Worldview as it Relates to Philosophy - Research Paper Example

?Worldview as it Relates to Philosophy When considering the concept of worldview I recognize that it is a complex notion that incorporates a wide variety of elements. Broadly speaking worldview is the way humans view and interact with the world. On a deeper and more fundamental level worldview encapsulates the philosophical or religious understandings we have and developed about the nature of existence. Through experience and education individuals develop these perspectives and implement them as a means of living their daily existence. When considering myself I recognize that my worldview has changed drastically over the course of my life and has been greatly influenced by experience and philosophy. This essay considers my current worldview and the way my past worldview has been influenced and changed through philosophy. Before taking this course my worldview was strongly rooted in religious doctrines. Throughout the formative periods of my life I grew up in an environment that was strictly Christian. Within this environment my parents and most of my peers believed in the major tenants of the Christian religion. Growing up in this environment I learned to adopt most of the religious principles that are espoused by the Christian religion. In terms of the creation of the world I believed that Earth and the universe had been created by God. I believed in morals as they related to the concept of good and evil as established by the Bible. In these regards, morality was presented as an easily understandable concept – if an individual adhered to the law and the tenants of the Bible then they were a moral and good person. I also embraced a concept of the afterlife. If individuals adhered to the Biblical principles and allowed God into their life then I believed they would go to heaven. Conversely, if they disregarded these aspects, they would go to Hell. My relation to science and logic were complex. While I embraced the principle of science in an overarching sense, I came to believe that oftentimes science could be wrong or mistaken. Specifically, in terms of evolution and cosmology I believed that while scientists had approached the concepts of existence and biology with their greatest ability, they were ultimately flawed in their findings. I understood that that ultimately their current scientific investigations would be proven wrong and they would ultimately discover that God and Biblical principles were the true reality of existence. When I look back on my worldview during this period of my life I recognize that I was greatly influenced by my personal surroundings and parents’ influence. As I gradually became more exposed to new ideas and new people my worldview drastically changed. In large part, the philosophical ideas I was exposed to in this course shaped and sharpened my worldview in a variety of ways. One of the major notions that I came to recognize through my research in philosophy emerged in terms of Christian morality. While Christianity noted that there were easily understood concepts of good and evil, my exposure to philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil led me to understand that moral actions couldn’t easily be broken down into concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ but often involve a complex number of philosophical implications (Nietzsche 1993). Another profound such changes that I experienced occurred in my understanding and eventual embracement of scientific principles. As I previously indicated that I had believed science did not properly understand Christian understandings of the world, as I became exposed to more scientific thought I came to understand that in large part the principles behind such concepts as evolution are supported by substantial scientific research. In these regards, I learned to increasingly embrace the notion that many of the claims made in the Bible may be wrong. As I became exposed to earlier notions of mythology, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, which contains a flood story, I further came to recognize that perhaps the Bible only constituted myths that we used to explain elements of our existence that science did not yet understand. It was with this understanding in mind that I began to embrace the notion that the Christian God was a myth. I would go on to embrace the notion of modern cosmological thinking that indicated the universe was created in a Big Bang explosion. While my worldview now recognizes that science is in a constant state of reinterpretation and new understandings, it nonetheless constitutes a more accurate reflection of the world than the concepts that are espoused in religious doctrine. As my worldview does not follow religious doctrine, I have gone to embrace a number of philosophical concepts that were both considered inside and outside this course. One of my primary understandings of existence is derived from the thoughts of philosopher Jean Paul Sartre. Sartre was a 20th century philosopher that is given primary credit for articulating the philosophy of existentialism. Broadly speaking existentialism advances a notion of human existence as void of outside meaning, wherein individuals are completely free to establish the nature of self and being. The foundational element of this philosophy is the notion that existence precedes essence. That is to say, Sartre believed that rather than the individual’s personality being an innate and genetically established event, it was a aspect of existence that was determined in the changing nature of our daily lives; existence representing the self, and essence representing the articulation of this self-concept. In my worldview, I realize the truth is a complex issue. Through Existentialism is a Humanism, Sartre in large part argues from an atheistic perspective. For instance, he writes that the, “atheist existentialism is rather more coherent. It declares that God does not exist, yet there is still a being in whom existence precedes essence, a being which exists before being defined by any concept, and this being is man or, as Heidegger puts it, human reality” (Sartre). In my personal formulation of the concept, I tend to side with Sartre in denying a creationist concept of reality that has an intended purpose for living beings. However, I also recognize that simply because Sartre denies the existence of an objective God, this does not also prove that existence precedes essence. My personal belief is that while beings may not have an intended essence by a creator, they are still restricted by genetic determinants. Sigmund Freud once famously argued that biology is destiny. In these regards, I believe that essence can be seen to determine existence through genetic restraints hat individuals are linked. Another primary element that must be considered in terms of the concept of existence preceding essence is the nature of society and social influences. Sartre indirectly considers the nature of social influences stating, “Dostoevsky wrote ‘If God did not exist, everything would be permitted’; that is the starting point of existentialism” (Sartre). While Sartre’s concept of a world where everything is permitted is highly liberating, it’s clear that in the contemporary environment such a liberating form of existence is not possible. Rather, I recognize that in living one’s daily life there are a variety of restraints that society places on the individual, forcing them to act in pre-defined ways. When considering the notion of morality and justice within this worldview I recognize that there are a number of philosophical elements that have influenced my worldview. As noted earlier I embrace a concept of human existence and motivation as being partially rooted in biological constraints and partially rooted in the ability of the individual to shape their own life. Even as individuals are partially constrained by biological measures, I still believe that the notions of morality can be universally applied to humanity. One of the major philosophical concepts that has influenced me in these regards is Immanuel Kant’s notion of the categorical imperative. For Kant the categorical imperative indicates that, “it commands us to exercise our wills in a particular way, not to perform some action or other. It is categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally, or simply because we possesses rational wills, without reference to any ends that we might or might not have” (‘Kant’s Moral Philosophy’). What this indicates is that Kant’s categorical imperative argues that individuals should act with the understanding that their actions could be extended to all other individuals. For instance, if one person killed another, and all people adopted this moral standard then the world would resort to anarchy. While I recognize that there are specific philosophical objections that can be made to Kant’s moral philosophy, I believe that from a general worldview perspective, Kant’s moral philosophy is strong; as such I have adopted it into my own personal worldview. In terms of my notion of justice, I have been influenced by the concept of the modern republic and Kant’s moral philosophy. The United States has established a system of laws as a means of establishing social order. While I individually may disagree with these laws, I recognize that they have been determined through a democratic means. As such, in breaking these laws one is breaking the modern thrust of social order. It follows that I believe justice should be enacted, in accordance with modern notions of justice, on individuals that break these laws. While laws are country specific, I believe in universal rights for all humanity. One of the main philosophical documents that influenced me in these regards is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Gerber 2003). This is a document designed by Eleanor Roosevelt and the United Nations that established a universal notion of rights for individuals in all countries. In conclusion, this essay has considered my worldview in relation to philosophical ideas that have profoundly influenced my perspective. In studying philosophy I recognize that it is important to have a number of philosophical perspectives. While one thinker, such as Kant, may be able to have powerful insights into one aspect of existence, this perspective can be amended or augmented by thinkers such as Freud or Nietzsche. In these regards, I believe that it is impossible to arrive at ‘true’ or ‘real’ understanding of reality from one vantage point. Ultimately, I recognize that there is an ever changing and fluid nature of reality that must be grasped from a variety of perspectives. References Gerber, Robin. (2003) Leadership the Eleanor Roosevelt Way: Timeless Strategies from the First Lady of Courage. New York: Portfolio Trade. ‘Kant’s Moral Philosophy’ (2004) Stanford. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant- moral/#CatHypImp Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1993). Beyond Good and Evil. New York: Templeton. Sartre, Jean-Paul. (1946) ‘Existentialism is a Humanism’. Marxists. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm Read More