Haven't looked at this thing in ages, but I noticed a few anonymous comments, and am gracious for the kind words.
If you're interested, I'm restarting elsewhere (with all of these posts imported), and along with my thoughts (which are more free form, now that I'm (sadly) out of philosophy classes), but also film reviews (I'm a screenwriting student).
I hope anyway who enjoyed this will follow me there. Best of luck.
http://specific-relativity.blogspot.com/
-Derek
Monday, May 31, 2010
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Desuetude
–noun
the state of being no longer used or practiced.
~~~~~~~
Well, all things must end, and thus this blog is finally closing for me. It's spent three semesters getting scratched upon for Professor David Johnson's classes, first Professional Ethics, then Constructing Reality, and finally Nature of Human Nature. I must say my favorite class, as well as my most productive (in thought, not quantity) blogging semester was Constructing Reality, despite working another blog at the same time. My experience in the philosophy department at MCLA has been many times more enriching and rewarding than I expected heading into it, and should I ever write anything of note, the ideas I learned in my philosophy seminars at MCLA will be evident in the text. I am a smarter and more patient person for them.
As I don't particularly like to sprawl my opinions on the internet without a good reason (such as a class), I'm ending this blog for good with this post. I want to thank David Johnson for 5 illuminating classes, and wish you the best of luck in all your future seminars and endeavors. You have helped me understand more than I can explain. Thank you.
-Derek Anderson
the state of being no longer used or practiced.
~~~~~~~
Well, all things must end, and thus this blog is finally closing for me. It's spent three semesters getting scratched upon for Professor David Johnson's classes, first Professional Ethics, then Constructing Reality, and finally Nature of Human Nature. I must say my favorite class, as well as my most productive (in thought, not quantity) blogging semester was Constructing Reality, despite working another blog at the same time. My experience in the philosophy department at MCLA has been many times more enriching and rewarding than I expected heading into it, and should I ever write anything of note, the ideas I learned in my philosophy seminars at MCLA will be evident in the text. I am a smarter and more patient person for them.
As I don't particularly like to sprawl my opinions on the internet without a good reason (such as a class), I'm ending this blog for good with this post. I want to thank David Johnson for 5 illuminating classes, and wish you the best of luck in all your future seminars and endeavors. You have helped me understand more than I can explain. Thank you.
-Derek Anderson
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Elocution
\el-uh-KYOO-shuhn\, noun:
the art of speaking or reading clearly in public, including gestures, pronunciation, and tones
~~~~~~~
An honest theory of human theory sounds rather like a guide to creative writing—though many guidelines can and should be set down to help one better understand, nearly every rule can be broken. This springs from the peculiar addition of sapience, the ability to reflect on any tenet carved into the stone of humanity and, due to that reflection, change it. So while there are many things we can say are inherent to humans, few of them survive disapproving reflection and conscious action.
When I hear “nature”, I think of something that cannot be changed. The human nature, however, is not such a thing—if I were to cut up my already fractured theory of human nature, I would establish primary and secondary characteristics. Among the primary would be very few things, foremost among them the ability to change as the mind sees fit. I could reason to put needs such as eating and sex in the secondary category, as the individual, though he or she will not last very long, can overcome even these most basic instincts.
Yet still I feel there is much to find that is inherent to all humans—centered primarily in pre-nurture states. I’m still working through it.
the art of speaking or reading clearly in public, including gestures, pronunciation, and tones
~~~~~~~
An honest theory of human theory sounds rather like a guide to creative writing—though many guidelines can and should be set down to help one better understand, nearly every rule can be broken. This springs from the peculiar addition of sapience, the ability to reflect on any tenet carved into the stone of humanity and, due to that reflection, change it. So while there are many things we can say are inherent to humans, few of them survive disapproving reflection and conscious action.
When I hear “nature”, I think of something that cannot be changed. The human nature, however, is not such a thing—if I were to cut up my already fractured theory of human nature, I would establish primary and secondary characteristics. Among the primary would be very few things, foremost among them the ability to change as the mind sees fit. I could reason to put needs such as eating and sex in the secondary category, as the individual, though he or she will not last very long, can overcome even these most basic instincts.
Yet still I feel there is much to find that is inherent to all humans—centered primarily in pre-nurture states. I’m still working through it.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Caitiff
\KAY-tif\, noun, adjective:
1. cowardly and mean
~~~~~~~
I haven’t blogged nearly as much as I should have this semester, but there has been no cessation of thoughts for each topic, especially this one, so I’m parsing it as thoroughly as possible right now. I firstly assume that there exists cause and effect, and that while ambiguous as a facet of the physical world (it seems to me an identification of phenomenon, essentially the same as observing “time”—a human definition for something that changes) it is nonetheless wholly evident.
I want to initially slither through the obvious, so as to Lego upward this unusually abstruse debate (is it unusually abstruse? The field’s constructed in such a manner). Full libertarianism strikes me as blatantly false, in that it supposes, on no sufficient grounds, that we are capable of making decisions without antecedents. It ignores that we were born with certain dispositions and needs (the nature vs. nurture debate), and extricates us from the flow of cause and effect by the vessel of consciousness.
Consciousness, however, is a construction, and its foundation is comprised of several mitigating and important materials that we both have little control over and which influence our decisions. The subconscious alone, as a reserve of past trauma, instinct and genetic disposition, is evidence of this—and this is not the only foundation on which our consciousness derives its movements. We cannot be radically free with these extant.
This was further explored in class, where I found myself stumped—bias was mentioned, where antecedent states of mind influenced decisions, and therefore the actions of the afflicted were subject to those antecedents and robbed of true freedom. After all, the basis of morality is that we can act given the proper information to do so. Moral patients are defined by this lack of higher consciousness and reflection—we need to proper information to reflect fully, and without it, we are not truly free. Marx spoke in this way about many things, invoking the illusion of freedom. We may be seemingly conscious agents of free will, but this is undermined and perhaps even stolen entirely by antecedents. Why should we be free from cause and effects?
This is where I stumble on something else I feel is less obvious, but nonetheless profound—that reflection is something cause and effect does not often encounter. In most cases of cause and effect, there exists only the cause, say, a meteor striking the moon, and the effect, a hole and a dust cloud. Neither the meteor nor the moon “predicts, expects” or “reacts” to this occurrences—both are pawns in the movements of an “of-itself” universe (to call it unconscious is anthropocentric).
We, on the other hand, do not seem such willing pawns. Our ability to reflect separates us from the sentient creatures. Especially in lifeforms with lower intelligence, they seem an extension of the universe’s cause and effect. Brought to life by the desire to thrive (still working on that specific cause, scientifically), these organisms are driven by genetic antecedents and desires, and follow them rigorously in nature. While we see exceptions here and there, on the whole, there is no question that animals are at best mildly more autonomous than planets, and much less, it would seem, than humans.
Sapient beings are peculiar in that they can recognize a state of affairs—they can observe the universe as determined. From that, it is theorized they can extrapolate a series of choices, and that in the multitude, the diversity of possible courses of action—one is free. A lack of reflection in mere sentience robs them of this possibility. Reflection on a determinist state of affairs produces more options.
But is the increase in options indicative that we are “freer” than nonhuman animals or rocks, and if so, is that indicative that we are fully “free”? I am sure each polar side of this debate would have their own opinions, but I’m trying to muddle through the middle. I want to reason that we are, by manner of our reflection, freer than sentient animals, but I cannot convince myself entirely.
This is because the antecedent debate extends beyond mere faulty reasoning—such as being raised without enough information to make free choices. To be fully free, I imagine that one must be fully competent—in essence, we need be far more sapient that we are now. And as I’ve encountered with this thought experiment before, higher levels of sapience only prove determinism further, as we need first accept that we and the universe are controlled by cause and effect to have any hope of rounding it. In essence, the only road to freedom leads to acceptance of cause and effect.
Here the paradox is unveiled; I did not understand it in class. Here is where I will attempt to finish what Pojman abandoned, however. I am sure I will fail.
It is certainly the case that though we seem freer than animals or rocks, this is an illusion—our cause and effect is merely extrapolated further, and far complicated by our sapience. All the permutations of this sapience, however, does not round cause and effect. Cause and effect itself proves determinism, however superficially.
However, the rub is not whether or not we and our choices are effects to causes, but whether or not we are the final progenitor of those causes. We are not. However, we play a role—being that there is no machine to predict, being that there is no God to control, and being that there is no evil demon who pulls strings, we alone are observers of ourselves and our actions. We can observe our antecedents and make judgments on their validity in action. This access to observation, the sapience required to enact it, and the reason to employ it are all antecedent causes, and can be drawn back to determinist upbringings. However, without more insightful observers or controlling hands, we are the ones navigating routes.
What I am suggesting is that, in lieu of future selves telling us what we’re going to do, or authentic fortune-tellers who cannot be circumvented, there is a sense of autonomy. There is a sense that we can examine the possible routes of action and decide between them, even if our actions are predictable. Whether or not they are predictable does not rob us of autonomy.
Or does it? Now I’m not sure. Because when I consider an omniscient God, who is infinitely aware of our future actions, it seems to me certain that we have no free will, as it is written into the fabric of reality and known by a conscious being. But when I consider the possibility of a god-like machine that merely predicts behavior being discovered and plumbed, then I feel as if greater access to free will would occur, in that this machine would explicate its predictions and we could then act otherwise.
But if the machine were effective, wouldn’t it, then, be prepared for your change in course based on your reaction to its prediction? In essence, the machine would have to lie to you in order to tell the truth. It would mutate its predictions of the future based on how you will react to the truth of what would have happened had you never encountered it. Only in its telling you of the future would you change your predicted course of action, but if it knew your correct course of action, it would be unable to inform you of it until after the lie is told.
It follows the same logic as the grandfather paradox. There is an inconsistency to full predictability in sapience that cannot be ignored by hard determinists. Knowing our definitive course of action gives us the ability to circumvent it. Does this not suggest that we are free, that sapience, when properly informed (which I’m not suggesting it is), really does have an internal, semi-closed system of cause and effect?
Or ought we merely to call the grandfather or future-teller machine paradoxes logical impossibilities? Even so, it does not diminish the thought experiment or its implications—sapience seems, to whatever end, opposed in some way to determinism, as it can actively reflect and react to a course of events. This is a paradox indeed, as I do not doubt we have many antecedents causes, and that cause and effect is true, and that it can be traced backwards even in sapience. But when sapience butts heads with decisions it is "determined" to make, is not autonomy derived? Perhaps this is only a marginal case and no true denial to determinism, but it feels to me unresolved.
I am not satiated with determinism, but neither am I with libertarianism. Libertarianism strikes me as far more full of falsehoods than determinism, but I cannot rest content to say that sapience and all of its permutations, though constrained by cause and effect, can never be classified as “free”. I say this in the sense that logically, if only under the prescriptions above, true predictions of future behavior are mutually exclusive from sapient reflections of them. The more predictable sapience is, the freer it becomes.
A paradox indeed.
If anyone has further thoughts or answers, please post them, I am impossibly mired.
1. cowardly and mean
~~~~~~~
I haven’t blogged nearly as much as I should have this semester, but there has been no cessation of thoughts for each topic, especially this one, so I’m parsing it as thoroughly as possible right now. I firstly assume that there exists cause and effect, and that while ambiguous as a facet of the physical world (it seems to me an identification of phenomenon, essentially the same as observing “time”—a human definition for something that changes) it is nonetheless wholly evident.
I want to initially slither through the obvious, so as to Lego upward this unusually abstruse debate (is it unusually abstruse? The field’s constructed in such a manner). Full libertarianism strikes me as blatantly false, in that it supposes, on no sufficient grounds, that we are capable of making decisions without antecedents. It ignores that we were born with certain dispositions and needs (the nature vs. nurture debate), and extricates us from the flow of cause and effect by the vessel of consciousness.
Consciousness, however, is a construction, and its foundation is comprised of several mitigating and important materials that we both have little control over and which influence our decisions. The subconscious alone, as a reserve of past trauma, instinct and genetic disposition, is evidence of this—and this is not the only foundation on which our consciousness derives its movements. We cannot be radically free with these extant.
This was further explored in class, where I found myself stumped—bias was mentioned, where antecedent states of mind influenced decisions, and therefore the actions of the afflicted were subject to those antecedents and robbed of true freedom. After all, the basis of morality is that we can act given the proper information to do so. Moral patients are defined by this lack of higher consciousness and reflection—we need to proper information to reflect fully, and without it, we are not truly free. Marx spoke in this way about many things, invoking the illusion of freedom. We may be seemingly conscious agents of free will, but this is undermined and perhaps even stolen entirely by antecedents. Why should we be free from cause and effects?
This is where I stumble on something else I feel is less obvious, but nonetheless profound—that reflection is something cause and effect does not often encounter. In most cases of cause and effect, there exists only the cause, say, a meteor striking the moon, and the effect, a hole and a dust cloud. Neither the meteor nor the moon “predicts, expects” or “reacts” to this occurrences—both are pawns in the movements of an “of-itself” universe (to call it unconscious is anthropocentric).
We, on the other hand, do not seem such willing pawns. Our ability to reflect separates us from the sentient creatures. Especially in lifeforms with lower intelligence, they seem an extension of the universe’s cause and effect. Brought to life by the desire to thrive (still working on that specific cause, scientifically), these organisms are driven by genetic antecedents and desires, and follow them rigorously in nature. While we see exceptions here and there, on the whole, there is no question that animals are at best mildly more autonomous than planets, and much less, it would seem, than humans.
Sapient beings are peculiar in that they can recognize a state of affairs—they can observe the universe as determined. From that, it is theorized they can extrapolate a series of choices, and that in the multitude, the diversity of possible courses of action—one is free. A lack of reflection in mere sentience robs them of this possibility. Reflection on a determinist state of affairs produces more options.
But is the increase in options indicative that we are “freer” than nonhuman animals or rocks, and if so, is that indicative that we are fully “free”? I am sure each polar side of this debate would have their own opinions, but I’m trying to muddle through the middle. I want to reason that we are, by manner of our reflection, freer than sentient animals, but I cannot convince myself entirely.
This is because the antecedent debate extends beyond mere faulty reasoning—such as being raised without enough information to make free choices. To be fully free, I imagine that one must be fully competent—in essence, we need be far more sapient that we are now. And as I’ve encountered with this thought experiment before, higher levels of sapience only prove determinism further, as we need first accept that we and the universe are controlled by cause and effect to have any hope of rounding it. In essence, the only road to freedom leads to acceptance of cause and effect.
Here the paradox is unveiled; I did not understand it in class. Here is where I will attempt to finish what Pojman abandoned, however. I am sure I will fail.
It is certainly the case that though we seem freer than animals or rocks, this is an illusion—our cause and effect is merely extrapolated further, and far complicated by our sapience. All the permutations of this sapience, however, does not round cause and effect. Cause and effect itself proves determinism, however superficially.
However, the rub is not whether or not we and our choices are effects to causes, but whether or not we are the final progenitor of those causes. We are not. However, we play a role—being that there is no machine to predict, being that there is no God to control, and being that there is no evil demon who pulls strings, we alone are observers of ourselves and our actions. We can observe our antecedents and make judgments on their validity in action. This access to observation, the sapience required to enact it, and the reason to employ it are all antecedent causes, and can be drawn back to determinist upbringings. However, without more insightful observers or controlling hands, we are the ones navigating routes.
What I am suggesting is that, in lieu of future selves telling us what we’re going to do, or authentic fortune-tellers who cannot be circumvented, there is a sense of autonomy. There is a sense that we can examine the possible routes of action and decide between them, even if our actions are predictable. Whether or not they are predictable does not rob us of autonomy.
Or does it? Now I’m not sure. Because when I consider an omniscient God, who is infinitely aware of our future actions, it seems to me certain that we have no free will, as it is written into the fabric of reality and known by a conscious being. But when I consider the possibility of a god-like machine that merely predicts behavior being discovered and plumbed, then I feel as if greater access to free will would occur, in that this machine would explicate its predictions and we could then act otherwise.
But if the machine were effective, wouldn’t it, then, be prepared for your change in course based on your reaction to its prediction? In essence, the machine would have to lie to you in order to tell the truth. It would mutate its predictions of the future based on how you will react to the truth of what would have happened had you never encountered it. Only in its telling you of the future would you change your predicted course of action, but if it knew your correct course of action, it would be unable to inform you of it until after the lie is told.
It follows the same logic as the grandfather paradox. There is an inconsistency to full predictability in sapience that cannot be ignored by hard determinists. Knowing our definitive course of action gives us the ability to circumvent it. Does this not suggest that we are free, that sapience, when properly informed (which I’m not suggesting it is), really does have an internal, semi-closed system of cause and effect?
Or ought we merely to call the grandfather or future-teller machine paradoxes logical impossibilities? Even so, it does not diminish the thought experiment or its implications—sapience seems, to whatever end, opposed in some way to determinism, as it can actively reflect and react to a course of events. This is a paradox indeed, as I do not doubt we have many antecedents causes, and that cause and effect is true, and that it can be traced backwards even in sapience. But when sapience butts heads with decisions it is "determined" to make, is not autonomy derived? Perhaps this is only a marginal case and no true denial to determinism, but it feels to me unresolved.
I am not satiated with determinism, but neither am I with libertarianism. Libertarianism strikes me as far more full of falsehoods than determinism, but I cannot rest content to say that sapience and all of its permutations, though constrained by cause and effect, can never be classified as “free”. I say this in the sense that logically, if only under the prescriptions above, true predictions of future behavior are mutually exclusive from sapient reflections of them. The more predictable sapience is, the freer it becomes.
A paradox indeed.
If anyone has further thoughts or answers, please post them, I am impossibly mired.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Malinger
–verb (used without object)
to pretend illness, esp. in order to shirk one's duty, avoid work, etc.
~~~~~~~
6 and final.
It is interesting that Freud was so cynical, though, as his theory, as we discussed in class, makes way for sympathy regarding humans—as in all endeavors, I think, more understanding is the basis for empathy, for the deterioration of judgment, and for mutual benefits. In the example mentioned above—if people were more aware of their inclination to fear the unknown, and where that fear comes from, they might be better able to overcome it. Their understandings of both themselves and the instinctual understandings they’ve already formed could be molded. This kind of self-reflection is key to true ethics and morality, and essential for maturity. It also helps us forgive one another when we act certain ways—trading vindictiveness for understanding.
Psychoanalysis is still important, whether for its modern manifestation (psychology) or even for its proliferated effect (the knowledge of the subconscious). Knowing that something underlies our conscious experience is common sense these days, and allows the individual to explore him or herself much more deeply than has even been possible before. The biggest mass-change from behind Freud to after him is the disbelief in the blank slate—that modern science commonly acknowledges the animality of humans, and everything that comes along with it. While we will still need plenty of talks about how those foundations play a role once the self encounters society, this is the most important place to start—understanding where it comes from.
to pretend illness, esp. in order to shirk one's duty, avoid work, etc.
~~~~~~~
6 and final.
It is interesting that Freud was so cynical, though, as his theory, as we discussed in class, makes way for sympathy regarding humans—as in all endeavors, I think, more understanding is the basis for empathy, for the deterioration of judgment, and for mutual benefits. In the example mentioned above—if people were more aware of their inclination to fear the unknown, and where that fear comes from, they might be better able to overcome it. Their understandings of both themselves and the instinctual understandings they’ve already formed could be molded. This kind of self-reflection is key to true ethics and morality, and essential for maturity. It also helps us forgive one another when we act certain ways—trading vindictiveness for understanding.
Psychoanalysis is still important, whether for its modern manifestation (psychology) or even for its proliferated effect (the knowledge of the subconscious). Knowing that something underlies our conscious experience is common sense these days, and allows the individual to explore him or herself much more deeply than has even been possible before. The biggest mass-change from behind Freud to after him is the disbelief in the blank slate—that modern science commonly acknowledges the animality of humans, and everything that comes along with it. While we will still need plenty of talks about how those foundations play a role once the self encounters society, this is the most important place to start—understanding where it comes from.
Harridan
–noun
a scolding, vicious woman; hag; shrew.
~~~~~~~
5.
People we don’t yet understand and knowledge we haven’t yet gained is scarcely reasonable to fear in an intelligent, self-reflecting being, barring due cause (I’m not saying fear nothing—just have a thoughtful reason).
This is the genius that Freud began—tracing humans back to their origins, and finding a new and richer explanation for why they act the way they do. Undoubtedly most of us have felt uneasy around things that were unfamiliar, feared finding something we could not expect, and even, as Freud got correctly, felt strongly drawn to procreate and felt that influence many, many of our decisions (even if it’s wrapped up and inseparable from the need for love as well).
What I think Freud missed was the natural disposition more important—the need for security. The need for physical security is usually solved, but the need for emotional security is usually a very leaky pipe, and the solution for most of us is little more than scotch tape. We are all volatile bundles of both subconscious and conscious insecurity, often blanketed more than enough to allow the individual to function, but far from fulfilled.
Which is why, I think, many feel a sense of completeness in finding true love—the sharing of insecurity, the vulnerability, the altruism, the uncompromising compassion—these things amalgamate to solve, or at least, persistently and richly stave that leak. This is why the idea of Freud’s pansexuality is complicated—because security is juxtaposed with and among the need to procreate—for many conscious beings (humans, of course, perhaps other conscious beings would not do the same), love and sex are very closely related, as is relationship and child. The divide between love, procreation, personal security and natural inclination is small in modern society. Freud was wrong, in many cases, to draw behavior back to natural sexual disposition, but in many ways, I understand why he went wrong.
a scolding, vicious woman; hag; shrew.
~~~~~~~
5.
People we don’t yet understand and knowledge we haven’t yet gained is scarcely reasonable to fear in an intelligent, self-reflecting being, barring due cause (I’m not saying fear nothing—just have a thoughtful reason).
This is the genius that Freud began—tracing humans back to their origins, and finding a new and richer explanation for why they act the way they do. Undoubtedly most of us have felt uneasy around things that were unfamiliar, feared finding something we could not expect, and even, as Freud got correctly, felt strongly drawn to procreate and felt that influence many, many of our decisions (even if it’s wrapped up and inseparable from the need for love as well).
What I think Freud missed was the natural disposition more important—the need for security. The need for physical security is usually solved, but the need for emotional security is usually a very leaky pipe, and the solution for most of us is little more than scotch tape. We are all volatile bundles of both subconscious and conscious insecurity, often blanketed more than enough to allow the individual to function, but far from fulfilled.
Which is why, I think, many feel a sense of completeness in finding true love—the sharing of insecurity, the vulnerability, the altruism, the uncompromising compassion—these things amalgamate to solve, or at least, persistently and richly stave that leak. This is why the idea of Freud’s pansexuality is complicated—because security is juxtaposed with and among the need to procreate—for many conscious beings (humans, of course, perhaps other conscious beings would not do the same), love and sex are very closely related, as is relationship and child. The divide between love, procreation, personal security and natural inclination is small in modern society. Freud was wrong, in many cases, to draw behavior back to natural sexual disposition, but in many ways, I understand why he went wrong.
Vexillology
n
Definition: the study of flags
~~~~~~~
4.
In all animals sentient, there are two types of security necessary for survival: physical security, which is founded on healthy physiology and an ensconcing environment (or the facets necessary to navigate a harmful one); and mental/emotional security, which, through a combination of chemicals, programmed emotional benefits for performing activities that aid a creature’s survival and punishments for dangerous behavior (pleasure and pain), and the emotional responses incumbent in fear, stability, affection and loyalty, aid the creature in achieving a paragon model of survival. Survival is at the core of every creature including humans, and though our conscious minds have progressed beyond this simple model, we remain inextricably bound to it.
In animals, many of these instincts and functions work as they should: animals fear encountering unknown entities, fear night-time (unless they’re nocturnal) and many creatures maintain unchanging patterns that ensure survival. I see several correlations in humans: it is a natural inclination to fear the unknown, but why? It is not as if our conscious mind has derived, since birth, that the unknown always or even often leads to danger or tragedy—in fact, in many cases what we find is either benign or enriching to our experiences. Often times cultures will bond together and become wary when infiltrated by new people with different cultures and values—is this because the new cultures and ways of thinking are, indeed, dangerous to the individual or the community? Or is it possible that some part of this inclination is naturally derived?
I am suggested here, as an example, that our fear of the unknown, and of those whose traditions and manners differ from us is a legacy of survival programming. In the days when we were far less conscious and more animalistic, it is only reasonable that we would find (being creatures that are neither the biggest nor the strongest) a natural inclination toward fear of the unknown—to callous a traveler and too incautious an explorer would surely find him or herself dead. The conscious mind has developed much since then, but that programming—that association that the subconscious makes between the unknown and danger—is what causes our fear, not the actual unknown itself.
Definition: the study of flags
~~~~~~~
4.
In all animals sentient, there are two types of security necessary for survival: physical security, which is founded on healthy physiology and an ensconcing environment (or the facets necessary to navigate a harmful one); and mental/emotional security, which, through a combination of chemicals, programmed emotional benefits for performing activities that aid a creature’s survival and punishments for dangerous behavior (pleasure and pain), and the emotional responses incumbent in fear, stability, affection and loyalty, aid the creature in achieving a paragon model of survival. Survival is at the core of every creature including humans, and though our conscious minds have progressed beyond this simple model, we remain inextricably bound to it.
In animals, many of these instincts and functions work as they should: animals fear encountering unknown entities, fear night-time (unless they’re nocturnal) and many creatures maintain unchanging patterns that ensure survival. I see several correlations in humans: it is a natural inclination to fear the unknown, but why? It is not as if our conscious mind has derived, since birth, that the unknown always or even often leads to danger or tragedy—in fact, in many cases what we find is either benign or enriching to our experiences. Often times cultures will bond together and become wary when infiltrated by new people with different cultures and values—is this because the new cultures and ways of thinking are, indeed, dangerous to the individual or the community? Or is it possible that some part of this inclination is naturally derived?
I am suggested here, as an example, that our fear of the unknown, and of those whose traditions and manners differ from us is a legacy of survival programming. In the days when we were far less conscious and more animalistic, it is only reasonable that we would find (being creatures that are neither the biggest nor the strongest) a natural inclination toward fear of the unknown—to callous a traveler and too incautious an explorer would surely find him or herself dead. The conscious mind has developed much since then, but that programming—that association that the subconscious makes between the unknown and danger—is what causes our fear, not the actual unknown itself.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Insensate
–adjective
1. not endowed with sensation; inanimate: insensate stone.
2. without human feeling or sensitivity; cold; cruel; brutal.
3. without sense, understanding, or judgment; foolish.
~~~~~~~
3.
I have been working on a blog post for over a week now, and it is about time I started posting it--as each section feels completed I'll throw it up here. All of them follow one thought, I'll number them.
~~~~~~~
Freud was a brilliant man, and he hit the subconscious on the nose. Pinpointing our vigorous natural inclinations and tracking them retrograde; and patiently pursuing misunderstood actions back to these referents opens up not only a world of sympathy and understanding for each individual, but a path to better self-control and happiness. It is a pity he was unwilling to accept the contradictions of his peers and apprentices, who noticed his unusual and unnecessary emphasis on sexual origin, as until sex became a pervasive element of his theory, his findings were genius.
And they are genius—even though he miscalculated the line of reason where sex is concerned, I do not personally doubt that sex, lust and the emotional context it maintains is among the chief determinants of natural behavior. What I believe sits atop the pyramid, and what I mentioned as one of Freud’s mistakes, however, is the ideal of security.
1. not endowed with sensation; inanimate: insensate stone.
2. without human feeling or sensitivity; cold; cruel; brutal.
3. without sense, understanding, or judgment; foolish.
~~~~~~~
3.
I have been working on a blog post for over a week now, and it is about time I started posting it--as each section feels completed I'll throw it up here. All of them follow one thought, I'll number them.
~~~~~~~
Freud was a brilliant man, and he hit the subconscious on the nose. Pinpointing our vigorous natural inclinations and tracking them retrograde; and patiently pursuing misunderstood actions back to these referents opens up not only a world of sympathy and understanding for each individual, but a path to better self-control and happiness. It is a pity he was unwilling to accept the contradictions of his peers and apprentices, who noticed his unusual and unnecessary emphasis on sexual origin, as until sex became a pervasive element of his theory, his findings were genius.
And they are genius—even though he miscalculated the line of reason where sex is concerned, I do not personally doubt that sex, lust and the emotional context it maintains is among the chief determinants of natural behavior. What I believe sits atop the pyramid, and what I mentioned as one of Freud’s mistakes, however, is the ideal of security.
Cavil
–verb (used without object)
1. to raise irritating and trivial objections; find fault with unnecessarily (usually fol. by at or about): He finds something to cavil at in everything I say.
–verb (used with object)
2. to oppose by inconsequential, frivolous, or sham objections: to cavil each item of a proposed agenda.
–noun
3. a trivial and annoying objection.
4. the raising of such objections.
~~~~~~~
2.
Procreation propels a species, not an individual (as a necessity—though plenty can be said about the benefits of having children). Our conscious definition of sex is muddled, though, very quickly bleeding into erstwhile seas: emotional security, affection, attrition, lust and, of course, childbearing itself.
While the first two (hunger, safety) are tended to with deliberation—satiated quickly, and only occasionally crossing into other experience—the third, for a sapient individual, is a mountain of implication.
In the above paragraphs I have noted, but left, one of what I believe to be Freud’s mistakes, and I’ll elaborate on it later.
I think Freud, having found this nucleus of human experience, sought to discover how prolific the sexual branch was in behavior. It took brilliance to hash out things that are now common sense—defining emotions differently from how their bearers understand them, finding root causes hidden even from the self—he discovered a place derived from our animalistic selves, a place not only in limited communication with the conscious mind, but further still serving as its Atlas. His ideas were occasionally fantastical (the stages of sexual development, the distinct trinity of the mind), but his discovery of the subconscious, and the lightning rod of sexual inclination (a rod which later psychologists replaced with other natural inclinations) were vital discoveries.
1. to raise irritating and trivial objections; find fault with unnecessarily (usually fol. by at or about): He finds something to cavil at in everything I say.
–verb (used with object)
2. to oppose by inconsequential, frivolous, or sham objections: to cavil each item of a proposed agenda.
–noun
3. a trivial and annoying objection.
4. the raising of such objections.
~~~~~~~
2.
Procreation propels a species, not an individual (as a necessity—though plenty can be said about the benefits of having children). Our conscious definition of sex is muddled, though, very quickly bleeding into erstwhile seas: emotional security, affection, attrition, lust and, of course, childbearing itself.
While the first two (hunger, safety) are tended to with deliberation—satiated quickly, and only occasionally crossing into other experience—the third, for a sapient individual, is a mountain of implication.
In the above paragraphs I have noted, but left, one of what I believe to be Freud’s mistakes, and I’ll elaborate on it later.
I think Freud, having found this nucleus of human experience, sought to discover how prolific the sexual branch was in behavior. It took brilliance to hash out things that are now common sense—defining emotions differently from how their bearers understand them, finding root causes hidden even from the self—he discovered a place derived from our animalistic selves, a place not only in limited communication with the conscious mind, but further still serving as its Atlas. His ideas were occasionally fantastical (the stages of sexual development, the distinct trinity of the mind), but his discovery of the subconscious, and the lightning rod of sexual inclination (a rod which later psychologists replaced with other natural inclinations) were vital discoveries.
Temerarious
–adjective
reckless; rash.
~~~~~~~
1.
I wonder what Sigmund Freud’s thought process entailed, uncovering and gradually coming to know the unconscious. I imagine it not far departed from our classroom discussions, where we allotted credence, at least in part, to the notion that humans have natural, genetic programming that affects behavior. As history has mostly subscribed to the mentioned “blank slate” theory, this theory must have been more cumbersome to maintain for Freud than our 21st century classroom, already dramatically influenced by his theories.
However, it is only a natural step, I think, to first believe in predisposition, and then determine its scientific roots. Freud was a realist—he wasn’t prepared to accept anything but what reason and experience would show him (although his extrapolated conclusions step outside the bounds of logic, I think). Without any social encouragement, there are only a small number of facets natural to humans that could be reasonably derived: safety, nourishment, and procreation (there are probably others, I’m being general).
Immediately the last stands out to me, as perhaps it did to Freud—the first two are natural prerogatives, necessary to sustain the individual and impossible to overcome—constant danger or malnourishment ends the individual. The third, however, is peculiar—as it serves the same preservative function, but is the only one not designated for the good of the self.
reckless; rash.
~~~~~~~
1.
I wonder what Sigmund Freud’s thought process entailed, uncovering and gradually coming to know the unconscious. I imagine it not far departed from our classroom discussions, where we allotted credence, at least in part, to the notion that humans have natural, genetic programming that affects behavior. As history has mostly subscribed to the mentioned “blank slate” theory, this theory must have been more cumbersome to maintain for Freud than our 21st century classroom, already dramatically influenced by his theories.
However, it is only a natural step, I think, to first believe in predisposition, and then determine its scientific roots. Freud was a realist—he wasn’t prepared to accept anything but what reason and experience would show him (although his extrapolated conclusions step outside the bounds of logic, I think). Without any social encouragement, there are only a small number of facets natural to humans that could be reasonably derived: safety, nourishment, and procreation (there are probably others, I’m being general).
Immediately the last stands out to me, as perhaps it did to Freud—the first two are natural prerogatives, necessary to sustain the individual and impossible to overcome—constant danger or malnourishment ends the individual. The third, however, is peculiar—as it serves the same preservative function, but is the only one not designated for the good of the self.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Lucubration
\loo-kyoo-BRAY-shun; loo-kuh-\, noun:
1. The act of studying by candlelight; nocturnal study; meditation.
2. That which is composed by night; that which is produced by meditation in retirement; hence (loosely) any literary composition.
~~~~~~~
Liberal policies have the stigma of higher taxes—but, if properly managed, this can be a good thing. I certainly feel distaste every time I receive my income check and notice a portion of it missing, but this is only a gut reaction, one deserving of more investigation. That money goes to ensuring my house will be put out if caught on fire, I’ll be protected and aided if there is a break-in, I will be able to attend my current state school because of lower prices. These things do not strike me as immediately when I see I am missing 60 dollars, but the thought incumbent makes it feel a lot more reasonable.
The problem here is government hate, where each person, fearful of our assuredly corrupt government, seeks to lessen the amount of government intervention, and of accompanying government budget, in every aspect of their lives. Less taxes=less abuse of personal funds for needless social services.
And yet if these social programs were handled correctly, in a manner that agrees with the community, no one would complain. The problem here is partly a corruption of government, and partly of social lethargy. It is our own lethargy that keeps government out of our hands: our action would establish a communication between government and the people that would make paying our taxes less of a burden and more of a payment toward things that we both want and need.
But of course this is not the entire problem, as the vast diversity of opinion lends to this frustration—we’ve all felt the familiar sigh accompanying being unable to please everybody. But at least on the most important issues, a little more thought could produce some great social services--especially in education and health. Our inaction is fueled by frustration, but ultimately our frustration will fuel change. Maybe it wouldn’t hurt to stay ahead of the game and start instituting beneficial changes in social services before the angry populous need rise up and demand it.
1. The act of studying by candlelight; nocturnal study; meditation.
2. That which is composed by night; that which is produced by meditation in retirement; hence (loosely) any literary composition.
~~~~~~~
Liberal policies have the stigma of higher taxes—but, if properly managed, this can be a good thing. I certainly feel distaste every time I receive my income check and notice a portion of it missing, but this is only a gut reaction, one deserving of more investigation. That money goes to ensuring my house will be put out if caught on fire, I’ll be protected and aided if there is a break-in, I will be able to attend my current state school because of lower prices. These things do not strike me as immediately when I see I am missing 60 dollars, but the thought incumbent makes it feel a lot more reasonable.
The problem here is government hate, where each person, fearful of our assuredly corrupt government, seeks to lessen the amount of government intervention, and of accompanying government budget, in every aspect of their lives. Less taxes=less abuse of personal funds for needless social services.
And yet if these social programs were handled correctly, in a manner that agrees with the community, no one would complain. The problem here is partly a corruption of government, and partly of social lethargy. It is our own lethargy that keeps government out of our hands: our action would establish a communication between government and the people that would make paying our taxes less of a burden and more of a payment toward things that we both want and need.
But of course this is not the entire problem, as the vast diversity of opinion lends to this frustration—we’ve all felt the familiar sigh accompanying being unable to please everybody. But at least on the most important issues, a little more thought could produce some great social services--especially in education and health. Our inaction is fueled by frustration, but ultimately our frustration will fuel change. Maybe it wouldn’t hurt to stay ahead of the game and start instituting beneficial changes in social services before the angry populous need rise up and demand it.
Bivouac
\BIV-wak, BIV-uh-wak\, noun:
1. An encampment for the night, usually under little or no shelter.
~~~~~~~
Perhaps the bailout is a sign of things to come—hopefully not in this form, as the plan itself is foolish and rushed—but the nationalization of both the benefits and the risks of multinational and incredibly powerful corporations. This seeming social parachute for greed need be both an act of rescue (as certainly we would all pay for these companies’ failures), and a reflection on current laws—the companies should not have been allowed to get this big and endanger us all. As we allowed them to get in this situation, we must re-evaluate the circumstances that led to it, and llow it never to happen again.
Perhaps in the future we will see more of these sorts of socializations, and I’m not sure if it is for better or worse. Including these usual opponents of the middle class into its budget seems grossly unfair, as the budget of the middle class almost never benefits from this salvation and foundation. We deserve an even return—and to do that, I think, the free market needs more of a watchful eye, not less. Capitalism demands, inevitably, a marginalization of wealth, but that wealth is also definitively linked to the economic well being of the classes it stands upon. Thus, if they fail, we fail, but if we struggle, they win. This is not a good model, and it confuses me that so many Americans still prescribe to a naïve notion of “fairness” in a free market economy, as it inevitably shortchanges them.
1. An encampment for the night, usually under little or no shelter.
~~~~~~~
Perhaps the bailout is a sign of things to come—hopefully not in this form, as the plan itself is foolish and rushed—but the nationalization of both the benefits and the risks of multinational and incredibly powerful corporations. This seeming social parachute for greed need be both an act of rescue (as certainly we would all pay for these companies’ failures), and a reflection on current laws—the companies should not have been allowed to get this big and endanger us all. As we allowed them to get in this situation, we must re-evaluate the circumstances that led to it, and llow it never to happen again.
Perhaps in the future we will see more of these sorts of socializations, and I’m not sure if it is for better or worse. Including these usual opponents of the middle class into its budget seems grossly unfair, as the budget of the middle class almost never benefits from this salvation and foundation. We deserve an even return—and to do that, I think, the free market needs more of a watchful eye, not less. Capitalism demands, inevitably, a marginalization of wealth, but that wealth is also definitively linked to the economic well being of the classes it stands upon. Thus, if they fail, we fail, but if we struggle, they win. This is not a good model, and it confuses me that so many Americans still prescribe to a naïve notion of “fairness” in a free market economy, as it inevitably shortchanges them.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Execrable
\EK-sih-kruh-buhl\, adjective:
1. Deserving to be execrated; detestable; abominable.
2. Extremely bad; of very poor quality; very inferior.
~~~~~~~
Written during our last class:
I see progress--however, minimal, it seems to me that history can be tracked as a social and realist evolution. Progressing in stages with Cambrian Explosions here and there, we cannot ignore the difference between our compassion-idealizing, fairness (at least in spirit)-emphasizing ideologies, nor our current predilection for democratic representation and social structure. Compared to the state of things thousands of years ago—were there was almost no emphasis or concern for the individual, a string of monarchies that appeased or controlled rather than respected its people, and a rampant misunderstanding of the universe and common superstition, it seems to me clear that even minimally, maturity of the mind, compassion and community has occurred. Not only that, but we might extrapolate for its past direction a future one.
This movement proves how stubborn we are to change, but in my opinion inspires nothing but hope—as, while lethargic, entire communities can move toward mutually beneficial structures, and billions of minds can, in mean consideration, average out to more mature and correct understandings, even if those understandings depend on a more vigorous few.
It is not merely an increase of people causing this evolution—I think that with enough time and juxtaposition to other humans, the maturity is inevitable. In diversity we find collective betterment of social, emotional and intellectual needs, just as diversity aids in evolution. Evolution does not work the same in both fields, but corollaries can be found. I need look into more evidence for this seeming progress—its cause especially, so that I’m not overlooking negative progress to undermine or contradict the positive—but it seems to me, for all our equally disturbing vices, the changes in society, realism and which virtues receive emphasis that we have, across history, been moving in broadly the right direction. But maybe I’m just appreciating the world since modern science, and how it differs from almost everything before it.
1. Deserving to be execrated; detestable; abominable.
2. Extremely bad; of very poor quality; very inferior.
~~~~~~~
Written during our last class:
I see progress--however, minimal, it seems to me that history can be tracked as a social and realist evolution. Progressing in stages with Cambrian Explosions here and there, we cannot ignore the difference between our compassion-idealizing, fairness (at least in spirit)-emphasizing ideologies, nor our current predilection for democratic representation and social structure. Compared to the state of things thousands of years ago—were there was almost no emphasis or concern for the individual, a string of monarchies that appeased or controlled rather than respected its people, and a rampant misunderstanding of the universe and common superstition, it seems to me clear that even minimally, maturity of the mind, compassion and community has occurred. Not only that, but we might extrapolate for its past direction a future one.
This movement proves how stubborn we are to change, but in my opinion inspires nothing but hope—as, while lethargic, entire communities can move toward mutually beneficial structures, and billions of minds can, in mean consideration, average out to more mature and correct understandings, even if those understandings depend on a more vigorous few.
It is not merely an increase of people causing this evolution—I think that with enough time and juxtaposition to other humans, the maturity is inevitable. In diversity we find collective betterment of social, emotional and intellectual needs, just as diversity aids in evolution. Evolution does not work the same in both fields, but corollaries can be found. I need look into more evidence for this seeming progress—its cause especially, so that I’m not overlooking negative progress to undermine or contradict the positive—but it seems to me, for all our equally disturbing vices, the changes in society, realism and which virtues receive emphasis that we have, across history, been moving in broadly the right direction. But maybe I’m just appreciating the world since modern science, and how it differs from almost everything before it.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Malfeasance
\mal-FEE-zuhn(t)s\, noun:
Wrongdoing, misconduct, or misbehavior, especially by a public official.
~~~~~~~
Most of our most grand and correct ideas about the meaning of life are not eventuating or thousands of years away, but among our entire history, relatively unchanging. Love, curiosity and creation (there may and probably are others, but these stick out). They form the foundation of everything, and always have. The road to truth or great creation is not graduating toward some singular end, but rather, a road where every step is, itself, a destination. So too is the meaning of life—not some vast and incredible truth hiding beneath a massive shroud and being chipped away at by the great minds across centuries, but relatively simplistic ideas, some of which are so commonsensical that they are cliché.
To answer truth in terms of a singular thesis describing everything is to mistake the human question. Our pursuits in love, truth and creation are not ones of eventual destinations, but of roads. Should we ever reach the end of those roads, we will find ourselves displaced, bored, and without meaning. Instead, meaning is, so often, the search for it—the search for love and improvement and knowledge. It is intuitive, but incorrect, to think of knowledge as the light at the end of a tunnel. There is no grand thesis, and if there were, we wouldn’t be very much motivated to learn anything ever again.
It is the mild anxiety of not knowing (the class-mentioned cognitive dissonance) that motivates us to know—and I suspect the wisest people in history have turned that feeling away from anxiety, and indulged it, instead, as curiosity. Humans are not naturally disposed, I think, toward this sort of step-by-step acceptance, instead preferring a comfortable tier on which to rest. Continually climbing the stairs, however (I’m just insatiable with these metaphors today, I guess), I find to be a much more rewarding endeavor.
Wrongdoing, misconduct, or misbehavior, especially by a public official.
~~~~~~~
Most of our most grand and correct ideas about the meaning of life are not eventuating or thousands of years away, but among our entire history, relatively unchanging. Love, curiosity and creation (there may and probably are others, but these stick out). They form the foundation of everything, and always have. The road to truth or great creation is not graduating toward some singular end, but rather, a road where every step is, itself, a destination. So too is the meaning of life—not some vast and incredible truth hiding beneath a massive shroud and being chipped away at by the great minds across centuries, but relatively simplistic ideas, some of which are so commonsensical that they are cliché.
To answer truth in terms of a singular thesis describing everything is to mistake the human question. Our pursuits in love, truth and creation are not ones of eventual destinations, but of roads. Should we ever reach the end of those roads, we will find ourselves displaced, bored, and without meaning. Instead, meaning is, so often, the search for it—the search for love and improvement and knowledge. It is intuitive, but incorrect, to think of knowledge as the light at the end of a tunnel. There is no grand thesis, and if there were, we wouldn’t be very much motivated to learn anything ever again.
It is the mild anxiety of not knowing (the class-mentioned cognitive dissonance) that motivates us to know—and I suspect the wisest people in history have turned that feeling away from anxiety, and indulged it, instead, as curiosity. Humans are not naturally disposed, I think, toward this sort of step-by-step acceptance, instead preferring a comfortable tier on which to rest. Continually climbing the stairs, however (I’m just insatiable with these metaphors today, I guess), I find to be a much more rewarding endeavor.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Implacable
\im-PLAK-uh-bull\, adjective:
Not placable; not to be appeased; incapable of being pacified; inexorable; as, an implacable foe.
~~~~~~~
All humans are, by nature, self-reflecting. Some are far more than others, and some do so only minutely, but I think there are few who would claim it not a part of human nature to not merely experience life, but consider it—however deeply or shallow. This trait, however, undermines all of the others—cooperative natures can be convinced to be competitive, selfish ones to be compassionate—and leaves us with a seemingly muddled idea of human nature.
While it may seem that way, I am inclined to believe otherwise, and will post later in the week more in-depth on the matter. However, the point that I want to make now is an optimistic one—that no matter what our natures can be sensibly defined to be, it is impossible to lose hope in humanity, as I think it impossible that self-reflection is not a part of that nature. Whatever positive or negatives natures we have (and this seems almost contradictory to the idea of finding a “nature” in the first place), we can change, we can learn better, and we can act better.
Thus, the reflective nature of human nature may be the only relevant, or at least the most important, part of our natures.
Not placable; not to be appeased; incapable of being pacified; inexorable; as, an implacable foe.
~~~~~~~
All humans are, by nature, self-reflecting. Some are far more than others, and some do so only minutely, but I think there are few who would claim it not a part of human nature to not merely experience life, but consider it—however deeply or shallow. This trait, however, undermines all of the others—cooperative natures can be convinced to be competitive, selfish ones to be compassionate—and leaves us with a seemingly muddled idea of human nature.
While it may seem that way, I am inclined to believe otherwise, and will post later in the week more in-depth on the matter. However, the point that I want to make now is an optimistic one—that no matter what our natures can be sensibly defined to be, it is impossible to lose hope in humanity, as I think it impossible that self-reflection is not a part of that nature. Whatever positive or negatives natures we have (and this seems almost contradictory to the idea of finding a “nature” in the first place), we can change, we can learn better, and we can act better.
Thus, the reflective nature of human nature may be the only relevant, or at least the most important, part of our natures.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Officious
\uh-FISH-uhs\, adjective:
Marked by excessive eagerness in offering services or advice where they are neither requested nor needed; meddlesome.
~~~~~~~
Perhaps some of the difficulty in pinning down human nature is sapience—thoughtful self-reflection. Having the capacity to examine ourselves and our actions and make judgments about whether or not to change in many ways undermine what we normally think of as nature.
To me, at least, nature seems often a static thing—an internal referent that, when mentioned, explains the manners and predilections of an individual or thing. When we talk about nature on Earth, it is often my inclination to think of the overarching collection of flora and fauna that compose the planet, and to think of this, while being interactive, as a fairly static thing. This inclination is wrong, however—even things like trees and animals change as the eons go on, and their inherent traits mutate.
And this regards things that do not reflect. However, noticing this apparent difficulty is not enough to rob the word nature of any sensible explanation—certainly there are still vast commonalities among humans that we can reference as being inherent, or natural to human beings.
I suppose in my rambling discourse here I am merely musing about the peculiar hurdle in defining human nature—whether we say humans are cooperative, compassionate, selfish, foolish, political—most of the traits that we can claim inherent are, by another valuable piece of human nature, capable of being overrun. And that ability is self-reflection.
Continued later.
Marked by excessive eagerness in offering services or advice where they are neither requested nor needed; meddlesome.
~~~~~~~
Perhaps some of the difficulty in pinning down human nature is sapience—thoughtful self-reflection. Having the capacity to examine ourselves and our actions and make judgments about whether or not to change in many ways undermine what we normally think of as nature.
To me, at least, nature seems often a static thing—an internal referent that, when mentioned, explains the manners and predilections of an individual or thing. When we talk about nature on Earth, it is often my inclination to think of the overarching collection of flora and fauna that compose the planet, and to think of this, while being interactive, as a fairly static thing. This inclination is wrong, however—even things like trees and animals change as the eons go on, and their inherent traits mutate.
And this regards things that do not reflect. However, noticing this apparent difficulty is not enough to rob the word nature of any sensible explanation—certainly there are still vast commonalities among humans that we can reference as being inherent, or natural to human beings.
I suppose in my rambling discourse here I am merely musing about the peculiar hurdle in defining human nature—whether we say humans are cooperative, compassionate, selfish, foolish, political—most of the traits that we can claim inherent are, by another valuable piece of human nature, capable of being overrun. And that ability is self-reflection.
Continued later.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Verbiage
\VUR-bee-ij\, noun:
1. An overabundance of words; wordiness.
2. Manner or style of expression; diction.
~~~~~~~
Our lengthy discussion in class was an astute one, I think—examining Aristotle’s literature and language, it was noted by several students that the subjective connotations of the word “happy” fell in direct contradiction to claims that one could be deluded, and therefore not be experiencing true happiness. It was quickly understood that, should this be true, it would be extremely difficult to know whether or not one was happy, sad, angry, etc.
The problem, perhaps, is the word happy. In the example mentioned, a woman could live her entire life believing herself to be happy, but experiencing a delusion (Matrix?). Would it be fair, then, to say that she was not actually happy, and that after learning of her delusion, would believe herself never to have been happy?
The example Johnson gave in class is one I’ve heard before, and wrote down as an example—if one is experiencing a toothache, then there is no person better qualified to make that assessment. One can speak of the toothache’s origin, one can even say that the toothache is entirely a mental delusion, but this does not change the subjective impression of a toothache.
I think happiness is the same way. The women, being unable to recognize her delusion, experiences the mental, psychological and emotional effects of happiness. Though her directives are skewed and her life a sham, she still experiences happiness. This is the point that everyone is class was quick to jump on, and sensibly so.
The problem is the word—we most commonly associate it with the mood, rather than the lesser used (but in my opinion, still valid) definition as a state of satisfaction or fulfillment. Surely neither the woman nor we would deny that in fact she was bereft of a consciously fulfilled life, and upon learning of her delusion is forced to change her understanding, and now see her life as a sham. Her happiness, however, is a subjective reaction to her belief in a fulfilled life, and is not necessarily changed by revelation.
Marx seemed to advocate this view when he spoke of (at least some) housewives not having conscious happiness—instead of denying their subjective impression of happiness, he is denying their fulfillment as people, and the validity of their satisfaction. None of us would deny, then, that if happiness is defined as a mood, it cannot be contradicted by an outside authority, but neither should we agree that one’s satisfaction cannot be an objective truth.
There are subjective truths in the world, and something like a mood or a toothache are good examples of this. We need be wary, however, of stretching that medium too far—as it seems to me that there are far more objective truths that will have great bearing on human nature (such as one’s fulfillment and personal, conscious, autonomous satisfaction) that exist, and that these, on the whole, will set the stage for true insight into the matters at hand.
1. An overabundance of words; wordiness.
2. Manner or style of expression; diction.
~~~~~~~
Our lengthy discussion in class was an astute one, I think—examining Aristotle’s literature and language, it was noted by several students that the subjective connotations of the word “happy” fell in direct contradiction to claims that one could be deluded, and therefore not be experiencing true happiness. It was quickly understood that, should this be true, it would be extremely difficult to know whether or not one was happy, sad, angry, etc.
The problem, perhaps, is the word happy. In the example mentioned, a woman could live her entire life believing herself to be happy, but experiencing a delusion (Matrix?). Would it be fair, then, to say that she was not actually happy, and that after learning of her delusion, would believe herself never to have been happy?
The example Johnson gave in class is one I’ve heard before, and wrote down as an example—if one is experiencing a toothache, then there is no person better qualified to make that assessment. One can speak of the toothache’s origin, one can even say that the toothache is entirely a mental delusion, but this does not change the subjective impression of a toothache.
I think happiness is the same way. The women, being unable to recognize her delusion, experiences the mental, psychological and emotional effects of happiness. Though her directives are skewed and her life a sham, she still experiences happiness. This is the point that everyone is class was quick to jump on, and sensibly so.
The problem is the word—we most commonly associate it with the mood, rather than the lesser used (but in my opinion, still valid) definition as a state of satisfaction or fulfillment. Surely neither the woman nor we would deny that in fact she was bereft of a consciously fulfilled life, and upon learning of her delusion is forced to change her understanding, and now see her life as a sham. Her happiness, however, is a subjective reaction to her belief in a fulfilled life, and is not necessarily changed by revelation.
Marx seemed to advocate this view when he spoke of (at least some) housewives not having conscious happiness—instead of denying their subjective impression of happiness, he is denying their fulfillment as people, and the validity of their satisfaction. None of us would deny, then, that if happiness is defined as a mood, it cannot be contradicted by an outside authority, but neither should we agree that one’s satisfaction cannot be an objective truth.
There are subjective truths in the world, and something like a mood or a toothache are good examples of this. We need be wary, however, of stretching that medium too far—as it seems to me that there are far more objective truths that will have great bearing on human nature (such as one’s fulfillment and personal, conscious, autonomous satisfaction) that exist, and that these, on the whole, will set the stage for true insight into the matters at hand.
Panache
\puh-NASH; -NAHSH\, noun:
1. Dash or flamboyance in manner or style.
2. A plume or bunch of feathers, esp. such a bunch worn on the helmet; any military plume, or ornamental group of feathers.
~~~~~~~
Look up more.
http://www.xkcd.com/482/
1. Dash or flamboyance in manner or style.
2. A plume or bunch of feathers, esp. such a bunch worn on the helmet; any military plume, or ornamental group of feathers.
~~~~~~~
Look up more.
http://www.xkcd.com/482/
Friday, September 26, 2008
Edify
\ED-uh-fy\, transitive verb:
To instruct and improve, especially in moral and religious knowledge; to teach.
~~~~~~~
A small note from class—it is no secret that many government officials are not true representatives. They are elected on at least the ideal principle that they will provide representation in the government for the opinions of those who elected them. What often happens, and to no current reprimand, is nearly all elected officials arrive in government and are immediately influenced, paid for and essentially bribed by corporate interests. What was, in ideal, a representative for the people becomes a representative for monetary interests.
This comes to light especially in the rushed bail out plan of our current treasurer, which thankfully fell flat on its face. As it was discussed in class, and as I agree, the government needs to intervene when it comes to an enormous threat to the economy—we cannot tolerate another great depression. However, neither can it fix these massive economic problems with haste. So why try?
The treasurer is supposed to be a representative of our collective interests, not his own or that of his companions. His impartiality in fixing economic disasters such as this one is crucial—one cannot wait until disaster looms for personal interests, as these decisions affect us all. Rather than trying to fix Wall Street as a whole, it seems the makeshift bail-out plan was for a cause the treasurer is not designed to represent—and such bias could cause our country disaster if left unchecked. It is this kind of monetary, rather than representative, interest that seems of vital danger to the nation as a whole.
To instruct and improve, especially in moral and religious knowledge; to teach.
~~~~~~~
A small note from class—it is no secret that many government officials are not true representatives. They are elected on at least the ideal principle that they will provide representation in the government for the opinions of those who elected them. What often happens, and to no current reprimand, is nearly all elected officials arrive in government and are immediately influenced, paid for and essentially bribed by corporate interests. What was, in ideal, a representative for the people becomes a representative for monetary interests.
This comes to light especially in the rushed bail out plan of our current treasurer, which thankfully fell flat on its face. As it was discussed in class, and as I agree, the government needs to intervene when it comes to an enormous threat to the economy—we cannot tolerate another great depression. However, neither can it fix these massive economic problems with haste. So why try?
The treasurer is supposed to be a representative of our collective interests, not his own or that of his companions. His impartiality in fixing economic disasters such as this one is crucial—one cannot wait until disaster looms for personal interests, as these decisions affect us all. Rather than trying to fix Wall Street as a whole, it seems the makeshift bail-out plan was for a cause the treasurer is not designed to represent—and such bias could cause our country disaster if left unchecked. It is this kind of monetary, rather than representative, interest that seems of vital danger to the nation as a whole.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Beneficence
\buh-NEFF-i-suhns\, noun:
1. The practice of doing good; active goodness, kindness, or charity.
2. A charitable gift or act.
~~~~~~~
“No wise person would ever do evil voluntarily.”
The paragraph preceding this statement, as mentioned in chapter 2, entails Socrates’ beliefs on the necessity of self-knowledge. It is difficult, he says, no only to have a full life, but to act respectfully, morally and ethically without self-knowledge.
I think his thoughts on ethics are correct. While other discussions can be had about what really makes a happy life (and if the intellectually life would be happy for all), exploring morality suggest to me that investigation is an absolute and persistent necessity for it to function.
First of all, I must construct a platform—ethics is a self-governed set of principles concerning interaction and the self. Whether or not God exists is irrelevant, as his enforcements and punishments are impossible to perceive in the natural world—in other words, even if he’s the one setting all the rules, we’re the ones choosing to follow, needing to explore and figuring out them. With or without God, we personally experience moral dilemmas, determine what hurts and harms, and act (or do not act) accordingly. If at the end of the day we believe in an absolute moral principle set by a higher authority, we have still delineated the details of that authority in much the same manner (provided we are all thoughtful) as a secular ethicist.
With that out of the way, I agree with Socrates that to construct an active, viable and compassionate morality, we must give thought to discover what helps and what harms. We must know what effect our actions have on others, and search inside ourselves unflinchingly to ensure we know why we act as we do. A strong sense of self-identity will allow conviction in times of moral indecision.
So in his statement, Socrates is not merely saying that an intelligent person would do no harm, but that to be an intelligent person, one must have a strong sense of self, and a similarly strong sense of morality. Wisdom entails a sort of moral exploration—it is departed from mere knowledge, and instead rings of a fuller intelligence, a thoughtful parsing of both natural details and human interaction—thoughtful both in observation and in compassion. If the word were knowledge or intelligence, I would say its colloquial term cannot be stretched, but I think the word wise still rings true in this manner.
1. The practice of doing good; active goodness, kindness, or charity.
2. A charitable gift or act.
~~~~~~~
“No wise person would ever do evil voluntarily.”
The paragraph preceding this statement, as mentioned in chapter 2, entails Socrates’ beliefs on the necessity of self-knowledge. It is difficult, he says, no only to have a full life, but to act respectfully, morally and ethically without self-knowledge.
I think his thoughts on ethics are correct. While other discussions can be had about what really makes a happy life (and if the intellectually life would be happy for all), exploring morality suggest to me that investigation is an absolute and persistent necessity for it to function.
First of all, I must construct a platform—ethics is a self-governed set of principles concerning interaction and the self. Whether or not God exists is irrelevant, as his enforcements and punishments are impossible to perceive in the natural world—in other words, even if he’s the one setting all the rules, we’re the ones choosing to follow, needing to explore and figuring out them. With or without God, we personally experience moral dilemmas, determine what hurts and harms, and act (or do not act) accordingly. If at the end of the day we believe in an absolute moral principle set by a higher authority, we have still delineated the details of that authority in much the same manner (provided we are all thoughtful) as a secular ethicist.
With that out of the way, I agree with Socrates that to construct an active, viable and compassionate morality, we must give thought to discover what helps and what harms. We must know what effect our actions have on others, and search inside ourselves unflinchingly to ensure we know why we act as we do. A strong sense of self-identity will allow conviction in times of moral indecision.
So in his statement, Socrates is not merely saying that an intelligent person would do no harm, but that to be an intelligent person, one must have a strong sense of self, and a similarly strong sense of morality. Wisdom entails a sort of moral exploration—it is departed from mere knowledge, and instead rings of a fuller intelligence, a thoughtful parsing of both natural details and human interaction—thoughtful both in observation and in compassion. If the word were knowledge or intelligence, I would say its colloquial term cannot be stretched, but I think the word wise still rings true in this manner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
