Ok. we've got a basic concept of what Philosophy is and with that out of the way I want say that in this blog that I want to sort of stick to some of the ideas that I and ,I think, many others feel are more relevant to today and you and I as people in a modern world. We could trace the origins of Philosophy back for a long time but I feel, And this is an opinion,that as long as people have been aware of themselves there has been some question of "who am I?". That is essentially what we want to know. But the history his vast and I want to start where it seems most logical. It will help me to get started and if we need to go back and take a look at something deeper in history in order to maintain perspective then we will cross those bridges as we come to them.
So I think the main area here to discuss is the philosophies of existentialism or postmodernism. These are I think the most relevant being the most recent recognized philosophies. I want to raise the questions of existentialism and look at what they lead me to think about.
I personally am always perplexed when I think of we humans and what we are exactly. What do we do? why do we do it? Are we in control? What is good and evil? What is moral and immoral? Right and wrong? What is consciousness? What is that sense of I? My head hurts already.
I guess I want to start with what we are.
Well, we are human beings, we have two arms, two legs and a torso and a head. We eat and reproduce. We are just animals, right. This is a valid argument to make. One could say we act on instinct and that would be true. One could say that we trace back our ancestors far back into caveman days when people literally were animals and that would be true. One could argue that we do the same things animals do and that by association it makes us animals. I think this is a valid argument. However it is not sound because one can return with the fact that we are civilized, we use tools, we are sentient. We have complex social structures and rules and laws that separate us from animals. We have art forms, these things surely separate us from animals don't they? Do they? Plenty of animals show that they have complex social structures. Elephants are highly social animals and are at the very least aware of others in what seems to be a personal way. Monkeys learn sign language and communicate hunger, and even affection if not some sense love. These things of course are subject completely to perspective. Where one sees love another sees a monkey slapping its lips against a humans face. But the fact is that there is not a whole lot that separates us at all except for a sense of self, and perhaps even its not that animals lack a sense of self so much as it is they lack the ability to consider that self.
Is that what mainly separates us from animals? Our ability to consider ourselves? I wonder if the ability to consider ourselves objectively makes us unique from animals or rather if it simply makes us "unique animals". Is that sense of "I" a special gift given to us by God? or is it simply just an evolution of mind that has allowed to us excel in multiplying on the planet. Biologically speaking it could easily appear to be that the sense of self is merely a highly evolved tool to make life in the sense of the lower end of the hierarchy of needs such as food, water, shelter, easier to obtain. But, what about the higher end on the hierarchy, such as self-esteem, self actualization, and the like. Does that somehow bring us above animals? The fact that one can aspire to be more than one is and the fact that one can make plans and put those plans to action and to feel sympathy and empathy for other people or even other animals for that matter seems to bring forth the thought that there is something more to what we are. We couldn't possibly be just animals with exceptional survival skills, could we?. One thinks not when we can write plays and operas. Well the two sides here then are this. On one side we have a creator or creators who has given the gift of "I" to humans. I wont go so far as to say that we were made in his image although assuming this side of the argument is true it would be a valid point to say just that, but the idea of a creator is a broad one and I want to encompass only the general idea of it. And on the other side we have an evolutionary result of what is basically millions of years of genetic passage and repeated application of the mind based on need.
There are valid arguments for both sides here and when you move through the existential arguments we are forced to consider them both. Keep in mind that existentialism is not a philosophy of "There is no God" although some existentialists were atheist many of them were also religious and even devoutly christian. My opinion of existentialism is that is puts into question what "God" is and part of that process is to consider at some point weather or not God even exists. It is inevitably part of the logical steps to move through the questions we have when we consider ourselves. And it is without a doubt the most obvious disagreement amongst atheistic and theistic existentialists.
So herein as I approach these ideas I want it to be understood that I am neither attempting to prove nor are my intentions to disprove the existence of God. I will leave that for the theologists and scientists. In fact, in the end I guess I really aim to prove nothing. And for those of you think I must be out to prove something? I say I am out to prove both. I am rather more simply trying to consider all the possibilities with no inherent preconceived notions about either view. I say this partly so you, the reader will understand my intent, but mostly so I, the writer, can be reminded of the very difficult task I have set before myself, and will hopefully remain vigilant in my efforts to do just what I've set out to do.
Thanks again for reading. More to come.
Posts
