caffeine

In the case of my drawing/painting instructor I’ve found a large ideological difference between in relation to rules and morals based on one’s religious viewpoint, his being that of a Mormon, and mine being that of an liberal agnostic.

As someone who does not follow any scriptural rules or morals I found it difficult to understand some of the logic behind his ideas or the way in which he lives.

We don’t speak of it often but it came to my knowledge that it is against the rules of Mormonism to consume coffee, or tea, because of its caffeine content.

As a college student I currently consume much more caffeine than is probably healthy for me. Caffeine to him is an unhealthy thing to consume innately based on it’ foreign nature to the body (I assume it is in the same vein as hard drugs or alcohol).

The inherent ideological conflict is not an innate one, but a constructed disparity of culture and life experience by which conflicting viewpoints occur between individuals based on their past experiences, and cultural viewpoints.

Individuals therefore can never have an exactly similar point of view, people’s viewpoints are constructed and influenced by the people in their life, each person is the culmination of the ideologies of the people around them, and whether or not they reject them or embrace them as their own.

Our geographic, ideological, and parental upbringing brought differences between us. The way in which our separate ideas are constructed is important because, if we are able to identify them, we are able to understand individuals who have differing ideas than our own, that we see as ‘nonsense’.

Any ideology is not innate, as previously stated, so an individual cannot be blamed for the ideas that they uphold and believe in based on outside influences that they cannot help.

The issue I had with the ideological conflict was my lack of understanding or lack of acceptance of the logic behind the prohibition of caffeine.

To me caffeine is a wonderful thing that helps me stay awake, and alert, although it is something that does not occur in the body and is thus foreign.

This is the logic behind his decision not to consume caffeine.

I can understand this viewpoint to a certain degree, based on the fact that there are many more harmful things to put into ones body, and caffeine is hardly one that should be listed amongst many others.

However, religions often carry a universal moral code by which there are few exceptions, that is, if you cannot put foreign substances into your body based on religious conflicts, then caffeine is no exception, even if it is not dangerous, it is still a ‘drug’ in the literal sense that it is something you put into your body that causes a desired effect, a stimulant, that is.

The construction of this point of view obviously is not a simple one, but one based on his specific life experiences and cultural ideas.

The inherent conflicts in this example stem from our individuality: our culture is not homogeneous, and our lives are parallel in regards to beliefs and practices. In this way I cannot uphold or agree with his ideas about religion, and the consumption of caffeine, but I do understand why he chooses not to consume it.