It is clear that the message Knox was trying to connote was that people become less and less adventurous from their fixed surrounding and daily routines, regulating their life like programmed robots. I suppose this is true because as people become older they take have a strong sense of morality between what’s correct and develops stereotypes, which limits their spectrum of thought.
After reading the book and going through some psychology text books (yes, psychology text books) I entirely agree with Alberto Knox’s, that one do lose the ability to wonder as time passes. From a young stage, children are in stage where they seek to learn through observation and imitation of others around them, it is through this ‘experience’ that they gain their knowledge; egocentrism in children also plays a large roll because it is like the drive for children to explore new knowledge like “how was the world created?” In contrast adults loses the ability to explore could be due to the fact that they have already de-centered, further more adults also have a stronger sense of what’s correct and generalizes things in a rationalized scientific way.
However as much as I agree I also understand that it is natural for them to lose “the ability to wonder”, because of their surrounding which poses no need for changes, unlike a child’s environment where it’s changing constantly. It’s like people have become accustomed to what is expected in their society and subconsciously conformed. If one is to become caged and bound with rules how do we suppose they wonder for tomorrow or perhaps truth?
1 comment:
Does that mean that for a person to think philosophically we must all be radical and not follow societies norms? Is that really what stops people from thinking philosophically?
Post a Comment