Reality and Human Behavior Strictly

¶ … reality and human behavior strictly rational approach to understanding reality usually is what we understand when supernatural forces, referred to as God or the Supreme Being from now on, are excluded from the mechanism that governs our behavior, the relationship that is formed with other individuals and the way we follows our objectives in life. This does not necessarily mean, however, that this approach is necessarily a logical one: it is first of all a rational approach, because it excludes an entity with the role of intervening in the life of the individuals and governing society.

From this premise, we can argue that the rational approach to understanding reality needs to investigate the social and individual problems that lead to behaviorism and actually form the reality around us.

Perhaps nobody was keener to emphasize this than Nietzsche in the Antichrist, but also throughout his entire portfolio of creations. Obviously upon first reading "The Antichrist," one is somehow shocked by what seems to be a total denial of things, an almost annihilation of any rational perception of the world surrounding us.

While that is partially true, Nietzsche's approach has method to it. The main role of the book is to deny Christianity, not necessarily as a religion itself, but an irrational religion that forces the individual to be governed by different laws than the rational ones and, thus, in Nietzsche's opinion, leading him to be less that he could have been if Christianity had not existed.

This is what explains his tirade against St. Paul. In my opinion, I think that Nietzsche limits the expression of the individual as an all-powerful being able to reach whatever understanding of the world he wants, needs and feels enabled to. From this perspective, I think that Nietzsche's reality is a reality where human behaviorism and social relations between the individuals is radicalized through the conception of the all powerful individual, the superbeing that has no limits in the way it not only understands, but creates its own realities.

On the other hand, Darwin's individual is a thoroughly normal one, including the fact that he is descending from the apes and primates through evolution. I think that his perception of reality is given by the text itself: Darwin's thorough and scientific approach leaves no question marks about the fact that his wish in the book is to present more than a rational description of reality: his intention is to turn this into a scientific description of facts. In other words, his requirement for the understanding of reality is not only to provide a framework that works for him, but also to find the scientific evidence to argue for this.

The first lines in his book are "HE WHO wishes to decide whether man is the modified descendant of some pre-existing form, would probably first enquire whether man varies, however slightly, in bodily structure and in mental faculties." His understanding of reality is given by the understanding of the individual that forms and creates the reality itself.

He first wants to investigate thoroughly if and how each individual differs from one another before going more into their origins and the way they have arrived to the present. Thus, his conclusions will lead to a understanding of reality based on the differences between all normal individuals and on the behaviorism that derives from their activity.

Bacon's work is less centered on the individual himself as the center of reality and of the mechanism of understanding reality. His rational explanation of the world focuses on nature. His preface of Novum Organum gives some interesting details about his perception of the Nature as the common denominator of understanding reality, the basic premise and concept of all subsequent understanding. Similar to the understanding of Nietzsche and Darwin related solely on the individual, Nature is also very difficult to pinpoint, shouldn't be dogmatized through its unpredictability and capacity to remain a differentiated entity.

Bacon proposes a method that includes "determining certain degrees of certainty" and, a definite element of rationality, using the mind as the main instrument of identifying and understanding the reality surrounding us, although the senses are also something that should be taken into consideration into the equation of understanding reality. Thus, through Nature, using his mind and senses, the individual is able to understand the realities around him, but also to understand himself as an entity fully part of this environment.

Plato's work "The Republic" centers more the understanding of reality on the political and social life within an Ancient Greek city. This is obviously so, since the perception of the ancient philosophers was also limited to the realities they were dealing with in day-to-day life. Further more, because a city was relatively small, the life of the citizens was very intertwined and the form of direct democracy, by which they directly participated to the decisions of the city, was characteristic during that time. Rationally, this was so because the same citizens would need to fight, pay taxes and thus would be involved in deciding when these things occurred.

The idea of "The Republic" is the creation of an ideal city/state where the rulers would be philosophical kings, extrapolating this to mean that they would be intellectuals. Obviously, the premise for this is to start from the political understanding of reality and work one's way towards being able to integrate a philosophical perspective and notions going from the immortality of the soul to justice and universal belief.