So, two minutes wasn't enough for me to explain "The Rebel" fully. Yet, on the bright side I can go over "The Rebel" on this post!
I'll review: Albert Camus' theory states that there are two realms, the Sacrosanct realm (the christian who believes in the after life) and the realm of the rebel. The realm of the rebel is one of two possible options in the last stage of the absurdist process. The absurd is the ever longing search for the meaning of life, and the lack of the of an answer. The absurdist takes this negatively and feels that if he cannot find the answer to life then humanity has no intrinsic value. This results in him becoming nihilistic and committing suicide. One the other hand, the rebel is the one who decides that, even though he cannot find a meaning to life, that humanity is "the single necessary good." From this moment every question, every word, is an act of rebellion. This is the rebel’s fight against nihilism. In this essay Camus goes over the different ways through history that nihilism has been defeated, its political implications, and how justice and freedom exist without God.
Stuff I didn't include:
A slave rebelling from his master is an example of metaphysical rebellion. The rebel at first wants to be his equal and then wants to become the master. The rebel's aim is to become God. For him to become God means that he cannot recognize any other laws but his own and he must accept crime. He also has the power of life and death over others.
(In metaphysical rebellion, the rebel is not necessarily atheist, but even if he is, to become God does not mean to literally "become God." After all, how can they? This has the has the same contention as Nietzsche, "God is Dead." Camus references Nietsche throughout the essay.)
In a metaphysical revolution (the bitter end to metaphysical revolt) is the only logical solution.
Justice without God is only possible with freedom; without law there is no freedom. So justice without God only possible with law. Freedom of law must agree with the freedom of morals and bring together a civilzation. With further analysis it seems that the rebel must enslave men in order to liberate them. This causes the rebel to not be God anymore and to just learn to live and die.
After creating order, clarity, unity and understanding reality the rebel conforms and this is the end of his rebellion .
Any questions?
Monday, May 10, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
In Emily's second response to my post, "A Radical Construction of People" she asked two questions. 1. If a radical constructivist knows somebody who always seems to interpret the world the same way they do, can he or she rely on that person for the "truth" (or their version of the truth that tends to match up with his/hers)? 2. Can a radical constructivist rely on other people for information?
It seems that a radical constructivist could not rely on someone else for the truth, even if they share the same view. This is because they do not share the same experiences and if they do not share the same experiences than they do not share the same knowledge (all they can know for certain is what they experience). And since knowledge is formed of truths, only what the radical constructivist experiences is true. Therefore, the radical constructivist can not except anyone else's truths as their own.
Yet, when it comes to relying on others for information, whether they like to admit it or not, they have to do that. Everyone has to rely on certain information our culture feeds us. How else would they learn to speak? How else would they know what they can and cannot do? How else would they have friends? Just as it's impossible to believe everything, it's also impossible to not believe anything.
If you don't rely on any information that's ever given to you how can you learn anything?
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Re: William Trial (4/27)
In his latest post Bill talked about the grading system and asked, "How could we deal with such a system and another more important question is how would this function in education at all levels?"
Whether a Professor has a doctorate or a PhD in their field, they are considered a professional for that field. If you don't like the way a professor grades then don't take classes with them. It's as simple as that. And if you don't like any of them, then transfer schools, the whole point of why your here is to get an education right? So if you feel like you aren't getting the proper one, go somewhere where you can.
The major problem with high schools is that they are curriculum based. Teachers often rush concepts and lessons so that they can teach all of them instead of giving as much time that's needed for a certain subject. But, this isn't high school, the content isn't curriculum based, and all teachers grade differently here. For example, I know that Tim Jay, at least in his upper level classes, doesn't give grades until the end because he compares everyone's work and bases your on rank. This is a system most professors don't use, and one that I personally don't like, but that's why I dropped his class. Like Bill said, they give you a syllabus that states how they are going to grade you and you have time to drop that class. I can understand someone appealing a grade if the professor messed up with the given rubric, but other than that I don't understand. If you do your assignments and study then you'll do fine. As Silliman says, "the grade will take care of itself."
Some types of classes, you cannot grade on ability, but on progress. Like gym classes for example, some people just aren't as fit as the others, they can't run as fast and they can't lift as much. That doesn't mean that they're not trying they just had a bad predisposition, but if they improve, then that shows that they are really trying. When I was in high school all my gym teachers liked me, not because I ran the fastest mile, because believe me, I wasn't even close, but I always improved and tried my hardest. That's all you have to do with anything, just try your hardest and if your hardest isn't good enough then you aren't doing it right or whatever it is your doing just isn't right for you. And if you do believe it's right for you than keep trying, and you'll get there because you can have anything within reason if you wast it bad enough.
As for Jules, like I said in class, if he put in as much effort into the class as he did in that letter than he wouldn't have had a problem in the first place. He is a teacher, he probably had to spend a lot of his time on grading papers and correcting tests, so he couldn't put in as much effort into the class as he would have liked.
So to answer Bills question, if we got rid of the grading system we would have to base people off of other things for graduate and undergraduate programs. Community service, SAT scores, after-school activities, admission essays, internships, letters of recommendations etc. They would look at everything (besides grades) that they do now. They would probably look very intensely at the letters of recommendations from teachers/professors and SAT scores. As for functioning for all levels, I guess they would have to do some sort of rewards system for all the students who do there work and do good on the tests that don't really count.
Grades are important, but they aren't everything. What's the most important is how much you learn. But how is a biology teacher going to know that without giving you a test? How will a philosophy professor know that without having discussions? How will a math teacher know that without seeing you do examples? Grading isn't meant to hurt anyone's feelings or to praise a suck-up, it's to show you how well you did based on the rubric. It's to show the teacher how much you learned. It's for competition. Face it, if you weren't graded on your classes how much effort would you really put them? And because you aren't being graded and not putting effort in, you aren't going to learn very much. Therefore grading is important for your learning.
I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but the only people who would want to get rid of the grading system are the people who get bad grades. And because they get bad grades they won't be able to change the grading system because they aren't smart enough to get hired as an educational director (or whoever it is that decides those things). Do you think that this is true?
Whether a Professor has a doctorate or a PhD in their field, they are considered a professional for that field. If you don't like the way a professor grades then don't take classes with them. It's as simple as that. And if you don't like any of them, then transfer schools, the whole point of why your here is to get an education right? So if you feel like you aren't getting the proper one, go somewhere where you can.
The major problem with high schools is that they are curriculum based. Teachers often rush concepts and lessons so that they can teach all of them instead of giving as much time that's needed for a certain subject. But, this isn't high school, the content isn't curriculum based, and all teachers grade differently here. For example, I know that Tim Jay, at least in his upper level classes, doesn't give grades until the end because he compares everyone's work and bases your on rank. This is a system most professors don't use, and one that I personally don't like, but that's why I dropped his class. Like Bill said, they give you a syllabus that states how they are going to grade you and you have time to drop that class. I can understand someone appealing a grade if the professor messed up with the given rubric, but other than that I don't understand. If you do your assignments and study then you'll do fine. As Silliman says, "the grade will take care of itself."
Some types of classes, you cannot grade on ability, but on progress. Like gym classes for example, some people just aren't as fit as the others, they can't run as fast and they can't lift as much. That doesn't mean that they're not trying they just had a bad predisposition, but if they improve, then that shows that they are really trying. When I was in high school all my gym teachers liked me, not because I ran the fastest mile, because believe me, I wasn't even close, but I always improved and tried my hardest. That's all you have to do with anything, just try your hardest and if your hardest isn't good enough then you aren't doing it right or whatever it is your doing just isn't right for you. And if you do believe it's right for you than keep trying, and you'll get there because you can have anything within reason if you wast it bad enough.
As for Jules, like I said in class, if he put in as much effort into the class as he did in that letter than he wouldn't have had a problem in the first place. He is a teacher, he probably had to spend a lot of his time on grading papers and correcting tests, so he couldn't put in as much effort into the class as he would have liked.
So to answer Bills question, if we got rid of the grading system we would have to base people off of other things for graduate and undergraduate programs. Community service, SAT scores, after-school activities, admission essays, internships, letters of recommendations etc. They would look at everything (besides grades) that they do now. They would probably look very intensely at the letters of recommendations from teachers/professors and SAT scores. As for functioning for all levels, I guess they would have to do some sort of rewards system for all the students who do there work and do good on the tests that don't really count.
Grades are important, but they aren't everything. What's the most important is how much you learn. But how is a biology teacher going to know that without giving you a test? How will a philosophy professor know that without having discussions? How will a math teacher know that without seeing you do examples? Grading isn't meant to hurt anyone's feelings or to praise a suck-up, it's to show you how well you did based on the rubric. It's to show the teacher how much you learned. It's for competition. Face it, if you weren't graded on your classes how much effort would you really put them? And because you aren't being graded and not putting effort in, you aren't going to learn very much. Therefore grading is important for your learning.
I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but the only people who would want to get rid of the grading system are the people who get bad grades. And because they get bad grades they won't be able to change the grading system because they aren't smart enough to get hired as an educational director (or whoever it is that decides those things). Do you think that this is true?
Monday, April 26, 2010
Radical Constructionism as therapy?
The video clip of Ernst Von Glaserfeld on Radical constructionism as therapy, made me a little skeptic. I may not know much about the depth of unconceptualized apples, but I know a lot about therapy, and there are many problems with his statement.
How exactly is thinking this way therapeutic? Is there any evidence that supports its effectiveness? Which types of people should receive this treatment? What types of people should not receive this treatment? How would the therapy sessions be set up? Would this be under the humanistic paradigm? What makes him think that everyone needs this therapy? What makes him think that everyone should think this way? Is it because he wants everyone to stop asking him questions? Is it because he wants to be right?
How exactly is thinking this way therapeutic? Is there any evidence that supports its effectiveness? Which types of people should receive this treatment? What types of people should not receive this treatment? How would the therapy sessions be set up? Would this be under the humanistic paradigm? What makes him think that everyone needs this therapy? What makes him think that everyone should think this way? Is it because he wants everyone to stop asking him questions? Is it because he wants to be right?
Saturday, April 24, 2010
A Radical Construction of people?
As we all know now, a radical constructivist believes that we obtain knowledge through our experiences. I do not believe in the whole, "A rock does not exist until I have experienced it. You can not show me a rock that I have not experienced because once you show me it, I have experienced it." Yet, I do believe that when it comes to specific things, we can only know from our experiences.
For example, people. (In a hypothetical situation) I hear my friends talking about someone who I do not know. I am uncertain of the existence of the proclaimed person that they are describing. I am not doubting the unknown person's physical existence, but I am uncertain of who this person really is. The characteristics that they give this person are not certain to me because I have not experienced them. They may or may not be funny to me, they may or may not seem intelligent, I do not know. Since we perceive who people are subjectively, the unknown person as other people describe him/her, to me, does not exists because I may not perceive them that way.
How do you truly know someone?
Is this a radical constructivist's view on people?
For example, people. (In a hypothetical situation) I hear my friends talking about someone who I do not know. I am uncertain of the existence of the proclaimed person that they are describing. I am not doubting the unknown person's physical existence, but I am uncertain of who this person really is. The characteristics that they give this person are not certain to me because I have not experienced them. They may or may not be funny to me, they may or may not seem intelligent, I do not know. Since we perceive who people are subjectively, the unknown person as other people describe him/her, to me, does not exists because I may not perceive them that way.
How do you truly know someone?
Is this a radical constructivist's view on people?
Re: Brendon Tomasi
Brendon commented to my post "Re: Joel's physiological time vs. Psychological time. " Through out his comment he talked about qualitative hedonism and epicureanism, then asked if I thought it was philosophically equivalent to the happiness archetype. I looked up what a qualitative hedonist was and found that they believe that pleasures differ in quality and quantity and the pleasures that are more pleasureful are the ones that are sought after. I don't deny this theory, but that is not what the happiness archetype suggests. The happiness archetype does not deal with the quality or quantity of pleasures per se.
Epicureanists believe in finding simple pleasures, yet not indulging yourself in what you want. This along with avoiding physical pain will allow you to feel “free from fear” and understand the way the world is. These theories are not the equivalent of the happiness archetype. The happiness archetype involves pain where hedonism and epicureanisim does not. The most equivalent philosophical term is a mix between (regular) hedonism and eudaimonia.
Eudaimonia is a Greek work that is roughly translated to "happiness" or "well being." According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is the highest state of happiness and is achieved over a life of: pleasure, practical activity, and philosophy. (In my own philosophy, this is similar to "ultimate satisfaction," but that's another story.) It's funny, because the keynote speaker at the undergraduate research conference was talking about eudaimonia. She said, "the idea is to make small goals, but have a bigger farther-in-the-future goal at the same time." The smaller goals are like check points.
According to her, eudaimonia means to put yourself through some pain now for your well being, while still enjoying that. You don't want to write that 18 page research paper. It will take a really long time, you'll get annoyed by not being able to find the information you want, and you will certainly pull all-nighters. But when you finish it, you are a better writer, an experienced (for example) philosopher, it's on a topic you like, and you know what? You are smarter and you feel accomplished. This is precisely what the happiness archetype entails. This is precisely why I am a musician. You get a piece and it's tough and when you look at it you think, "I'm never going to be able to play that." Then it gets broken-down, taken in chunks, practiced repeatedly, and there is frustration -- a lot of frustration. Yet, the more frustration the better, because when you finally get it right, the better you feel. Eudaimonia! Right? ...Wrong.
For a few days now, I have been researching eudaimonia. None of the articles I've read indicate that you have to put yourself through pain now that enjoy, for your well being later. According to Aristotle a doing and living well is different for everybody. So eudaimonia is not the best parallel to the happiness archetype, yet it is closer than epicureanism and qualitative hedonism.
So what would the philosophy of: 'putting yourself through pain (while enjoying that pain) in order better your well being and to achieve a long term goal,' be called?
Epicureanists believe in finding simple pleasures, yet not indulging yourself in what you want. This along with avoiding physical pain will allow you to feel “free from fear” and understand the way the world is. These theories are not the equivalent of the happiness archetype. The happiness archetype involves pain where hedonism and epicureanisim does not. The most equivalent philosophical term is a mix between (regular) hedonism and eudaimonia.
Eudaimonia is a Greek work that is roughly translated to "happiness" or "well being." According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is the highest state of happiness and is achieved over a life of: pleasure, practical activity, and philosophy. (In my own philosophy, this is similar to "ultimate satisfaction," but that's another story.) It's funny, because the keynote speaker at the undergraduate research conference was talking about eudaimonia. She said, "the idea is to make small goals, but have a bigger farther-in-the-future goal at the same time." The smaller goals are like check points.
According to her, eudaimonia means to put yourself through some pain now for your well being, while still enjoying that. You don't want to write that 18 page research paper. It will take a really long time, you'll get annoyed by not being able to find the information you want, and you will certainly pull all-nighters. But when you finish it, you are a better writer, an experienced (for example) philosopher, it's on a topic you like, and you know what? You are smarter and you feel accomplished. This is precisely what the happiness archetype entails. This is precisely why I am a musician. You get a piece and it's tough and when you look at it you think, "I'm never going to be able to play that." Then it gets broken-down, taken in chunks, practiced repeatedly, and there is frustration -- a lot of frustration. Yet, the more frustration the better, because when you finally get it right, the better you feel. Eudaimonia! Right? ...Wrong.
For a few days now, I have been researching eudaimonia. None of the articles I've read indicate that you have to put yourself through pain now that enjoy, for your well being later. According to Aristotle a doing and living well is different for everybody. So eudaimonia is not the best parallel to the happiness archetype, yet it is closer than epicureanism and qualitative hedonism.
So what would the philosophy of: 'putting yourself through pain (while enjoying that pain) in order better your well being and to achieve a long term goal,' be called?
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Solipsism, Nihilism, Radical Constructivism, and Metaphysics
I find solipsism very interesting, mostly because it's absolutely ridiculous. Solipsists believe that they are the only thing that they are certain exists. Because if you are thinking about you existence you are existing (or something to that extent
). Con ego sum. It's kind of an egotistical statement though, don't you think? It's giving ones self way too much credit. Do you you think you could have imagined all the things in the world? all the intricate details, all the people you meet -- it is all in your dream?
Philosophical nihilism is the idea that nothing really exists, values have no value, and nothing can be truly known.
). Con ego sum. It's kind of an egotistical statement though, don't you think? It's giving ones self way too much credit. Do you you think you could have imagined all the things in the world? all the intricate details, all the people you meet -- it is all in your dream?Philosophical nihilism is the idea that nothing really exists, values have no value, and nothing can be truly known.
Like I mentioned in my last post, in psychiatry nihilism is a delusion. ( A delusion is a distorted belief, not to be confused with a hallucination which is sensory experience not caused by external stimuli.) This delusion is found in certain types of schizophrenia; the patient may think that they are a ghost and only here in spirit form.
Radical constructivists believe that knowledge adjusts itself to fit certain situations. We cannot know what we have not experienced. Yet, it is not through our direct experiences that we construct our world, but our interpretations, it's what we take from our experiences that shapes our world and knowledge. "one need not to enter far into constructivists thought to realize that it inevitably leads to the contention that man --and man alone -- is responsible for his thinking, his knowledge and, therefore, also for what he does" (Glasersfeld).
Kant stated that, metaphysics suggests that things are only true if they correspond to an independent and objective reality.
So the difference between solipsism and nihilism is that solipsists state that they are real and everything else isn't, where (metaphysical) nihilists suggest that nothing is real including themselves. The idea's of Radical constructivists and solipsists overlap, but solipsist deal with the metaphysical -- a realm radical constructivists want nothing to do with.
According to Glasersfeld, our interpretations of reality constructs our knowledge. In class it was stated that RC, unlike solipsists, believe that you can't construct the world any way you want. Yet, since RC don't believe in metaphysics, wouldn't that suggest that you can construct the world anyway you want? Do any of the four philosophical positions/beliefs cross over in any other way?
Re: Joel's Physical time vs. Psychological time
Joel mentioned three different dimensions of psychological time. Each person either is past oriented, present oriented or future oriented. What he may not know is that these are actually archetypes of happiness.
Those who dawn on the past are known as nihilists. There is a blurry line between psychological nihilism and philosophical nihilism. This is mostly due to the fact that there are many different definitions of nihilism. In philosophy, it could be the thought of nothingness; nothing is of value or matters and there is no comprehensible truth. In psychiatry, it can be a delusion in which the person feels like their own existence isn't real. Nihilists in this sense, can't get over their past and feel that no matter what they do, their life is never going to get any better. Behaviorists refer to this as "learned helplessness."
Those who are present oriented are called hedonists. In philosophy as well as psychology, a hedonist is someone who focuses on the here-and-now, they are pleasure seekers and don't care about the future consequences. A psychological hedonist flees from what causes them pain (Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan"). These people are damned because they will end up in debt, jobless, or other significant societal problems.
Those who are future oriented are known as rat racers. I'm not sure if philosophy has an equivalent term. The rat racer is always focusing on the future, and puts them self through pain now so that they will be happy in the future. When they achieve a goal there is only a little happiness, and then they are on to the next. In this process, they have little fun.
There is also a fourth archetype called the happiness archetype. Although you may think that this archetype is just in between a hedonist and a rat racer, it isn't. This doesn't make you happier because given a situation, you have to choose whether to be happy now or in the future. This archetype focuses on having pleasure now and in the future. For example say someone decided to go on a diet. The hedonist would give up right away; the rat racer would eat food that they hated, but was healthy; and the"happier" would eat the fattening food they liked in moderation. An other, probably better example, is that of musicians. Yes, scales and repeating a passage over and over again can be tedious, but they are still having fun and getting quick gratification by getting that passage right after a few minute while also making themselves better musicians.
At the end of his post Joel asked, "what would reality look like without the institution of time?"
Psychologically, time effects us in so many ways, even in ways that you would not think of like happiness mentioned above. Yet, If we had no sense of the past or present our minds might would kind of work like the way they do when we are under certain aesthetics. There is a certain type of aesthetic (I'm not sure which one) which works in a way that you are conscious, but you can't feel pain because the moment the signal gets to your brain, your focus is on the present. So your thought process is literally, "wait, what just happened?" If you got smacked in the face and fell to the ground you wouldn't feel the pain, you would just wonder why you were on the ground.
Time is an evolutionary development that is required for our survival. Even animals have a sense of psychological time. If we had no conception of the past, we would not be able to progress in anything. With no capacity to remember what we learned previous to any given moment we wouldn't have memories. And if it wasn't for memories we wouldn't be able to read, talk, or even walk. If we couldn't walk, we wouldn't be here. Therefore, memories, and a sense of time is necessary for our existence.
How do radial constructivists' view time?
Those who dawn on the past are known as nihilists. There is a blurry line between psychological nihilism and philosophical nihilism. This is mostly due to the fact that there are many different definitions of nihilism. In philosophy, it could be the thought of nothingness; nothing is of value or matters and there is no comprehensible truth. In psychiatry, it can be a delusion in which the person feels like their own existence isn't real. Nihilists in this sense, can't get over their past and feel that no matter what they do, their life is never going to get any better. Behaviorists refer to this as "learned helplessness."
Those who are present oriented are called hedonists. In philosophy as well as psychology, a hedonist is someone who focuses on the here-and-now, they are pleasure seekers and don't care about the future consequences. A psychological hedonist flees from what causes them pain (Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan"). These people are damned because they will end up in debt, jobless, or other significant societal problems.
Those who are future oriented are known as rat racers. I'm not sure if philosophy has an equivalent term. The rat racer is always focusing on the future, and puts them self through pain now so that they will be happy in the future. When they achieve a goal there is only a little happiness, and then they are on to the next. In this process, they have little fun.
There is also a fourth archetype called the happiness archetype. Although you may think that this archetype is just in between a hedonist and a rat racer, it isn't. This doesn't make you happier because given a situation, you have to choose whether to be happy now or in the future. This archetype focuses on having pleasure now and in the future. For example say someone decided to go on a diet. The hedonist would give up right away; the rat racer would eat food that they hated, but was healthy; and the"happier" would eat the fattening food they liked in moderation. An other, probably better example, is that of musicians. Yes, scales and repeating a passage over and over again can be tedious, but they are still having fun and getting quick gratification by getting that passage right after a few minute while also making themselves better musicians.
At the end of his post Joel asked, "what would reality look like without the institution of time?"
Psychologically, time effects us in so many ways, even in ways that you would not think of like happiness mentioned above. Yet, If we had no sense of the past or present our minds might would kind of work like the way they do when we are under certain aesthetics. There is a certain type of aesthetic (I'm not sure which one) which works in a way that you are conscious, but you can't feel pain because the moment the signal gets to your brain, your focus is on the present. So your thought process is literally, "wait, what just happened?" If you got smacked in the face and fell to the ground you wouldn't feel the pain, you would just wonder why you were on the ground.
Time is an evolutionary development that is required for our survival. Even animals have a sense of psychological time. If we had no conception of the past, we would not be able to progress in anything. With no capacity to remember what we learned previous to any given moment we wouldn't have memories. And if it wasn't for memories we wouldn't be able to read, talk, or even walk. If we couldn't walk, we wouldn't be here. Therefore, memories, and a sense of time is necessary for our existence.
How do radial constructivists' view time?
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Language gone wild
A little confused at first, I realized (okay, I was told) that we changed the topic to language and it's correlation to ideas on Wednesday.
The first thing that came to mind was the case study of Genie. Genie was a girl who was strapped to a toilet by her Father from when she was 14months old until she was 13. She never learned to speak, whenever her father fed her he only growled and barked at her. Genie's partially blind mother did nothing to stop the abuse. When officials found her, Psycholinguists and language accusitionists went wild for this "wild child." (at first anyways) No one had ever seen a case of a human so isolated from social interaction or a teenage that never heard a word in their life. "This child could be the answer to so many questions" researchers thought. Questions that are unethical for the researchers to find themselves.
Genie moved into the house of her new teacher, Marilyn Rigler a graduate student in human development. At first, whenever Genie would get angry she would engage in self-mutilating behaviors. Marilyn taught her how to turn that frustration outwards by stomping or slamming doors. And eventually genie was able to use language to an extent and exhibit her frustrations in words.
If this isn't an answer, or supporting evidence that ideas, thoughts and emotions are possible without words then I don't know what is. Genie obviously had ideas, thoughts, and emotions, but she didn't know language so she was unable to communicate and share them. The same is with animals, they have thoughts they just can't say them. They prove that they do through their actions.
Yet, on the other hand when brain activity was recorded they saw almost no activity. Her brain waves were extremely undeveloped and her brain was lopsided! She could easily do tasks that involved primarily the right side of the brain and it took a little while for her to learn things that involved both, but when it came to the left side it was impossible. There is something called a critical period, it's like a window of opportunity and different tasks have a different time frame at which they are best learned. If a human has not heard language by the age of four, that window is almost completely shut.
After a few years Genie had lost her funding, and she was swapped from foster home, to her mother, to foster home again. To learn more about Genie check out
Feral children never learn enough language to give the answers that scientists need! 200 years ago they found a boy they named "victor" in the woods, he had no ability to speak language. A psychologist took him in and tried to teach him language and raise him but he was so wild and wouldn't comply that the psychologist put him in a mental institution. He was there for the rest of his life.
Is it better to take these feral children in and try to teach them human culture, or just let them be?
The first thing that came to mind was the case study of Genie. Genie was a girl who was strapped to a toilet by her Father from when she was 14months old until she was 13. She never learned to speak, whenever her father fed her he only growled and barked at her. Genie's partially blind mother did nothing to stop the abuse. When officials found her, Psycholinguists and language accusitionists went wild for this "wild child." (at first anyways) No one had ever seen a case of a human so isolated from social interaction or a teenage that never heard a word in their life. "This child could be the answer to so many questions" researchers thought. Questions that are unethical for the researchers to find themselves.
Genie moved into the house of her new teacher, Marilyn Rigler a graduate student in human development. At first, whenever Genie would get angry she would engage in self-mutilating behaviors. Marilyn taught her how to turn that frustration outwards by stomping or slamming doors. And eventually genie was able to use language to an extent and exhibit her frustrations in words.
If this isn't an answer, or supporting evidence that ideas, thoughts and emotions are possible without words then I don't know what is. Genie obviously had ideas, thoughts, and emotions, but she didn't know language so she was unable to communicate and share them. The same is with animals, they have thoughts they just can't say them. They prove that they do through their actions.
Yet, on the other hand when brain activity was recorded they saw almost no activity. Her brain waves were extremely undeveloped and her brain was lopsided! She could easily do tasks that involved primarily the right side of the brain and it took a little while for her to learn things that involved both, but when it came to the left side it was impossible. There is something called a critical period, it's like a window of opportunity and different tasks have a different time frame at which they are best learned. If a human has not heard language by the age of four, that window is almost completely shut.
After a few years Genie had lost her funding, and she was swapped from foster home, to her mother, to foster home again. To learn more about Genie check out
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=genie
Feral children never learn enough language to give the answers that scientists need! 200 years ago they found a boy they named "victor" in the woods, he had no ability to speak language. A psychologist took him in and tried to teach him language and raise him but he was so wild and wouldn't comply that the psychologist put him in a mental institution. He was there for the rest of his life.
Is it better to take these feral children in and try to teach them human culture, or just let them be?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Re: Whiping the World Clean
In Joel's latest post he questioned time's existence and if it exists without humans. He ended by asking if time flows or do we flow through it?
In the article by Bradley Dowden talks about the flow of time and how there are two main theories. The first theory is known as the, "Myth-of-passage theory." This theory basically states that the flow of time is all in our heads. There is not an objective flow of time, but there is a possibility that our minds tell us there is. The second theory is known as the, "dynamic theory." This theory states that "the flow of time is objective, a feature of our mind-independence."
I'm not sure I see the difference in the two theories but, I believe that the flow of time is perceived by the events that you are doing and your feelings towards them. If you are doing something you love for 3 hours oppose to something that you hate for an hour, that hour is going to flow a lot slower than the 3 hours, possibly to the point where the 3 hours seemed like it was less time than the one.
So to answer Joel's question I think that time flows atomically, but it doesn't affect how fast or slow it feels. Depending on what we are doing determines how fast or slow time is passing. So in reality time flows automically, but it seems as though we flowing through time and our actions determine the speed of that flow.
What is the difference between the "myth-of-passage theory" and the "dynamic theory"?
In the article by Bradley Dowden talks about the flow of time and how there are two main theories. The first theory is known as the, "Myth-of-passage theory." This theory basically states that the flow of time is all in our heads. There is not an objective flow of time, but there is a possibility that our minds tell us there is. The second theory is known as the, "dynamic theory." This theory states that "the flow of time is objective, a feature of our mind-independence."
I'm not sure I see the difference in the two theories but, I believe that the flow of time is perceived by the events that you are doing and your feelings towards them. If you are doing something you love for 3 hours oppose to something that you hate for an hour, that hour is going to flow a lot slower than the 3 hours, possibly to the point where the 3 hours seemed like it was less time than the one.
So to answer Joel's question I think that time flows atomically, but it doesn't affect how fast or slow it feels. Depending on what we are doing determines how fast or slow time is passing. So in reality time flows automically, but it seems as though we flowing through time and our actions determine the speed of that flow.
What is the difference between the "myth-of-passage theory" and the "dynamic theory"?
Monday, April 5, 2010
Re: Emily's: Human's Imperfect Construction of Time
Emily talked about free-running (when there are no light cues and our circadian rhythm operates on a 25hour cycle) and the fact that a year is actually 325.25 days. She ended by asking, "Does anyone have any insight to why our interpretation of time is skewed? Is there a way to make it more accurate?"
Is our interpretation skewed of time because of the clock? If it is skewed because of the clock then what should our interpretation be? Whose to say that it is skewed when we don't know what the real answer is?
As for time being more accurate let's see, if there is 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour then that's 3,600 seconds in one hour. There is 24 hours in one day, 6 hours is 1/4. 6 x 3,600 = 21,600. 21,600/365 = approx. 59.18. So the most accurate way to make time would be adding 59.18 seconds to everyday(... I think, I'm not the best at math.) But are we going to change this leap year system that's been going on since 50-45 B.C. just to make time more accurate? No. We have time for our convinence, so we can plan and schedule events in a "timely manner." Why does it matter if it takes us four years to catch up on 43,200 seconds?
So my question is: Whose to say that our time is skewed when we don't even know what time is or if it even exsists?
Is our interpretation skewed of time because of the clock? If it is skewed because of the clock then what should our interpretation be? Whose to say that it is skewed when we don't know what the real answer is?
As for time being more accurate let's see, if there is 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour then that's 3,600 seconds in one hour. There is 24 hours in one day, 6 hours is 1/4. 6 x 3,600 = 21,600. 21,600/365 = approx. 59.18. So the most accurate way to make time would be adding 59.18 seconds to everyday(... I think, I'm not the best at math.) But are we going to change this leap year system that's been going on since 50-45 B.C. just to make time more accurate? No. We have time for our convinence, so we can plan and schedule events in a "timely manner." Why does it matter if it takes us four years to catch up on 43,200 seconds?
So my question is: Whose to say that our time is skewed when we don't even know what time is or if it even exsists?
Monday, March 29, 2010
The need to need and the need to deserve
In class toady we talked a lot about needs and what exactly makes a need. When I think of needs I automatically think of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs pyramid.
It's pretty self explanatory. We first need to breath, drink, sleep -- have our physiological needs met. Then we need to feel safe, then loved and so on. The bottom of the pyramid is the most needed and most essential.
I feel like this answers Jake's question, "Can you end the sentence?"
But like I said in class the things we need are a lot of the time shaped by our society and what they tell us we need. Or even a lot of the time we feel that we need the things we are used to having. But no matter what we are accustomed to the mind's appetite always needs more. We are always going to need something. This is just like envy, not to say that you are always going to be envious of something, but if you get it, it will only make you happy for a little while until you occupy your mind on something else.
When it comes to deserving we feel that we deserve the things we need and the things we work for. I certainly don't need or deserve to win the lottery (yet who really does?) but I do deserve good grades because I need to work hard. Yet sometimes we feel that we deserve things that we don't. Just because I work hard, does that necessarily mean I deserve good grades? Probably not, but I think so anyways.
This leads me to my question: Does our pride determine what we feel our needs are and the level of which we feel we deserve?
It's pretty self explanatory. We first need to breath, drink, sleep -- have our physiological needs met. Then we need to feel safe, then loved and so on. The bottom of the pyramid is the most needed and most essential.
I feel like this answers Jake's question, "Can you end the sentence?"
But like I said in class the things we need are a lot of the time shaped by our society and what they tell us we need. Or even a lot of the time we feel that we need the things we are used to having. But no matter what we are accustomed to the mind's appetite always needs more. We are always going to need something. This is just like envy, not to say that you are always going to be envious of something, but if you get it, it will only make you happy for a little while until you occupy your mind on something else.
When it comes to deserving we feel that we deserve the things we need and the things we work for. I certainly don't need or deserve to win the lottery (yet who really does?) but I do deserve good grades because I need to work hard. Yet sometimes we feel that we deserve things that we don't. Just because I work hard, does that necessarily mean I deserve good grades? Probably not, but I think so anyways.
This leads me to my question: Does our pride determine what we feel our needs are and the level of which we feel we deserve?
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Responce to Michelle's post: Envy
Michelle asked, "Would you say that envy is a never ending cycle and that it is done unconsciously?"
I'll start by posting the social psychology term in class that I couldn't remember. Counter factual thinking - mentally stimulating what might have been. The bronze is happier than the silver because the bronze's thought process is, "I just made it into the top three;" whereas the silver's thought process is, "I was so close to getting first." You are more upset when your favorite basketball team loses by one point than you are if they got murdered (points wise). You are more upset if your lottery ticket number was one off from the jackpot than if the winning numbers were totally different. This is because the more actual the event the more counter factual thinking. The closer you are to getting something you want and then you do not, the more you think "what if?"
This relates to envy, if you were so close and then fail, you will be more envious to the person who did achieve whatever it is that you desired. A homeless man is not envious of the rich man, he is envious of the other homeless man who found a beat-up pillow. Envy is relative to what we have, and yes, an unconscious emotion. Yet, I do not feel like it is a never-ending-cycle, so that one envious emotion goes away when another starts. You can be envious of two things at once, or not envious of anything.
I also believe that the capacity to feel envy is a predisposition. Some people have natural personalities that make them compare themselves to others more than the average. It also deals with how you were raised, if you were raised to be thankful for what you have, you are a less envious person.
This leads me to my questions: Can it be taught to not be envious?
I'll start by posting the social psychology term in class that I couldn't remember. Counter factual thinking - mentally stimulating what might have been. The bronze is happier than the silver because the bronze's thought process is, "I just made it into the top three;" whereas the silver's thought process is, "I was so close to getting first." You are more upset when your favorite basketball team loses by one point than you are if they got murdered (points wise). You are more upset if your lottery ticket number was one off from the jackpot than if the winning numbers were totally different. This is because the more actual the event the more counter factual thinking. The closer you are to getting something you want and then you do not, the more you think "what if?"
This relates to envy, if you were so close and then fail, you will be more envious to the person who did achieve whatever it is that you desired. A homeless man is not envious of the rich man, he is envious of the other homeless man who found a beat-up pillow. Envy is relative to what we have, and yes, an unconscious emotion. Yet, I do not feel like it is a never-ending-cycle, so that one envious emotion goes away when another starts. You can be envious of two things at once, or not envious of anything.
I also believe that the capacity to feel envy is a predisposition. Some people have natural personalities that make them compare themselves to others more than the average. It also deals with how you were raised, if you were raised to be thankful for what you have, you are a less envious person.
This leads me to my questions: Can it be taught to not be envious?
the seven deadly sins
I have watched the History channel's segment on the Codex Gigas (the devil's bible) a couple of times, and it mentions the history of the seven deadly sins. To the contrary of many people's beliefs the seven deadly sins are not mentioned in the bible. The seven deadly sins were actually once eight deadly sins written by an exiled monk in the 1300's. It wasn't until the 1500's when Pope Gregory changed the eight deadly sins into the seven deadly sins (omitting sadness and changing other slight things) and inducted it into the Christian religion.
The four Cardinal virtues : Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, and prudence, and the three theological virtues: faith, hope and charity helped to form the seven heavenly virtues. The seven heavenly virtues contrast directly with each deadly sin.
Pride-Humility
Gluttony-Temperance
wrath-patience
sloth-diligence
lust-chastity
greed- charity
envy-kindness
Pride is considered the most deadly sin and contrasts with humility. Humility is modesty. Pride includes: arrogance, self-interest, and narcissistic/histrionic traits. A prideful person according to this depiction feels like they are too good to do the dirty work in life. This is considered a sin mostly because a prideful person considers themselves better than everyone else, almost at the level of God. Pride is also known as, "the sin of Lucifer," since Lucifer was so prideful in himself that he thought he could compare to God, resulting in him becoming the ruler of hell.
Gluttony is over eating and it contrasts with the heavenly virtue temperance. Temperance is moderation (notice how I only said it once). It is a sin because eating too much is wasting food and being greedy towards those who don't have as much as you. This relates a lot to the idea of egalitarianistic cultures, an even amount of food distributed to everyone and not the extreme of 300lbs rich people and people the weigh 72lbs dying of famine.
Wrath is anger and contrasts with patience. Patience is not being restless and quickly annoyed when someone bothers you or there is a wait. It is a sin because if we are quick to act and don't think first there can be bad and regrettable consequences.
Sloth is laziness and contrasts with diligence. Diligence is having a good work ethic. It is a sin to not have a good work ethic and to be lazy because you are wasting the life God gave you. Also, by being a diligent worker you are not allowing temptations or other evil thoughts to consume your time.
Lust is sex without love/marriage and contrasts with chastity. Chasity is remaining sexually abstinent. It is a sin because it is being self-indulgent in the temptations of the flesh before committing yourself to that person.
Greed is desiring more than you need and contrasts with charity. Charity is selflessly giving to others what they need. Greed is a sin because it is being selfish and not caring about the needs of others. It resembles gluttony, except greed is more general whereas Gluttony only entails food.
Envy contrasts with kindness. Being kind and happy for others will conceal envy. If I were to pick my own direct contrast with envy I would use satisfaction. Those who are thankful for what they have and are satisfied with who they are/what their status is, and are not envious people.
When you look at all of the seven deadly sins, there is one characteristic that they all share, (with the exception of wrath) and that is selfishness. Like I mentioned in class on Wednesday, before I even started to research, I mentioned how envy is correlated with low levels of empathy and high levels of selfishness. When you are envious -- selfish; greedy--selfish; lustful -- selfish; sloth -- selfish; gluttonous -- selfish; and the worst of them all, prideful --selfish. I find it ironic how pride is considered the most deadly sin and it is the one that contains the most selfishness. Would that make selfishness the most deadly characteristic/emotion?
The four Cardinal virtues : Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, and prudence, and the three theological virtues: faith, hope and charity helped to form the seven heavenly virtues. The seven heavenly virtues contrast directly with each deadly sin.
Pride-Humility
Gluttony-Temperance
wrath-patience
sloth-diligence
lust-chastity
greed- charity
envy-kindness
Pride is considered the most deadly sin and contrasts with humility. Humility is modesty. Pride includes: arrogance, self-interest, and narcissistic/histrionic traits. A prideful person according to this depiction feels like they are too good to do the dirty work in life. This is considered a sin mostly because a prideful person considers themselves better than everyone else, almost at the level of God. Pride is also known as, "the sin of Lucifer," since Lucifer was so prideful in himself that he thought he could compare to God, resulting in him becoming the ruler of hell.
Gluttony is over eating and it contrasts with the heavenly virtue temperance. Temperance is moderation (notice how I only said it once). It is a sin because eating too much is wasting food and being greedy towards those who don't have as much as you. This relates a lot to the idea of egalitarianistic cultures, an even amount of food distributed to everyone and not the extreme of 300lbs rich people and people the weigh 72lbs dying of famine.
Wrath is anger and contrasts with patience. Patience is not being restless and quickly annoyed when someone bothers you or there is a wait. It is a sin because if we are quick to act and don't think first there can be bad and regrettable consequences.
Sloth is laziness and contrasts with diligence. Diligence is having a good work ethic. It is a sin to not have a good work ethic and to be lazy because you are wasting the life God gave you. Also, by being a diligent worker you are not allowing temptations or other evil thoughts to consume your time.
Lust is sex without love/marriage and contrasts with chastity. Chasity is remaining sexually abstinent. It is a sin because it is being self-indulgent in the temptations of the flesh before committing yourself to that person.
Greed is desiring more than you need and contrasts with charity. Charity is selflessly giving to others what they need. Greed is a sin because it is being selfish and not caring about the needs of others. It resembles gluttony, except greed is more general whereas Gluttony only entails food.
Envy contrasts with kindness. Being kind and happy for others will conceal envy. If I were to pick my own direct contrast with envy I would use satisfaction. Those who are thankful for what they have and are satisfied with who they are/what their status is, and are not envious people.
When you look at all of the seven deadly sins, there is one characteristic that they all share, (with the exception of wrath) and that is selfishness. Like I mentioned in class on Wednesday, before I even started to research, I mentioned how envy is correlated with low levels of empathy and high levels of selfishness. When you are envious -- selfish; greedy--selfish; lustful -- selfish; sloth -- selfish; gluttonous -- selfish; and the worst of them all, prideful --selfish. I find it ironic how pride is considered the most deadly sin and it is the one that contains the most selfishness. Would that make selfishness the most deadly characteristic/emotion?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Re: Michelle's Response to my Meaning of Life for Animals
Michelle asked "what if everyone was a vegetarian?"
I'm not a ecologist, but wouldn't it throw off the natural order of our world if we stopped eating meat? Do you remember in class the other week when we talked about the pig farms and how their waste smells for miles...? Well think if we didn't eat them. There would probably be a lot more pigs...and a lot more pig waste.
What would we do with all of our animals, just keep them as pets? Farmers wouldn't be able to do that because they would have no money from selling them therefore no money to feed them. If everyone was FORCED to be vegetarian, one the other hand, in some twilight zone world of my own, then farmers would be very rich. The meat black market, anyone?
But what do I know, like I said, I'm not an ecologist. I found Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth documentary on google videos
I'm not a ecologist, but wouldn't it throw off the natural order of our world if we stopped eating meat? Do you remember in class the other week when we talked about the pig farms and how their waste smells for miles...? Well think if we didn't eat them. There would probably be a lot more pigs...and a lot more pig waste.
What would we do with all of our animals, just keep them as pets? Farmers wouldn't be able to do that because they would have no money from selling them therefore no money to feed them. If everyone was FORCED to be vegetarian, one the other hand, in some twilight zone world of my own, then farmers would be very rich. The meat black market, anyone?
But what do I know, like I said, I'm not an ecologist. I found Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth documentary on google videos
as Johnson mentioned on Michelle's blog. He talked a lot about the CO2 levels being correlated with the increase in temperates. Yet, since mammals breathe out carbon dioxide and if we didn't eat meat there would be more animals, wouldn't a decrease in meat eating have a deficient effect global warming?
Maybe I'm wrong, if we let them all out in the wild they may become extinct because they don 't know how to defend for themselves. Pigs and cows have been domesticated for so long, do they still have their natural instincts? If they don't, is it worth saving ourselves to risk their species?
Animal Testing
Animal testing has been happening for decades and has been regulated by (at least for psychology) the IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Commity). Before you start an experiment with rats, you need to send them a proposal saying what you will be experimenting, what you are going to do with them, why you are doing that experiment, and even what temperature the room is going to be. They make you bend over backwards for the safety of those animals, yet, you can buy mouse traps that harm and kill the same type of rats in your house with no problem. Of course many people are not opposed to using rats to try to find a cure for cancer. Yet, what about for material uses, like make-up testing, soap testing, shampoo testing, etc? In order to put something on the market it needs to be proven effective, and testing on humans can be very costly, you have to compensate human participants -- the rats don't need money. So what are your feelings toward animal testing for material things?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The Meaning of Life for Animals
In class on Wednesday we talked a lot about self consciousness and self awareness as it relates to animal's (including humans) mental states and abilities to suffer. Humans have the ability to think about the past, future, and present while other animals are only able to think about the past and now. But I feel as though that is why humans suffer. Sure animals definitly have memories, yet it doesn't effect them like our memories effect us. I'm pretty sure that animals don't have regrets. Thinking of the future is a big factor of human suffering because it brings about worries. Planning can be stressful and we make ourselves go through the pain to get our goals. yet, isn't that the fun of it? The harder the goal the more accomplished you feel when you achieve that goal.
Animals don't have complex goals like us so I feel like that reason alone justifies humans eating them. All cows do is eat grass all day... that's the sad truth. So what is the meaning of their lives? They cannot create a new invention, they cannot think complex thoughts, they cannot benefit society in anyway except for feeding us, so why don't we just accept their contribution to the world and to us? Of course I'm not saying that because their lives have no meaning that we should treat them inhumanely or cage them all their lives. If America all had free-range chickens and cows that would cost a lot of money for the farmers, the grocery stores, and the consumer. It would cost us three times the amount, which of course, causes more complaints. People are always complaining about something.
So my question is what is the meaning of live for animals?
*Note: These are not necessarily any of my opinions, I just enjoy being an ass sometimes.*
Animals don't have complex goals like us so I feel like that reason alone justifies humans eating them. All cows do is eat grass all day... that's the sad truth. So what is the meaning of their lives? They cannot create a new invention, they cannot think complex thoughts, they cannot benefit society in anyway except for feeding us, so why don't we just accept their contribution to the world and to us? Of course I'm not saying that because their lives have no meaning that we should treat them inhumanely or cage them all their lives. If America all had free-range chickens and cows that would cost a lot of money for the farmers, the grocery stores, and the consumer. It would cost us three times the amount, which of course, causes more complaints. People are always complaining about something.
So my question is what is the meaning of live for animals?
*Note: These are not necessarily any of my opinions, I just enjoy being an ass sometimes.*
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Re: EMT's Animals as Pet's (and Food)
In his latest blog, EMT asked: Why is it that, once we consider an animal a pet (a creature whose sole purpose is enslavement by our species for, primarily, our own amusement), that we become uneasy at the thought of using that animal as a source of food?
Amusement? Maybe a fish or a pet rock is for your amusement(or lack thereof), but not mammals such as cats and dogs. It has been shown that people with pet's have less heart problems. Pets can lower your blood pressure, your cholesterol, your triglyceride levels along with other health benefits. Dogs also help children with autism spectrum disorders.
I suppose training your dog to do tricks is for your amusement, but that's not the reason why most pet owners have them. They also provide unconditional love, they don't care if you are weird, if you say the wrong thing, or you didn't pay the cable bill. Pets make you feel less lonely and that social support is one of the reasons that they reduce stress.
So with all of these things that animals do for us why would we eat them? If you eat a steak you are using that cow for food. If you have a pet you are using it, but in a different way. We use pets as comfort, friends, and as Bretticus mentioned, family. Why would you want to eat your friend or family member?
Amusement? Maybe a fish or a pet rock is for your amusement(or lack thereof), but not mammals such as cats and dogs. It has been shown that people with pet's have less heart problems. Pets can lower your blood pressure, your cholesterol, your triglyceride levels along with other health benefits. Dogs also help children with autism spectrum disorders.
I suppose training your dog to do tricks is for your amusement, but that's not the reason why most pet owners have them. They also provide unconditional love, they don't care if you are weird, if you say the wrong thing, or you didn't pay the cable bill. Pets make you feel less lonely and that social support is one of the reasons that they reduce stress.
So with all of these things that animals do for us why would we eat them? If you eat a steak you are using that cow for food. If you have a pet you are using it, but in a different way. We use pets as comfort, friends, and as Bretticus mentioned, family. Why would you want to eat your friend or family member?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Re: Michelle's Philosophy of Loyalty
In her latest blog post, Michelle asked the question, "What exactly is loyalty and why do people go to such lengths?"
Loyalty is devotion, commitment, and trust. A loyal friend is one who does not talk behind their friend's back. People go to such great lengths because that is what loyalty is; when you are devoted you will do just about anything.
Sororities and Fraternities test the pledge's loyalty by hazing. It has been scientifically proven that the harder the initiation is to something, the more loyal you are towards it once inducted. The same applies to any goal, the harder you have to work towards that goal, the more rewarding it is when you accomplish it. If a pledge is willing to do anything for their Sorority/Fraternity, that shows devotion and trust and when accepted they will be committed.
In addition to this, the Fraternity and Sorority "pledge masters" do horrible things, and say/do vulgar things toward you to break-down your self-esteem. Why do they break down your self-esteem? It is a component of conformity- the lower self-esteem you have, the more likely you are to conform. Once these Sororities/Fraternities breakdown they rebuild you the way they want.
Personally, I would never join a Sorority, the whole thing seems stupid to me, but that's another story. I think it is just a point of saying, "yeah, I survived hazing, what now, I'm cool." Maybe I am missing something bigger though. What do you think is the purpose of joining a Sorority or Fraternity?
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Who Shall We Save?
The philosophy talk segment we listened to this week mentioned a scenario where there is a child drowning on your way to work. The women describing this scenario said that you would be more likely to save that child than to "save a child for 25 cents a day" from another country. Her explanation was because we feel closer to the child drowning because he is from America.
I strongly disagree. We are more likely to save the drowning child because it is for one, an instinct, and two, it is in the moment, the child is right there in front of you needing help. Those TV ads that we have all seen, to save a child for 25 cents a day can seem a bit like a scam and probably a lot of the time are. I do not know what my money is going to. Saving the drowning child is a one time thing and you would physically be helping someone instead of paying someone to help a child in need.
This leads to the social psychology term, diffusion of responsibility or the bystander effect. (This was brought about by the Katy Genovese murder, a women who was stabbed and killed outside of her apartment. There were no less than 38 witnesses, none of them called 911.) Basically the term is the thought "no one else is helping why should I?" Or "I don't know what to do so I'll just follow everybody else and do nothing." But you see, in the drowning incident there is no one else around you are this child's only hope and therefore feel obligated to save him/her. Everybody has seen those commercials though, and I am sure somebody else has already called to help.
My last reason is because of pride. If you were to save this child from drowning, you have much more pride than anonymously helping a stranger. Not to say that pride is a reason to help someone, but let us not lie, you are going to be pretty proud of yourself if you save a drowning kid. Is pride a reason to help someone?
I strongly disagree. We are more likely to save the drowning child because it is for one, an instinct, and two, it is in the moment, the child is right there in front of you needing help. Those TV ads that we have all seen, to save a child for 25 cents a day can seem a bit like a scam and probably a lot of the time are. I do not know what my money is going to. Saving the drowning child is a one time thing and you would physically be helping someone instead of paying someone to help a child in need.
This leads to the social psychology term, diffusion of responsibility or the bystander effect. (This was brought about by the Katy Genovese murder, a women who was stabbed and killed outside of her apartment. There were no less than 38 witnesses, none of them called 911.) Basically the term is the thought "no one else is helping why should I?" Or "I don't know what to do so I'll just follow everybody else and do nothing." But you see, in the drowning incident there is no one else around you are this child's only hope and therefore feel obligated to save him/her. Everybody has seen those commercials though, and I am sure somebody else has already called to help.
My last reason is because of pride. If you were to save this child from drowning, you have much more pride than anonymously helping a stranger. Not to say that pride is a reason to help someone, but let us not lie, you are going to be pretty proud of yourself if you save a drowning kid. Is pride a reason to help someone?
Friday, February 19, 2010
Reply to Michelle's Animal Rights
Michelle's asked, "Do you think animals possess a soul or are they void of it and is just a mere "subject of life?" Before I answer that I should highlight what a "soul" is, because certainly it is not anything tangible. Of course, this could be a post of it's own, but to me the soul is the non-physical part of you, it is your consciousness, your emotions, your personality, etc. Animals have these things, they have emotions, they have simple thoughts, and they certainly have personalities.
Michelle stated that the only difference between us and animals is that we know the concept of death. I have to disagree. In Nature of Human Nature last year we outlined the main differences between humans and animals. I can't remember them all but a few were: we can think about the future, we can think abstractly, and we can lie. (I think it was Jean-Paul Sartre who said that lying is the closest we will ever come to true freedom.) But does lying, abstract thoughts, and imagining the future define our souls? I don't think so. So if it doesn't, why would anyone one think that animals don't posses a soul?
I think the whole, "they don't have a soul thing" is just a wimpy excuse to make eating them okay. I don't mean to offend any vegetarians (sorry Shelby) but I'm going to be the asshole who says "yes they do have souls, but I'm going to eat them anyways." And in the Christan omnivorous defence, Genesis clearly points out that it is okay to eat animals, as long as we respect them when they are alive.
Homo sapien means "man the wise." But does our wisdom give us the right to eat animals? How is us eating a chicken different than a lion eating a Gazelle?
Michelle stated that the only difference between us and animals is that we know the concept of death. I have to disagree. In Nature of Human Nature last year we outlined the main differences between humans and animals. I can't remember them all but a few were: we can think about the future, we can think abstractly, and we can lie. (I think it was Jean-Paul Sartre who said that lying is the closest we will ever come to true freedom.) But does lying, abstract thoughts, and imagining the future define our souls? I don't think so. So if it doesn't, why would anyone one think that animals don't posses a soul?
I think the whole, "they don't have a soul thing" is just a wimpy excuse to make eating them okay. I don't mean to offend any vegetarians (sorry Shelby) but I'm going to be the asshole who says "yes they do have souls, but I'm going to eat them anyways." And in the Christan omnivorous defence, Genesis clearly points out that it is okay to eat animals, as long as we respect them when they are alive.
Homo sapien means "man the wise." But does our wisdom give us the right to eat animals? How is us eating a chicken different than a lion eating a Gazelle?
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Neutral ground
Annoyed with the fact that I nor the class could come to an answer about what the neutral ground is between supernatural and naturalistic, I will attempt again to logically examine the possibilities or lack thereof. It’s so hard to just throw the thought of there being a neutral ground away, especially when I know the beliefs of great philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes. In Leviathan, Hobbes mentions God and he is a materialist. It works for him, he believes in God and doesn’t believe in free will, he is in-between naturalistic and super naturalistic. So, even though I don't understand how believing in God and Microevolution is not common ground, I'll ignore that possibility.
The first statement I made in class yesterday was under looked as a possibility because of its apparent relation of Emily's statement. Yet Emily did not mention the article by Moreland like I did, and how he states that when we look at morality, free will, rationality, and consciousness from a naturalistic point of view we cannot find an answer. I was suggesting that that could be our common ground. Or at least that is what I was trying to say.
Anyways, there are things that can be explained through the naturalistic point of view and things that can be explained through the supernatural view. Supposedly, morality, free will, rationality and conscientiousness can be explained only through the supernatural. ‘God lets us know what is wrong from right,’ yet everyone has different morals, so that can’t be explained supernaturally. The bible may point out what is wrong in the Ten Commandments and such, but that does not necessarily mean that the readers build morals from it. In fact, to me, morals seem mostly cognitive, social, and cultural. There is not just one view world wide of what is and isn’t morally right. Other cultures believe in things that we feel are just wrong. Since there is not one view of morality and it is not measurable, it cannot be empirically observed. (How would we even operationally define morality?) So with those explanations I feel that morality cannot fully be explained through either supernatural or naturalistic views. That it is it. So were we that blind? The neutral ground is not a view of something that is both naturalistic and supernaturalistic, it is in things that are not naturalistic nor supernaturalistic. That is my conclusion. Are rationality, consciousness, and free will also neutral ground?
Friday, February 12, 2010
Re: Supernatural vs. Mystery
Ben asked a series of questions pertaining to the differences between the mysterious and supernatural. To my knowledge, what is mysterious does not have to be supernatural (any affiliation with religion) yet, it is certainly possible for them to overlap. Something that is mysterious is unknown and intriguing, we have the science and/or minds to solve the given mystery, but there is just a missing link somewhere. When I think of mystery, I think of the show Unsolved Mysteries that used to be on Lifetime a long time ago. Its episodes showed dramatizations of real unsolved mystery cases, most of them being kidnapped children, murderings, disappearing people, ect. People who were kidnapped certainly were not sucked up into the sky, those who were murdered were not killed by ghosts, and those who disappeared did not dissolve into thin air. Do you see where I am going? These mysteries had absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural, we had the science to solve them, but there were not enough clues or witnesses to make the answers known.
When the supernatural and mystery do overlap it is called a miracle, a miracle could involve no scientific explanation or be against science. For example, my manager’s daughter got into a car crash where she hit a tree head on—her car was completely totaled, and when the paramedics arrived at the scene they knew it was not going to be pretty inside, but they were wrong, science and physics were wrong too—she did not even have a scratch. How do you explain that? It was a supernatural mystery—it was a miracle! And the paramedics were more than willing to admit that she had an angel with her. Supernatural means above science.
I think when it comes to discussing the supernatural in a public space, it is used as it is needed, which is not very often. Why would court rooms, or any public situation for that matter bring up religion? It is both unnecessary and politically incorrect. There is a separation of church and state for a reason, because one: they do not want to offend anyone, and two: the claims would be based on belief, and therefore have no evidentiary support and would be invalid. So my question would be why should we bring up religion in a public space? Where would it be appropriate?
When the supernatural and mystery do overlap it is called a miracle, a miracle could involve no scientific explanation or be against science. For example, my manager’s daughter got into a car crash where she hit a tree head on—her car was completely totaled, and when the paramedics arrived at the scene they knew it was not going to be pretty inside, but they were wrong, science and physics were wrong too—she did not even have a scratch. How do you explain that? It was a supernatural mystery—it was a miracle! And the paramedics were more than willing to admit that she had an angel with her. Supernatural means above science.
I think when it comes to discussing the supernatural in a public space, it is used as it is needed, which is not very often. Why would court rooms, or any public situation for that matter bring up religion? It is both unnecessary and politically incorrect. There is a separation of church and state for a reason, because one: they do not want to offend anyone, and two: the claims would be based on belief, and therefore have no evidentiary support and would be invalid. So my question would be why should we bring up religion in a public space? Where would it be appropriate?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Conformed Views
In Clark's Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism he discussed totalitarianism for a good portion of the essay. In my Q&A I went off on a tangent about how ridiculous Sam Harris's empirical totalitarian view of faith is. And in this blog post I want to ask the question of why is it so important for everybody to have the same beliefs? Why is it such an Utopian ideal? This thought of: I am right and everyone else who doesn't feel the same way is wrong, seems quite ignorant to me.
How boring would that be if everyone had the same beliefs? Extremely! There would be no philosophers because everyone would have the same philosophy and possibly worse there would be no debating! (Oh, the horror!) Being unique is the beauty of the mind, the beauty of being human. Why then do some people want everyone to agree with them? Sure it would be really annoying if nobody agreed with you, but if everybody did, it would be annoying too. So somebody please answer, Why is it so important for us to have the same beliefs?
How boring would that be if everyone had the same beliefs? Extremely! There would be no philosophers because everyone would have the same philosophy and possibly worse there would be no debating! (Oh, the horror!) Being unique is the beauty of the mind, the beauty of being human. Why then do some people want everyone to agree with them? Sure it would be really annoying if nobody agreed with you, but if everybody did, it would be annoying too. So somebody please answer, Why is it so important for us to have the same beliefs?
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Beauty in American Culture re: Women As Aesthetically Pleasing Objects
This post is in response to Emily Burke's post "Women As Aesthetically pleasing objects." In her post she discussed our cultures view of women and how we desire them to look thin. She then asked the question of why we find thin women aesthetically pleasing?
Beauty and attraction has a lot to do with trends in our culture. Why something is attractive has to do with what specific body features symbolize to our society. These could be unconscious or subconscious symbols. Years ago, our society valued women who were bigger because it represented wealth (conscious). Yet, that died out possibly because those who are larger are unhealthy, have a lower life expectancy, and are less physically fit. Thin women may also be more attractive to men, because they are less potent and gender roles suggest that the man is the potent role. (This is a subconscious symbol.)
During slavery the more pale a women was, the more attractive. Paleness represented wealth, and not having to work in the fields (also conscious). Women would walk with parasols and apply chemicals to their faces to keep them pale. If I remember right, they applied led to their faces which caused some to die from led poisoning. Beauty at the price of death? Is it that important to our culture to be viewed as beautiful that we would risk our lives? Apparently. But why? Why is being beautiful so important? I have one theory.
We believe that those who are beautiful are: happier, more liked, more successful, richer, nicer, and more likely to have a loving relationship with the opposite sex. These thoughts, whether we want to admit it or not, are partly subconscious and partly conscious.
This need to be beautiful and attractive didn’t just drive our society to death during slavery, it still is today. Instead of putting deadly chemicals on our faces many people resort to purging and just not eating at all. Plastic surgery is also a thriving desire of society, changing our noses, fat content, and lips –and for what?! To be viewed as attractive! When we take it to the extreme it is called Body Dysmorphic Disorder, a type of psychological anxiety disorder which involves obsessions and compulsions related to our looks. Obsessions are thoughts and compulsions are actions. These compulsions can involve numerous plastic surgeries, a heavy amount of applied makeup, and/ or eating disorders. Numerous plastic surgeries result in people look they are shiny plastic, and fake. Anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, when taken to the extreme make those suffering look like they are literally just skin and bones. In these drastic cases the individuals are suffering from serious psychological disorders perceive the way the look different than they actually do and it is all that they can think about. It is thought to deal with the amount of serotonin in the brain.
But back to why we need to be viewed as attractive. Like I said above, we associate to all of these positive things to being beautiful. Yet, correlation does not equal causation. The truth is that being beautiful gives us confidence, and confidence makes us happier, more successful, nicer, ect. Personally, I put on make-up not to be more attractive, but to have more confidence. But can we have confidence in ourselves without being beautiful or attractive? Does being thin have anything to do with confidence?
Beauty and attraction has a lot to do with trends in our culture. Why something is attractive has to do with what specific body features symbolize to our society. These could be unconscious or subconscious symbols. Years ago, our society valued women who were bigger because it represented wealth (conscious). Yet, that died out possibly because those who are larger are unhealthy, have a lower life expectancy, and are less physically fit. Thin women may also be more attractive to men, because they are less potent and gender roles suggest that the man is the potent role. (This is a subconscious symbol.)
During slavery the more pale a women was, the more attractive. Paleness represented wealth, and not having to work in the fields (also conscious). Women would walk with parasols and apply chemicals to their faces to keep them pale. If I remember right, they applied led to their faces which caused some to die from led poisoning. Beauty at the price of death? Is it that important to our culture to be viewed as beautiful that we would risk our lives? Apparently. But why? Why is being beautiful so important? I have one theory.
We believe that those who are beautiful are: happier, more liked, more successful, richer, nicer, and more likely to have a loving relationship with the opposite sex. These thoughts, whether we want to admit it or not, are partly subconscious and partly conscious.
This need to be beautiful and attractive didn’t just drive our society to death during slavery, it still is today. Instead of putting deadly chemicals on our faces many people resort to purging and just not eating at all. Plastic surgery is also a thriving desire of society, changing our noses, fat content, and lips –and for what?! To be viewed as attractive! When we take it to the extreme it is called Body Dysmorphic Disorder, a type of psychological anxiety disorder which involves obsessions and compulsions related to our looks. Obsessions are thoughts and compulsions are actions. These compulsions can involve numerous plastic surgeries, a heavy amount of applied makeup, and/ or eating disorders. Numerous plastic surgeries result in people look they are shiny plastic, and fake. Anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, when taken to the extreme make those suffering look like they are literally just skin and bones. In these drastic cases the individuals are suffering from serious psychological disorders perceive the way the look different than they actually do and it is all that they can think about. It is thought to deal with the amount of serotonin in the brain.
But back to why we need to be viewed as attractive. Like I said above, we associate to all of these positive things to being beautiful. Yet, correlation does not equal causation. The truth is that being beautiful gives us confidence, and confidence makes us happier, more successful, nicer, ect. Personally, I put on make-up not to be more attractive, but to have more confidence. But can we have confidence in ourselves without being beautiful or attractive? Does being thin have anything to do with confidence?
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Linguistic Beauty and Beyond
The beauty of language was mentioned briefly in class, but was not elaborated on. I feel like certain words hold more beauty than others. For example the word “content” is more beautiful than the word “tent.” Amazing how much three letters can change the mood of a word! A word’s beauty can be determined either by its sound or what it represents. To Mark Twain, the most beautiful phrase in the human language is, “cellar door.” A cellar door, by all means does not represent anything beautiful nor does anything that lies in a cellar (well, most cellars anyway.) Yet, it sounds pretty. Then there are poems, poems have the unsurpassed ability to make words that are tragic, beautiful. I’ll use a poem of my own to prove my point:
Flashbacks
Framed memories sit on shelves collecting dust,
As do ones in chests
discretely seeking significance,
As we burry them –
no X to mark.
Outside,
Negatives reside on footprints wore down
from the eroding plate tectonics
Of recall.
Remembrance is among those
Of a catastrophic, brilliant decay.
Arrogant to choice;
Appealing to virtue.
Whose repressed fossils cannot be prevented
by wavering weather.
We live among painful returns.
They peak from their secluded
now and then.
Haunting self-ghosts of magnitude,
Trapping us in embarrassment and regret, so glory.
Jealous of framed memories
Colorful and wanted.
_______________________
Painful flashbacks certainly are not beautiful, but language allows us to express “ugly” feelings, events, and objects in an artistic, beautiful way. Beauty as it relates to language is more subjective than beauty in the physical. This could be because we have immense control over language –more than physicality. We can determine how rich and beautiful our vocabulary is. And what sounds beautiful to me may not sound beautiful to you.
It was also mentioned that naming something almost changes what that object is. I disagree, we attach beauty to a name because of what that name represents. Sorry Shakespeare, but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. The fact that we named it a ‘rose’ does not change the way it looks, smells, or feels. We think of the word ‘rose’ as a beautiful word because ‘ rose’ is a name for a beautiful flower.
Beauty can lie beyond objects and language as well. There can be beautiful experiences and like Nick said, “beautiful emotions.” Helping someone in need may be a beautiful experience. Yet, what would be a beautiful emotion?
Flashbacks
Framed memories sit on shelves collecting dust,
As do ones in chests
discretely seeking significance,
As we burry them –
no X to mark.
Outside,
Negatives reside on footprints wore down
from the eroding plate tectonics
Of recall.
Remembrance is among those
Of a catastrophic, brilliant decay.
Arrogant to choice;
Appealing to virtue.
Whose repressed fossils cannot be prevented
by wavering weather.
We live among painful returns.
They peak from their secluded
now and then.
Haunting self-ghosts of magnitude,
Trapping us in embarrassment and regret, so glory.
Jealous of framed memories
Colorful and wanted.
_______________________
Painful flashbacks certainly are not beautiful, but language allows us to express “ugly” feelings, events, and objects in an artistic, beautiful way. Beauty as it relates to language is more subjective than beauty in the physical. This could be because we have immense control over language –more than physicality. We can determine how rich and beautiful our vocabulary is. And what sounds beautiful to me may not sound beautiful to you.
It was also mentioned that naming something almost changes what that object is. I disagree, we attach beauty to a name because of what that name represents. Sorry Shakespeare, but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. The fact that we named it a ‘rose’ does not change the way it looks, smells, or feels. We think of the word ‘rose’ as a beautiful word because ‘ rose’ is a name for a beautiful flower.
Beauty can lie beyond objects and language as well. There can be beautiful experiences and like Nick said, “beautiful emotions.” Helping someone in need may be a beautiful experience. Yet, what would be a beautiful emotion?
Friday, January 29, 2010
Re: The Truth about Truth
Aaron’s post was all about coherence theory, and trying to rationalize its purpose. Truth goes beyond statements -- residing also in situations. If that is understood and the same theories are applied, then the coherence theory makes more sense. The coherence theory is based on relativity, and is important in aspects of everyday life such as conformity. Take for example an instrumental ensemble. In this ensemble there is a clarinet who is playing their Concert A in perfect pitch (440 vibrations per minute), yet the rest of the ensemble is a little flat. According to the coherence theory of truth, the fact that the clarinet is playing in tune is false because they are out of tune with the rest of the ensemble. According to the corresponding theory of truth, the clarinet is in tune, but everyone else is flat. When it comes to real world situations like the above mentioned, correspondence theory loses its luster – it doesn’t matter if the clarinet is in tune, because they are sharper than the rest of the ensemble!
If one person is right according to the way the world is and everyone else is wrong, then wrong is what is right and what is really right is wrong. (In the eyes of society.) In the words of Jack Johnson, “It’s all relative.” Of course I am not saying that it is a good thing in all cases, or even that it applies in all cases, but it surely does occur. Another example is the statement, “ the snow is white” it does not matter if the snow really is white, because ‘white’ is what we call the absence of color and snow is what we know to be white.
Aaron claimed, “…In spite of whatever we know to be objective, we all perceive the world with bias, however slight or negligible we may train it to be.” That may be true, but there is also an objective bias, a bias our society perceives the world by that has been shaped over time. That bias is what we live by; that bias is coherence. That being said, are the objective and subjective biases we percieve, along with corresponding truth, a blend that makes our reality?
If one person is right according to the way the world is and everyone else is wrong, then wrong is what is right and what is really right is wrong. (In the eyes of society.) In the words of Jack Johnson, “It’s all relative.” Of course I am not saying that it is a good thing in all cases, or even that it applies in all cases, but it surely does occur. Another example is the statement, “ the snow is white” it does not matter if the snow really is white, because ‘white’ is what we call the absence of color and snow is what we know to be white.
Aaron claimed, “…In spite of whatever we know to be objective, we all perceive the world with bias, however slight or negligible we may train it to be.” That may be true, but there is also an objective bias, a bias our society perceives the world by that has been shaped over time. That bias is what we live by; that bias is coherence. That being said, are the objective and subjective biases we percieve, along with corresponding truth, a blend that makes our reality?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Knowledge vs. Belief
In class yesterday we briefly mentioned Knowledge vs. Belief. To my opinion, belief is one's subjective faith in something that they are convinced is true. Belief requires faith because it does not involve fact. Knowledge on the other hand does not require faith because it does involve fact. Knowledge is an obtained concept of an objective fact. Knowledge is discovered truth. In our society we up hold knowledge higher than belief because whom ever knows more is considered wiser. Is that true? Is the knower wiser than the believer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
