Wednesday 24 June 2015

Do we need an Ideology to be Moral?


What do we mean by an ‘ideology’? My understanding of the word in this context is 'a body of doctrine that guides behaviour’. Certainly an individual, group or an organisation that has such an ideology may try to conduct their behaviour so that it never breaches the ideology to which they subscribe. In these circumstances the ideology does become very relevant to their morality. However, by no means all individuals, groups or organisations would point to a particular body of doctrine if asked to explain the basis of their own morality. Even if they did profess such an ideology - such as “I’m a Christian” - it would often be found that both their definition and knowledge of the body of doctrine referred to would vary considerably between individuals.
No. At its heart, morality is subjective. Each of us develops our morality as we grow and mature. It is a function of our genetic make-up, our upbringing and the social rules/mores of the society in which we live. If we do subscribe to an ideology this, of course, may well become very relevant to our code of morality. Relevant but never essential. If an individual becomes disenchanted and abandons a particular ideology to which they once subscribed, he/she may find his/her moral compass changed but not obliterated.
Those in any particular society are all conditioned in common by the rules/mores of that society and therefore tend to develop relatively similar codes of morality. The variability in morality caused by innate and 'experience of the world’ differences remain however. Hence the good, the bad and most of us in our society with a bit of both!
As a case in point, I don’t subscribe to any particular ideology but I would claim to have a strong sense of morality. Of course, I may well have assimilated bits of morality from the ideologies of which I have knowledge; but no particular ideology has been “essential” for my moral compass.
In general, one can be a good and moral person and live a good and moral life without having a particular religion or any other source of ideology. A corollary is that one can profess to follow a very clear ideology yet exhibit a disgusting lack of morality. I’m sure there is no need to remind readers of recent notorious examples. It gets worse of course. If the profession of an esteemed ideology is taken as clear evidence of goodness by others, it can operate as a cloak to hide wicked wrong-doing. Does that also sound familiar?
I suggest that we know the man/woman by his/her deeds rather than by his/her words. If Thomas Aquinas didn’t say that, he should have done.

Monday 22 June 2015

Many of our Greatest Philosophers loved to Walk. Why?

Most of us inhabit a world buzzing with cares, distractions and stimulation. We are cronically overstimulated all our waking-hours and overstimulation is the arch-enemy of clarity of thought.  We have become so accustomed to this state of affairs that we hardly notice that it is so. Is it any wonder that the philosopher, pondering some of the deeper puzzles of this strange existence, will often seek peace in perambulation? 
In fact, I contend that the walking is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve such peace. The necessary and sufficient conditions are to be alone or with an equally contemplative companion and to be quietly in a natural environment. Sitting side-by-side fishing on a river-bank in quiet harmony with a close friend will do very nicely. While every-day life is overstimulating, sitting alone in your favourite arm-chair is not stimulating enough. The conditions I have tried to describe above provide a near-optimal level of peaceful stimulation as a backdrop to clear thinking and incisive analysis. 

Friday 19 June 2015

Are You Unaware of an Innate Talent?

Would it not be sad to live and die without realizing that you have an innate and extraordinary propensity for a particular endeavour? Since it would be impossible to have tried your hand at everything, you cannot possibly know that this is not indeed the case. Perhaps you could have been a very famous dentist. Perhaps I would have excelled as a circus clown.  Maybe - if we had known - we could now be famous, rich, fulfilled, happy. Is it possible?

Very few psychologists/ evolutionists would claim that we come into this world as 'a blank slate'. In my 'genetic priming theory' - do google it - I have suggested that all organisms are primed by their neuronal architecture for the adaptive behaviours of their particular species. I also explain how this has come about. It usually requires just a simple trigger or prompt from their surroundings for the behaviour to be manifested. Spiders are so primed to make webs, birds are primed for bird-song, humans are primed for language and religiosity among other things. Also since children tend to inherit a neural architecture that is conditioned by that of their parents, grandparents and more distant ancestors, we observe talents, skills and abilities that "run in families". I suggest that it is no coincidence that Nancy Sinatra could carry a tune.

There is no doubt that we are each born with certain propensities; perhaps primed to excel at certain endeavours. But here's the kicker. No trigger: no manifestation! Perhaps my expertise as a circus clown lies dormant and un-celebrated by the world simply because I never got my face painted up.

If I'm right - and I believe I am - the implications for education are obvious. As far as possible, parents and teachers should ensure that the propensities of every child are fully explored. This is made more feasible by the fact that skills and talents tend to present in groups. Many sports require hand/ eye coordination for example. I was rubbish at tennis so it was no surprise when I didn't make the England squash team.

If you are wondering whether you have a particular innate gift that has hitherto remained un-unwrapped, give it a try. I will do the same. Perhaps you will see me performing my hilarious clown routine at the next dentists' convention!