During my bike ride this morning I struggled to understand how a philosophy can be built upon a base set of values that are allowed to change.
Let me clarify: I understand many philosophies to be structured in a manner similar to a mathematical theorem. One first states relevant definitions and assumptions, then makes (hopefully) consistent arguments based these assumptions which lead to a conclusion. I believe that values are the analog to assumptions in philosophy.
I've developed a suspicion that this structure is perhaps too rigid to support a world view that can satisfy me. As I age I change my mind on opinions and my general outlook, i.e. my values change. It seems that I've encountered the difficulty of trying to formulate a philosophy grounded in dynamic principles.
I'm also trying to come to grips on why a changing set of values can be preferred to a static one. Perhaps the empirical evidence I gave above--that my opinions change with time--is enough to make this claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment