One of the reasons why it is crucially important for just about any well-educated individual to possess a comprehensive worldview is that it enables such an individual to understand the significance of the surrounding reality’s emanations, which in turn increases his or her chances to attain social prominence. In my paper, I will aim to explore the validity of this suggestion at length, while elaborating upon the specifics of my personal worldview and upon how my worldview helps me to adopt a proper stance towards addressing life-challenges. The foremost aspect of my worldview is the fact that it is dialectical. That is, I believe that the actual significance of the reality’s manifestations should be assessed within the conceptual framework of how causes define the nature of corresponding effects.
This is the reason why I do not think that it is being appropriate to discuss particular phenomena as ‘thing in itself’, outside of what happened to be this phenomena’s dialectically predetermined causes. In its turn, this partially explains why I consider myself a materialist, who does not believe in the realness of essentially metaphysical notions. This also explains why I think that is specifically the Darwinian theory of evolution, which provides scientifically substantiated answers to the question of what triggered the emergence of biological life on Earth and what had set the newly emerged life-forms on the path of becoming ever more complex. It goes without saying, of course, that the fact that I adhere to the provisions of the Darwinian theory of evolution naturally makes me an atheist, as I am being in a position to define the discursive significance of the people’s very sense of religiosity. In essence, I think that the strength of a particular individual’s religiosity positively correlates with the extent of his or her evolutionary underdevelopment. Such people’s underdevelopment emanates itself in their tendency to adopt a holistic stance, when it comes to tackling life-challenges, which in turn prompts them to subjectualize nature – just as primeval savages and high mammals tend to do.
For example, it has been well observed that bears that sustain injuries against sticking out tree-branches, while crawling over the log, often end up hitting these branches with both of their paws – as if they wanted to punish them. The reason for this is simple – in bear’s mind, the ‘evil’ branch appears nothing short of an entity of its own. This illustrates the actual origins of ‘spirituality’. And, as we are being well aware of – ‘spirituality’ serves as the conceptual foundation for just about any world’s major religion. What it means is that, the more people are being tempted to profess a particular religion, the closer they are to animals and vice versa. The validity of this suggestion can even be confirmed visually, in regards to what appears to be the anthropological constitution of many Islamic fundamentalists, for example. Nevertheless, even though that I think that the very laws of nature determine the process of people continually becoming less ‘animalistic’, as the part of their evolutionary development, I still think that biologically speaking, the representatives of Homo Sapiens species are nothing but primates. In its turn, this explains the nature of social dynamics in just about any human society.
After all, just as it is being the case with the existential anxieties of male-monkeys within a particular tribe, men’s foremost existential anxieties are being concerned with making babies (spreading the seed) and with imposing dominance upon others. The understanding of this simple fact, on my part, comes in particularly handy when I assess the extent of many currently popular socio-political ideologies. For example, through the lenses of my worldview, the ideology of feminism appears utterly fallacious, simply because in the societies of primates males always dominate – this what actually ensures these societies’ structural integrity.
Therefore, if feminists succeed with promoting their agenda, this will inevitably result in the destruction of Western civilization, as we know it. The earlier outlined conceptual premises of my worldview, are being thoroughly consistent with what I believe account for this worldview’s foremost socio-political, ethical and epistemological implications. The implications can be formulated as follows: a) The linearity of progress. I believe in the full objectivity of the concept of socio-political and scientific progress. The very fact that, as time goes on, the realities of today’s living are becoming ever more discursively complex and technologically intensive suggests that, contrary to the speculations of promoters of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘cultural relativism’ (who imply that the concept of progress is being essentially ‘euro-centric’ and consequentially ‘wicked’), this concept does in fact help to explain the very essence of historical laws, to which people never cease being subjected.
In its turn, this suggests that human societies can either be in the state of continuous advancement (Western societies) or in the state of continuous degradation (Third World societies). b) The discursive fallaciousness of the concept of ‘people’s equality’. Given the fact that, as it was mentioned earlier, the representatives of Homo Sapiens species never cease remaining the subjects of evolutionary laws, it eliminates even a theoretical possibility for people to be ‘equal’, regardless of what happened to be the specifics of their genetically predetermined ability to operate with abstract categories (IQ). The validity of this statement can be easily illustrated in regards to what accounts for the difference between the quality of living standards in Western countries, on the one hand, and the quality of living standards in the Third World countries, on the other. c) The non-religious essence of the people’s sense of ethics/morality. Even though that even today, many people continue to believe that the one’s ability to act morally is being reflective of the strength of his or her religious beliefs, the recent discoveries in the fields of biology, genetics and sociology expose the sheer wrongness of such a belief. This is because these discoveries established a positive correlation between the measure of people’s ability to act ethically, on the one hand, and the extent of their intellectual advancement. Yet, as it was pointed out earlier, the notion of intellectual advancement and the concept of religion are utterly incompatible.
e) The eventual rise of a new ‘post-human’ era. The fact that, as of today, the ongoing progress in the fields of biology, genetics, medicine and IT has attained a clearly defined exponential momentum, creates objective precondition for the humanity to qualify for yet another ‘evolutionary jump’. It is being estimated that in twenty years from now, it will became possible for people to learn foreign languages instantly (by the mean of having microchips installed in their brains), to grow new limbs (genetic engineering) and to even attain immortality (by the mean of having their consciousness saved in the computer’s hard drive). This, of course, will instantly deem the currently predominant social, economic and ethical conventions hopelessly outdated. Yet, such an eventual development is inevitable. The very fact that, as it was shown earlier, I was able to define the practical implications of my philosophical worldview, suggests this worldview’s overall discursive relevance. However, the same fact is also being suggestive as to what may account for my worldview’s foremost challenge – namely, my worldview’s inconsistency with the dogmas of political correctness. Yet, as we all know, there has not been even a single instance in history of some artificially upheld ideological dogmas having effectively reversed the course of socio-political and technological progress.
Another important aspect of my worldview is that I believe that it is only discursively/practically relevant knowledge, which students should be striving to acquire. This suggestion directly relates to Luann’s question, as seen in the cartoon. Apparently, just as it is being the case with many today’s students, she had a hard time trying to figure out what was the actual purpose of her studies. In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that, during the course of acquiring new knowledge, Luann could not relate to this knowledge emotionally – probably, because she considered this knowledge practically irrelevant. This is the reason why she will not remember what she had learnt by the time she reaches 45.
What it means that, contrary to many people’s belief, the process of acquiring new knowledge is not being synonymous with the process of memorizing. In order to be considered ‘knowledgeable’, one must be quick-minded, industrious and wise enough to be able to apply his or her abstract knowledge in practice. Unfortunately, as practice indicates, due to considerations of political correctness, the development of these qualities in students is being rarely considered an integral part of the learning process. I believe that the earlier provided insights into my worldview do correlate with the initial suggestion that the one’s possession of a comprehensive worldview is the foremost precondition for him or her to be able to attain social prominence. This is because such a worldview makes it easier for the concerned individual to discover the discursive/practical relevance of the acquired theoretical knowledge.