The Perspectives of My Personal Philosophy

Philosophy is a study that involves personal reflection and insight. With this, the claim that Philosophy is a science is something that can be intensely debated even though the classification of any idea, subject, or object is all a matter of personal preference and opinion. Points like this influence my Philosophy Manifesto and the tenants that are found within it. This short essay will provide as much insight as possible into my personal beliefs and how they shape my overall view of philosophy in the scholarly sense. By the end of this essay, it is my goal to say someone else’s personal philosophy so that they can see the perspectives of my own.

First, my views on theism. I think that I am an Agnostic because I believe in science and most of its logical explanations. However, I have begun to find that science cannot explain all of life’s happenings and phenomenons. Therefore, I may accept the religion explanation for some things at times. Because I am Chinese, I come from a background where most people believe in science or Buddhism. According to Adam Frank, Buddhism is one of the few religions in the world that usually gets agreement from scientists who study emotions and the mind. So, there may be a reason why science and Buddhism have coexisted so well in my home country.

Another thing that comes from my home country is the concept of Yin and Yang. Yin and yang is a concept of dualism in ancient Chinese philosophy and I learned about it when I was a child. Because of this, I agree with most of the concept but it does not influence any of my personal decisions in life. The balance that I see the most in my own world view is the relationship between Philosophy and Religion. Some may think that Philosophy and Religion are more similar than not, but the truth is that Philosophy is much more critical and analytical than its faith-based counterpart. Philosophy always seems to answer “how?” along with “why?”, “where?”, and “when?”. More often than not, religion answers “how?” quite perfectly, but no one seems to wonder about the other facets of the story or faith.

In my life, I try to live in a way that I am comfortable with while also following the laws and social moral codes that most people think is right. When thinking about how morality and free will intersect, I am often influenced and in agreement with the ideas that G. W. F. Hegel was able to create. Hegel’s theories and study tried to find the marriage between the free will and desires of a would be criminal and the morality that surrounded them and decided that their actions violated the universal right and majority desires of the societies that they lived in. So, when thinking of this, my personal desires harm no one, and I would never desire to. Because of this, my actions should never be considered evil because the universal laws around say not to hurt others because their personal being and livelihood is not my property to damage.

My views on Existentialism find me agreeing with Sartre in that one can create their own meaning of life. I also agree with Camus because I do not live by giving myself a narrowly defined meaning of life and questioning myself about it all of the time just seems to be absurd. Part of the reason I feel this way is because my views on Transcendentalism agree mostly with Kant in that reality and perception are equally important. This is because “Kant argues that space and time are merely formal features of how we perceive objects, not things in themselves that exist independently of us, or properties or relations among them”. So, reality is literally how we perceive it to be, and it plays off our perceptions to form our views. Likewise, few people realize that reality is something of their own construct, so their perceptions are often built around the influences of the people, ideas, and objects around them. Because of this, I agree with Humanism and the idea of not accept dogma or superstition; as the American Humanist Association states that all humans can choose to be good people within their own realities without a religious dogma telling them to do so.

Nicholas F. Stang has a lengthy article about Kant’s transcendental idealism and how it explains the marriage between reality and perception. With this, marriage can be thought of as a truly equal partnership instead of a patriarchal system where one concept has dominion over the other. However, Mary Troxel’s work on Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophical lineage to Kant shows that reality and perception can work equally while also revealing legitimate things to be external from the human consciousness. For example, Schopenhauer’s view on aesthetics was that “the ability to regard nature aesthetically is the hallmark of the genius, and… describes the content of art through an examination of genius”. After looking at these points, I would say that the phrase “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” is very true in that there will never be one standard of beauty. In this manifesto, the reason for this will be that human beings cannot fully grasp concepts like beauty because it is not inside of our consciousness and capability to do so.

I am of the belief that everybody can make their own fate - even if they may not able to control everything in their life. With this lack of control, however, they can manipulate their desires and efforts to live towards the fate they designed for themselves once life decides to finally bend for them. Hugh Rice defines fatalism as “the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do” (Rice). Rice also writes that many people have a natural resignation to believe that life will give them what is destined for them. This is unfortunate, as the criminal should not have a better fate than the priest and the hunter should not suffer a worse fate than the poacher. However, fatalism holds that whatever happens will happen, and I cannot convince myself that this is the way that life should be or play out.

Quite simply, the key to all joy and happiness is to live the way that you love. I believe that this act, loving someone other than yourself, is the key to happiness. Unfortunately, human beings cannot fully do whatever they want when they decide to love someone else. Love requires having trust and allowing someone to build up a trust in you. With this, one needs to follow the rules created during the relationship. Sometimes, I don’t have choice to do the things I want, so I often try to make the best out of it. With this, Frontiers writes that a research article shows that Chinese students often associate free will with happiness. So, I may eventually rethink my position. However, as I mentioned before, this should be the norm and not the exception; as having narrowly defined ideas and views on life is absurd and defeats the entire purpose of thinking for one’s self.

In saying this, my own purpose in life is to always fight for a better life, the control of most things within life, and, most importantly, to be happy. My happiness is my decision, which means that happiness is a positive consequence of my free will. I desire to be loved and realize that the consequence of earning someone else’s love is that I cannot do every single thing that comes into my mind. Eventually, I will find the person that makes it to where following their rules is my choice with the boundaries of my own free will. When this happens, the actions of my life will then have meaning, as I will hope to build a great legacy and life with this person. However, none of these things can happen if I do not will my fate to include love and success for myself. It is not my fate to be alone and free. Instead it is to be loved, happy, and successful.

The reasons that allow me to answer Philosophy’s major questions the way that I do have a lot to do with how I was raised. I left home when I was 15 in order to study abroad and be exposed to new things. I learned the hard way that I need to deal with multiple things by myself so that I can gain independence and be more mature. My experiences abroad have made me realize that I am really open to different religious beliefs and concepts. While I enjoy learning about various faiths, I respect them all while trying to live the way I feel the happiest. I don’t like to waste my energy on things or people that I do not feel a strong connection to, and find myself respecting them from a distance while also being indifferent towards them. Perhaps my experiences have made me realize that no society is truly loving and thoughtful as a whole. With this, I have probably hardened myself to realize that everyone cannot be converted to agree or be pleased with one’s preferences. So, why try to change theirs or keep mine in a box when, in the end, we are all just trying to find a way to be happy?

Works Cited

1. “Definition of Humanism.” American Humanist Association, americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/.
2. Duquette, David A. “Hegel: Social and Political Thought.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/hegelsoc/#SH6b.
3. Frank, Adam. “Buddhism, Science And The Western World.” NPR, 11 May 2017, www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/05/11/527533776/buddhism-and-science.
4. Frontiers. 'Where belief in free will is linked to happiness: Researchers show that the phenomenon, previously seen in Western populations, also occurs in Chinese teenagers, and can cross cultural divides.' ScienceDaily, 23 January 2017, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170123115153.htm.
5. Pecorino, Phillip A. “What Is Philosophy of Religion.” Queensborough Community College, www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_1_OVERVIEW/Philosophy_of_Religion.htm.
6. Rice, Hugh. “Fatalism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 5 Dec. 2018, plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/.
7. Stang, Nicholas F. “Kant's Transcendental Idealism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 4 Mar. 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/.
8. Troxell, Mary. “Arthur Schopenhauer (1788—1860).” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/schopenh/#SSH2aii.