There is such an easiness to being influenced by another person, by a certain philosophy, by a YouTube video.
How can you know what the truth is? And is there one Universal truth? If there isn’t then it means that literally, everyone can make their own meaning of things. This is in essence what Existentialism philosophers were writing about. A Human Being lives for the sake of living, with no preconceived purpose or meaning, placing the choice of meaning in the Human Being’s hand.
With that being said, we already know how much of an influence upbringing, society, the media, genetics, and subjective interpretation of personal experiences shape the mind of a Human. Then is the choice his or her to start with? Even if there is no preconceived meaning, there is defiantly an already existing set of behaviors and ideas being brought to life in the unconscious mind, slipping, easily, into awareness.
Outside of the scientific rationalism of the mind. In many philosophies, cultures, and religions, there is the notion of the Soul. That not only exists in the body but is the true essence of the individual, the real “you”. Now, in different philosophies and religions, there is a different meaning and purpose to the soul and ways of interpretation. As we progress in time, we see that more and more interpretations are born. Contemporary philosophers, scientists, psychologists, and the list goes on and on, all expand on existing interpretations or create radical new ones to almost everything. There is also the need to adjust philosophies and religion to the current modern world.
With new ways of distributing knowledge (Via the Internet) it is very easy to be presented with all this information and ideas. This can lead to confusion. Especially if you are easily persuaded.
Then what can you do? Who should you listen to? It rationally seems that even the people and ideas that are clean of personal and social interest, are still, in a way, biased by their own perceptions and life experience.
For example, even if you decide that you are the type of person to go with your inner intuition. Yes, even if that is probably, to some extent, if not all, based on your personal subjective conceptions and perceptions. Even if you try to look at things objectively, it is sometimes a subjective glance at an objective idea. I do however want to emphasize that I personally think we do have evidence-based objectivity in a variety of fields.
Now, if we decide to go with our intuition. Then, in my opinion, we might as well surrender to the flow of our being. Be present at the moment and let the specific moment take you to the next. Because, if we go with our own, raw, intuition, then we do not need external thoughts and ideas affecting us. Not even previous thoughts. That is why we need to connect to the moment, this can practically be strengthened through mindfulness practices like meditation. Because we need our awareness to be placed in the current moment, so we can listen and act upon our specific intuition for the specific moment.
We also must respect and accept the flow of events, as the next event needs us to listen and act on our intuition as well. Meaning it needs to be cleared from past ideas and ways of behavior. This way of moving means that you are aware of your biased unconscious (‘The Shadow’, Carl Jung) participating, but you decide to accept it and move along with it, as it is rationally and clearly better for you than letting someone else (a specific person or philosophy) calling the shots. This leads to another paradox. What if your inner intuition tells you to listen to someone else. Doesn’t that mean that your intuition is telling you to follow someone else’s intuition? If so, then what is the point anyway?
There seems to be a paradox to everything that is being closely examined. It reminds me of a scene in the book “Zorba The Greek” where Zorba shares with his boss something that someone told him, about how if a person examines a glass of water with magnifying tools he will see small worms inside the water, making him disgusted and not being able to drink the water, resulting in death from hydration
What will solve this everlasting pile of paradoxes? Maybe, it doesn’t need solving? Perhaps, a well-constructed philosophy needs to acknowledge paradoxes, in order to paint a full image? Maybe a philosophy should be clean from overanalyzing, making sure to lead to simplicity? Throwing away the over inspecting and just living life, at the moment.
Well, you have the freedom to decide for yourself, or do you?
Feel Free To Visit Omri Hurwitz’s Podcast Show