Archive for ‘Renaissance/Premodern (Part II)’

While reading chapter four about the main themes of the Renaissance movement, I realized there are a few parallels between that time frame and today’s U.S. and Christian cultures. Let me explain:

1. Those in Renaissance times had an extreme interest in human beings (humanism), particularly the potential of said humans (individualism).  It seems an interesting dichotomy to be intensely interested in humans, yet consumed by what an individual can do. However, this dichotomy is still evident in our culture today.  It seems that Americans are constantly being fed the message that we are invincible; we can do anything and go anywhere, so long as we put our mind to it.  Also, we are told we need to strive for our absolute best, without regard to any repercussions such a task may have on others, or on our personal health. I confess I am a victim of over-committing, and leave little time to consider why I do it all and how it all affects myself and others.

2. Another parallel I noticed was between the Renaissance idea of personal religion and some of today’s Christian principles on the same topic.  Despite of what little I have seen in my life and what little I have read about the Renaissance’s standing on this topic, I still see the similarity of both eras wanting “religion to be more personal and less formal and ritualistic” (Hergenhahn, p. 99).  The Renaissance period wanted religion to be personally experienced; I argue that some of today’s Christian churches are challenging believers to examine what they believe and why they believe it, in order to deepen their personal relationship with Christ.

I realize the latter part of the above parallel depends on one’s religious preference, and I have no intention of coming across as ignorant or oblivious to others’ beliefs, but these reflections are solely based on my own observations and few experiences with my beliefs.

I have always been fascinated by the question of faith/empiricism that we discussed in class Tuesday. To me, it seems that this question is one that causes much of the tension not only between Christians and non-believers, but between different Christian groups. Anyway, I happen to be of the opinion that part of the reason that Christians feel so threatened by empirical thought and science in general (even though some very prominent Christian thinkers were empirical thinkers and brilliant scientists) is because we have made this questions and “either or” question. Which is to say, “either faith is correct, or empiricism is correct! There can only be one Highlander!” And since empiricism has brought us things like genetics, all we know about gravity, carbon dating, and pizza on a bagel (all of which are true and good) then it seems like empiricism wins. I would suggest that this issue is not a question of either or, but Rob Bell does a much better job at describing this than I do. Watch the part from 3:47 to 6:23

Rob Bell: Everything is Spiritual

Now, what does all this have to do with psychology? I think above almost any other field, reconciling these two ideals and avoiding the trap of either or questions holds utmost importance. “Is depression caused by chemical imbalances and therefore should be treated with drugs, or with support and some cognitive retraining can people with ‘sick minds’ make themselves better?” Well we don’t know the whole story on either of those two positions, but maybe its not an either or question. Or for Christians, “Is all that psychobable mumbo-jumbo really the answer, or should I depend on faith, prayer, Christian love, and the Holy Spirit to help me through the dark times in my life and relationships?” If you asked me, I would have to answer “yep”.

I found Aristotles view on what true happiness is to be very enlightening. From one of our previous class discussions on what happiness is I thought of more simplistic explanations such as friends and family members. While those things can make you happy in life, Aristotle challenges you to think deeper, more personal, and find true happiness in your purpose in life. I must say I agree completely with Aristotle’s thinking. Whenever we feel we have a purpose in this world and feel as if we are doing things to help others, then loving and healthy relationships with our friends and family are more of an added bonus to our life.

Although we haven’t really talked about him in class, I found myself interested in the opinions of Auguste Comte. More specifically, I found it amusing that he was interested in science only if it was going to improve society. Our textbook says that Comte felt that “Knowledge, whether scientific or not, was not important unless it had some practical value.” This really stood out to me while I was reading because I have had this same thought while reading about many of the people we have learned about in this class. We have already covered hundreds of years of material and it seems like so many of the scholars we have read about have been concerned with what seem to me to be pointless things. Personally, I do not find philosophy that interesting. I read about these people and I think to myself, they spent their entire lives thinking about things that don’t matter. For example, the question of where knowledge comes from. How does it benefit the human race to know the answer to this question? Can’t we just take what we considered to be knowledge and use it for the good of the population??

Ok so I probably sound a bit liberal, but I kinda like the idea of focusing on the things that can make a difference in society rather than the abstract ideas that might be cool, but really don’t contribute anything. In reality, I know that these philosophers had a great impact on history and the things we study today. If they didn’t make an impact then there would be no point in even having this class. And I’m really not even anti-philosophy, I just happen to find myself more interested in the physiological aspects of psychology.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The History of Psychology

Mind & Body: A history

History of Psychology Archives

George Boeree’s History of Psychology

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (comprehensive but slow)

Descartes & the Matrix

Kant & the Matrix