There I was discussing how philosophy can impact writing and be used within the story as well as a part of character development. Here it's about our lives, our choices, our decisions, about basically anything we do from creative work to living life to voting. I honestly believe having a solid philosophy of life improves everything. It allows for quick decisions and gives us confidence when we step out on those choices.
Without a personal life philosophy, we will be unwilling or able to take a stand on anything. We will be one of those who says we can't decide or who believes assume is a bad word. I 'assume' we then will have to let others decide what is okay or not-- others wiser than ourselves?
If our philosophy of life has come from say a religion, then we better find it compatible with how we actually live and our own set of values for the times when the rubber hits the road. If not, we will find ourselves screwed time and again. When we realize how we live doesn't fit that religion, then it's time to rethink the religion as I think a lot of religious people run into this. They give lip service to something but when a problem arises, they find it wasn't really their inner creed.
Whether someone thinks about what their own philosophy is or just lives it, whether they can express it in words, I don't think that's so important. What is important is to have one, and it will make all choices easier. The hard work was done.
I am not suggesting which philosophy you should adopt. I am saying that having one that works for your own life and in your culture is important.
The following all appeared first on the topic of writing books, but it has a lot of my own life philosophy in it. I don't suggest you adopt mine. I suggest you be sure you have one of your own.
*******************************
phi·los·o·phy (f
-l
s
-f
)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2.
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality,
knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical
methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
Although I have read a lot of books (and enjoyed them) with no clear philosophy of life in their plots, it's not what I like to write. Philosophy has been a major interest of mine from as far back as I can remember. Why do we do what we do? What would be better? If we follow this path, where will it lead?
Even an action story set into the world of rodeo, like Luck of the Draw, can have a philosophy of life within its pages. When men and women live life on the edge, might they not even more than others, stop sometimes to consider what makes it worthwhile? Well, not all of them and that's why a book has different characters to juxtaposition ideas with how they are lived.
Frankly I'd find it boring to write any other way. Sure a writer can put together a plot with some characters, have this and that happen, but in the end-- why? I like to come up with an interesting plot, set of problems, intriguing characters, good love story, but put within ideas regarding life and how we benefit (or not) from certain actions. The problems in that story will determine the themes of the philosophy.
This kind of writing doesn't have to come out like a lecture. It just requires a few characters that think about more than making money, physically surviving, having sex, or finding adventure. IF the characters are also looking for meaning in their own lives then it's not hard to find places to put that into the book.
It's not only not hard but it's extremely rewarding as a way of writing. For me, philosophy belongs in fiction.
Excerpt from Luck of the Draw:
She remembered then a quote by Tagore, one she’d memorized. ‘Let my love like sunlight surround you and yet give you illumined freedom.’ The words fit this situation for what it’d be like if she loved Billy.With some man, someday, she’d learn to love that way. Love but don’t hold too tight. Even if she had thought she loved Billy, he’d not have wanted such words from her, not now. She would though share it with Jean someday that she knew she had been right. Jean might blame herself for the accident, but she would be wrong to do so. Nick had made his own choice.If she had loved Billy, she wouldn’t let her love box him in, try to change him into something he wasn’t. She would not let love do that to her either. This wasn’t the right time for such words to Jean or Billy. It was how she wanted to live, but the knowledge was new to her. She had to live with it for awhile to be sure she could really follow that road.
6 comments:
I suppose I have a philosophy of life, that is, I think I know how I ought to behave and treat others. I don't always act as I know I should. Does anyone? But I like to think I know when I transgress.
I agree. Having a philosophy for our own life, one we live by, does not mean we always hit the mark
I'm more interested in observing the actions an individual takes -- which I believe reveals more about a philosophy of life than even the individual, including me, may be able to describe in words or write about. There may well be discrepancies of minor to major significance in terms of what we say, and believe is our life philosophy, and how we actually express our true philosophy in how we live our life. Perhaps there is something to be said for consciously about formulating a concrete philosophy, then trying to live up to that standard. I think in some instances such a practice could also be problematic -- especially making a determination for some about what is realistic.
Re your earlier question about whether or not there is such a thing as evil ..... forget solely psychological explanations ..... what if "evil" turns out to be actions causing or due to a neurological malfunction of the brain's nerve connections, methods of communication as a consequence of the chemical and electrical systems that dictate function? Just askin'! ;-)
In a way it doesn't matter if evil is due to some biological synapses or a choice. We as a culture must take it out because it kidnaps little girls and does horrible things to them. It shoots strangers in malls. I think we have to look at the actions and not totally let someone off the hook due to 'extenuating' circumstances. If we can fix such people, if they are willing to accept help, then that's something that needs to happen before the movie theater. Just my opinion because after that, they need to pay the price.
We are basically learning that this guy was receiving help but whether voluntarily, we don't know. The problem was the doctor didn't have the tools to force treatment. That needs to change unless we want more Tucsons and Colorados.
Oh, I agree, that whatever causes the unacceptable behavior toward other people, we must take action to remove the individual from those that could be harmed. Having done so, then we determine how to examine that individual's actions.
Perhaps we might view that person differently, possibly be able to help them to view their issues differently if we knew there was something else occurring inside their brain -- that proclaiming they were "evil" with all that word's connotations, including religious,which that concept has, would simply be a diversion in everyone's mind from the actual problem.
I reiterate, that such an offending individual still has to come to account for the actions, but how that accounting is undertaken might be reexamined for the potential ultimate benefit of all, including survivors and families.
This Colo. event may not be the case, individual, or situation in which such an approach will be appropriate. But I've long thought that often in this nation we're too quick to apply the eye for an eye concept.
I don't know if it's eye for an eye so much as an acknowledgement that some acts, like Oklahoma City are so horrendous that there has to be a recognition of that in how the society regards it. My problem with not using the word evil, and I don't say it has to be the person but to the act, is to give off with this it's all the same viewpoint and an unwillingness of society to take the hard-line when required. In the case of the Colorado shooter or the one in Arizona, I think life in prison with no possibility of parole, no dates for hearings, nothing but a lifetime there, that is better than a death penalty which many crave anyway.
I have been in favor of a death penalty for crimes where there is no doubt as to the guilt and it's horrendous, but it seems we don't as a culture have the ability to wisely use such a penalty and a lot have been put to death when it doesn't seem that criteria has been met. The reason Oregon went back to it (by a vote of the people) was because of the serial killers who faked it to look good in prison, got out and once again raped and tortured to death women. Life didn't mean life. It has to with these mass murderers and the serial killers.
I am also against the private prison system. It makes imprisonment into a profit enterprise which seems wrong to me. To have life mean life, we need to legalize pot, license it, and cut down on the drug offenders who are in prison taking up a lot of the space that we need for violent criminals or those who have robbed innocent people of a lot of money-- like some of these crooked investors ;)
Post a Comment