The Mind's Eye

#writing #article #mind #psychology

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????The mind's eye ( conscience)

My conscience pinches, as the Russian proverb states. Define conscience. Is he actually hurting? I'll attempt to address more of these questions in this article. I will endeavour to challenge my "organ" regarded as my conscience. From the period of evolution, society experiences both physical and psychological changes. Since the beginning of time, philosophers, scientists, and even common people have been exposed to concepts beyond their own, which keeps them continually inquiring. We'll make an effort to explain it from distinct viewpoints, including sociology, philosophy, and religion. Conscience resembles a separate individual living inside of a person. We cannot mislead him or keep information from him.

When a person thinks, he understands that he is the most correct, the most just and fair in every case. I wonder if conscience really hurts us or does it show us the right and fair way? Do we hurt ourselves in front of this road? According to current research, conscience resides in our spirituality. To this day, experiments and questions about conscience and inquiries of conscience have not been fully answered.

The feeling of conscience is psychological (mental). Through it we become aware of and react to the spiritual side of our actions. This is often considered the source of suffering as a result of doing what we think is wrong; pangs of guilt or "pangs of conscience." It can also be seen, more paradoxically, as the source of our knowledge of what is right or wrong, or of moral behavior. Therefore, people who try to behave according to moral rules are said to behave "honestly". The term comes from the Latin word "conscientia", which in turn is a direct transcription of the Greek word "syneidesis". Its meaning varies from being aware of something (therefore it is similar to the word subconscious - "conscience" means conscience, "consciousness" means subconscious), to knowing something in common with someone. Having something in common with someone can mean sharing a secret with them, in which case you become a witness who can speak against them. With this, the phrase began to be used to describe a person who testifies on a legal level. In certain contexts, syneidesis also means knowing something in common with someone and testifying against them.

Even though these terms appear in Epicurean and Stoic philosophy, the word conscience didn't find a philosophical explanation until the Middle Ages. Consciousness became standardized (settled) during this time. According to medieval philosophers, consciences can be divided into two types: "conscientia" and "synderesis." Synderesis (technical term from an imprecise root) describes conscience as rooted in human nature and unshakable, while "conscientia" describes our judgments about our actions in more specific terms. . Both of these statements can be explained more fully in different ways.

According to the views of Thomas Agunas, which became the main standard of applied judgment, synderesis is one of the main moral foundational principles. "Conscientia" is its conclusion. The act of judging someone or oneself is called Conscience. Its scientific name is Synderesis, and its shortened form is Consentia. Thus, "synderesis" explains primary behaviors, while "concentration" is the science that explains the standard behaviors of specific people. Synderesis is unbreakable, but consciousness can err. Mistakes can occur due to faulty explanations. Medieval philosophers raised various questions about this aspect of conscience. They said that this is innate or acquired later?! They even said that these aspects are a separate section or not?! Can this be a theoretical lesson or is it an applied event?! The most important question that makes them think is "Is Conscience shocking or not?". If this is shocking, how much can a person be responsible for this situation?!

The moral philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries could do very little work on the explanation of Conscience. They just found out when this unit can be operational. Therefore, rationalist philosophers Conscience is the voice that judges someone's actions. However, other sentimental

philosophers thought it was worship. We must judge ourselves and listen to our inner voice. An important exception was made by the eclectic philosopher Joseph Botler. Emphasizing the connections between the ideas of all rationalist, sentimental, and irrationalist philosophers, he said that he explained more in the context of the religion of morality and the more famous and popular one. Botler explained that conscience is the natural creation and order of consent and dissatisfaction. He thought that we have motives and actions according to our reasons, and we act accordingly. However, conscience is not only a part of our nature, it also has a special authority, that is, power. It has power over other parts of us along with our nature. And it retains its power even when it is poor to carry out its orders. Botler to explain the difference between power and authority he said that we should understand human biology as a whole. Human biology is arranged from strong to weak. And, some have the right to determine the power of one over the other.

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, at the stage of the development of the theory of evolution, a new question about conscience began to be thought. If man has evolved from "weak" animals, perhaps the sense of conscience has remained at a primitive level. Charles Darwin put forward the idea that conscience developed as well as other human characteristics (sight, speech, etc.).

Other researchers, such as Sigmund Freud and Friedrich Nietzsche, thought that this characteristic of humans was not at all similar to their animal past. Both believed that conscience arises from a process of "internalization." Some aggressions that arise in a person are buried and suppressed in social life for the sake of criticism. The resulting psychological formation, the superego or conscience, immediately emerges to prevent us from giving way to our natural demands. Because society and parents always educate according to special rules. Conscience: a kind of inner voice of parents and society. Accounts of this source of conscience are sometimes seen as an attack on morality. From Plato to Kant, from Nietzsche to Freud, many valuable questions have been asked about conscience. However, some of these valuable questions still remain unanswered.

If we believe Freud and Nietzsche, we can distance ourselves from society and parents and use our inner self to judge our true conscience.

Since the beginning of human society, man has refused to obey, and has even subordinated nature to himself. However, nature has not always been kind to those who oppose it. As emotional thinking developed, people began to ask questions. What is excitement? What is fear? What is love? What is another self that creates conflict within this - conscience? As I mentioned above, philosophers, philosophers, people of different religions have tried to find an answer to this question in their time.

In religion, this topic has been tried to be widely explained. Religion is a system of thought, feeling, and action that provides its members with a goal of commitment, a set of rules of conduct by which individuals can judge the individual and societal consequences of their actions, and a framework of thought through which individuals can explain groups and the universe. In religions, it is stated that the spiritual foundation of a person is divine justice, conscience, worship. For example, I tried to explore it a bit in Islam. However, I did not find the word conscience in the Quran. According to my thoughts, "eye of insight" and "repentance" are interpreted with the word conscience in Islam. That is, the self within us sees the events with the eyes of insight, analyzes them and repents as a protest. What drives a person to this is his internalization - his conscience. In religion, it is said that there are two mechanisms that control people: reason and conscience. According to them, these two mechanisms should live in harmony. This is possible only through worship.

Another hypothesis.

?As Nasimi said, "I am the truth, the truth is with me." Is this the God within us, is it the spirit God who protects us, is it the messenger of God who restores justice? Maybe this is a form of control over us - people?

In the classification of conscience, 3 versions can be put forward:

1. No conscience.

The moment we express this, we immediately feel a protest within us. It can also be a rebellion of conscience. It can also be a rebellion of emotional intelligence. As a result, a person has formed it in himself for 10 years according to certain moral and legitimate values.

2. Conscience exists and it is subjective.

Yes, why do I deny conscience? It's just that this concept manifests itself in some form everywhere. My conscience says one thing in a specific situation, someone else's conscience says something else... Well, what is the difference between conscience and outlook, character, and intellect? After all, they also force or push us to react differently to the same situation... Conscience consists of these concepts - outlook, intellect, character, temperament, instinct, etc. should be something different from

3. Conscience exists and is objective.

If there is an objective conscience - what does it mean and "what do they eat it with"? Objectively, as you know, they say something that exists objectively, independent of us. Imagine that the conscience is one of the internal organs. For example, like the heart... The heart, as we know, exists and functions regardless of what I think about it. Analogously, Conscience is like an internal organ, and its function gives us a "hormone" about the "honest" step we take (or that taken by others), and it comes to thinking in the form of an idea, and we already determine our position in the form of an idea. Well, if so, then this "organ" called conscience should be characterized by the same functionality in everyone. In other words, conscience should prompt two people to think exactly the same way in the same situation. Few of us witness this in life. Maybe an imp from objective conscience

Is it subjectively distorted by the intellect and feelings?

That's why I focus more on a slightly different interpretation of an ancient version of conscience. Everyone has a conscience (just like an organ), but not everyone works. It just turns into rudiment and atavism. Those people whose conscience hurts, feel conscience more closely, and conscience does not depend on religion, race, etc. independently induces different people to the same conscientious action in the same situation - in them some functions of the original objective conscience are fully or partially functioning. Other people have the concept of conscience, but they don't have it. These people are lost people.

Today, the issue of conscience can be divided into certain ideological structures, professions, management structures. That is, there are certain professions that can be collectively called "dishonest professions" in society. In the times and stages of our history, wars have been experienced, people's rights have been violated in totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, and they have even lost their lives. If we look at the perpetrators of this from a criminal point of view, the judgment of conscience is often similar to those who have a sadistic attitude towards their victims. Severely traumatic childhood, growing up with hatred of society and revenge. Suicide is one of the most devastating outcomes of a deep inner trial, schizophrenia, or other mental disorders.

A perfect example of this is Franz Kafka's "The Court".

The greater the suffering in the soul, the greater the judgment of conscience.

The soul is purified by suffering, the truth becomes clear in suffering... - F.M. Dostoevsky.

"Conscience usually torments those who are not guilty, not those who are guilty" E.M. Remark

Our conscience is an impartial judge, until we have killed it. (O. Balzac)

These are the approaches of famous writers, musicians, artists. Many people touched on this topic and created great works, symphonies, despite their superficial approach. An example of this is Ludwig Van Beethoven's Third Movement Quartet (1825), dedicated to God's thanksgiving, death and conscience. Also, John Lennon's "Imagine" work, which tries to spread peace in the world the most, calls to spread conscience against oppression created by war, religious fundamentalism, and politics. "You can get to heaven without leaving your inner self" is the basis of conscience in the thought of The Beatles. Finally, when Huseyn Javid characterizes the work "Iblis", we witness that in the monologues of the characters, and finally in the monologue of the Devil, the main force in man is conscience in spirituality.

Even if I base this article on various forms and hypotheses, it still ends up being a subjective opinion. Questioning one's conscience can bring true peace to the world.

References :?

Citizen and Disobedience Charles Darwin; Freud Human Nature; Nietzsche Moral Development; Excerpts from the writings of Thomas Aquinas Psychoanalysis. Ninian Smart. The World's Religions: Old Traditions and Modern Transformations. Cambridge University Press. 1989. pp. 10–21