"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!" - Dr Seuss

This is going to be a shorter post for a change - I say this now, it might get longer as I go on.

I'm home for the summer earlier than most people and have university friends dotted across the globe at the moment. I have a large amount of free time on my hands (I'll expand on how I'm going to use it in another post) but I have spent a lot of it talking to old home friends or my friends across the world. In a lot of my conversations and debates I keep coming to the same, more general conclusion about thought and mankind. 

I believe that mankind is constantly striving for an understanding of human nature (and the world at large), but I am not certain whether this understanding can be achieved. I've mentioned before how complex I think human beings are - can we really break ourselves down to a simple, all-encompassing formula? From the perspective of someone at university, I often focus on the fact that everyone has decided upon different subjects, and I see these subjects as people's different approaches to understanding ourselves. For example, in Art History lectures we're constantly reflecting upon the human condition using a variety of works - from the extremes of Caspar David Friedrich to Mark Rothko. When I took Psychology, we were assessing humans from all angles - developmental, social, neurological. Yes, all of these subjects have different approaches but we are after the same thing - a greater understanding of ourselves. And whilst we're doing this, we are creating our own ideas to get tangled in but at the same time, we are also reflecting upon the ideas of other people - there is a never ending spiral of thought. Since time immemorial, we have been trying to understand ourselves and have a wealth of academic discussion, art, technological development etc. as a result. Yes, many historical figures felt that they had discovered a pure truth and that their theory defied all others - just think of the style of Nietzsche's writing and have a chuckle to yourself. But, I think it can be argued, that no one has found the one answer, theory, equation to cancel all others. If they had we would not be continuing in our endeavours. So, sometimes, it seems to me that we are constantly searching for an understanding, from all angles, but maybe this truth cannot be unearthed in this manner?

I wouldn't see this as a negative thing or cause to give up on our efforts. There is so much personal gain to be made from trying to understand human nature. I just think of the euphoria I felt when I first read the work of T.S. Eliot, or the personal understanding upon standing before the work of Van Gogh. These experiences are not a waste. This is going to sound horrendously nerd-ish, but there are real transcendental moments in academia. Furthermore, perhaps the answer is to change our approach to accessing an understanding of mankind? I still think humans are far too complex to be broken down by an all encompassing theory. However, further insight can be gained by potentially combining the approaches of numerous theories. At university, especially in philosophy classes, I have been so often encouraged to come down on one side of the argument and promote it entirely. I frequently do not do this and get reprimanded. But, I think doesn't that just show some sort of greater understanding? I appreciate that no theory can defy all others - that's why there are conflicting theories. Would it not be more sensible to draw from numerous theories or in proposing a theory admit that there may be other possibilities?

I'm sure the idea I have been proposing is in itself is flawed - sometimes it's much more succinct to just come down on the side of one idea. Furthermore, there are numerous people out there who are convinced that one theory is undeniable, for example ardent Kantian philosophers. Still, this is not a perfect thought and will probably need some tweaking over time - it was just a constant conclusion I needed to express.