ESSENCE, CHARACTER AND INNER IDENTITY

Even though I have defined the concept of "being" as not consisting of a fixed essence, or entity as a whole, or in general it still becomes necessary to mention a very important aspect of the concept of "being" and this is whether human beings have an inner essence, or character that never changes and is what defines them even though their personality and being may change in general. This inner identity, essence, or character must exist in the form of a pivot, or foundational aspect. It is difficult to thing of anything substantial in nature that does not have a foundation, or base and this includes the concept of being also and this must be so even though the concept of being is a very progressive, and changeable thing and is not completely fixed as I have mentioned before in my essay called " being and becoming" and this is so unless we are mentioning inanimate objects, or inorganic matter which is fixed to a great extent and still comes under the category of being. Anything that is to rely on its own essence, character, will-power, and intelligence for its own identity is more real, and genuine than anything that simply adapts, and reconciles and tries to fit in, or please. These latter qualities of the personality that tries to adapt, reconcile, and fit into situations is more fleeting, and shallow. It should be pointed out that our character is the only thing that truly belongs to us as human beings because it is the only thing that we have a complete control over, aswell as it being a complete representation of us without any form of indirect expression, or ownership. To not be able to think for oneself is one of the greatest crimes one can commit to oneself but yet society, and certain people try to rob us of this privilege by expecting us to think in a way that is foreign to our very nature itself. Everyone appears to be born with their own personal character, and inner identity but then society and other people try to drown out this aspect of ourselves by their conditioning and a lot of people end up thinking through cultural, societal, and indirect means instead of developing their own true character, or will, and this is a shame. One can even come across many philosophers who quote other philosophers from the past saying so and so wrote this, and so and so wrote that instead of saying, or writing something they came up with themselves. It must be pointed out that it does take a lot of confidence, and belief in oneself to develop one's own way of thinking to its fullest expression but it is well worth the effort because a philosopher who cannot think in their own way is of no use to the philosophical, or thinking community because it is new theories, and new ideas, and original thinking which pushes philosophy forward and enables it to progress. There are people who think that because culture, and society exists as a temporary truth and we happen to live amongst its fleeting processes that we cannot somehow transcend it by alligning ourselves with more general, universal, and eternal truths which can guide us to a greater understanding of processes, reality, and truth of a more significant, real, and eternal kind, but this way of thinking is plain wrong because we can, and are able to transcend temporary truth to a high degree in our thoughts, and in our feelings but maybe not physically. Academic philosophers, and thinkers in general expect references, and quotes for all manner of truths to be found in the written works of others but rarely expect to find the truth in the processes of reality itself, but it is reality itself which is alike to the greatest book you will ever get around to study to find the truth if you so choose to find it. Another great fault of academic philosophers, and thinkers is the importance that they place on technical forms of argumentation, but this type of behaviour is counterproductive because attempting , and trying to describe the truth should not be about pursuing argumentation. In general philosophers, and thinkers spend too much time attempting, and trying to win discussions, and this behaviour leads nowhere, and is counterproductive because the truth is rarely arrived at by the use of this method. Philosophers, and thinkers should disagree only in a constructive way so that a conclusion about the truth can be arrived at through dialectical discussion. Philosophers, and thinkers in general should not be disagreeing simply to disagree so that they can be right and feel they have won some kind of imaginary competition of the ego. Argumentation and its development is a sign that one lacks knowledge of the truth of reality because the truth is self-evident and should be studied and accepted in this way. Knowledge of the truth of reality produces agreement, and not argumentation because the truth about reality is a self-evident thing.
To argue a point should be a last resort attempt to convince another thinker of the truth of your own point and how it relates to reality and its processes. In philosophy axioms and their development are more important than arguments, and their development should be encouraged, and sought after by all philosophers.
Axioms and their development in philosophy are a good groundwork, and base for all future endeavours in attempting to integrate truths aswell having a stable foundation from which to work from. There are even academic philosophers, and thinkers today who don't think that a person has the right to consider themselves a philosopher who does not have a degree, and profession in philosophy or does not use the methods of academia as if the philosophers of antique greece who stood around street corners debating the truth were not true philosophers. And it is this technical, modern, and erroneous attitude of academia that attempts take away the joy, and organic creativity out of philosophy, and it also tries to rob the individual person, or philosopher of his true essence, character, inner identity, and will. True philosophers have never claimed to be academic, or scientific, and have never claimed argumentation to be an important thing, they have merely claimed to be lovers of wisdom, and truth and they have attempted to figure it out, and describe it to others. A person can clearly change their own behaviour through conditioning, but it is much harder to change their own nature. A homosexual person can change his own behaviour, but he cannot change being a homosexual. We it seems can only partly change our own nature and we can only do this with those parts of ourselves that are least ingrained within us, we cannot change what is most ingrained within our own nature.