Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
Reply to comment
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities has 50 remote-ready activities, which work for either your classroom or remote teaching.
Narrative is determined not by a desire to narrate but by a desire to exchange. (Roland Barthes, S/Z)
What's New? Subscribe to Serendip Studio
Recent Group Comments
-
Serendip Visitor (DarkHellSpartan) (guest)
-
Donte Jenkins (guest)
-
hannahgisele
-
hannahgisele
-
phyllobates
-
cwalker
-
cwalker
-
cwalker
-
mgz24
-
Roy Nelson (guest)
Recent Group Posts
A Random Walk
Play Chance in Life and the World for a new perspective on randomness and order.
New Topics
-
1 week 3 days ago
-
1 week 6 days ago
-
1 week 6 days ago
-
2 weeks 7 hours ago
-
2 weeks 7 hours ago
Agency and Purpose?
I, myself, am a fan of the idea of both purpose and agency. I don't care if it's the kind of purpose that comes from some higher being, a 'destiny' if you will, or the kind of purpose that we make ourselves, but I need to believe that there is some sort of purpose to life and living. There is a problem, however, that I have long since tried my best not to struggle with; I often find myself stuck within the conundrum of purpose vs. agency. I firmly believe in higher powers, and an overall (maybe cosmic?) role in life. I believe that things happen for reasons, that nothing is completely pointless (I have seen too many coincidences to comfortably believe otherwise). I also like to believe in agency, free-will and such. I like to think that our decisions effect our paths through life, and the world in general--that is what makes the most sense to me. Both ideas work perfectly for me, as long as I keep them separate. As soon as I try to put agency and purpose together, in the ways that I see them, and attempt to make them coexist, they tend to protest and my brain short-circuits. I want to believe in both, I'm comfortable with my present theories for each, but they can't seem to work together, and if that makes sense I don't know how. How can both (logically) be true, if they almost directly contradict each other?
In in the end I sort of just came to the conclusion that it doesn't matter. I don't have to reconcile the two ideas to believe in both. After all, we have no way of truly knowing what the absolute 'truth' is, there is no conformation one way or the other for either idea. I believe that, while the lack of logic sometimes bugs me, that logic is not absolutely required in every single aspect of my understanding of the world. Everyone's perception of the world is (and should be) unique, so I don't have to compare mine to anyone else's. As far as I know there is no pop quiz hiding in the light at the end of the tunnel. And most of all, I enjoy the bizarre and absurd--so it's alright if my human condition falls a little within that category, right? Just because we can't make it work inside the box yet, doesn't mean I can't look outside of it! Perhaps all I need to do is turn my perception on its head...
And on a lighter note (perhaps it will explain my general argument better than this rant does...):