Category: Philosophy

Socrates was a Greek Athenian philosopher who was known for his contribution to western philosophy. His students, Xenophon and Plato, accounted for most of his work in some of their dialogues and writings.

He is credited for his contributions in ethics. In the dialogue, ‘Theaetetus’, Socrates gets into a serious discussion with a student of Protagoras on knowledge. A similar discussion is witnessed in Russell’s book ‘The Problem of Philosophy’. Protagoras defines his statement that ‘man is the measure of all things’ by arguing that truth is relative and depends on an individual.

To illustrate this he gives an example of a blowing wind where an individual can only feel the warmth in the wind if he or she has a temperature which is lower than that of the wind and vice versa (Burnyeat , 12). Similarly he uses this argument to defend his opinion on knowledge. According to Theaetetus, knowledge is perception, an opinion that is disputed by Socrates. Socrates puts it clear that knowledge is an opinion that is beyond stimulation of the senses.

Theaetetus, being a student of Protagoras, must have shared the same definition of knowledge with Protagoras. At the same time the theory of Protagoras has implications of perception being true. A large part of the conversation is about setting up definitions of knowledge and science.

The conversations move from lower to higher stages with three main clear issues of discussion. These issues are reasoning, opinion and perception and they are thoroughly examined. Socrates first removes the doubt and confusion that exists between types of knowledge and the idea of knowledge. Theaetetus defines knowledge by giving an example of knowledge. This quickly finds rejection by Socrates with the argument that it is not sufficient enough to define something by giving an example of that thing

He compares two sensations and argues that this has implications of a higher principle beyond knowledge. This principle resides in the mind meaning that knowledge is a true opinion. It is possible for an individual to be able to sense something that he or she does not know. While at the same time one can have the knowledge of something that he or she cannot feel or sense in any way.

For instance, according to Socrates’ arguments, you can know that a friend or anybody you recognize is standing next to you when you see them there. If you close your eyes immediately you cannot see them but you are able to know that they are still there meaning that knowledge is a mere opinion that is viable and true at the same time it is beyond sensation.

Socrates expounds further on his position by asking Theaetetus if it is true that whenever we see or hear things we already know them. It is impossible to assume that someone can know a foreign language he has never heard before by hearing somebody else speaking it. Yes it is true that it is possible to hear the words but one cannot know what is being said (Burnyeat , 162b).

Socrates clearly disputes the definition of knowledge as perception. Since perception is as a result of stimulation of the senses, and the senses only give us the appearance of objects not there reality (Russell , 7), then it is wrong to consider perception to define knowledge. Similarly knowledge cannot be derived from our daily experiences because we experience through perception and feelings.

But however it has been agreed that experience to some sense can derive knowledge and at the same time, perception is not only the sensory stimulation or awareness of things (Russell , 4). Sometimes we could perceive divine things. There are several deceptions that can come as result of perception.

Russell in his book uses an example of a table and critically analyzes it in terms of the change in appearance as a result of change in condition. If the lighting condition is changed, the table changes its color. This creates distrust in what our perception, in this case the eye, tells us. All these changes in appearance with changes in condition may claim to be the reality. So we are uncertain of what exactly is real.

Protagoras explains knowledge as perception and expresses it alternatively as man being the measure of things meaning that all men judge what is. Knowledge depends with the individual and he explains his definition with an illustration of a cold wind that blows on an individual’s face.

The difference in perception of the coldness of the wind depends with the internal temperature of the individual. If Protagoras admits that all opinion judged by man to be true then any opinion against his own is also true. But however Socrates refuses to agree that the opinion of Protagoras to be true

He disputes the claim by saying that the word ‘is’ used in this statement implies ‘appears’ and ‘appears’ implies feeling. It is incorrect to refer to perception, appearance and feeling as being. Being is a phenomenon that exists beyond the natural sensation.

It involves the mental and mind and knowledge is more than perception meaning there is no way that we could have a true opinion by relying on our feelings. We can only perceive using one means or instrument at a time. We cannot use our ears to see a color neither can we use our eyes to hear any sound. Perception is limited to the power used for perceiving but knowledge is beyond these instruments of perceiving.

The only sure thing that we can know we know is nothing, according to Socrates. He says that his wisdom is limited by his ignorance. He was of the opinion that wrong doing is as a result of ignorance and the people who do wrong are only doing it from ignorance. Personally such an opinion is incorrect.

Every action of human beings is not as a result of ignorance but choice. People make choice to do what they want whether wrong or good. Wrong actions are defined wrong because they are deficient of love. According to Socrates love seems to be that one thing that he consistently knows. He refers to love as the concept of loving wisdom. Socrates loved wisdom because he linked wisdom to philosophy.

Still on the dialogue of Protagoras, Socrates explains that all is motion and motions takes part in two forms: passion and action. From these two forms, infinite concepts and ideas are created and sense is given birth. The eye is designed to sense whiteness while objects are filled with the sense of whiteness.

The object gives birth to sensation of whiteness while the eye gives birth to whiteness. There is no other element that can produce a similar effect meaning that things are not, but instead they become. Hence there is no name that can really define something.

Socrates never used to refer to himself as a wise man in fact he says that he has no wisdom of his own and he is only offering the wisdom of men. His intention in the dialogue is to deliver Theodorus and Theaetetus of something. Personally, his explanation on the falseness of perception is very true and has a strong ground. Madness and dreaming are cases where perception does not hold. We spend a huge part of our lives a sleep and dreaming.

Dreaming not only occurs when we sleep but it is possible to day dream in full consciousness. It is also not verifiable if at this very instant we are dreaming or not dreaming. Mad men when they fantasize, do they having a true opinion or false opinion? There are different perceptions produced in every patient. Socrates explains this by illustrating that he may be sick or well. When he drinks his favorite wine when sick, it tastes different from the moment he drinks the wine when he is well. It actually tastes better when he is well.

To criticize Socrates’ arguments, it seems that he relies mostly on dispute rather than reason to put across his points. He seems to be attempting to trip opinions that he does not agree with. He fails to recognize that dispute and reasoning are not the same thing and there is a distinction between the tow.

With reasoning, some one makes an effort to understand an opinion before beginning to identify errors made in that argument. Most of his explanations to dispute Protagoras were based on one aspect of sensation which is the sense of sight. Other critics of Socrates identified him as not as a proponent of philosophy but some one with bad intentions of undermining the society of Athens.

Socrates also had some good virtues that personally I tend to identify with. He believed that people should spend more time trying to develop their lives rather than accumulating material wealth which is absolutely useless. He always encouraged people to be focused on building friendship and truth in their communities. He ended up becoming a philosophical martyr because of sticking to his believes. In most of his teachings, he emphasized that virtue is the most expensive of everything.

Works Cited

Burnyeat, Myles. The Teaetetus of Plato. Trans. Jane Levett. Hackett: Indianapolis, 1990.

Russell, Bertrand. The Problem of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press, 1912.

The Webster dictionary defines good as that which is virtuous, pious and excellent and evil as that which is morally wrong (Strodtbeck, 1990). For many years, psychologists, scientists and philosophers have been grappling with the challenge of identifying if man is inherently good or evil.

Attempts to answer the question effectively are faced by a lot of setbacks since the nature of human beings has been analyzed using different perspectives. The debate has also attracted contradictory evidences from different scholars; For instance, Jean-Jacque Rousseau believed that, by nature men are good and that, all evil they may have is attributable to influences of the corrupt society.

In contrast Thomas Hobbes viewed mankind as being driven by instinct or passion with intentions of achieving self-preservation. The underlying principles used to determine whether an individual is either good or evil include values, beliefs and morals. These principles form the basis of an argument as to whether human beings are inherently evil or good.

What makes a man distinctly “human” is his ability to reason. The holy bible portrays man, as a creation made of God’s image, hence inherently good. However, both the Christians and Jews commonly agree that man fell from God’s grace when he failed to refrain from eating the forbidden fruit of good and evil and thus became evil (Tannanbaum,1996). Human beings seem to posses some inner instinct to do evil, but the desire to do what is good also seems to be present in most of what they do.

There is an inner spirit of being “good” that dwells in all men, and therefore most people don’t like doing anything “unethical”. Some scholars argue that, all men are born being good but because the people who bring them up do evil to them, they also become evil (Strodtbeck, 1990). The surroundings through which a new born child is raised greatly determines how the child behaves later in life.

The moral, an individual receives through the upbringing process greatly determines the path one chooses to follow by either being good or bad. For a man to be good he merely needs to be brought up in a very good atmosphere that is free from influences of the bad corrupted society (Tannanbaum, 1996).

Although the idea of bringing up a good man by ensuring that the society is free from all forms of evils and corruption seems good, history has shown that in real life situation things don’t work out as expected (Strodtbeck, 1990).

Some of the people who have shown the worst kinds of evil on earth were born and raised in very good environments .Hitler was brought up in an extremely cultured society, but played the piano together with his minion at night after heartlessly killing very innocent people. Although he was privileged at a young age, many consider him to be the most evil person who ever lived.

The ancient kings and rulers, who were treated, worshipped and given all sorts of undue love, such as Nero, are among the most evil people recorded in history. Such people used their position and kingdom for purposes of having any fun they wished to have, they never cared for the other men as long as their fun was never disturbed (Whyte, 1998). This kind of people therefore disapproved the fact that good environment was not necessarily enough in keeping man from being evil.

Others argue that, a man looks at evil in his surrounding and believes that, it is the only thing one is naturally required to do. This argument is often used to explain the behavior and character of people like Nero and Hitler, although Hitler at some point in life almost became a religious leader and Nero presided over a throne which was once ruled by Julius Cesar, one of the biggest rulers in history who although not entirely a good person, was by far among the righteous rulers of his time (Tannanbaum, 1996).

The bible justifies this claim in psalms 34:15 when David tells the Christians to move away from evil and instead do good. This seems to support the idea that man becomes evil through interacting with the environment and therefore should turn from evil to doing good. In other words, when a person interacts with evil so much, the probabilities of being bogged in it are very high.

The pen sexuality theory holds that, while man thinks that he is making conscious decisions, he is actually driven by subconscious motives hence human beings are free to choose between evil and good.

Due to this fact, some sociologists regard man as a product of evolution (Whyte, 1998). His genetic heritage shapes his behavior and character. The human nature is generally governed by self-interest which is greatly controlled by the genetic predisposition.

Recent studies in Neuroscientific findings revealed that human beings are primarily driven by emotions rather than reason in doing good or bad (Strodtbeck, 1990). Yet, since man’s behavior and psyche are products of the surroundings, with deliberate efforts and under favorable environment one is capable of doing what is morally accepted beyond the limits of an individual’s genetic coding.

Dostoyevsky in his novel “crime and punishment” states that human beings are born with some form of vague evil that reveals itself naturally like pleasure, pain or any other kind of an urge a person may feel. He believes that evil thoughts are inexorable and inherent, a major component of the human mind that cannot be erased through sheer will and force (Tannanbaum, 1996).

In addition, Dostoyevsky demonstrates that, society’s acknowledgement of evil does not necessarily make its members shun from doing what is considered to be evil. Following this argument one can easily come to a conclusion that man is inherently born evil and some time in life will inevitably fall to some degree of committing evil. Charles Darwin argues that the morally upright men might not perform better than the immoral ones but a group of moral people is to be treasured than a band of immoral pirates (Strodtbeck, 1990).

In conclusion, the question of whether man is inherently good or evil can only be answered within a specific context. Actions are considered as either good or bad according to the culture, religion or environment in which there are performed (Whyte, 1998). What is considered as bad or unacceptable within one culture could be acceptable in another hence variation in interpretations of good and evil.

Some practices are deemed as evil while others are deemed as good depending on the observer’s conclusion. Therefore good and evil are subjects to individual’s interpretation. People are neither evil nor good and they behave in the way they do, whether in a morally accepted manner or not with intentions of surviving.

References

Strodtbeck, F.(1990).Evalution of man:the concept of good and bad. Talent and society,16(20),154-162.

Tannanbaum, R.S.(1996). Values, man, and organizations.California:University of California press.

Whyte, W.H.(1998). The organization man. Pennsylvania:university of Pennsylvania press.

Introduction

Human interaction has been engaged in conflicts historically. For every opinion or issues that affect humans, there is more than one opinion about it. Some of the conflicts have led to devastating and adverse effects such as war and loss of lives. The contradicting interests and points of view will continue to be part of human life. However, what remains mostly not evaluated are the benefits that disagreements have had. One field that largely benefits from these disagreements is the field of science.

Ways in which disagreements aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and human sciences

Disagreement is a salient concept in natural science. Without dispute, it will be hard to have progress. In any endeavor or study regarding natural sciences, there is a criterion or a scientific method. The criterion includes a method of observation, the creation of a hypothesis, the undertaking of experiments, and the formulation of law follows.

The formulated law is what gathers into a theory. In natural sciences, a law should be controllable, measurable, and repeatable. Karl Popper’s idea of falsification can be used to show the salience of disagreements in the pursuit of knowledge as far as natural sciences are concerned. The forgery is a concept that states that, after the formulation of a theory, scientists should endeavor to prove that theory to be wrong.

The theory then becomes accurate and robust as uncertainties are debunked and refuted through a scientific process. In this case, scientists, like all human beings, have their limited points of view and bias that make them unaware of their errors. However, after disagreements and evaluation by other authors, there is sharing and thus furthering of scientific knowledge (Martin, 36).

Scientific inquiry is an essential concept in the natural and human sciences. However, it cannot take place in the absence of disagreement. Scientific inquiry can be traced in all the major paradigm shifts that have been witnessed in the field of science. The purpose of scientific inquiry is to explain phenomena.

This is achieved by getting to know explanations that can be tested and made into a pattern that will predict the results of future research. Charles Sanders Peirce is one of the scholars who contributed to this debate in the 19th century. Charles redefined what the pursuit of truth and knowledge entails.

The redefinition of those concepts helped bring a comprehensive definition of the idea of scientific disagreement, which had previously been defined in verbal rhetoric. Pierce went on and presented his hypothesis on the four methods that are involved in the settling of disagreements or the building of consensus. The four methods include the methods of tenacity, authority, congruity, and the scientific method (Kelly 631).

To look at the scientific method, we should note that a paradigm shift can only occur if refutations and conjectures have been used to falsify a hitherto acknowledged and accepted the statement, theory of hypothesis. Inference in this context refers to an observational data that disagrees with the concept, or idea that is undergoing tests.

On the other hand, refutations are attempts aimed at solving the dilemma associated with the gray areas in any inventions. Refutations show that it is much easier to prove a theory or an idea to be incorrect than it is to show that it is correct. For a theory to be acknowledged as a law, one should prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no single refutation or conjecture disproves such a law.

This means that it is not easy to do these tests given the scenarios that can be tested are countless. This is not the case in falsification, which only requires one counterexample and the law can then be said to have been falsified effectively. A distinct characteristic of human and social sciences is that their progress does not occur gradually. In this case, there is a series of the revolutionary invention or a paradigm shift that debunk beliefs and notions that have hitherto been regarded to be true.

An excellent example of natural health can be found in the case of marijuana. There has been a series of radical changes in terms of scientific knowledge of this drug. In the 1900s, the drug was used and even allowed under US law as a recreational drug.

Later, in the 1920s the US government started testing marijuana on humans to establish if the drug could be categorized as a habit-forming drug.

It was also meant to determine whether the drug could induce sanity among human beings. This was a paradigm shift. Later in 1937, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics collaborated with Congress in categorizing marijuana as a recreational and hazardous narcotic that had the potential to cause several mental illnesses.

In the 1990s, many psychologists led by Thomas F. Denton introduced another paradigm shift as far as the knowledge on the medicinal value of the marijuana is concerned. They began noticing that cannabis could be tremendously instrumental in the treatment of many mental disorders. The revelation of this concept has provoked debate and disagreement among researchers in the field of medical cannabis.

Those who seek to dispute this revelation have argued that the tenacity of the methods used and their authority is not guaranteed. In this regard, marijuana remains an illegal drug and is considered harmful as far as the federal government is concerned. This line of argument stems from the fact that the critics cannot dispute the positive effects that marijuana has been found to have on patients (Yan 378).

The timing of falsification is an essential factor. Another critical factor is the amount of evidence that is needed to falsify a theory or a hypothesis effectively. One example that can be used to explain this concept is the controversy that continues to dodge genetically modified foods.

There has been disagreement about the effects that genetically modified food has on human health. Genetic modification of food is the process of altering the DNA of an organic plant. This leads to a new breed that possesses traits that the organic plant did not have.

The GM foods are then made adaptable and easy to produce, which means that corporations prefer producing GM foods to increase their profit margins through the reduction of the cost of production. There has been no evidence of a credible publication to show that GM foods have adverse effects on human health. However, this does not mean that there has been no hypothesizes to this effect.

Several scientists continue to hypothesize on the adverse health effects of GM foods. However, the counter-argument has been that there is not enough evidence to show any harmful effects on human health as a result of the consumption of GM foods. In this case, whenever the scientific methods are applied, the results have shown that GM foods are potentially hazardous. However, this does not qualify as a paradigm shift given that the evidence has not shown GM foods to be dangerous (Berland & Victor 1877).

The contribution of knowledge through disagreements is not only applicable in natural science but also the human or social sciences. One example is the paradigm shift concerning the question of whether or not sociological factors are applicable as far as the study of human history is concerned.

One of the most celebrated historians of the 20th century called Howard Zinn published a book titled “A People’s History of the United States” in the year 1980. In publishing this book, Zinn had sought to introduce a paradigm shift in the history discipline through an objective acknowledgment of members of lower socioeconomic class. The same idea can be seen from the time gender became an essential factor in the sociological examination of historical events.

Historians were forced to evaluate the sociological history from a feminist point of view after the feminist movement kicked off in the 1920s. This paradigm shift led to the emergence or discovery of an immense amount of historical information that had previously not been investigated or studied (Berland & Victor 1859).

Another good example is the history of racial discrimination, which begun after the civil rights movement kicked off. African and Hispanic Americans began were increasingly campaigning for their rights to be respected. This led to the admission of a significant and increased number of Hispanics and black Americans to significant institutions of higher learning such as universities and colleges. History changed as the field of study had broadened from a sociological perspective, which effectively qualifies this as a paradigm shift.

In general, disagreements have boosted the pursuit of knowledge as far as science is concerned. However, despite this fact, there are instances when controversy has blocked and derailed the pursuit of knowledge in science. One example of such an incident is disagreement over the ethicality and morality of stem cell research. This is a controversy that has remained unresolved in the US and Europe for close to twenty years.

This led the US government to withdraw its funding of research. The disagreements did not have a positive effect, but rather a negative one. In this case, the study could have been hugely beneficial in the pursuit of knowledge had it been successful. Other examples include animal testing. There has been a blockage of any further research on the effects of consumer products after some researchers questioned the ethicality of the research (Kelly, 622).

Conclusion

From the discussion, it is clear that the disagreements have had a positive impact on the pursuit of knowledge. It has elicited debate, which has introduced a broader point of view among both natural and human scientists. Unlike in other spheres of life where disagreements are made to seem retrogressive and ignorant, science considers them progressive and informative. In this case, they make both sides of the arguments motivated to explore their area of research scientifically, as well as realize their own biases.

Works Cited

Berland, Leema K., and Victor R. Lee. “In Pursuit Of Consensus: Disagreement And Legitimization During Small-Group Argumentation.” International Journal Of Science Education 34.12 (2012): 1857-1882. Print.

Kelly, Thomas. “Disagreement, Dogmatism, And Belief Polarization.” Journal Of Philosophy 105.10 (2008): 611-633. Print.

Martin, Michael. Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.: MIT Press, 1994. Print.

Yan, James A. “Moral Relativism And The Argument From Disagreement.” Journal Of Social Philosophy 34.3 (2003): 377-386. Print.

Experience is a concept, which indicates the knowledge gained by a person after a certain period of exposure to a particular situation. Through experience, therefore, one gets the knowledge of what is to do in a given scenario as well as predicts what might follow a certain action. This indicates that one can easily get the meaning of a certain concept by just involving himself or herself in a certain action without reading any literature about it. Experience is acquired about the concept of an experiment where one can acquire the meaning implied in a certain concept.

Being in a certain scenario for sometime enables one to gain experience in that particular area hence becoming an expert as he or she will have the necessary knowledge to carry out the expected. Experience is an ambiguous concept as it can involve those events that the mind receives and processes, the knowledge that one gain from certain reactions, and the interpretation of the events, as one perceives them.

On Cannibals when the Carthaginians were sailing through the Straits of Gibraltar they finally landed on fertile land in the Atlantic Sea where they later moved to with their families. Later the Carthage ruler realized that their people were moving out of the country in much of the fertile land and they, therefore, forbade the movement as it was to depopulate the country hence lose people to defend the country or even in later stages attack them.

The experience gained through observation is the physical experience, which does not involve the mind. This kind of experience occurs when a change in an object or environment does not involve mental experiences. For instance, when one presents the sculptures of five people holding hands, one can have an overview of the whole sculpture by just viewing each sculpture. For example, one can interpret that these figures, which are in pairs, demonstrate the transcending perspective in gaining the meaning that the back or front view of one figure is simultaneously available with the back or front view of its mate. To some extent displaying figures independently, reveals the concept of the generic ideal.

For example, displaying figures in a series of rotational sequence creates the intended meaning of the whole sculpture. This, therefore, creates the idea that meaning unfolds in time where experience is the main idea. In real life, ideas gained influence one another hence creating meaning. The entire richness of a figure in such a scenario should stand out in a linear kind of graph of events.

In real-life situations, when the aspects of intelligence together with thought, memory, the will, and perception are involved create a mental experience. One is therefore able to use the gained experience to come up with conclusions that can help him or her perfect in that particular area. This is evident in Cannibals where the narrator says that a man who is blank in mind is the one who can give reliable information as compared to those who have some information about something as they will always extend and amplify the information given.

In society, people see their political or religious system as being perfect and complete. In this case, therefore such a community is wild, as it has not contaminated the beliefs through ideas from experience. Such societies are like wild fruits that are natural without any artificial modifications. The natural fruits are therefore better than the modified ones because people always use their preferences when doing modifications. Nature and chance are instances that can produce what is desirable than the act of art which in most cases is exaggerated.

Through socialization, one gains experience on how people should live and relate to one another in society. Growing in a given environment, therefore, shapes one’s experience through the observations and developments within that particular environment. In the history of every society, an individual can tell the effects and causes of various events. For instance, the Cannibals adopted the mode of punishing their prisoners from the Portuguese but through their modifications, they made it worse. They added by saying that through the interaction with their enemies they can borrow what they feel can benefit them. Understanding of concepts, therefore, unfolds with time. It is through experience that one can get the meaning of a certain concept in life.

Some people gain experience through either participating in the act themselves or receiving information from a third party. Some countries have also borrowed different forms of punishing their inmates either by implementing directly the way they are or by modifying them using their own beliefs. For example, the ancient Scythians borrowed what the Portuguese used to do when punishing their prisoners by burying them halfway and shooting the unburied parts with arrows. With such kind of activity in their land, they gained experience, which made them think otherwise hence changing the mode of punishment by even making it worse. Experience in such kind of scenarios, therefore, can help one to come up with concrete conclusions.

Sculptures also connote meaning as they embody ideas and attitudes. Sculptures act as a medium of relief in life just like in the history of paintings. Sculptures or paintings have fronts that create relief in a person for that person to view them properly. This, therefore, helps a person to view the paintings and get the whole concept without distorting the meaning. This also depends on the background of the painting, which in return gives the virtual space that helps figures to appear moving. In this case, therefore the sculptor projects the values of the narrative temporarily. The medium of relief in this kind of scenario helps in understanding the meaning through the visible sculptures.

When human beings witness an action they gain experience that helps them to come up with different conclusions based on that particular act. This is because people always draw conclusions based on their beliefs. When one has captured the data and the experience involved, he or she selects the data to pay attention to, fixes meaning, and out of the meaning, one comes up with assumptions based on one’s beliefs, which in return helps that person to come up with a different data and experience. For instance, on Cannibals, some people could not understand the reason why the king had many soldiers surrounding him until when they interact with him as he realized that he always had the privilege during the war by marching forward as their leader and the respect he gained.

Through experience, one is in a position to uncover the inconsistencies created between the first received data and experience gained at that time, and the new experience gained under the selected data based on one’s beliefs. In Literature texts, writers write in a manner to help the readers understand the meaning of a given text. However, readers have to use prior information and experience as presented in the text plus the new experience achieved by the writer to determine what happened afterward without reading additional text.

Analysis of Morals

Morality as implied in philosophy entails a distinctive system of behavior that concerns the standards of either wrong or right actions. As a philosophical word, morality embraces three concepts namely the moral standards appertaining to behaviors, moral identity which distinguishes an individual who is able to commit a wrong or a right action, and moral responsibility which refers to human conscience.

In fact, in the current world, morality emerges as a complicated multicultural issue. It has various synonyms including virtue, goodness, principles and ethics. This implies that morals significantly affect our society, conscience, behaviors and human ultimate destiny.

Thus, the universal definition of morals is that it is a study associated with human being actions as an upshot of beliefs on what is deemed to be bad or good, wrong or right in as far such actions materialize as either effective or useful (Trusted 68). Morals in philosophy actually deal with what is believed to be right as well as what the society, culture or groups generally do. Morals therefore signify what the society really does as relates to the accepted code of conducts and standards.

Moral concepts and principles

Scores of individuals are quite accustomed to the common sense mortality which is derived from norms including treat others the same way you expect others to treat you, do your best, always yearn to be fair and keep all your promises. In addition to such coherent behavioral guides, morality similarly distinguishes values which are universally held as being good. For instance, morality values entail justice, love, community, happiness, charity, freedom, courage, honesty, integrity and knowledge.

These ideals are familiar to most individuals if they are not inclined to a particular religion. However, the moral principles founded on common sense might be deemed inadequate when complex situations are taken into consideration. Often, philosophers draw on these principles when developing theoretical concepts to assist in guiding actions and have hypothesized ethical philosophies and standards founded on them (Trusted 68).

From the historical perspective, the most prominent moral concepts include natural rights concept, utilitarianism as well as the divine command theory. The natural rights concept basically holds that each individual has a natural right to property, life and liberty.

All of these might merely be limited via the necessitation not to contravene other individuals’ rights. Occasionally, it has further been imagined that these natural rights considerably anchor on some religious underpinning. On the other hand, utilitarianism embraces the fact that morality ought to be guided through the utmost excellence for the maximum number.

This concept implies that happiness or utility for each and every individual must be maximized. The divine command concept finally cleaves to the notion that morality ought to be founded on God commands. In essence, this morality is based on the religious books and thus forms the key morality outline as tendered by the global religious bodies. The fundamental principles of morals as Resnik illustrated include utility, honesty, fidelity, non-malificence, privacy, autonomy, justice and beneficence (211).

Moral philosophers’ views

When moral philosophy is discussed with any logical coherent detail, it has a propensity to create various problems, in particular, how to prove the legitimacy of some moral action. Some of the moral questions that are being faced on a daily basis seemingly do not have a clear way through which it can be answered.

Such kind of moral proposition can be acceptable only when they plead to extensive diversity of varied philosophical theories, are rational and are as a result of sheer will. Majority of the moral philosophers always seek to answer the questions that involve the right and wrong issues in a more perfect stipulation (Resnik 272).

The result is that many philosophers have come up with different schools of thought. To some such as the moral relativists argue that morality entirely rely on what people believe it is supposed to be. In addition morality has no inherent traits that go beyond or above human volition.

Those who have the opposing view argue that there exists some objectives and moral legitimacy regardless of what people may believe or think. This is the belief of realists. None of these views will give a complete story though in most cases both hold a common position across cultures. Nevertheless, there are varying opinions that are always at odds with what society believe in.

Simone Blackburn came up with an explanation that combines both the objective and subjective nature of moral judgments. The position that Blackburn holds can more or less be termed as the moral projectivism. According to this view, human beings as conscious beings, project there emotional response according to the observations made depending with the behavior of others (Blackburn 129).

For instance in a situation where one is being tortured, people tend to feel negative about the action and develop similar emotions about it. The emotional response leads people to judge the action as either wrong or right.

If judgments are that the actions are wrong then it should be avoided in the future. According to Blackburn, this is the beginning of moral reasoning. While at some point the action could be seen as being subjective especially in terms of emotional experience the person witnessing an act is having, on the contrary the action is also objective or real since the action is actually occurring.

It is unfortunate that at the first instances the emotional feeling is connected to the actions taking place at that time hence it would appear immoral to oppose the action even if the action is right.

Moral projectivism asserts that there exist two important methods that would lead people to arrive at the common view point of a meticulous moral question. The first method is through the evolutionary strategy of observing the optimal survival of species inside the better concept of natural selection.

In other words what is wrong or right is taken in terms of what is preeminent for the endurance of the species. This notion can empirically be tested to arrive at the conclusion that altruism is better that selfishness. Put differently, the conclusion can be that altruism is good while selfishness is bad. Objectively altruism is seen as producing more survival traits for the species and improves the general condition of the people within the society therefore considered to be good.

The second way or of coming to the conclusion that an action is moral is through the emotive response that the action imparts on people in a society. Essentially actions such as torture have such kind of emotional response to the larger group of people in society hence considered as wrong since it illicit such kind of feeling to the majority (Joyce 130).

While the individual emotional reaction may be seen as subjective, the real action is objective as it takes place in the real situation and produces reactions that can be observed in the people. Because many people have similar reactions to certain actions it becomes easy to discuss such feelings cross cultures as well as social boundaries. As a result people come up with a general conclusion that the action is morally right or wrong More so to the actions that illicit powerful emotional reactions to the majority of people.

Blackburn argues that to achieve a consensus on all the actions there must be a joint pursuit that will end up in a common solution (Blackburn 129). As many people subject their moral judgments on certain actions they may not reveal the real picture rather they are more subjective. The actual actions are real and reveal the objectivity of the action. In that sense this philosophical position can be categorized as quasi-realism.

One of the disadvantages or projectivism is its strength of appealing to the majority over the emotional feelings towards certain moral actions as well as the ability to survive in terms of the evolutionary context of biology. There are no objective obligations to the individual, in terms of emotional responses, to act in agreement with certain moral standards. While there is certain moral empathy with those suffering, projectivism does not seem to go beyond a common compassion about other people.

The philosophical position does seem to un-hold when it comes to clarify what other people seem to unconsciously feel. Further it does not support the argument in terms of defining certain specific moral actions particularly when conflicts exist between two equal moral actions.

Questions such as whether it is morally right or wrong to torture someone because he has saved thousand lives seems to be unanswerable by just observing the how people would react to torture or death of thousands of people (Joyce 129). While in some cases the question may be able to have an answer under the evolutionary belief in survival of species and natural selection, it does not add to any philosophical thought since it draws a lot of similarities with the maximization of utility that is advocated by utilitarianism.

Personal perspective

Despite the above mentioned concepts, various theories that use different methods or rules in specifying ethical human obligations and behaviors also exist. However, not an iota of concepts has properly achieved global approval. Lest a prime supposition fails to materialize, it could be ascribed to the fact that it might be complicated in practice to bank on a single speculation in every state of affairs. Given the universal definition of morals, problems are just encountered in defining the principles that constitutes what is good or bad.

The elementary principles of morals including utility, honesty, fidelity, non-malificence, privacy, autonomy, justice and beneficence typically constitute what morals entail. Whereas the implication of expressions namely assistance, dishonesty, coherent, justice and injury might be contested, it is obvious from the moral standard listing that it is in fact plausible to recommend a logically inclusive list of principles which could outline some a practical direction to a general moral structure.

Basically, such a listing integrates diverse philosophies which are considered ordinary to each and every traditional custom. For, instance, it might partly correspond to some religiously enthused principles yet may not heavily rely on them.

This means that the moral principles are may not be dubbed as supreme regulations but just guidelines that could be drawn on in tandem with apiece. Therefore, the conflicts emerging between moral principles which give rise to ethical dilemma could be done away with via moral reasoning. This would definitely give a reflective balanced judgment or equilibrium state.

In conclusion moral projectivism offers various essential analytical tools in reconciling the two positions of realism and anti realism. The over dependence on the emotional reactions and its advocacy for better things be awarded to humanity, are the two reasons why the philosophical thought seems to be lacking extraordinary approach to important issues in moral philosophy. The moral philosophy provides a guideline or an explanation of certain human actions in society.

Works Cited

Blackburn, Simon. Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Joyce, Richard. The Evolution of Morality. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2006.

Resnik, David, B. The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge, 1998.

Trusted, Jenifer. Moral Principles and Social Values. New York, NY: Routledge, 2002.

Introduction

Creation is one of the most controversial topics known to man. It leads to various arguments based on science and religious grounds. The existence of a creator is one of the most influential topics under creation. Stephen Jay Gould and David Hume are popular in the philosophy of the religious world for their contributions to the existence of a perfect creator based on the design of the creations. Gould argues against the existence of a perfect creator.

David Hume questions about design being intentionally brought by a perfect creator. Hume goes against the initial assumption taken by arguments in support of intelligent design. He refers to intelligent design as a defective assumption that fails to dwell on the meaning of “design”.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Gould and Hume Arguments

Stephen Jay Gould argues that there is no evidence of perfect design. He concentrates on nature oddities as a way to support his arguments. He sees the world as full of faults and irrelevant things that do not show purpose. He asserts that the oddities present in creation signify poor design and consequently imply a blind or a poor designer. He even goes to the extent of saying that some extreme oddities signify no designer at all. Gould criticizes the design in which the world is made and refutes the idea that it was designed by a perfect creator. He believes that if indeed a perfect creator designed the world then it would be perfect.

Gould compares the world imperfections with mechanical works of engineers where a poorly assembled machine typifies a poor designer. He perceives the world created as a wasteful designer who designs parts without purpose only to reverse after some time. For example, whales’ embryo develops and has a complete set of teeth that disappear later. He criticizes the process of whales’ embryo development as lacking a functionality basis.

Furthermore, it shows “wastefulness” and does not give the reason for the teeth disappearing. Together with his presentation of evidence of an imperfect creator, he shows support to other similar fields of reasoning. Gould believes in the fact that the world would not experience disturbances such as earthquakes, tidal waves, and other imperfections if the creator was as perfect as assumed. He posits that all imperfections in creations suggest the inadequacy of the creator, otherwise everything would be perfect. Gould concludes that the creator does not satisfy the attributes of being the omniscient and omnipotent creator since he designs sub-optimal features.

Gould’s arguments are strong on evidence. However, they are based on assumptions on the intentions of the creator. There is no evidence that the creator wanted to design a perfect world. The abilities of the creator are assumed. The creator may possess the power to create everything perfect, which makes Him a perfect creator, but maybe He did not want to. Gould makes assumptions and ultimately ends up with a contrary opinion.

On the other hand, Hume asserts that “design” reflects intention, purpose, and good functionality. He contradicts Gould by saying that it doesn’t really matter which part of an animal one concentrates on. He argues that no one can show that designing of the creation really happened at any time. He asserts that no evidence is present to show that structures especially in animals, like seagulls, were formulated to perform the functions they perform.

He posits that what appears like the design does not really represent the actual design and intentions. Hume questions the attributes associated with the creator. He does not find a link to what appears as designed with a perfect creator. Hume says that the concepts of people regarding design are so limited that they cannot be applied to create arguments. For example, the world is compared with engineering works, which is completely different from the creation of the world.

Hume posits that referring to the adaptation of animals, as done by supporters of intelligent design, cannot be traced to the designed plan by a perfect creator. Hume’s argument seems logical. However, it faces objections. It is argued that the creator would not intend to create a dysfunctional and wayward world. Therefore, the creator created the universe to his own liking and possesses plans to alter anything he wants. Other fields of reasoning say that the design can only be attributed to the creator. He is the most probable source of the design. As long as one believes there is a creator design that can only be attributed to him, thus he assumes perfection.

Conclusion

Gould and Hume give a good account. They are wrong since they base their arguments on assumptions about the creator. They completely disregard the intentions of the creator. Nobody knows the intentions of the creator, thus it is not in order to label the creator as imperfect.

It is not right to believe without sufficient evidence. According to Clifford, a certain belief is right or wrong depending on the origin of that belief. He further observes that it is not possible to separate a belief from the action it suggests (Clifford, n.p.). Therefore, it is not possible to condemn one and not the other (Clifford, n.p.). A belief is separable from the action it causes, based on the grounds of such a belief.

A belief should be based on the evidence available, not on the past experience. For example, in the case given, a shipowner went on and sent a ship on a voyage, having known that the ship was not in perfect condition (Clifford, n.p.). The shipowner knew that it had some defects from the time of its construction, and thus needed to be repaired before it could carry emigrants. However, the shipowner went on and ignored these facts, allowing the emigrants to board the defective ship, which later developed a problem while on the sea, causing their death (Clifford, n.p.). In this case, the shipowner believed that the ship could finish the journey safely since it had undertaken other journeys in the past, and succeeded.

Therefore, according to Clifford, it is not possible to separate the belief of the shipowner, from the action of causing emigrants death in the sea. However, it is possible to separate these two aspects because; although the shipowner had reasons to believe that the ship could undertake the journey safely, he had other reasons to believe that it was extremely dangerous to allow the journey. Through understanding that the voyage entailed carrying emigrants, it was not right to assume the dangers associated with a defective ship. Thus, although the shipowner believed the journey would be safe based on past experiences, he ought to have based his belief on tangible evidence.

In this case, it is evident that a defective ship has higher chances of developing problems while on a journey than a perfect ship. The shipowner knew this very well but opted to ignore that fact. Although catastrophes occur and affect ships that are in perfect condition, allowing a defective ship to undertake a journey served to increase the risks involved. Therefore, it was right for the shipowner to have the ship repaired before allowing it to undertake the journey.

Consequently, it is possible to separate the belief held by the shipowner from his actions. While the belief is informed by past experiences that the ship had undertaken safe journeys, the action of allowing the ship to undertake the journey was informed by negligence. By assuming the risks associated with having a defective ship in the sea, the shipowner negligently put the lives of the emigrants at risk.

Therefore, the opinion, that it is not possible to condemn a belief and not condemn an action is questionable (Clifford, n.p.). This is because, a belief can be informed by past experiences, but action should be informed by sufficient evidence. It was not wrong for the shipowner to believe that the ship will undertake the journey safely, based on his past experiences on the same. However, it was wrong for him to engage in a negligent action of allowing a defective ship to carry emigrants. Therefore, the shipowner had an opportunity to take a different action from the informed by his belief, and base his action on evidence. This evidence would have been derived from repairing the ship.

Works Cited

Clifford, William. The Ethics of Belief. 1877. The Secular. Web.

One of the reasons why it is crucially important for just about any well-educated individual to possess a comprehensive worldview is that it enables such an individual to understand the significance of the surrounding reality’s emanations, which in turn increases his or her chances to attain social prominence.

In my paper, I will aim to explore the validity of this suggestion at length, while elaborating upon the specifics of my personal worldview and upon how my worldview helps me to adopt a proper stance towards addressing life-challenges.

The foremost aspect of my worldview is the fact that it is dialectical. That is, I believe that the actual significance of the reality’s manifestations should be assessed within the conceptual framework of how causes define the nature of corresponding effects.

This is the reason why I do not think that it is being appropriate to discuss particular phenomena as ‘thing in itself’, outside of what happened to be this phenomena’s dialectically predetermined causes. In its turn, this partially explains why I consider myself a materialist, who does not believe in the realness of essentially metaphysical notions.

This also explains why I think that is specifically the Darwinian theory of evolution, which provides scientifically substantiated answers to the question of what triggered the emergence of biological life on Earth and what had set the newly emerged life-forms on the path of becoming ever more complex.

It goes without saying, of course, that the fact that I adhere to the provisions of the Darwinian theory of evolution naturally makes me an atheist, as I am being in a position to define the discursive significance of the people’s very sense of religiosity.

In essence, I think that the strength of a particular individual’s religiosity positively correlates with the extent of his or her evolutionary underdevelopment. Such people’s underdevelopment emanates itself in their tendency to adopt a holistic stance, when it comes to tackling life-challenges, which in turn prompts them to subjectualize nature – just as primeval savages and high mammals tend to do.

For example, it has been well observed that bears that sustain injuries against sticking out tree-branches, while crawling over the log, often end up hitting these branches with both of their paws – as if they wanted to punish them. The reason for this is simple – in bear’s mind, the ‘evil’ branch appears nothing short of an entity of its own.

This illustrates the actual origins of ‘spirituality’. And, as we are being well aware of – ‘spirituality’ serves as the conceptual foundation for just about any world’s major religion. What it means is that, the more people are being tempted to profess a particular religion, the closer they are to animals and vice versa. The validity of this suggestion can even be confirmed visually, in regards to what appears to be the anthropological constitution of many Islamic fundamentalists, for example.

Nevertheless, even though that I think that the very laws of nature determine the process of people continually becoming less ‘animalistic’, as the part of their evolutionary development, I still think that biologically speaking, the representatives of Homo Sapiens species are nothing but primates.

In its turn, this explains the nature of social dynamics in just about any human society. After all, just as it is being the case with the existential anxieties of male-monkeys within a particular tribe, men’s foremost existential anxieties are being concerned with making babies (spreading the seed) and with imposing dominance upon others. The understanding of this simple fact, on my part, comes in particularly handy when I assess the extent of many currently popular socio-political ideologies.

For example, through the lenses of my worldview, the ideology of feminism appears utterly fallacious, simply because in the societies of primates males always dominate – this what actually ensures these societies’ structural integrity. Therefore, if feminists succeed with promoting their agenda, this will inevitably result in the destruction of Western civilization, as we know it.

The earlier outlined conceptual premises of my worldview, are being thoroughly consistent with what I believe account for this worldview’s foremost socio-political, ethical and epistemological implications. The implications can be formulated as follows:

a) The linearity of progress. I believe in the full objectivity of the concept of socio-political and scientific progress. The very fact that, as time goes on, the realities of today’s living are becoming ever more discursively complex and technologically intensive suggests that, contrary to the speculations of promoters of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘cultural relativism’ (who imply that the concept of progress is being essentially ‘euro-centric’ and consequentially ‘wicked’), this concept does in fact help to explain the very essence of historical laws, to which people never cease being subjected. In its turn, this suggests that human societies can either be in the state of continuous advancement (Western societies) or in the state of continuous degradation (Third World societies).

b) The discursive fallaciousness of the concept of ‘people’s equality’. Given the fact that, as it was mentioned earlier, the representatives of Homo Sapiens species never cease remaining the subjects of evolutionary laws, it eliminates even a theoretical possibility for people to be ‘equal’, regardless of what happened to be the specifics of their genetically predetermined ability to operate with abstract categories (IQ). The validity of this statement can be easily illustrated in regards to what accounts for the difference between the quality of living standards in Western countries, on the one hand, and the quality of living standards in the Third World countries, on the other.

c) The non-religious essence of the people’s sense of ethics/morality. Even though that even today, many people continue to believe that the one’s ability to act morally is being reflective of the strength of his or her religious beliefs, the recent discoveries in the fields of biology, genetics and sociology expose the sheer wrongness of such a belief.

This is because these discoveries established a positive correlation between the measure of people’s ability to act ethically, on the one hand, and the extent of their intellectual advancement. Yet, as it was pointed out earlier, the notion of intellectual advancement and the concept of religion are utterly incompatible.

e) The eventual rise of a new ‘post-human’ era. The fact that, as of today, the ongoing progress in the fields of biology, genetics, medicine and IT has attained a clearly defined exponential momentum, creates objective precondition for the humanity to qualify for yet another ‘evolutionary jump’.

It is being estimated that in twenty years from now, it will became possible for people to learn foreign languages instantly (by the mean of having microchips installed in their brains), to grow new limbs (genetic engineering) and to even attain immortality (by the mean of having their consciousness saved in the computer’s hard drive). This, of course, will instantly deem the currently predominant social, economic and ethical conventions hopelessly outdated. Yet, such an eventual development is inevitable.

The very fact that, as it was shown earlier, I was able to define the practical implications of my philosophical worldview, suggests this worldview’s overall discursive relevance. However, the same fact is also being suggestive as to what may account for my worldview’s foremost challenge – namely, my worldview’s inconsistency with the dogmas of political correctness.

Yet, as we all know, there has not been even a single instance in history of some artificially upheld ideological dogmas having effectively reversed the course of socio-political and technological progress.

Another important aspect of my worldview is that I believe that it is only discursively/practically relevant knowledge, which students should be striving to acquire. This suggestion directly relates to Luann’s question, as seen in the cartoon. Apparently, just as it is being the case with many today’s students, she had a hard time trying to figure out what was the actual purpose of her studies.

In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that, during the course of acquiring new knowledge, Luann could not relate to this knowledge emotionally – probably, because she considered this knowledge practically irrelevant. This is the reason why she will not remember what she had learnt by the time she reaches 45.

What it means that, contrary to many people’s belief, the process of acquiring new knowledge is not being synonymous with the process of memorizing. In order to be considered ‘knowledgeable’, one must be quick-minded, industrious and wise enough to be able to apply his or her abstract knowledge in practice.

Unfortunately, as practice indicates, due to considerations of political correctness, the development of these qualities in students is being rarely considered an integral part of the learning process.

I believe that the earlier provided insights into my worldview do correlate with the initial suggestion that the one’s possession of a comprehensive worldview is the foremost precondition for him or her to be able to attain social prominence. This is because such a worldview makes it easier for the concerned individual to discover the discursive/practical relevance of the acquired theoretical knowledge.

Three major schools of philosophy

The three major schools of philosophy in the Hellenistic world are Cynicism, Pythagoreanism, and Sophism (Giovanni, 2009). Under the Cynicism philosophical school, the cynics argue that a complete life is characterized by virtue by nature. This means that mankind should shun power, wealth, fame, and health as the elements determining complete life (Giovanni, 2009). In the Pythagoreanism school of thought, the focus of the thought pattern is the esoteric teachings of mathematical nature to explain different phenomena in life. Lastly, the Sophism school of thought is based on the elements of virtue and excellence as the sources of nobility education (Sher, 2012).

Appealing School of Thought

The Cynicism school of thought appeals to me most because the underlying arguments are practical and holistic towards creating a pragmatic and all-round individual (Giovanni, 2009). For instance, one of the ascetic founders called Diogenes of Sinope tried to live in agreement with nature through practicing the cynic virtues. I am fascinated with the attempt within this school of thought to alienate the purpose of life from material things such as wealth, fame, and power to greater purpose.

Cynicism and Good Living

The Cynicism philosophical system is a good approach to living a good life because it adjudicates for selfless living away from opulence and neglect to the tenets of society. For instance, according to this school of thought, wealth and power cannot define a complete life since these material things tend to make mankind a selfish and self-righteous person who is not considerate of the holistic societal sustainability. The Cynicism school of thought is more progressive and practical than the Sophism school, which dictates for excellence as opposed to balancing nature and virtue. Besides, it defines nature and virtue as dynamic and not mathematical like the Pythagoreanism school of thought.

References

Giovanni, R. (2009). The systems of the Hellenistic age: History of ancient philosophy. New York, NY: State of New York University Press.

Sher, G. (2012). Ethics: Essential readings in moral theory. New York, NY: Rutledge.

I believe that religion that philosophy and literature are essential disciplines for human progress because they trace all reality in every aspect of life. Religion, philosophy, and literature are unique disciplines that pioneer and influence people’s lives in contemporary culture, thus enable people to feel and see the reality of life. Such disciplines enable people to think about the origin and the meaning of life. Philosophy immeasurably supports people to rationalize about life. I think that philosophy, literature, and religion are tools of self-discovery and self- examination that dig underneath the platitude of thought into certainty and truth. Such subjects provide philosophical discovery, religious reflection, and literary hypothesis about life. Philosophy offers recuperative thought, which is an inquiry that enables people to perceive things they are incapable of understanding. This paper examines how literature, philosophy, and religion provide resources for a life celebration. Such disciplines provide ways to eradicate suffering, which afflict human beings. The subjects also offer knowledge and meaning in life.

I view that life is like a wilderness, where human beings wander in a cosmos that has no ending map. People began life somewhere. When people explore the reality of life, they establish a relationship with other individuals to form common interests. People develop intimation as a way of gaining social-economic progress. People have found themselves existing in life. I reflect that as people make new steps in life, they unfold new possibilities to comfort their lives. People become focused on getting needs in life. However, people’s fundamental choices depend on fate and destiny. Bugbee (1999) views:

People have developed various beliefs and ideas to explain the meaning of life. People have engaged in religious ideology, literary justification, and philosophical hypothesis to discover and unravel the mysteries of human life and the world (p.133).

I perceive that life in the world has a purpose and implication. Life experience has enabled people to recognize the reflection of eternity. The mysteries of life get discovered through personal evocation. Life is an experience that is marked with many travels. I think that religion teaches that the attitude of simplicity is a vital virtue since it helps people to manage life effectively. People need to know all aspects of life; they learn from the reality of nature. Literature plays a crucial role in expressing the beauty and liveliness of life. Real literature contributes to a beautiful life. The world is a unique reality; thus, people should enjoy nature. I believe that the capability to perceive beyond social limits has enabled people to lead a simple life. This enables individuals to reconcile what life has to provide, be it good or tragic. Years, days and months, are also travelers since they come and go. Matsuo (1966) views that:

Human beings are also travelers because they are transient beings. The destination in life is not all that important, but the travel itself. Personal life is one’s true experience; it is a true identity of the transient reality. Life always starts slowly but as it advances the journey becomes much better (p.32).

I think that literature helps people to unfold reality through meditation. Philosophy provokes people to reflect critically on the personal selfhood, relationship among people and the environment. Literature enables people to know how to articulate their passions and needs. Religion, philosophy and literature enable people to know how to develop their lives. Such disciplines enable people to respond to profound questions in life. Philosophy provides a reflection of life’s wilderness. I view that literature, philosophy and religion are used as inspirational tools, to satisfy people’s quest. Literature, philosophy and religion are expressions that make people complete. Bugbee (1999) asserts that:

The existence of several choices has confused and discouraged the modern world. However, philosophy justifies that confusion is not essentially negative, since it is a natural human experience. The only thing that is risky is the notion that there is a single appropriate way of solving problems for everybody (p.147).

I perceive that literature brings flexibility and vitality that gives immaculate excellence. People become religious in order to shed off earthly attachment in order to acquire spiritual fulfillment. Life has compelled people to wander and search for implication and purpose of life. I think that literature provides a vital role as it revitalizes appropriate information about life. Literature refreshes the deprived regulations and rules that govern the society. Literary expressions give vital information than strict regulations that govern the community. A sincere reflection in life enables people to perceive the dynamics of life. Matsuo (1966) claims that:

The basic reality in life is not something that is abstract essence. Rather the basic reality is understood through deep thought into what things are. Deep thought enables people to perceive beyond temporal things. Deed reflection perceives what holds life, which is intransient being (p.67).

I view that human quest endeavors to know what governs reality. Human inquiry is based upon the mind and heart of human beings. Thinking is an activity that has to embrace natural world. Thinking has to wander in the natural wilderness, to justify the meaning of life. Meditative thought has opened doors to improve human life through the development of technology. Reasoning has provoked profound claims against uncertainty in life. I believe that literal, philosophical and religious ideologies provide certainty toward possible truths and various lifestyles. These ideologies give assurance toward the postmodern time of uncertainty.

I assert that life is marked with journeys made to surpass the material world in order to reveal spiritual enlightenment. Life is composed of changing seasons that beatify the natural world. The uniqueness of the world shows the mysteries of life. Life is a journey through perilous situations. I feel that life experience captures image of eternity in the temporary world that surround people. Matsuo (1966) affirms that:

It is advisable to enjoy the gift of life through an attitude of simplicity. People usually get confronted with obligations and pressures in the world. Basho Matsuo became from a noble family, but he felt to lead a simple life. Every beautiful thing in the universe is learned through simplicity, humility and kindness (p.90).

I claim that religion, literature and philosophy have a common responsibility that is to enlighten the society. Thinking about the natural world is a vital aspect as it perceives the core of what establishes the dynamics of the universe. Challenges of life are stepping stones that influence people to think deeply about life. Spiritual life can be effectively explained through poetic truth. I view that philosophy, literature and religion attempt to analyze cultural experience and possible life implications to the existing people in the society. It is vital to reflect both on the splendor of the natural world, and the spirit of individuals who live in the society. Matsuo (1966) opines that:

Life is like a narrow road, which is marked with many challenges. Life is not static it is a journey. In addition, life is a home that has to be built through social interaction. Although, challenges in life are discouraging, they influence people to be prudent to perceive what life holds (p.123).

References

Bugbee, H. (1999).The Inward Morning. A Philosophical Exploration in Journal Form. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Matsuo, B. (1966).The Narrow Road to the Deep North, And Other Travel Sketches. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics.