The primary theme of the book revolves around the intriguing concept of modern-day European philosophy to come up with a novel analysis of the human mind. Navigating the significance of actuality and intellectualize upon the world of ordinary human involvement, John Russon has presented a delighting point of view in respect to neurosis. Giving an objective contention and rationale to flatten the merciless and cliché perspective of despondency, Russon publicizes the commonality of the neurotic human ways. He reveals the center of personality in the heart of the human model, social life, family and actions, for example, strolling, eating, resting, defecating and urinating. Embracing a Heideggerian, a Freudian stance, he organizes the physique and its intersubjective connection to the realm as the microcosm to look at masochist encounters and strains (Russonpg pg19). At the end of the day, the human ordinary substantial practices uncover the truest self.
Despite the fact that Russon's erudition does not connect with moral mysticism and its feeling of distinctiveness and penance for unlike people as the key to the character of the human individual, there is a need to propose that his exertion is a routine and imaginative magnum opus of philosophical reflection and mental examination. Without being obsequious by any stretch of the imagination, yet to recognize the quick commitment that Russon has succeeded to give an augmentation of Heidegger's time and being in a post-current connection (Russonpg 31). It is not a simple thing to unite anxiety and logic given the frequent failure natural in callings to think past its particular space and familiarity. Russon has assembled numerous provocative thoughts, and amid these, there is a need to confine his feeling of the much talked about 'I can', an undeniable recreation of the Heideggerian Dasein (Morrison pg535).
Russon's opinion of the captivating 'I can' speaks to an existential, phenomenological and ontological advancement of presence, awareness, and existence. Comparable to Heidegger's thought of Dasein that moves past Husserl's accentuation on target proof towards an explanation of human instinct's humiliation and its likely outcomes for finding legitimate presence, Russon's development of the much discussed 'I can,' expresses cognizance as the potential consequences of exemplified encounters past learning (Russon pg pg57). These encounters are recent information since they are future-situated and vulnerable to a hidden exhibit of likely outcomes. This recommends the deepest center of the human personality contains the human uncertain, anticipating and encapsulated possible results of association with other individuals. At this point, humans have an automatic recreation of Dasein equally as a way to reveal the components of regular life and involvement in neurotic practices. 'I can' connotes the real potential outcomes for the human encapsulated subjectivity on the planet. However, deficient with regards to a good Metaphysical thought of apartness, the feeling of the much discussed 'I can' gets to be confined to its own most or self-changing prospective through, for instance, the respectable quest for training and therapy (Russonpg pg103).
In totality, Russon gives a savvy examination of human involvement, elucidation, feelings, epitome, and memory, the connection to diverse people (both society and family), mental issues and theory. However, the need for others requests for equity and leniency, friendliness and profound expression, remains wanting. Russon recognizes that he has always been a savant and has been previously been confused for a researcher or scholar (Morrison pg536). Nonetheless, a researcher's work and composing involve something profound, that is, the very scan for importance. Be that as it may, Russon takes up this errand by enunciating the marvel of the nature's epitome and plainness. In the quest for veracity, he strikingly interprets the neurotic human impulses, furnishes them with importance and by way of the likely outcomes for self-amazing quality through treatment and instruction. Conceivably, the most three suggestive and lowering emphasis of Russon's drawing in, inventive and intriguing work is that 'being masochist' denotes fundamental human condition (Russonpg pg119).
Unlike John Russon's Human Experience, The Golden Rule Principle advocates for ethical reciprocity. The Golden Rule Principle aims at making people believe that they should treat other people the same way they are treated. On the other hand, John Russon's Human Experience shows that a person, character is defined by what the person engages in every day. The human experienced is tied to a single environment while The Golden Rule is universally expected to be practiced. The golden rule principle as stated by Confucius; do unto others what you would have them do unto you, thou needest this law alone (Soupios & Panospg pg13). It is the foundation of all the other laws. The golden principle seems to have been ignored by the John Russon's Human Experience, which aims at showing that everyday corporeal practices divulge the true nature of a person. John Russon's Human Experience does not include sacrifice and otherness like the golden rule does. The golden rule shows how people ought to live with one another while John Russon's Human Experience explains why people are different from one another.
The principles of utility are firm on; if actions promote happiness and pleasure are right or if the action cause pain or unhappiness are wrong. This is in line with human experience which points out, apparently, which a person’s behavior is dependent on the environment that the individual lives in. The two principles have a predilection to agree that human behavior is the core determinant of the outcome of any action. The two principles also show that emotion or intellect can influence human behavior. Emotion will change human behavior; if a person is sad, then bad things will happen and if a person is happy, good things are bound to happen (Soupios & Panospg pg13). Both principles lack the altruistic principle, which is, self-sacrifice so that other people can benefit.
Virtue ethics holds the moral cultivation of exemplary embodiment and character as the most significant concerns in ethics rather than the set rules which are based on consequences or duties. Virtue was once regarded as an observable character trait of the soul on its inner harmony. This is exactly what John Russon’s Human Experience focuses on. Human experience can be observed when a person performs an act, and the character of the individual is judged according to the actions performed (Soupios & Panospg pg13). Virtues and John Russon’s Human Experience are only observable traits that an individual may choose to gauge a person within respect to moral character. Thus, it is possible to deduce that John Russon’s Human Experience and virtue ethics are both ways of detecting exemplary embodiment of a person.
Works Cited
Morrison, Glenn. "Human Experience: Philosophy, Neurosis And The Elements Of Everyday Life. By John Russon". Heythrop J 49.3 (2008): 535-536. Web.
Russon, John. Human experience: philosophy, neurosis, and the elements of everyday life. Albany: the State University of New York Press, 2003. Print.
Soupios, M. A., and PanosMourdoukoutas. The Ten Golden Rules Ancient Wisdom from the Greek Philosophers on Living the Good Life. Newburyport: Hampton Roads Publishing, 2009. Print.
