Life is purely amazing and its purpose for each individual,
so very different. It seems we are
naturally predisposed to selecting “sides” or “beliefs” in terms of how we wish
to orient our focus of living. There are
many philosophical, metaphysical and psychological “isms” through which we
could choose to view the world. Many of
us do this naturally without identifying consciously with these various schools
of thought or beliefs but they seemingly form thoughts and actions within our
consciousness through our daily interactions with our follow brothers and
sisters. So what are these main “isms”
that define the filters from which many of us align our beliefs? A little research through the World Wide Web
brings us the following to consider from the world of philosophy, which also
includes at least two others of interest to me personally, psychology and
metaphysics. Let me share with you a
little of my quick research to make my point:
Idealism
From The Basics of
Philosophy online resource, we have Idealism described as follows:
Idealism
is the metaphysical and epistemological doctrine that ideas or thoughts make up fundamental reality. Essentially, it is any
philosophy which argues that the only thing actually knowable is consciousness
(or the contents of consciousness), whereas we never can be sure that matter or anything in the outside world really exists. Thus, the only real things are mental entities, not physical things
(which exist only in the sense that they are perceived).
From this filter, we have alignment (at least at a very
basic level) from among some of our great thinkers throughout history. Some names you might be familiar with like
Plato, Aristotle, Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant. Each took the basic framework and added to it
their own unique and interesting perspectives (to say the least) and brought
forth interesting ideas, thoughts, arguments and theories about the world in
which we find ourselves and the way we organize our thoughts about existence. I can see some of my own thoughts and beliefs
through the filer of Idealism (but please understand that my perspective is
that belief is an untested hypothesis which I don’t necessarily hold as truth).
Realism
From the very same source as the above, we find Realism
defined as:
Realism, at it simplest and most general, is the view that entities of a certain type have an objective reality, a reality that is
completely ontologically independent
of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. Thus, entities
(including abstract concepts and
universals as well as more concrete objects) have an existence
independent of the act of perception,
and independent of their names.
The doctrine had its beginnings with Pre-Socratic philosophers like Thales, Heraclitus and Parmenides, but its definitive formulation
was that of Plato and his theory of Forms . . .
Aligned with this
filter and expanding it further to their own perspectives we find the great
minds of St. Augustine, St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas. These individuals held very interesting
perspectives and theories on our origins, the existence of God as well as
additional impacts on critical thinking.
I can see merit to the filter of this particular perspective or at least
understand some of the frameworks and concepts as well as many other “isms.”
Pragmatism
The former views originated much further back in our human
timeline than pragmatism. As the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy says
of Pragmatism:
Pragmatism is a philosophical
movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true
if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in
the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to
be rejected. Pragmatism originated in the United States during the latter
quarter of the nineteenth century. Although it has significantly influenced
non-philosophers—notably in the fields of law, education, politics, sociology,
psychology, and literary criticism—this article deals with it only as a
movement within philosophy.
The term “pragmatism” was first
used in print to designate a philosophical outlook about a century ago when
William James (1842-1910) pressed the word into service during an 1898 address
entitled “Philosophical Conceptions and Practical Results,” delivered at the
University of California (Berkeley). James scrupulously swore, however, that
the term had been coined almost three decades earlier by his compatriot and
friend C.
S. Peirce (1839-1914). (Peirce, eager to distinguish his doctrines
from the views promulgated by James, later relabeled his own position
“pragmaticism”—a name, he said, “ugly enough to be safe from kidnappers.”) The
third major figure in the classical pragmatist pantheon is John Dewey
(1859-1952), whose wide-ranging writings had considerable impact on American
intellectual life for a half-century. After Dewey, however, pragmatism lost
much of its momentum.
This is yet another understandable filter from which to view
various aspects of the things in life that we face or contemplate. I will neither argue for nor against it for I
find merit in or at least understanding of many filters and “isms” very
generally speaking. Again, I’ll say, that
doesn’t necessarily mean that I dogmatically subscribe to this filter or others
alone.
Existentialism
From the same source as the above, we find Existentialism. An excerpt to help with understanding is:
Existentialism is a
catch-all term for those philosophers who consider the nature of the human
condition as a key philosophical problem and who share the view that this
problem is best addressed through ontology. This very broad definition will be
clarified by discussing seven key themes that existentialist thinkers address.
Those philosophers considered existentialists are mostly from the continent of
Europe, and date from the 19th and 20th centuries.
Outside philosophy, the existentialist movement is probably the most well-known
philosophical movement, and at least two of its members are among the most
famous philosophical personalities and widely read philosophical authors. It
has certainly had considerable influence outside philosophy, for example on
psychological theory and on the arts. Within philosophy, though, it is safe to
say that this loose movement considered as a whole
has not had a great impact, although individuals or ideas counted within it
remain important. Moreover, most of the philosophers conventionally grouped
under this heading either never used, or actively disavowed, the term
‘existentialist’. Even Sartre himself once said: “Existentialism? I don’t know
what that is.” So, there is a case to be made that the term – insofar as it
leads us to ignore what is distinctive about philosophical positions and to
conflate together significantly different ideas – does more harm than good.
The seven key themes noted in the above
excerpt are listed below. You might
check the source and do a little reading when you have a moment. You might find these very interesting:
Philosophy as a Way
of Life
Anxiety and
Authenticity
Freedom
Situatedness
Existence
Irrationality/Absurdity
The Crowd
As with the above “isms,” we find some
of the interesting thinkers of more recent times such as Soren Kierkegaard,
Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and
Albert Camus.
Philosophy is rich with ideas and
theories concerning existence and consciousness and perhaps that is why I’m so
drawn to it. The convergences of all the
various aspects these filters hold exist within our every day thoughts. I cannot help but wonder about why it is we
must align with a singular thought process at all, however. As others before me have come to similar
conclusions, I won’t argue about the basic human need to belong to something
and to find purpose within it through belief alone. One of my other favorite topics was born from
Philosophy when Wilhelm Wundt in the second half of the 1800’s introduced the
concept that Psychology should become its own discipline. (Discovering Psychology, 4)
There are many more “isms” through
which we began to understand our frameworks.
These would include:
Structuralism
from Edward B. Titchener (1867-1927):
“Structuralism became the first major school of thought in
psychology. Structuralism held that even
our most complex conscious experiences could be broken down into elemental structures,
or component parts, of sensations and feelings,” (Discovering Psychology, 4).
Functionalism
from William James (1842-1910): “Functionalism
stressed the importance of how behavior functions to allow people and animals
to adapt to their environments. Unlike
structuralists, functionalists did not limit their methods to
introspection. They expanded the scope
of psychology research to include direct observation of living creatures in
natural settings,” (Discovering
Psychology, 5).
Behaviorism
from John B. Watson (1878-1958):
Behaviorism “. . . rejected the emphasis on consciousness promoted by
structuralism and functionalism. It also
flatly rejected Freudian notions about unconscious influences. Instead, behaviorism contended that
psychology should focus its scientific investigations strictly on overt
behavior – observable behaviors that could be objectively measured and verified,”(Discovering Psychology, 6)
There are more “isms” than I could
possibly list in one simple article, which was my true intent. Just for fun, I will add one more “ism.” The actual definition of “ism” which comes to
us from The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Full Definition of
ISM:
1 : a distinctive
doctrine, cause or theory
2 : an oppressive and
especially discriminatory attitude or belief.
So, as you can see, we humans with all
of our “isms” are an interesting lot. I
deeply appreciate all of the “isms” that are and have been contemplated, the
great minds that created them and the reasons for their creations. It reflects to me, the multifaceted aspects
of our conscious existence.
Consciousness is what we are, I firmly believe. We have so many isms to contend with as we
live our lives but here is an interesting thought, we don’t have to subscribe
to any particular belief at all. We do
not have to hold an ism as truth
unless it is sufficiently proven to be a definitive truth to us in some way. I see all of the isms, philosophies and
theories as ways in which we question our existence, the reality of the world
and perhaps, the existence of Source (or God, if you will). What if we are that Source in all of its multifaceted concepts and constructs?
Maybe it matters less which field of hard or soft-science or other
fields of thought you subscribe to and more how these things help you achieve
that which you sought to achieve in this life?
Not one of us has an answer that would be definitively true for the
unique and amazing aspect of consciousness projected in the physical reality we
acknowledge here in this time that is you.
I think that what we are all attempting
to define is consciousness (with a little “c” referring to the egoic aspect) and
Consciousness (with a big “C” referring to the quantum Whole). From my own work, The Ego is the Veil:
Consciousness is only
partially discovered and is certainly only a partially understood frontier that
has the potential to neatly knit everything we see, feel and experience together. With further exploration of this frontier, I
think we may find some very exciting things about our existence here in this
frame. I think also that the study of
consciousness cannot be contained as valid from the perspective of only one or
a handful of the various applied science and other disciplines. As mentioned before, each discipline can only
define consciousness from within the confines and constructs of their academic
perspectives. It will take some fearless
pioneers unafraid to break down the walls, barriers, biases and prejudices
working hand in hand to help us better understand the nature of what it truly
is. I am not satisfied by the biological
constructs alone. I am unsatisfied with
the neuro-biological constructs alone. I
am unsatisfied with the philosophical and psychological constructs alone and I
am still as yet unsatisfied with the theological and metaphysical constructs
alone. I think if we work together we
can find the common themes to all the various disciplines, come together, share
notes, establish and test new hypotheses and attempt to draw no conclusions
about what it (consciousness) truly is. (82)
In my own works I posit in a similar
vein as Freud in that the ego is where consciousness meets physical reality and
that creates not the typical dualist thought but that ego and veil (as in ego
consciousness and veil, Cosmic Consciousness) are one and the same. Everything we see, feel and experience is a multifaceted aspect of Consciousness. I
don’t see consciousness in terms of the hard or easy question or problem but
rather I see it as the entirety of the framework from which we exist. It is because of this that I feel we struggle
so much with our limited human words to define it. It is more than words or a thing…it is also a
feeling, which is beyond emotion and an energy that is beyond our limited
sensory perceptions alone.
We, in a way,
are like tiny ants trying to define the entirety of the Universe. It’s too big and too much to take in with
limited frameworks and premises. We’re
all right and wrong in our thoughts in some regard concerning our consciousness
and existence. Maybe we view that which
we attempt to define from filters that are limited to begin with? We are as multifaceted as consciousness is and cannot be singly defined with any amount
of accuracy in our entirety from the physical, to the mind, to consciousness or
why all of these things neatly come together in the human beings that we are. We can define component parts and operations,
we can run simulations and experiments of thoughts and theories and we can test
what is true and what is not based on repeated success in our testing of
theories from the perspective of some ism
to prove our view. But what if it is the
view itself that creates the outcome?
What if it is our focus and intent that creates everything?
We are amazing to put it simply; every
single one of us with our goals and ambitions, our thoughts and our
dreams. We are actively participating in
this huge Conscious (Big “C”) experience with conscious (little “c”) thoughts
and ideas. We will not find the doorways
of true understanding through thought alone no matter which discipline or “ism”
we filter it through. It will take something
more akin to the feeling (not read emotion) of the true expanse of our
awareness to understand. More than mere
belief, I have faith that with all of the explorations from the past, those of
the present and even those yet to come, we will arrive at expanded Conscious Awareness
in the bigger sense. In a way, perhaps multifaceted ways, we are already there.
Sources:
Harter, J.L., 2014, The Ego is the Veil, California, The
Ministry of Connected Consciousness.
Print.
Hockenbury, Don et al 2014, Discovering Psychology. Sixth Edition, New York, Worth Publishers. Print.
Rev. J.L. Harter, PhD, M.Msc., B.Msc., Author, Blogger, and Spiritual Counselor, Editor of the JMCC. See Bio section for more information.
© 2014 Jaie Hart (photo and words, except
where cited from other sources)
