Identify your own philosophy of life, your personal values and your values in relationships.
Consider what life experiences have shaped these personal values; where have they come from and what sustains
them? Also discuss how compatible are your values with the core values of social work and human services. As a
social work or human services professional, how would you manage a significant clash in values and the challenge
of not imposing your personal values on to the client? To do this, you need to provide an example or brief scenario
and your response.
People are subjective in light of the fact that in spite of endeavoring to quit influencing world that they are a piece of, they are evolving it. This relationship, which causes an adjustment on the planet through activity, changes any target see into a subjective one since they are affecting what an unadulterated eyewitness can’t. By endeavoring to just quit ‘doing’ and simply watch, individuals endeavor to achieve a condition of unadulterated objectivity. This, in any case, turns into a unimaginable undertaking once one considers that their minor presence is a ‘demonstration’ all by itself. Implying that the best way to end up genuinely objective is to incidentally quit existing, watch absolutely in that non-existent state, and after that resume existing inside the world as a person. To have the capacity to considerably consider playing out these inconceivable assignments is similar to being God. Altogether, it is inconceivable for an individual to accomplish a condition of non presence just on the grounds that the unimportant demonstration of living makes one wind up subjective because of the reality they have an effect on their general surroundings. While they are youthful, people in the long run achieve a moment that they wind up mindful that their presences are wrapped in eliteness. They see that their lives are loaded with decisions, intersections which make it clear that at whatever point one picks something, something different must be barred. These decisions can bring the agony of weighing between the choices and the particular outcomes, and additionally dealing with the possibility that one can’t have everything. Considering the human constraint of excluding one thing keeping in mind the end goal to increase another, individuals will dependably go after a level of objectivity in their decisions; they need to expel a portion of the torment and trouble that they feel from making those decisions by withdrawing themselves candidly from the decisions they need to make. Regardless of reality of presence lying in subjectivity, there is a conundrum appeared here; that people are relatively preset to go after objectivity in spite of the ‘appropriate response’ existing in the other bearing: past subjectivity. To come to the ‘appropriate response’ of life, one should first deal with reality of presence. Kierkegaard’s existential truth is subjectivity; for a human to comprehend that subjectivity is the center of presence at that point empowers them to seek after and in the long run comprehend the ‘appropriate response’ to life. Subjectivity in itself is critical to get a handle on as a human, and accordingly, it likewise fills in as a separation between the straightforward man and the savvy man. On the off chance that the shrewd man is being subjective, he realizes that there is a distinction amongst subjectivity and objectivity. In any case, the main sign that he is as a rule ‘totally subjective’ at a given point is that he dispassionately knows the contrast amongst ‘objectivity’ and ‘subjectivity’. This understanding enables him to get a handle on the idea of the ‘appropriate response’ to life while in the meantime raises the oddity of just being subjective while being objective. Interestingly, if the basic man is being subjective, he is basically being subjective by purpose of drive and would not know about it. Therefore the straightforward man can’t be considered to have achieved an indistinguishable existential truth from the shrewd man. To be savvy is a revile and also a gift, for the conundrum shows him the significance of the existential truth, while in the meantime, keeps him from achieving it. Given Kierkegaard’s conviction that the existential truth is subjectivity, that all people in the end progress toward becoming at any rate somewhat objective and that individuals should be marginally objective keeping in mind the end goal to be subjective, at that point a Catch 22 presents itself. In the event that a human can’t be subjective without being target then this makes one wonder about regardless of whether a human achieve a condition of unadulterated subjectivity. Inside the World-Historical view, there is however a solitary target truth to any individual occasion all through history, yet subjectivity demonstrates an alternate, singular truth for each individual review it. Seeing that individuals can’t equitably watch and thoroughly consider the past (without first achieving the outlandish undertaking of getting to be God-like), individuals are left to see the occasions themselves from the present, filling in the holes between target actualities with subjective elucidations. These all assemble to subjective certainties; each being reality, yet none being any pretty much substantial than the last. By being human, one is confined by the ‘world’ they have subjectively developed; a world made with the subjective realities affected by their own musings, emotions and encounters. Nonetheless, as somewhat subjective presences in what must be seen as a simply subjective world, one must inquire as to whether individuals can truly exist in the same ‘world’ as any other person and if the response to that question changes the ‘appropriate response’ to life itself. This presents us with the last conundrum; that so as to acquire the ‘appropriate response’ one must be a target and static substance, however people in general are subjective basically through presence. Were one to ‘discover’ the supposed ‘answer’ to life, one’s life would on a very basic level change. Nonetheless, as an immediate consequence of finding that ‘answer’, this recently changed life is fundamentally another life all by itself. This new life is at any rate somewhat not quite the same as the old life and, subsequently, has another subjective truth to it. This viably renders the past ‘answer’ useless, maybe having never existed regardless. This in itself demonstrates that the ‘appropriate response’ can’t be found in the continually dynamic ‘life’, yet just in the static ‘passing’ where the consistent, static world is unaffected by a man. Regardless of this, the ‘appropriate response’ holds no importance after death and can’t be imparted to the living bringing about a similar absence of ‘truth’. Accordingly, I’ve discovered that I can’t present my response to this deep rooted task, and that to do as such I would have to never again be viewed as ‘alive’. I apologize and might want to ask for an expansion; ideally to at some point in the late 2070’s.>