Before preceding with this article, I would like to acknowledge that there is a possibility that the contents below may or may not have been articulated before now. If so, this was unknown to me and would like you to inform me about this philosophy. It is not my intention to infringe on anybody’s works. Credit will be cited if necessary, but until then all words below are claimed as my own.
There is no right or wrong, good or evil, proper or improper. These are perspectives based largely upon the positionality of an individual or the collective of the group. Perspectives are often confused with correctness, and to be right, good, or proper is not necessarily to be correct. An individual or group becomes correct when defining the properties of the universe. An individual can achieve correctness by following these definitions when applied to a problem or situation. These definitions may change with respect to time as more information becomes available, but the individual only had correctness within the time period that the definition was valid.
To assist in helping people understand these concepts, the following is described in a similar manner as my thought processes proceeding my understanding.
Imagine a utopia as Sir Thomas More depicted. A place of perfection. Heaven is often used interchangeably with utopia and is considered to be a synonym. Most would define a utopia as a place containing only peace, joy, longevity, health, enjoyment, and love; otherwise the lack of pain, death, misery, boredom, and sadness. This definition is incorrect, for an ideal place is created out of a conflict or struggle. This is nothing new to a modern person, for the markets of literature and film making profit off of their depiction and creation of ideal worlds. The worlds centered around conflict and climax. Therefore, humans as a group do not lack correctness of achieving an utopia, but rather the definition does not correctly define the world as we know it.
0 Responses to “Parts of a Whole”