Fiction-Narrative Story Reflecting the Claims in The Queen and The Philosopher Essay

The thinking self identifies the common sense and the genuine sequence of logical ideas that allows a person to make the corresponding conclusions. The clarity of thought, however, is hard to achieve due to the external influences and emotional stance.

According to Descartes, the supporter of the rationalist perspective and the author of the phrase “I think, therefore I am”, declined the importance of emotional and sensuous perception of the world because it does not provide evidence and facts about existence of the world. In fact, his perception of the world and objective reality was possible through the thinking process that is the only means of recognizing the matter.

The mind allowed the philosophy to recognize and explain various phenomena; it was compared with the soul that allows the human organism to live and act logically. Genuine thinking is still challengeable because people are often affected by emotional and irrational factors that prevent them from understanding what is certain and what is not.

Because the thinking process focuses on the material side of the debate, the existence of spirituality and God is under the question because the presence of the divine cannot be proved. However, such an argument cannot be fully justified due to the narrow-focused emphasis placed on the claim.

Specifically, the existence of the world cannot rely only on thinking, but on the perception and emotion as well because they serve as the links to the external world. Five senses exist to cognize the world whereas the role of the mind is confined to interpreting these senses in a logical way. In this respect, the objectivity of judgment, therefore, premises on the extent to which feelings and emotions influence the thinking process.

Such an assumption has many confirmations, when a person’s vision disaccords with the perception of another person. The level of comprehension of certain ideas depends on the background and intelligence of a person.

For instance, in case a person lived in Middle East and adhered to the principles of Islam, his intelligence and background will make it difficult to understand the mentality and traditions of European culture, in which men and women are equal. People could argue against the principle of equality because they have been taught the opposite since their birth.

Relying on the facts that have been distracted from contexts has serious consequences in different situations. The story below supports this position:

John and Andrea had lived in one neighborhood for 15 years since their birth until they had to move to different places. John and his family moved to England where their predecessors lived whereas Andreas moved to Berkeley, California to study Art History at the University.

As per John, he decided to dedicate himself to the computer science due to his great interest in innovation and technological progress. Before they departed, both friends had much in common; they studied and walked together, their liked talking on different topics and they were fond of arguing about what is more important culture or science. These disputes were the most interesting activities, although they knew that they never reach agreement on either of issues.

Six years later, John decided to visit Berkeley and find out how Andrea was doing and what changed in her life. The girl was very glad to see him because she missed him much and disputes they used to involve during their school years.

She confessed him that she was interested in art because she needed the opposite point to quarrel with him. In fact, her interest in art history was premised on the possibility to create arguments against and engage in quarrelling. John was a bit surprised by Andrea’s confession because his obsession with technologies was genuine. He was strictly convinced in his judgments and, therefore, his arguments were shaped by his genuine interest. Once they start discussing this issue, Andrea replied,

“My interest in art history is also a kind of genuine, but the purpose of studying was completely different than yours.”

“But, I cannot understand what actually the truth is in your attempt to discuss contradictory issues. Do you really believe in what you are asserting?”, John wondered.

“I really do because I rely on facts and evidence that have been proved before me”, she logically explained.

“But those people also relied on somebody else’s observations and, therefore, you cannot state for sure that what you learn is actually the truth, until you apply it to practice”, John remarked with in perplexity.

“I believe that if the majority agrees with the statement, it is not by chance. Their own beliefs and suggestions premise on valid facts and logical deductions. Besides, art history is not an exact science and, therefore, different interpretations of phenomenon is acceptable”, Andrea started arguing.

John did not notice the moment when they started disputing on another issue. They were deeply engaged in the process, attaining no importance to the topic of their arguments. As soon as they realized this, Andrea questioned,

“Are you not sincere and genuine when engaged into an argument with me? Do you dislike the process itself?”

“Well, I do…but…”

“So, does it make difference to you whether I like something or not? It is just a context, which does not change the matter of facts”, Andrea explained.

“Well, probably, you are right, let us leave this issue and enjoy our dispute”, John responded with a smile.

As soon as they realized that genuineness of quarreling and arguing does not lie in the angles of discussions, but in the actual process of arguing, Andrea and John ignored this fact and acknowledged the actual purpose of their friendship. Additionally, genuine thinking is often affected by external factors, as it is presented in the story.

Hence, Andrea sacrificed her genuine interests and preferences for sake of pleasing her friend John, whose interest in the context was also real. Despite this situation, Andrea’s intentions were initially good, which justifies her action as a morally and ethically right one.

What is more important is that their discussions were premised solely on logically construed assumptions and theses, which means that they are true. It also supports the idea that original thinking cannot be based merely on the fear of not finding an answer to the question. Rather, the purpose of the argument should premise on searching for the truth.

Certainly, if a person possessing power asks a question to an inferior person, the latter could be afraid of engaging into a genuine argument because of the authoritative influence. Such a situation also distorts the objectivity of judgments and creates false observations. In fact, the person cannot clearly state what original and genuine thinking should base on to make the dispute objective.