(As far as I know, in college, we have our nose bleed just to catch a bit of John Locke’s inner thoughts. But this is the way I get it. I don’t know if you will, good luck as you read.)
John Locke is so engrossed with regards man’s process of cognition, the whys and hows of it. He is an empiricist, but apparently idealistic in approach and treatment of the matter. He used to circle around the concerns of the idealistic philosophers, negating platonic and that slightly Thomistic realist.
Locke puts his best foot forward by exerting that our knowledge and ideas are courtesy of our sense experiences or rather, we can know nothing except things that passes through our senses. In particular, the further mastication of sense experience underwent several “processing mechanisms;” from simple ideas (a mere actual cognition), complex ideas (the manipulation and fusion of diverse ideas) and the general ideas (which cares for essences). Further development of ideas are obtained by combining, comparing and separating; just likely a sort of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
The crux of Locke’s endeavor is quite focused on the mechanism of man’s mental faculty. Though an empiricist, he sounds on the rare side as an idealist, plundering areas under the dominion of idealist philosophers.
Locke also puts out a sketchy psychological analysis of a child, who calls his subject according to the well-framed ideas in his mind, such as the idea of a nurse, a mother or a father. Later the child grew and discovers many contributory or commonality in them, thus calling them in to one (by virtue of the particulars) – a man, for example.
On the other hand, John Locke’s Tabula Rasa or “blank slate or piece of paper” is perhaps a concrete paradigm of his empirical idealistic advocate. And it is at this point that I will draw my thoughts.
I have read a philosopher who says that “what enters into us via sense experiences radically forms our soul.” If man’s action depends on the ideas that he accumulated and, these ideas are sketched on a “blank sheet,” then it follows that whatever enters into a man’s soul forms it in conformity to the kind of ideas he gathers.
With this, I’ve got the notion that a man’s character or moral upbringing is directly affected by these formative stimuli that enter and taint his soul.
Say, a man highly inclines himself to keeping tabs on pornographic relish, and then shortly thereafter, he could be a rapist, a fornicator, and molester and later be one of them. Yeah, where did it all started, but from small beginnings which dramatically mushroomed to a crime.
Think, what are you made up of as of now?
The oriental philosophy, in particular, the Indian religion stressed out that the kind of embodiment or reincarnation a man will possess depends upon the “karma” (worldly attachment) he posses during his earthly pilgrimage.
The more Karma, less chances of attaining “nirvana” or in a state of a perfect bliss. On the other hand, if a man lives life like a pig (gluttony) he is more likely to inhibit or reincarnate a pig’s nature. Because, everything that has been said is of beastly nature - and we aren’t so different from that. We do have it, and even worse sometimes.
These philosophies and belief have also been supported accounts after accounts from different teachings. The Thomistic philosophy teaches that “nothing has come into the mind without passing through the senses.” A person must be very careful about the stimulus that meets his senses and sense experiences.
The ideology is logical enough to say that what formed a person from the inside is due to what transpire from the outside.
The Holy Bible itself tells us that “you are what you eat.” What enters your mouth become part of you – and in a very transcendental way defines who you are – and how you think.
So guys, YOU ARE WHAT YOU THINK, SAY AND DO. Be careful!