Dissimilarity
Dissimilarity is argued by Eckhardt in a rational and probably very intriguing manner. He argues that similar objects can also be dissimilar in many ways due to the fact that they are completely different states of being and states of mind.
Eckhart argues that dissimilarity can also be found in the psychological nearness or the actual proximity of two mental representations. This is quite similar to cognitive psychology in the sense that this is quite a similar approach to the concept of dissimilarity. Each of these issues is actually related to a particular set of assumptions which are better known as knowledge representation.
Eckhart also goes into the merits of dissimilarity as two separate but distinct branches of philosophy which move forward into different strands. He argues that life cannot be taken into different contexts and remain the same but change must also be a constant in this regard. Dissimilar objects may appear to be different at first glance but can also be similar in many ways but our eyes seem them as different so as such we have to retain this distinct dissimilarity at all times.
There is also the multidimensional approach which makes up part of Eckhart’s philosophical thought and which may be applied to the concept of dissimilarity in this respect. One can also look at the various aspects of this topic when faced with certain life chances and problems which are not always understood immediately. Thus Eckhart also applies the concept of dissimilarity to these issues.
Similarity:
Similary to the previous topic, Eckhart approaches similarity with a structural approach. He argues that similarity was actually developed to address the limitations of the featural account although such features and differences are actually independent of each other in the long run. He is also focused on the fact that structural differences may appear different to one person but to others these may intrinsically remain the same.
Eckhart may also be described as the philosopher who coined the idea of conceptual representation which may be applied also to the concept of similarity. Here, the philosopher attempts to focus on various aspects of life viewed through a looking glass which makes the situation appear rosier than it actually is. This may also be the result of looking at life’s perspectives from a different angle which may also show that similarity is actually something which cannot be seen as completely in a vacuum.
Eckhart’s philosophy is also applicable to today’s circumstances especially on the concept of similarity. One has to distinguish between alignable differences and non alignable differences which come out in the open and which demonstrate that similarity is actually an acquired object and not something totally different in this respect. Eckhart continues to develop on this point and argues that life must be viewed with different perspectives if anything is to be perennially achieved by the end of the day. The way one observes an object makes this similar or not.
Identity
Eckhart is quite strong about the concept of identity as this can be said to define what makes a person or not. Identity may come in various ways, it could be a national identity, where one identifies particularly with a nation state, or also a religious identity where the religious beliefs of a person make up his/her identity. Religion was obviously a core point of the identity issue in those early medieval days.
It is also important not to observe identity in a vacuum as this can appear to be rather hollow and shallow. One has to observe the characteristics which make up the identity of an individual or a person before coming to the proper conclusions, at least that is essentially what Eckhart argues. Identity can also be seen in the context of improving one’s social standing and identifying with a particular social class which is perhaps a continuing way of re living one’s life on a more holistic manner. Here one may also observe that social standing is not always something of importance when faced with a philosophical problem but life in general has to be faced down with more determinism and if identity is the key to that, then so be it.
However, Eckhart also argues that an identity is not necessarily an advantage when confronting a philosophical problem or issue. This may shift according to what the situation is and could also mean that life might become a constant quest for identity which never reaches fruition. Thhe same can also be said of a situation where identity becomes a national obsession and if individuals feel that they are not part of this identity then they will feel completely cast out. This, Eckhart argues is the worst form of identity separation and very much got him into trouble with Catholic Church teachings in those days which had a completely different attitude to individuality.
Breakthrough
A breakthrough is a situation where after a long time of hard work, a final outcome is eventually achieved and cemented. This demonstrates that the individual or the person involved will actually come to terms with an amount of hard work which was not intrinsically leading to anything. Actually, a breakthrough can also be achieved with minimal work as it all depends on the tenacity and ardour of the persons involved in achieving that breakthrough.
Eckhart argues that it is impossible to achieve a breakthrough if one is lethargic and without a shred of interest in life. This can also be observed at close quarters when a project is initiated and this apparently flounders without any breakthrough being achieved. A person must have the willpower to arrive at a decision which actually implements the breakthrough accordingly as without this, nothing will ever be achieved.
Eckhart is also interested with the mechanics of the breakthrough as this can vary in force, size and power. He argues that man is inherently capable of achieving great things and this means that he can manage to achieve almost anything if he actually sets his mind to it. This is essentially the philosophy of a breakthrough which finally demonstrates that man and man alone is the harbinger of his/her own destiny and can actually achieve greater things without too much effort. This philosophy again brought Eckhart in conflict with the Church who was skeptical in many ways about the issues facing man in medieval times as it believed that man should not practice any sort of individualistic philosophy but should be dependent on God and the Church for his thinking.
Works cited:
Wandering Joy: Meister Eckhart's Mystical Philosophy, The Estate of Reiner Schurmann, Lindisfarne Books, Great Barrington, Massachusetts, 2001, Print
