Husserl’s Spatiality

In his essay Foundational Investigations of the Phenomenological Origin of the Spatiality of Nature, Edmund Husserl explores the conception of motion in relation to bodies. While an exhaustive summary and examination could be undertaken on the essay as a whole, I would like to begin with examining an excerpt that characterizes the essay’s foundational theme that establishes the origin of the spatiality of nature. After all, as Husserl stressed, it is the implicit formations of such parts that give rise to the unity in which we perceive the whole.

“We must not forget the pregiveness and constitution belonging to the apodictic Ego or to me, to us, as the source of all actual and possible sense of being, of all possible broadening which can be further constructed in the already constituted world developing historically.

Continue reading “Husserl’s Spatiality”

Economy of Thought

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

As reflection occurs, there is an invitation for expansion of the mind. As noted elsewhere, consciousness arises from the syntheses of our response to environmental demands. The better we become at responding, or satisfying, these environmental demands, the more ‘material’ or ‘programs’ are available to synthesize for the creation of new thought. In the sense that there is a conditioned path in which a demand was satisfied and remembered, these responses are simply programs. Concerning this synthesis of creating, the more programs, or responses, that occur, the more possibilities exist. Just as the more land there is, the more crops can be grown and the more goods can be cooked or baked, leading to endless combinations. It is simply a matter of what seed is planted, much in the way that demands plant responses. For now on, the word thought will be used to describe the conditioned response programs.

Continue reading “Economy of Thought”

Freedom and choice.

What is Freedom?

The question of freedom poses itself when explaining why people convert to god. If a conversion towards god is a result of a lack of responsibility for accepting and exercising our freedom, we must define and determine the nature of freedom as it relates to sentient volition- or free will

The notion of free will supposes an inherent ability to choose. The choice lies in the decision to act or not to act, as well as to choose among alternative actions. Ideally, this choice is autonomously made. However, to what extent are we autonomous? Is there such a thing as freedom of choice? Or, are actions mere precipitations of mechanical chain reactions?

Answering these questions requires the exploration of the science or philosophy of mind.

 

Continue reading “Freedom and choice.”

On Spirituality.

What is spirituality?

What does that mean? Pious and impious use the word to describe a transcendental mental attitude or world view.

Because I was indoctrinated at home from an early age, I didn’t convert to Christianity on my own volition, per se.  I do remember moments in my religious walk where I renewed commitments to God and reaffirmed my belief. This caused an awakening within me which inspired my efforts to bridge the gap between ‘God’ and myself.

The process of conversion requires the displacement of ego in exchange for ‘God’s Will’. The very idea of displacing the self is a powerful and transformative experience. In Christianity, you’ll often hear the ‘testimonies’ of people coming to Christ who  refer to the exchange of self for ‘God’s will’. I remember growing up hearing that we need to ‘die to self’ in order to lead a ‘God centered’ life.

 

Continue reading “On Spirituality.”

Freedom and Spirituality

Abstract
This essay explores the phenomenon of spirituality by delineating the rise of free will as a product of a reflective consciousness synthesized from conditioned responses resulting from external demands.

Contents

  1. Reflection as a starting point for analysis and reducibility
  1. Necessity of cause
  • Freedom
    1. Predictors of Demand
    2. Rise of Ideas
    3. Free will
    4. Reflection as Action
    5. Distance Defines Knowledge
  • Spirituality
    1. God’s Nature
    2. Conversions
  • The Rise of Spirituality
  • Continue reading “Freedom and Spirituality”

    Common Significance of Reversals and Deconstructionism.

    Do reversals have a common significance?

    At the moment, deconstructionism is the only method or paradigm that could even begin to grasp the illusive nature of these reversals. Derrida’s essay On Positions masterfully delineates the ‘general economy’ of deconstructionism.

    These reversals present themselves as unique revelations. While the genres of each reversal are unique and wholly distinct from one another, there is a common thread that holds each of these experiences together. Whether our minds create the illusion of common significance through the innate classification of these experienced reversals, or if they really do contain a common significance that leave a potentiality for further exploration, I am not sure.

    I do believe that there is legitimacy to these reversals. Deconstruction works to tease them out. As I have read over the readings I have developed a general idea of how these reversals behave. Derrida was right to say that when a reversal takes place, what is happening is a violent binary reaction between oppositions that overturn the signifier and the signified. What is created is a space within the system. Because this system is closed, this is the only option for creating new meaning, new space for exploration and new room for thought. It is when these oppositions meet that a momentary condensation expresses a coalescing visibility into the system, just before it clouds over again. This visibility, this seemingly new space that is created, allows for new shades of meaning to enter our periphery.

    But what creates this binary reaction? What are the forces, or triggers, that power the overturning and create a reversal? What is the significance of this reversal after all? What it might go back to is the necessary conflict that occurs during the reversal. The temporary suspension of order involves a violent hierarchal exchange between the loci of power, representing a deeper expression of the non-intentionality detailed by Levinas in his Ethics as First Philosophy. This non-intentionality passively subsists beneath our cogito to supplement the intentional consciousness’ objectification of knowledge in the pre-reflective contemplative state. The-non-intentionality gives rise to the bad conscious as a means to assert itself through the expression of intentional thought. The resulting intentional thought posits itself through questions, which beg a response. Thus we are met with the responsibility of language.

    Let us explore non-intentionality and the bad-conscious as it relates to reversal. The bad consciousness that arises from the aimlessness of the pre-reflective non-intentionality operates out of restlessness. It poses questions and demands a response. The intentionality is much less restless and much more controlled. The cogito directs this objectification of otherness to grasp for knowledge. But what happens when our conscious intentionality encounters the demands of the bad-conscious? Perhaps this is when a reversal is experienced. As we intentionally grasp about the otherness, we are preoccupied externally, leaving the non-reflective intentionality idle. While we willfully apply our intention to the objectification of things in an effort synthesize the alienating divide and construct our nests of knowledge, our bad-conscious simultaneously asserts itself in opposition. Our intention, turned outward, is surpassed from behind, so to speak, and momentarily overcome by the non-intentional bad-conscious so that we witness a sudden phenomenological change in scenery that disorients and delights, altering the landscape of the mind. The conflictual overturning lasts as long as the non-intentional is left demanding, and the intentionality is free to observe these demands objectively without weighing them reflectively. As soon as the experience is contemplated, the non-intentional pre-reflective withdrawals its assertions and demands and the reversal rights itself again.

    It is in the opposing forces of intentionality and non-intentionality that we find a common significance of reversals. To examine the substance being reversed is to overlook the common significance of why the reversals occur across substances. All substances constitute otherness and are non-uniquely the same in that respect. They differ only in their present significance. As they drift to the peripheral margins of thought, the space they occupy in our mental landscape diminishes as our need to acquire knowledge of them through objectification wanes. It is only the intentional objectification of the other that the bad consciousness can assert itself through the expression of an intentional thought. It is this conflict that is presented as being commonly significant throughout the experienced reversals.

    A Reflection: An Evolution of Responsibility

    The Evolution of the Responsibility to Self and Place:

    Looking back on the semester, I fastidiously inspect the various moments my mind was exposed to new insights. The philosophy class has been a period of incubation. Throughout the fall I have allowed my mind to freely explore the legitimacy of novel ideas and weighed their relevance to my life, unhindered by competing feelings of preservation. A burning passion kindles in my chest. I reflect on the philosophers and the discussions that struck deeply, that fanned that flame into a fiery blaze. My thoughts turn to a few readings and philosophers that reinforced and, at the same time, upended my antiquated belief system. In order to illuminate the timid shadows of self deception, I allowed these philosophies early on to serve as a spectacle for all further reflection.

    At the start of the year I was enveloped in a dense cloud of confusion. As we progressed in our readings and I accreted understanding, a series of themes began to emerge. The themes, strung individually throughout the weekly readings, later weaved themselves into a vivid tapestry as the semester culminated. They included the conception of self, the genealogy and history of society, the role of belief, and the function of nature as it relates to a sense of place. None of these themes stand alone, but borrow from each other. Of each, I will speak broadly and expound on each philosopher’s contribution to the construction of each theme as it appeared to me.

    I believe the core to understanding is primary experience. In an age of information, I believe its role in the modern life has been diminishing. With so many perspectives to read on a subject, who needs to waste time experiencing it for themselves? One can read of the countless errors and achievements and interpretations of each and come away feeling equally wise and judicial. The fault with this, however, is that we rob ourselves the task of exercising our own powers of reason and interpretation. Nevertheless, our lives are short and we cannot possibly indulge all our curiosities so, read we must. With this in mind, we are obligated to read judiciously, choosing texts carefully (preferably primary sources to ensure minimum distortion of interpretation) and reflecting with the intent to incorporate the new knowledge into the faculties of understanding. John Aubrey said, “He had read much, if one considers his long life; but his contemplation was much more than his reading. He was wont to say that if he had read as much as other men he should have known no more than other men.” Reading must involve contemplation. Thus is the duty of the philosopher.

    Continuation…

    Kant’s Deontological Ethics in Sum.

    I. Kant begins The Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals by reducing the self to reason in order to understand the foundations of right thought. He concludes that at the base of one’s thoughts, there is an intention or will that is at the core of self.

    A good will is the only qualification for good action. Kant says: “A good will is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attain some proposed end; it is good only though its willing, i.e., it is good in itself.” That is, a good will is good in itself, independent of any requirements that would make it good. Kant goes on to justify this by explaining that even if good will failed to achieve its end through action, it would still retain its value as good will because of its good intention.

    Continue reading “Kant’s Deontological Ethics in Sum.”

    Nietzsche: Morals

    “Here precisely is what has become a fatality for Europe—together with the fear of man we have also lost our love of him, our reverence for him, our hopes for him, even the will to him. The sight of man now makes us weary—what is nihilism today if it is not that?— We are weary of man.” (Genealogy of Morals, 11)

    Nietzsche here diagnoses a malady of mankind: nihilism. Nietzsche was writing in 1888. Does his description of nihilism resonate with you today? If so, how do you specifically experience the nihilism of contemporary culture? Are you weary of man?

    Or, perhaps, Nietzsche was just being an anti-democratic pig. Is he too harsh in his criticisms of the herd? Too elitist in his orientation? Can mass-culture be a stimulus to life?

    (Firstly, I thought these writings were pretty difficult to decipher.)
    Core to Nietsche’s writing so far is the idea of resentiment. Nietzsche has illustrated a dictomy between the slave morality and the master morality. The master morality, or noble valuation of things, is simple and indifferent and acts spontaneously (37). It exists in the present and gives little thought to the condition of the slave, other than a careless and impatient afterthought of contempt. The master morality is consumed with the happy and beautiful and noble self, only seeking invented and ‘falsified’ negative (‘bad’) contrasts (these contrasts are not rooted in reality) that would reinforce it more “gratefully and triumphantly” (37). Meanwhile, the slave morality is preoccupied with deep resentiment towards the master, a festering and poisoning passion that create an imaginary a world where “hatred grows to monstrous and uncanny proportions” (33 & 36). Slave morality rejects the hostile external world with a resounding no in a creative defiant act (37). It is in this covert imaginary world of unsatisfied hatred where the idea evil manifests itself, contrary to noble flighty idea of ‘bad’.

    This is the most basic summary of what Nietzsche has laid out here. At the end of GM, 11, Nietzsche asserts that Europe has slipped into a nihilistic state due to Europe losing their fear of man, which has caused it to lose its “love of him, reverence for him, our hopes for him, and even the will to him” (44). This fear of man is necessary for the master morality, because noble man needs enemies as his mark of distinction (39). Nietzsche begs for “something still capable of arousing fear” in order for man to justify man (44).

    I believe what Nietzsche is saying is that Europe has slipped into the slave morality because there is no fear and therefore no reason to grow greater (44). The slave morality is insidious and covert, residing not in the present, but in hope of the future. This removal from reality and the present is what dulls man and makes him weary and mediocre. Being “better” is simply man failing to grow by reducing the positive substance of inequality. The noble man needs a fear of the plebian man in order to justify his distinction.

    So, if any of that is correct, does this resonate with me? Well, Nietzsche is very disorienting.

    I believe that there are enough forces of fear at work in this culture that sustains mans self confidence and causes man to rise above and react and grow in their midst. Mass culture in itself a force that provides man a means to rise above and justify man.
    I also believe that our society has almost eliminated the need for fear, because we live in a (semi) functional democratic nation. This might cause man to slip into a weary nihilistic state. Specifically, because we live in a democratic nation, there is no notion of one presiding over another and therefore no fear of the plebian to base our noble valuations. This eliminates the master mentality, necessary for growth according to Nietzsche. By losing this fear we slip into a slave morality consumed with resentment towards… God? The government?

    Nietzsche makes some pretty bizarre connections. I need to think more on everything I’ve read to decide if he’s too elitist. I think he’s just challenging the traditional foundations and rocking the boat.

     

    South Park and Open Society: A Response

    An essay I recently wrote. Loved reading about Karl Popper, didn’t really like the essay.

    South Park and Open Society: A Response

                When examining a democratic society there should be ample evidence of open expression, where ideas can be examined and critiqued by the people as a whole. Professors David Curtis and Gerald Erion investigate this evidence in their essay South Park and the Open Society by presenting the controversial cartoon show South Park. South Park gained popularity in the nineties, and has since built the reputation of parading society’s most controversial topics for the public eye. Curtis and Erion provide examples of how the open examination found in South Park was intentionally designed to exercise and preserve the health of liberal democracy. To support their case and qualify the importance of an open society, the authors cite twentieth century political philosopher Karl Popper and his critique of totalitarianism, The Open Society and Its Enemies.

                In the opening paragraphs of their essay, Curtis and Erion reference media theorist Douglas Rushkoff’s position that many social criticisms are intentionally interwoven into seemingly harmless entertainment mediums and serve to illustrate the fundamental principles of democratic philosophy at work (para 1).  South Park, they instance, does this explicitly by portraying its characters as ‘overzealous political activists’. The show openly offers up caricatures of extremism on the right and left for ridicule and derision. Because South Park finds no person or subject taboo, it has been constantly targeted for censorship and cancelation. Curtis and Erion believe that the creator’s decision to allow open discussion of such extremism places them in a position safe from the extremists who threaten to shut down the show.

                While South Park may come off as a crass cartoon filled with crude humor and ‘tasteless’ jokes, authors Curtis and Erion create convincing parallels between serious social and political gestalts that allow for deeper considerations of South Parks methods of free expression. What has protected South Park from much of this ridicule is that by silencing the shows message, many people would effectively be silencing their own. What lends credibility to the show is that it rests on the ideals of open society that are needed for critique and criticisms. It is just as natural that the show is a critic that it is producing critics.

                Curtis and Erion cite South Park cocreators Trey Parkers and Matt Stone in a PBS interview as they remark on the importance of openly recognizing that people screaming on both sides of an issue are the same people, and that it is ‘OK’ to be in the middle and laugh at both of them (para 3). What is paramount here is that these extremists don’t stifle the message of one or the other. Curtis and Erion refer to Karl Poppers principle of intolerance for intolerance to support Parker and Stone’s position (para 14). This principle emphasizes what Popper saw as a necessity in a democratic society in order to ensure open discussion on all subjects that call for critique and lead to progress. While the creators may not intentionally have society’s best interest at heart, they are most definitely furthering the healthy process of examining controversial subjects so that progressive ideas can be exchanged.

                When looking at the heart of this type of free expression in action, twentieth century scientific and politic philosopher Karl Popper provides the best framework for examining the system. As a major proponent of liberal democracy, Popper championed the notion of open society while criticizing the controls of government and customary myths perpetuating closed societies.  

                In order to avoid being subject to criticism from one extremist group or another, the creators of South Park opt to bash all sides, playing it safe in the middle ground. Referring to the remarks of the co-creators about the importance of extremism being expressed, Curtis and Erion find evidence of Poppers open society framework in the countless characters of South Park who openly embody this extremism and portray stereotypes of all kinds. Each of the main caricatures of SouthPark, Stan, Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny, encapsulate characterized beliefs within our culture.

                Through the character Cartman, the obnoxious overweight authoritarian, the co-creators exhibit the abhorrent stereotypes associated with the right wing fanaticism (para 11). Curtis and Erion describe the qualities and character defects that Cartman poignantly displays in characterizing ‘un-democratic’ conservatives. He has no issue berating anyone with his foul mouth and fascist opinions and most often takes his anger out on Kenny, a character that best represents the poorer class.

                With his coat covering his mouth and inhibiting recognizable speech, Kenny’s role usually consists of random muffles here and there, followed by his eventual death in most episodes. His lack of speech is similar to the lack of voice and influence within the poorer class. His regular deaths, and the utter lack of concern his friends share when he dies, represents the constant struggle within the lower classes that is often overlooked or ignored as a whole.

                With just as much ease, Curtis and Erion reference the characters identified with the extreme political left. An episode with their teacher, Mr. Mackey, portrays the hypocrisy of the watered-down leftists as his attempts to get the students to stay away from drugs lead to his own addiction.

                For middle ground the creators introduce Stan to exemplify the every day American middle class Christian populist. Along with Kyle, they represent an open and diplomatic approach to problems which allows the audience to receive him easily. While similar to Stan, Kyle is Jewish and embodies the prejudices as a minority.       

                The friendship between these four not only illustrates the volatile dynamics within American culture as they interact, but creates a satirical stage as they encounter other residents and extremists within the show that demonstrate extreme beliefs and opinions. What makes the show so popular is how these characters encounter these extreme ideas and the scenarios they contain. As an audience we witness our own behaviors, biases and prejudices exhibited through the characters.

                Curtis and Erion present convincing evidence in their essay South Park and the Open Society that South Park creators Parker and Stone share Karl Poppers political philosophy of an open society. By actively identifying and discussing the extremism on all sides, they offer themselves up as an extreme, and legitimize an important stake in open discussions. If Popper were alive to witness South Park on the air, he would rest assure that the health of American Democracy is alive and well.

    Fundamental America

    This is what a paper written in 1 hour and 20 minutes looks like.

    Fundamental America: Free for a Price

    Examining the paradoxes of social inequalities within the scope of democratic sentiments

    Inherent Paradoxes

                Two hundred and thirty years ago the American people declared their independence from tyrannical autocratic rule. The founders synthesized the enduring democratic rights and truths of the greatest philosophers that ever lived. Despite this, democracy was reserved for a margin of people and out of reach from the vast majority. Since our countries conception, great advances have been made to refine what democracy is and establish who has the right to contribute their voice. Major movements in women’s suffrage and later slavery and African American rights were milestones that helped shape the seemingly exclusive ideal of democracy. Currently America faces several fronts that challenge the legitimacy of our current democracy.

    Social Inequalities

                In our readings in Signs of Life in the USA, authors Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon address a variety of paradoxes that exist within our American culture in chapter six, American Paradox. No paradox is more controversial and relevant than America’s simultaneous declaration of universal human freedom and equality and its long history of racism. This paradox addresses the tip of the iceberg of much larger paradox illustrating an advertised freedom that was not intended to be free.

    Historical inequalities

                Examining our American roots we can see that our puritanical Christian forefathers desired a society of their own, free from autocratic dictation. They envisioned this society for the United States. As time went on, these puritanical sentiments persisted and found their way into our legislation. Because their ideals subjugated the rights of women and African Americans, they were prevented from voicing themselves for the first half of American history. Only after massive opposition and generations of change have these become matters of the past.

    Xenophobia of Middle Easterners

                In our current culture racism seems to be localized to extreme fringe groups. Popular culture has seen women take center stage on political issues, and African Americans dominate multiple industries from entertainment to sports. However, social inequalities are still alive and well, and although racism may be withering, xenophobia continues to blossom with every generation. Most recently our country has been in multiple wars and with every war is an accompanying fear. Middle easterners have been the target of these fears as our government denounced radical Muslims and extremists from the middle east of reeking havoc world wide. While the atrocious crimes were committed by radical sects, the language used to single them out has effectively caused a mass hysteria directed towards the Middle East as a whole. Ignorant Americans forget that the numbers of such extremists are next to nothing.

    Xenophobia of Illegal Immigrants

                Another xenophobia gripping our nation is that of illegal immigration. The news of illegal immigrants storming our borders, scaling walls, digging tunnels, enduring deserts and dangers has America in a panic. While Americans national security has been called into question, another issue of economic security has been the focus of most news. Illegal immigrants are publicized as taking hard working tax paying American’s jobs. In light of our economic decline, this has been the spotlight of most Americans concern. To compound the issue further, America’s war on drugs is now directly battling the major trafficking of illegal drugs through our southern Mexican border.

    Social Inequality of Homosexuality

                The last social inequality that challenges the fabric of our constitution and agitates the ethical and moral minds of America is the issue of homosexuality. It seems it would be an inevitable topic given our ‘free’ country was founded by puritanical Christians. While the issue of homosexuality has made much headway in popular culture and open acceptance the past two decades, it has only recently been challenging the roots of America. Proposition 8 and the issue of same sex marriage has been the most widely publicized debate on the issue.

    Examining the Paradoxes

                Why are these paradoxical? While some might look at these issues and produce valid concerns for their legitimacy, they overlook the very foundations of America. This land, whatever the founder’s initial intent, was established as a haven for the persecuted, a home for those underfoot, those whose rights were molested or stripped. Social inequalities serve to destabilize the creed of freedom. To remove one man his rights would be to undermine the rights of all men. This, however, is what America has done throughout its history as it has attempted to reserve democracy to a select few.

    Reserved Freedoms

                These examples illustrate a major flaw in America’s declaration of freedom and equality: where the line of freedom is drawn. While we hold our relativistic and tolerant values supreme, we are terribly protective and afraid of anybody watering this down and wavering from these values.  In the case of illegal immigration, most would think that America, of all places, would be the most receptive and lax about this process. Considering that there are no true natives other than the Indians, we should embrace the people who venture here to exercise their rights. The truth is that earning your citizenship and freedom in America is an arduous test of patience that many people simply do not have the time to pass.

    Paradoxes: Generational Entrapment

                Democracy is defined as a government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people. These people make up the common people and dictate the governing rule through the legislative and judiciary process. However, problems arise when one generation’s laws improperly reflect the current generation. As the generation of one common people phases out, another phases in, often met in opposition to outdated traditions and beliefs that made their way in legislation. These tendencies create obstacles for progress, as is seen throughout American history with landowners only being able to vote, women’s rights, and African American rights.

    Defining a Free Democracy

                 Another paradox that exists within these paradoxes is that of a free democracy itself. Any form of government is a form of control. Whether that control is derived from single or multiple sources detracts from that fact that there is a degree of freedom is forfeited. In a democracy this power is derived from the common people, the populous. This causes difficulties among those who compose a margin of the population or any minority with fringe beliefs and philosophies.

    Conclusion

                Overcoming these paradoxes will be the result of overcoming an inherent part of the human nature: fear, specifically the unknown. That includes all unfamiliarity extending to foreigners, homosexuality, or just change in general. While I would love to say these inequalities have all but disappeared with the advent of the mass media, internet, and other mediums of communication that break down the one sided walls of ignorance, the truth is they remain an enduring part of our culture.  Though America once related with the tired huddled masses in Emma Lazarus’s words on the statue of liberty, we have grown alien to these feelings and are less empathetic to those who need it most.

    Humanism and The Odyssey: An Analysis

    Examining the Pursuit of Mans Sense of Self

     

     

    Success is a humanistic notion. It is man achieving. One definition describes success as the progressive realization of a worthy ideal. The fact that humans are in control of their success or failure, and essentially their fate, is a unique concept that originated in Greek society. When man loses the will to seek answers he effectively relinquishes control over his circumstances, causing him to accept his circumstances as divinely appointed and beyond his control. He accepts the direction of his fate and deemphasizes the importance of his desires and abilities. The humanist, however, maintains optimism towards his current circumstances and places faith in his ability to change those circumstances. The continual pursuit of refining those abilities to achieve his circumstances is what encompasses the idea of arête—excellence. Aristotle said “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit.”  The notion of anything less than excellence contradicts humanism and sends man at the mercy of circumstances beyond his control. Homer’s work The Odyssey paints the prescription for all humanists to come as Odysseus battles to overcome circumstances and fulfill his desire to return home.

    The humanist is one who cherishes the very highest ideals. At his essence is self-discipline, a persistence and determination that fuels his effort to achieve those ideals. Humanists are concerned with the refinement of their being—their character, intellect, morals—seeking out the very highest reason, virtues, ethics, and ideals in order to aid in the ability of self-actualization. They believe in the cultivation of man to create the most fulfilling life possible.

    Throughout The Odyssey Odysseus struggles against harsh circumstances that deter his efforts to return home. He’s buffeted against the waves, stranded on islands, held captive, and blown across seas for more than twenty years. Yet, despite these forces, he continually presses on. The Odyssey shows that while man is subject to circumstances, either external or internal, he is no longer a victim. While gods are present throughout the story they never miraculously save him, nor do they prevent him from achieving. As a whole they are unsuccessful at countering or waiving Odysseus’s strong will to return home.

    When examining The Odyssey as a humanistic work, it appears that the gods remain as fixtures of the story that fill in occurrences that would otherwise happen anyway. Homer portrays their acts more as symbols of luck or inspiration that either aid or hinder Odysseus rather than the gods inescapable will to save or condemn him. Interestingly, Odysseus is often compared to Athene in their witty, cunning and sly nature. It seems that the gods are a result of creative explanations for things with unknown origins such as natural occurrences and inspiration. Each time Odysseus faces a set of circumstances and the gods intervene they are shown providing insight and help that Odysseus can choose to heed or ignore. This is also illustrated when Telemachus was approached by Athene to stand up and fulfill his desire to rid his house of the suitors and see his father again. Despite his age and the odds against him he successfully chose to pursue the ideal and overcome the challenges (Homer 90). Illustrating the ability to choose and achieve such choices was a first for a literary work in a world governed by deities and supernatural forces.

    A major theme throughout The Odyssey is the idea of light and darkness and it’s symbolism of order and chaos as well as life and death. Humanism is a philosophy of change and the process to achieve that change. It is man coming to know himself and his world, overcoming his savage nature, restoring order, and living life to the fullest.  It is achieved through personal development and refinement by overcoming challenges.  Homer incorporated these elements of humanism not only in Odysseus, but in the overall societal atmosphere of The Odyssey.  Homer used light in association with order and life. King Nestor, Menelaus, and Alcinous had ordered kingdoms, good manners, and tremendous success. They spoke eloquently and maintained high ideals for themselves and their guests. The Phaeacians displayed not only the virtue of xenia, but illustrated the idea of achieving arête through competitive sporting events as well as their unparalleled mastery of the sea. In contrast, darkness represents that of chaos and death, qualities that humanism strives to overcome. The suitors, barbarous and destructive, represent chaos and disorder soon to be overcome by Odysseus, the model humanist. When Odysseus arrives in Ithaca he finds himself in a deep fog that makes his home unrecognizable.  His victory over this darkness comes when he defeats the suitors, showing triumph over chaos and the return of order.

    Odysseus can be considered a model for all humanists. The Odyssey displays him maintaining the highest degree of excellence in all his endeavors. His courage is tested time and time again as he approached the most daunting tasks such as facing giants and sorcerers, and even going to Hades (Homer 150). His discipline is displayed in the continual pursuit of his homeland despite the forces he wrestles.  His keen intellect is displayed through his ability to choose his words and actions carefully. His cunning speech deceives his enemies and persuades new friends in order to defeat or win favor. His manners and use of words is so good, that he wins favor with the princess Nausicaa of Phaeacia, despite his nude and ravaged appearance (Homer 81). His physical strengths are seen every time he competes. After all the suitors fail, he is the only one more than able to string the great bow and shoots it precisely through the axe holes (Homer 286). He proves his vastly superior athleticism when he competes at the Phaeacian games and out does all the competition (Homer 99). His knowledge of strategy and war is evident through his conquests of cities and kingdoms (Homer 96). His patience and temperance are evident in the insightful plans to defeat the Cyclops and the suitors (Homer 118, 216). As a whole, Odysseus and his struggles manage to convey a viable exemplar of a true humanist.

    The Odyssey also contains, however, contradicting elements of humanism that seem to raise the question of whether or not it accurately portrays humanism. While Odysseus has heroic qualities of achievement, he’s often portrayed as weak and easily fallible to vices such as women and pride, specifically hubris. The obvious cases of his temptation of women can be seen with Calypso and Circe (Homer 66, 133). He easily succumbs to the temptation of women and forgets about his wife Penelope whom, in cases he mentions her, he desperately longs to see.

    Odysseus’s pride is another obstacle that interferes with his success many times. While kleos, the Greek word for glory, was something to be sought out and cherished in Ancient Greece, too much can cause devastating effects and invoke hubris, considered the greatest of sins in ancient Greece. Hubris is the overabundance of self pride that causes arrogance and self confidence, usually resulting in showing off or putting someone down for personal gratification. This was illustrated during Odysseus’s encounter with the Cyclops Polyphemus when he taunts the Cyclops after cunningly escaping from his captivity (Homer 123). Odysseus’s hubris almost cost him his life and the lives of his crew members when the giant threw boulders at his ship. Additionally, even after surviving the close call, he gloated even more, disclosing his name to the one eyed giant who later proved to be Poseidon’s son.  His overabundance of pride resulted in causing more problems than any other single factor throughout his quest to return home. Hubris also is seen when retribution is being served. Clear cases of this occurred when Odysseus slaughter’s his betrayers and the suitors. He mutilated and butchered Melanthius and ruthlessly beheaded Leodes even after he asked for forgiveness (Homer 292, 296). He also killed all but twelve maids after they were ordered to clean up the bloody corpses. These examples are presented as paradoxical to the notion of humanism and the honor, virtue and excellence it stands for.

    These faults, however, can be cleverly considered one of two ways. At first glance, one can view Odysseus as a proud individual of self-indulgence who does his best to boost his image while disregarding the life of anyone who undermines him. On the other hand, further examination reveals that Odysseus is battling normal human struggles and vices. When considering the cause and effect of his actions, the reader is shown not what to do, but what not to do. His love of women caused him to stay with the beautiful Calypso for seven years while his hubris causes even more immense problems with Poseidon’s fury. The humanistic theme is preserved when the work is read as an honest portrayal of the human condition illustrating the challenges faced when striving to actualize ones desires and achieve arête. It depicts Odysseus as a normal human who’s fallible and imperfect despite his reputation and ideals. His mistakes never prevent him from achieving his desire no matter what the misery. Humanism involves cultivating one’s life through temperance by avoiding the obstacles and vices that hinder fulfillment.  The Odyssey vividly conveys the essence of persisting to overcome struggles through its characters.

    The Odyssey further exemplifies the humanistic element as a quintessential work of literature. The complex characters, deep storylines, and metaphorical relationships embody the holistic quality of writing one would expect from a humanistic work. Even its prose and syntax reinforce the idea of arête by providing a concise and relatable text that has endured as an unparalleled work of art. The word andra, or man, placed as the very first word of The Odyssey proves to further signify the importance of man in a Homeric world.

    The Odyssey provides the first example of a human’s will being the central component of their fate. Everything about it points to the significance of man in creating his world. This provided the framework of western thought that has propelled so much of our achievement. This Homeric epic shaped the ancient Greek culture that emphasized the importance of man seeking arête to cultivate his world. This introduced the importance of an individual’s thought and ability to reason, prompting the philosophy of modern humanities, modern democracy, and modern science. Whatever Homer’s original intent, he was successful at epitomizing humanism in every element of The Odyssey.

     

     

     

     

    Bibliography

     

    Homer, and E.V.Rieu. The Odyssey. 3rd Ed.. London, England: The Penguin Group, 1946.

    My Ethics.

     

    Over the years I’ve developed a strong understanding and conviction of proper morals and ethics through a variety of my life experiences. For a long time the ethics and morals I held for myself were relative to the situational occurrences and were usually based on how my actions would leave me feeling at the time. This philosophy quickly eroded as it was tested and failed time and time again. I realized that my ethics are a direct reflection of my character and a strong character is something that not only I can rely on in times of doubt, but others can look to for valuable guidance. A strong character is consistent, noble, respected, and trustworthy. Being morally and ethically sound involves being full of integrity, doing what’s right no matter who’s looking, being straightforward and honest, and being selfless in the decisions you make to benefit others as well as yourself. I think a man’s character is the only thing he has when all is stripped away. It’s the reputation that precedes him as well legacy he leaves behind. I realize there were flaws in my personal philosophy and ethical standards that were detrimental to my success. Upon realizing this, I made a resolution to refine myself to exemplify excellence in every endeavor or thought I undertook. My thirst for success motivated me to turn my search for answers to those who were successful and exemplified a life of excellence and honor, so that I could assimilate the best of what they learned and lived into my own life. My pursuit led me to read books of awe inspiring truth and wisdom such as the Bible, to books by authors such as James Allen, Napoleon Hill, John Maxwell, W. Clement Stone, Claude Bristol, Dale Carnegie, and other honorable men. My father is also a source of inspiration in his unwavering conviction to pursue what’s right and flee from what is wrong no matter what the consequence. When interacting with others, I often revert to the golden rule in one form or another to judge my decisions by placing myself in the situation of whomever I’m interacting with.

                During my youth I was involved with many toxic activities which, in hindsight, caused many setbacks toward my long term aspirations. Due to moving over twelve times and attending twelve different schools throughout the first twenty years of my life, I developed a strong love and appreciation for people. This love often caused me to compromise my ethics and morals in order to satisfy or appease my friends and their expectations. Though I tried my best to exemplify my convictions, I often found myself compromising many of my ethical and moral standards when I was around my friends.

                Many of the situations and dilemmas that caused me to compromise my ethics tended to be more internal clashes as opposed to visible confrontations. I do my best to assume full responsibility for my actions in the midst of any adversity. I consider myself a terrible liar, and as much as I dislike the feeling of being dishonest towards other people who trust me, I most of all despise lying to myself. When I get caught for doing something wrong, I embrace the responsibility for my actions and accept the consequence of my shortsighted mistakes. I do my best to spot these incongruencies in order to eliminate any detrimental conflicts with my values. I find it important  to acknowledge the mistake without hesitation and take the appropriate measures to remediate.

                I have learned that problems never go away until they are fixed. If you put off fixing problems they will eventually build up to overwhelm or drown you. They never fix themselves. When I was a younger I had misconception of responsibility.  Taking the form of procrastination,  many problems would pile up and eventually lead to a downward spiral. The same analogy goes for flawed ethical decisions which, if not immediately and emphatically fixed, pile up, causing severe damage to you in the end.

     

    Journal Entry #1

    Journal Entry #1

    “Feeding your own Gators”

    My own gators. Feed those monsters inside me. If I don’t, they will fester and feed on me. Eating me slowly from the inside out. Who are these monsters? They are the dark matter within the depths of my mind. They are a black hole summoned by vicious thoughts and temptations that suck my being inward, suffocating my true intentions, masking my whole heart. I deny their existence. Not because they never existed, but because you are not your past, nor a collection of your ongoing thoughts. These evils that yearn to be exorcised, as the teach called it, are nothing more than indulgent desires. The formula for ridding their existence exists in denouncing their being.
    Yeah- I know my vices. There are blemishes on my perfect intent. I long for perfection and fall short in comparison. I willfully refuse to surrender my integrity. It is a paradox of give and take. Perfection that never exists and the ongoing pursuit, despite my attempts to castrate myself with these tendencies they are apart of me, but I am not apart of them. My flesh and my human nature, abiding to the fundamental laws of the universe, knows no other commands. My will is steadfast, but my mind is penetrable. Lurking behind the actions that solemnly swear to my manifested thoughts are those actions, the lure of sultry eyes, that peer into the shadows looking for comfort in the shade. Light is my guiding force that illuminates my path. Yet- the same path, cannot be seen clearly when I turn to look at the darkness behind and around me. That very light that leads me, casts the very shadows that cause me to stumble. That cause my eyes to fixate on things that are unreal but so very visible.
    The gators- those reptilian creatures that drag their bodies on the soiled earth. Cold blooded and anxiously waiting for the opportunity to lash their vengeance upon another victim. They brood in the depths of the soul. Denying it’s existence is denying the imagination. The soul is apart of you. That swirling mass of mixed decisions. You pluck every premeditated action from this pool of filth, looking to nab the little shard of good worth to fend off the gators. Human nature. The flesh. Our soul, being constructed by the will to routinely plunge our hand into the cesspool of right and wrong. We do not necessary have to have a conscious when we feed those dark creatures. We fan the flames but never add fuel to the fire. We escape conviction, yet acknowledge their presence. Those evil desires. They eat and claw and bellow like a smoldering dragon.
    We do good just to keep ourselves from drowning. Some people rarely give it that much thought. We do good to keep ourselves from drowning. Do people give any thought to the pool, to the reptiles that we chase, and grab us, pulling us under.

    Interior & Exterior relationships

    Stories. Stories transcend explanation.

    In every experience, in every interpretation, there lies a relationship between self and that of the occurrence. Either literally or metaphorically, you are engaged in a meaningful intimate relationship that is prompted by the desire to examine the dynamics involved, as well as how they react towards previous experiences. I will state that reality is rarely real, rather a conjecture of assimilated facts and relationships. The facts of any reality are reinforced outcomes that provide a constant source of reliance when testing variables to other unknowns; or when hypothesizing (you might say philosophizing) the relationships that exist between these facts. The dynamics are endless and soon supporting evidence, namely facts for the sake of stability, run out. What remains is a question in which you must settle for an answer based on what your assimilated experiences and intuitions have led you to deduct as true. This seems like a faulty way of approaching life but it seems that this is the way people perceive reality.
    The exterior landscape of our mind acts much like a collage would if we glanced at the array of snapshots organized and orchestrated to provide the most significant meaningful interpretation possible. It’s the exterior landscape. Our eyes look at what is, through our eyes. We choose to see matter existing and we allow it to pass through our eyes and encode itself into an image that we place in the back of our mind. Now the greater collection of these images the more correlations can be made. The exterior landscape of our mind consists of the logical processes of life. What the sky looks like. How clouds move and form and dissipate through evaporation or precipitation. What a woman looks like. What the sound of laughter resembles. What different forms the landscape portrays. The erosion in the soil, the rivers and streams, the luminous trees extending upward coated in a sheen brilliance of chlorophyll saturated leaves, the ocherous discrepancies in a striated mountain. People of different races. A vibrant color, a shape, a design. There are the elements we use to shape our exterior landscape. We perceive them to be real.
    The interior landscape exists on a much more universal plane. It deals with metaphorical, analogical, relational consistencies and patterns. This is the formula we use to deduce meaning from the exterior landscape. It makes the inanimate, animate. The interior landscape sees beyond tangible patterns and explores the relationship between one perceived entity and another. This creates understanding that fuels future assumptions and allows more significance to be gleaned from the exterior landscape. New concepts, insights, and ideas are aroused that give substantial meaning to once potentially unimaginable visions and experiences. The interior landscape is a universal language that can only be spoken and understood if the proper exterior landscape exists to incubate these metaphorical connections. The interior landscape must be tilled through extensive attention to detail. Keen and open experiences, even brief aphorisms that resonate and illustrate tangible tested qualities of truth- provide details, that paint and color in the regions of intentional brush strokes left by the assimilation of the interior landscape. The less color- the less comprehension is transcended to others for relation. You can work with very little experiences and deduct very similar conclusions. Your limits are imposed by your lack of imagination within the interior landscape. Not due to lack of tools and opportunities provided by abundant experiences supplementing your exterior.
    The drive for communicating foreign contexts of exterior landscapes and the intrinsic meaningful relationships of the interior landscape behind them, from one person to another, truly relies on the ability and understanding to communicate on an interior level. To make the relationships identifiable through sheer honesty of the formula used to assimilate the experience. Every story has a formula that consists of much more than basic nouns and pro-nouns and prepositions. It is the diction, the rhetoric, the language, and gesture, and style- totally separate from intellect- that fits together in a universal communicable truth that arrives at the ears of the listener. It involves the faculties of the metaphysical intuition, which resonate with truth and integrity, to embrace the extended shared experience. You can grow just from hearing another’s story. His interpretation- His perception of assimilated events stowed away carefully in a supportive woven web of meaning.

    No matter if you don’t understand this concept. The significance of thinking has degraded generously the past century. Thinking is a job, and as long as we aren’t getting paid to do so, we’d rather rely on tangible crutches to do our thinking and form the relationships we use to signify meaning. It seems rare in this culture at least that creativity is original. It’s all copped and cropped. We are no longer stimulated to think. I feel that this lack of enthusiasm is due to the misconception that it’s all been thought before. That all your answers are out there. Except for the basic anomalies of God and existence and dimensions- there are only lose ends to be tied up and soon enough they will too be explored. It may be hard to recognize the meaning in something so trivial as the lost art communicating of multiple levels.

    There is a dark giant cloud of cultural, economic, and political oppression that exists to convince us that our interpretations are as irrelevant in the scheme of life as a single drop of water is irrelevant to the whole ocean. I’d like to see beyond that significance.

    Assimilated Summary of Locus of Control, Attribution Theory and Explanatory Style

    Michael S. XXX
    9-13-07
    LOC Reflection

    The locus of control is locality on a bilateral continuum that dictates the level of awareness one has regarding his/ her control over occurring circumstances. The two poles in reference are established as having an internal or external location of control to ones circumstances. In laymen’s terms, a scale to measure the responsibility one takes on in deciding how his behavior could directly affect the outcome of a situation(s). The locus of control offers a more measurable and spatially comprehensible method of looking into the behaviors that dictate the outcomes of specific situations for people on a habitual basis. When looking at the two extremes of locus, the external end of the spectrum is closely comparable to having a philosophy of determinism (or causality), where very little of your efforts can actually change the past or present circumstance. The external locus connotes a very irrational and powerless approach of explaining behaviors towards life and associates with persons of a very limited idea of personal responsibility. External locus is when direct casualty is placed on an outside event and outside of personal control. On the other extreme is internal locus. This refers to one who approaches circumstances with an acknowledged responsibility for shaping their future through constant thought to appropriate reactions and rational decisions that would lead to fulfilling one’s obligation to expectations. The extreme internal locus of control is most closely relatable to the philosophy of humanism, where faith in anything but self is denounced and determining one’s destiny is realized by embracing any and all responsibility they have for their actions to determine their future. The causality is placed on factors within the person as an explanation for what happens to them. The issue of motivation begins as one sees the significance in applying consistent effort to an expectation and succeeds. Only after realizing the power of responsibility one has over their life can one begin to orient towards an internal locus of control. This coincides directly with the explanatory style of learning where one sets expectations and fulfills them through discipline and acting upon the belief of competency. When one realizes that by simply assuming all responsibility for achieving, and recognizes the circle of influence he has over controllable factors, can he can effectively and efficiently tackle relative tasks that would allow of maximum growth towards expectations. Yet, these expectations can be positive or negative. The optimistic or pessimistic explanatory style is the determining factor that dictates success after an internal locus of control is realized and achieved.
    There are many factors used to gauge an idea of effort involved in an undertaking. How we perceive these factors plays a huge role on the language we use to communicate and understand undertakings and expectations. Our communication and comprehension cognitive processes are developed and influenced continually throughout our lives by parental conditioning, habitual behavior reinforced by expectancy, sociological, cultural, or ethnic influences. What it comes down to is how you perceive situations. There is nothing that is too hard. There are factors that are out of your control, but it is up to you to recognize these factors so that you can allocate proper time and energy where needed to succeed. You have been half product of circumstance, half product of will until you reach an age of responsibility for the things you have control of. The more maturity, the more one recognizes ones ability to respond accordingly to their circumstances and succeed with their expectations.
    In relation to task difficulty, what is simply being communicated is that certain time and energy will need to be allocated to accomplish the task. This is only to communicate so we can have a better understanding of the preparation we should take to approach the task. Many times we think task difficulty is something that one can actually fail to accomplish and never ever accomplish. (THAT IS CRAZY.) Excuse me. That kind of mentality is that of a pessimistic explanatory style. What we need to realize is that nothing is ever too difficult. This is done by adopting an optimistic explanatory style. We need to train ourselves to focus and persevere through discipline and consistent applied willpower to accomplish the task. As we approach the challenge we might not have the tools it takes to overcome the task. What this directly indicates is that we need to acquire the tools and knowledge to overcome it. It is a given opportunity to grow and to develop one’s abilities. No one has set abilities. We continually add by the constant application of principles and values that brought us previous success. Effort is relative as well. Effort is the time and energy needed to complete the task. If you don’t have the tools and don’t know how to use them then the task will seem difficult and the effort applied will be much. The way to work more efficiently and effectively is by getting into the habit of succeeding. When you succeed you reinforce what is necessary to acquire and articulate knowledge to achieve. There is life, but there is no luck. A roman philosopher quoted it best when he said “Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” I believe that, and anyone with a positive internal locus of control would agree that you are fully responsible to prepare yourself for life and its opportunities and challenges- both of which can provide you with positive growth when proper preparation is obtained. When responsibility is realized, and you owe it to no one but yourself to succeed, than task difficulty, luck, ability, and effort are all pretty consistently stable and controllable.
    The correlation existing between locus of control and explanatory style is that of the realized potential of the individual and the expectations they hold for themselves as they approach a task. AD/HD tendencies seem to associate a pessimistic explanatory style and internal locus of control for any failure in a particular task yet hold a very optimistic explanatory style and internal locus of control when successful in a task. LD/ADHD students used in research by Schulsky & Gobbo showed that using the attribution theory towards internal locus of self efficacy were able to elevate self-esteem, perceived control, perceived success, and academic emotions. The attribution retraining reinforces an increase in self-image leading to realized internal control and responsibility that allows for elevated measurable progress. When individuals act out these expectations and project the image of achieved success their performance matches up. These ADHD students tend to associate failures with lack of ability, an internal, stable, uncontrollable, global cause whereas students of a ‘control group’ associate failures with an internal, unstable, controllable, specific causality. The importance of an optimistic explanatory style is to boost self efficacy in order to achieve a view that failures are unstable, controllable, and specifically caused instead of something inherently flawed within them and beyond their control. ADHD students that hold this internal locus of control and use a pessimistic explanatory style tend to produce results of lacking self efficacy, leading to anxiousness and depression due to the thought that something is inherently wrong with them.
    This summary shows that an internal locus of control is not necessarily a positive thing. Thinking that one is flawed is a devastating concept to live with and approach life with. The formal education system and diagnosis’s can actually be devastating disadvantages to students who have unique personalities and learn differently. They know they are capable beings, yet they begin to come to believe that they have something wrong with them and this negative internal attribution style affects the growth and competency within classrooms and undertakings in life.
    I originally found this research abstract and it came off as psycho babble to illustrate very fundamental points about human achievement. I find after thorough reading and intense yearning for comprehension and understanding that it is enlightening and supportive to ideas that were currently held about my own abilities. It re-illustrated and colored new precepts I’ve acquired the past year about success and my abilities as I committed my time and energy to finding the secrets to success and achievement. Growing up I knew I was smarter than many of my peers. This was an internal attribution style I held for my abilities as a person separate from any other opinion. In the classroom my personality (medically called ADHD) conflicted with the rigid standards of the formal education system. This resulted in a gradual negative/pessimistic explanatory/attribution style that maimed my progress as a student in the classroom. (This next part blew my mind so bear with any tangents) Throughout my childhood I unknowingly relied on medication as a means to achieve. When I was on meds I did well, when I wasn’t it was obvious and my negative behavior was attributed to this. This research accurately identifies my previous perceptions of medication as an external stable specific uncontrollable cause. I was medicated from the first grade until seventh when it was decided that medication was more of a crutch than healthy assistance. When I was removed my ability to perform and produce positive desirable behaviors in the classroom was poor. In seventh grade my grades dropped and anxiety and depression set in. Severe external emotional factors such as parents with high positive expectations and hard disciplinary styles conflicted with my negative explanatory style that, try as I might, my efforts were not able to produce. This was compounded with the suicidal death of a best friend. Having a high internal locus of control I interpreted these factors in a negative attribution style which lead to depression, anxiety and a host of other usual behavioral inconsistencies. I was medicated for a variety of psychological diagnosis, but at the heart, using my hind-sight bias, I was only acting out my reinforced expectancies. I struggled with self efficacy and although I had high expectations for myself, the formal classroom stifled my ability to succeed and caused failures to be accepted as inevitable. Fortunately, I overcame any negative feelings of depression at the start of my senior year as I assumed an internal positive responsibility for the right to be happy and not live a depressing negative emotionally defeating life. I realized my circle of influence and placed external casualty on circumstances when needed.
    In summary, this trend continued throughout high school until senior year when I ultimately confronted the way I really felt about my incompatibility with the education system and my belief that I was no good for it. I simply ceased all effort in the classrooms, leading to failure to graduate. I was alright with this. I let myself do it. I refused to struggle with things that were, at the time in my perceptions, out of my control. It was two years later, after failing high school, getting kicked out of my home, and after getting a taste of the real world and the basic responsibilities for survival did I change my internal explanatory style to a positive approach and took responsibility for my life fearlessly. This was a decision motivated by sheer will and the desire to directly change the expectations I had for myself. I saw how I was living, and I saw how I wanted to live. I refused to make excuses or call myself flawed. I was willing and capable and I saw that there were people far worse than me that tackled life and its challenges with huge success through persistence and determination. I made the decision to study every successful man, and read every book I could get my hands on written by the people who’ve experienced success in their endeavors first hand. I decided to learn from the best. I read libraries of books on personal development and auto-biographies of the greatest successes. Every book I read was backed by the intent to further my understanding of what it takes for achievement. Each book was reinforcement for desire of positive success and the belief that I can have whatever I want if I’m willing to get expend the proper time and energy. Two quotes resonate as inspirational fuel that reminds me of the obligation I have to myself and my ability for success: “”What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think. This rule, equally arduous in actual and in intellectual life, may serve for the whole distinction between greatness and meanness. It is the harder because you will always find those who think they know what is your duty better than you know it. It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.”-Emerson” and ““Press on. Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing in the world is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. -Calvin Coolidge””. Together they reminded me that I have a plan and I can be as unconventional as I want. No one can stop me and my desire for success. As long as that desire is there nothing can hinder my progress. “People may doubt what you say, but they will believe what you do.”-Lewis Cass. I decided to back up all desire with immediate action.
    In conclusion, correlating and translating my personal philosophy in terms of the essay at hand, I will say that I have a relatively new sense of positive internal control over my direct responsibilities towards achievement and that my explanatory style has assumed an ever increasing optimistic perception towards my set expectations and goals for success. I still struggle with old habits of thinking that sometimes barrage my confidence. Although I have a relatively high internal locus of control, 80 according to the survey, I struggle with being positive. Positivity is the ONLY way to make progress. NEVER does progress come from negative thinking, and if it does, it is never realized. An internal locus of control is good when it is reinforced with a positive mentality or explanatory style but can be detrimental when reinforced with a negative mentality. Having an external locus of control puts you in no position for progress because responsibility is not realized. I’ve learned to cope best by disregarding those negative mentalities by submerging myself in inspiring text by those who have lived success and encouraged achievement on every possible level in their lives. As long as I have a worthy ideal and I know exactly where I want to be and exactly what that looks like, I can reinforce that valuable ideal with action that directly reinforces my direction and confidence.

    Research References and Articles used in this essay include:
    “Explanatory Style and College Students with ADHD” by Solvegi Shmulsky & Ken Gobbo (2007)

    “Are You the Master of Your Fate” by Rotter, J.B.(1966) Generalized expectancies for internal vs. external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28

    and Rebecca Matte’s Powerpoint presentation “Locus of Control, Attribution Theory and Explanatory Style” (2007)