_________________________________________
From the time we are born onto this Earth, and inserted into the voided, cosmic interplay, we are consistently influenced. Few deem it as natural and introspective, while others grant nurture and esoteric agents as the primary source of the influence. While both of these things are in constant diametric reign, I believe the introspective conscious and evolutionary, primal instincts are the main factors. These things are deeply-seeded within our very deep heads, into our very chemical make up through a process always reaching for perfection. With that said, some of these instincts should carry with them validity, even though contemporary ideology disgorges naturalistic ideas and substitutes that of social progress.
Esoteric agents are the facility which our moral standards hang out. Everything consumed from our upbringing, societal dogma, and religious preference is included in this facility, which intertwines with the primitive, mental embodiment to provide the cesspool that is our psychological influence. But, the esoteric agents contain a pseudo-truth, one that is ever-changing and never content. Ideas proposed in this manner usually contain a hint of hysteria though, and for example, Becker asserted that belonging to a larger culture shields us from the terror of our own mortality. This concept brings forth a notion that some “collective conscious” dogma could be synthesized and mystified.
But could these agents dependently coincide with the adaption of the human species to create a quasi-subconscious that is ever evolving? Or do our semantically defined attributes generalize these concepts to a point of unnecessary dualism? One could believe that esoteric influence and primal instinct both play a beneficial role in human development, while the other remains biased to nature or nurture.
_________________________________________
In class, we briefly discussed the validity of the existence of altruism. In short, altruism is the concept of a purely selfless act of goodness towards another with out moral facility or spiritual and ethical concern. I feel as though this is easily debunked as fallacious. The paradigm of morality is controlled and dependent on anthropological and spiritual ideas alone, though some feel as though piety and theism play a major role. With this said, these moral concepts cannot carry actual validity universally; what one may consider good, or right, the other may consider bad, or wrong (cultural relativism). This is a clear notion of ethical relativism, but relativism itself cannot properly weigh any type of absolute truth, and therein can be viewed as a waste of time.
Though morality and it’s existence has been debated and thought upon for ages by the sages, masters of thought, and philosophers alike, I believe morality cannot retain an absolute, universal truth or equilibrium because of its amorphic form in society. Another factor of my juxtaposition on universal morality and altruism relates to my disbelief in a “just” God, which clearly holds reason why. Now I do not exuberate an idea of moral nihility or moral recession therein, but that altruism cannot possibly exist because of this perceptual differentiation.
I have never disregarded an idea of a personal, pseudo-altruism, though. But, with that said, it does not carry truth. For example: a belief does not need absolute validity to be deemed truthful in a personal sense, but beliefs hold no residence in universal acceptance (universal truth). Therefore, if one believes in a personal, dogmatic altruism, it can rightfully exist, but only in their mind; this does not transcend into an ultimate reality though. This idea only provides falsehood and certain confusion on the outlook of altruism, and its inexistence universally.
No comments:
Post a Comment