My Interview with Scott; A Detailed Report

   Scott’s major is Philosophy. It wasn’t always this way. After spending three semesters at Mira Costa taking other classes he decided to pursue something that he was passionate about. “I’m a thinker,” he says, “Philosophy hits me at my core.” And thus his choice to take Philosophy 101 was born.

   If you were to ask Scott to define truth he would tell you that truth is “what one believes to be real, right, the truth,” while adding on that truth is relative. Right or wrong, he would say, is all based on perception.

   Knowledge, according to Scott, is also based on perception. He quotes, “Knowledge is facts and ideas that one gains understanding of and through which truth is established.”

   When it comes to discussing the nature of reality Scott would argue, hands down, that reality is “purely consciousness” and that without consciousness there is no reality.

   “How does the mind work?” One might ask. Scott would inform you that the mind is made up of three distinct parts: Consciousness (“your thoughts”), Sub- consciousness (“formed by consciousness”), and the Higher Self (a.k.a. “Super consciousness”). Within the mind it is a balance act between these three parts. The goal is to find alignment, not to be confused with enlightenment, by making an effort to line each part up with the other. Imbalance created negative results.

   Scott tells me that he feels that we do have a responsibility to society. This responsibility entails “adding to, not subtracting from, value from society” and “always be giving.” He uses the example of a desperate man robbing a store in efforts to get money to feed his three kids. “Even though he wants to feed his kids with the money,” Scott explains, “the man is taking away from someone else.”

   Scott is a fan of the ying-yang symbol in regards to human nature. He would agree that human nature is inherently both good and evil. “Behavior is based on social environment; it’s all relative and you cannot have good without evil,” says Scott.

   If you were to run into Scott around campus and ask him how one should live his answer might go a little something like this: “One should live according to his or her own system of beliefs, live from the core.” He states that each individual should live by their own rules and live not to please other people. “Always be adding,” he says with conviction, “not taking away.

   This concludes my interview with Scott.

Advertisement

~ by Rachael on 2 March, 2010.

2 Responses to “My Interview with Scott; A Detailed Report”

  1. The only problem with this philosophy is that Scott and Scott alone decides what is giving and taking from society. The Bible, on the other hand, defines giving, to use Scott’s term, as our lives being a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to god by means of our reasonable service. Taking is by nature sin, however Jesus clarified this to include even the thoughts and intentions of our hearts. This sets a much higher bar and one that the intellectually honest among us determine is an impossibility. As scripture states apart from Jesus, we can do nothing to please God in this arena.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.