There is no denying the substantial role played by an individual’s experiences and influences, especially through his formative years, in deciding the personality traits he goes on to acquire. For man grows and develops in certain directions depending upon the various and unceasing inputs from his surroundings and how he responds to them and interacts with the world at large. The importance of empirical knowledge cannot therefore be overstated.
That being said– contrary to what armchair philosophers with an atheistic bent are so fond of asserting– the human mind, even at the time of the individual’s birth, is no blank slate. In addition to the hardware (the eyes, the ears, the brain, and the like), all the chemicals and passions, a human being is born with at least four innate ideas. It is in the framework based on these ideas that he takes in and processes all the various facts and opinions he comes into contact with.
These four intrinsic ideas (not necessarily in any order) are: the concept of a Creator (sensus divinitatis), the distinction between true and false (basis for cognitive judgment), distinction between beautiful and ugly (basis for aesthetic appraisal), and differentiation between right and wrong (basis for moral judgment). In fact, it is these four that distinguish man from the lesser life forms.
The human eye can sense light in its numerous colours and shades; and the human mouth has the taste buds to distinguish between salty and sour, sweet and spicy (to cite but two human capabilities). But humans share these abilities, among many more, with various other life forms. What sets humans apart is the fact that they possess ‘taste buds’ (so to speak) in cognitive, aesthetic and moral domains as well.
Which might sound strange to many observant folks who are apt to conclude that the available evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise. For there is a manifest lack of cognitive ability, moral sense and/or aesthetic judgement on the part of the homo sapiens, whichever sample one may take up for consideration. How is this ‘discrepancy’ to be explained?
Psychologists can no-doubt tell plenty about those who have convinced themselves that they are happy but who are not actually happy. Any happiness, success or satisfaction gained by giving up any part of one’s humanity can, at best, only be hollow and short-lived. But more significantly, coming at the cost of one’s humanity it is too dearly purchased anyway.
The discrepancy is only apparent. Because none remains if the following is understood: while every human mind comes pre-fitted with cognitive-, aesthetic-, and moral-compasses, as well as with sensus divinitatis, a man is supposed to exercise the apparatus he receives at his birth or else he loses it just like he loses muscle mass if he chooses not to use any given muscle. This happens ever so slowly, but there is an inevitability to the process if a man is not careful enough. So much so that man’s very nature gets distorted if it is not cherished and preserved.
One could put together many conscious and subconscious factors that are apt to make an individual think or act in ways that end up distorting his nature. Circumstances as well as nurture (with not a little help from the individual himself) combine to cause him, over time, to first become less sensitive to occasional departures from his nature, followed by temporarily or permanently forgetting one or more of these innate concepts altogether. Inevitably, every individual who lets that happen to himself at the same time loses some of his humanity too. In other words, the finish of his life after such a loss is certain to be less than that of somebody who preserves his humanity and for that keeps his innate ideas alive and active by being true to them.
Take cognitive dissonance (or double-think), for example. Mental laziness, lack of commitment to intellectual integrity and/or consideration of vested interests can easily cause a man to be shoddy in the way he handles data and forms his opinions as a result. Whatever the cause, each time the brain is not utilized to its full potential makes it harder to do the right thing at the next time of asking. As one gets set in one’s ways, getting out of that comfort zone becomes harder and harder. Until one even forgets how to use one’s brain even if (when) one wants to. Some crimes are certainly their own worst punishment.
Children, being ultra-sensitive to contradictory words and acts from a very early age, are notorious for embarrassing their elders by pointing such behaviour out in the most delicate of settings. Over the years they learn to suppress the urge to be honest at all times. Diplomacy sure has its place in society, but man rarely stops at the minimum necessary level. Most adults are therefore much less sensitive to cognitive dissonance, especially when it is their own.
What is true of a capacity for double-think is also true of having an inconsistent moral code, the contradiction of which is either ignored or is rationalized on one pretext or another. Whatever the case, the resulting bliss (if any) is not something any sane person would envy. The fructifying kind of happiness can only be achieved when a man thinks and acts wisely in any given situation. In other words, only when he at peace with himself.
Psychologists can no-doubt tell plenty about those who have convinced themselves that they are happy but who are not actually happy. Any happiness, success or satisfaction gained by giving up any part of one’s humanity can, at best, only be hollow and short-lived. But more significantly, coming at the cost of one’s humanity it is too dearly purchased anyway.
