2021). They also will be able to explore other people critically thanks to the gained knowledge. Even though such development can be considered a positive change, the profound knowledge, when misused, may lead to narcissistic behavior.
Moreover, people may even humiliate others due to a deep understanding of the philosophical laws. Even though the philosophy exploration also causes various positive character changes, there is a high possibility that an arrogant attitude towards others appears. These changes provoke the second reason why studying philosophy is dangerous. Most philosophers tend to question and analyze even minor details to find the truth (Cottingham, 2021). As a result, they can understand the thing other people want no one to learn about. Philosophers can be unbeneficial for others to communicate with because of the risk of being exposed. Moreover, there are concepts and life truths that people avoid learning about because they fear losing the meaning of life. People feel insecure communicating with philosophers who have a profound understanding of life’s negative and positive aspects.
People studying philosophy can be left alone in their unlimited exploration of human life. They will be hurt by the unjust attitude of other people who are scared of the truth. This process harms the mental state and can even cause mental breakdowns or even suicidal attempts. Confused by various philosophical interpretations of life, people can eventually lose meaning and feel desperate to communicate with others. The knowledge requires the profound ability to accept any horrifying truth and find the strength to live on – in much wisdom is much grief (Cottingham, 2021). Therefore, the philosophy exploration can lead to the despair caused by a clear understanding of the world’s functioning.
Studying philosophy is a fascinating and, at the time, morally complicated process. Before engaging in this field, people should explore all the possible negative implications and decide whether they are ready to cope with such consequences. Probably they will be prepared to find the solutions to the appearing problems. Thus, there are many reasons why studying philosophy is not as beneficial as it seems at first glance. Mostly, these reasons are connected with the responsibility people have to accept due to gained philosophical knowledge.
Reference
Cottingham, J. (Ed.). (2021). Social media and communication Western philosophy: An anthology (3d ed.). Paperback.
Natural law came into existence back in the time of the ancient Greeks. It is the morally acceptable protocol by which human beings tend to gravitate towards. Human beings use their senses to observe and minds to reason out issues, thereby discovering the natural law. Natural law theory believes that the world was purposefully created. Christianity does agree with the natural law to a great extent and seeks to connect it with God. Philosophy and religion relate in terms of faith and reason. Philosophy uses reason in its attempt to give solutions to mankind, while religion uses faith for the same purposes (Haakonssen, 1996).
Natural Law
In its view of the world, this law believes that the things in the world were created for the sake of man. It takes into perspective the rain, which it states its main reason is to water the plants. The plants, in turn, do grow for the sake of man and animals. Animals are there to serve mankind hence completing the view that everything created points towards the man as the final beneficiary (Rachels & Rachels, 2012).0
In the moral sense, natural law defined what is good or bad, what is natural and unnatural. It classified the system of the world to be in perfect equilibrium when everything that was created, hence serving their purpose of existence. In any case that they do not serve their purpose, they are classified as being in the wrong. An example of such is when strong winds develop hurricanes that cause havoc in the dry land. Ocean water is expected to rise and fall within the ocean and when they break and come to the mainland, they are considered a disaster (Rachels & Rachels, 2012). A man getting married to another man is also considered unnatural judging from the fact that the world over animals observes mating by opposite sexes.
Morality and God
Christians are of the view that there is an eternal law that is subject to God’s plan. Humans and animals take part in the never-ending law through natural law. The ability of human beings to reason helps them play an active role in the eternal law as compared to the other creatures that have not the power of reason. All creation was given their purpose by God (Haakonssen, 1996).
Natural law’s challenges
The fact that natural law puts things on the weighing scale of what is natural is good, faces serious shortfalls. This is so due to the nature of things like the natural behavior of children to tell a lie without being coached. Another example is on the animals that feed on their young ones once they are born. These aren’t good things, though they naturally occur (Haakonssen, 1996).
The second natural law challenge is an example given by human beings. They like animals have reproductive systems, but unlike animals, they are highly relational and do have an intellect. Animals use their reproductive system for the sole purpose of procreation (Rachels & Rachels, 2012). It would be wrong to limit human beings to just that since they have emotions. One way of expressing their emotional and bodily needs is through sex. This means that the debate of what sex is or ought to be about isn’t tackled by natural law.
The third challenge is the conflicting views between it and the developed science. Science does tend to observe and discover things that exist and do try to learn their behavior. Gravity, for example, was a phenomenon discovered by science. The earth’s chemicals and their compositions give science the approach that for every action, there is a reaction. This is devoid of purpose; it is about substances whose effect is felt according to how their actions occur (Rachels & Rachels, 2012).
Conclusion
Natural laws show that good decisions are possible yet some are not directly dictated but left to the reasoning of the wise. They, however, continue to influence the morals of human beings. Christians connect the natural laws missing element to be God, declaring that he is the most purposeful being. By this, they argue that he created everything with their natural expected functions. This means human beings only but follow the author of natural law who is God. Natural laws are easy to comprehend but have some shortcomings and cannot be comprehensively applied.