[] oN BeiNG a PHiLoSoPHeR []

I have been poetic, as i have seen my insights from the past. But it collides with my current occupation as a philosopher. I don't know if I can still give justice to my insights but as far as I may concern, what I would want to write is a feature literary. I must make the idea sound but compeling, Something a kid may understand at his first reading.

I read through my articles and have seen a progressive form of writing, from simple "parinigan" and symbolism to going straight to the point and unwinding. I don't get why my form of blogging changed but, honestly, I loved the way i do it in the past than how I do it now. Today, I rather resort with stories of my life to explain life's phenomena than trying to artistically elaborating into a topic. As I read it too, I get poorer in english. I am not "spell check"-ing anymore the words when I write in my blog cause one of the reason I made it is to furnish my english and literary skills. But looks like it has gone a long way out of my endeavors.

What might be happening is a maturity, I think. From finding form to finding sense, the development is trying to make sense out of a picture than making form out of a sense. In other words, If I have still been the same, I would have elaborated on the next topic which is Development. I would use figurative language to make sure my readers would want it. But, the past has gone, Today I make sense (or so i thought, any violent reactions?).

Have you ever imagined what the world might have been if no man has ever move on to adulthood? Weird thing to see, all people wearing diapers. what if everybody was crying their hearts out and nyao-ing at every pain they get? I rememered just like how they say it in the acad interview, Don't give us the effects as a reason. But I think, sometimes it works well.

First let us answer whether their is really development in our lives. If we assert that their was no development then their would be no man or even life. For a child could not cater for himself how so could he cater another life. In other words no parent means no life. If ideas did not flourish, why then do we have computers and the books? why then could we have had this blog if their was no development? Reducto ad absurdum (is my spelling correct?)- if it makes its own negate then it must be wrong.

Development is the an adaptive stage of being where someone increases a sense in him. Adaptive because to develop we need to see the pros and cons. We learn and incorporate our knowledge from another knowledge. Sense being any physical, mental, psychological or any form of self-being that is change-able.

I first began with showing that development must be true so that we can make a concrete discussion about it. Next, i showed the meaning of it. I was trying to think a next method but as I was starting, i forgot to ask, what question about development should we cater on? Let us say: how does one develop? It is kind of a tought one. (why the hell did I make my life hard, *pish* I must have rather asked how it is spelled.)

Man develops by trying to coupe up with the challenges in life, all from experience. First I would not like to assert that development may come from an innate idea in our mind for if it is innate then it must already been there and not learned. I would not likely too to assert that objective knowledge is part of development for objective means no change which is a big NO for development. No change means no addition. Without addition, which is a major part of development, nothing is learned. Cancellation - the act in which you destroy the other ideas that may be provided to where development may come from therefore making the first statement the only possible answer.

I just don't know if someone may be irrated by the things I said. i simply believe that the arguements I have given is enough to make one think that development came from experience. Another way of trying to ellaborate on it (and which is an easier way of explaining) is an example. When a monkey is hungry what should it do. If it was born with out knowing anything then it must have learned to climb a tree to get banana. But the problem that may arise is a question of "how could he have used climb if their was no sense of climbing on the first palce?" We may say therefor that climbing is an idea which pre-exists in the world, but development that we are talking about is regarding the monkey's own intellect. He does not know anything when he is born( I do assume he must not have). Therefor he may have learned that pre-existed idea by analyzing the situation. One may say that if the monkey used his mind then it is not based from experience. But the monkey may have a part of understanding, he may not have had the idea of clmbing after all, he still is using senses to analyze and learn, right? In other words, learning from experience doesn't mean a man without a mind but a man using senses to make the mind work (not to search inside the innate part but to analyze and give a solution).

So much for being a philosopher. I hate making my life miserable but the problem with the world is it cannot really make a final conclusion on anything. Whew! that was a long list. I don't hope for you to have reached this pharagraph. Even I would not want to read something this long. But maybe, just maybe, if you reached this, I must believe you have learned something.