Archive for September, 2010

Two years ago I took a biology class and one of the assignments was to pick a book, read it and reflect over it. The book I chose was Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. I remember little about it unfortunately, but I do remember really liking it and I know that that book is the reason I have been so interested in human capacity for empathy ever since. When we were talking about the evolutionary explanation for laughter (specifically how it related to the injury of others) in class I couldn’t get the concept of empathy and its relation to evolution out of my head. The answer I was concocting turned out to be incorrect but I still want to share it because I like it and I wish it were true, if only so I could have been right.

My thought was that in a social situation wherein someone is potentially injured the natural response, especially if this is someone we like, is to immediately empathize. The effect of this is a great deal of tension. If the potential injury turns out to be a legitimate one then we try our best to help this person and in the process we relieve our tension. If, on the other hand, they are uninjured the tension that was built up still has to be released. I feel like the link between laughter and tension was established in class, but I could be incorrect. Either way, I just wanted to share this as an example of me attempting to think theoretically.

As already mentioned, Evolutionary Psychology is crafted using a great deal of conjecture based on correlations (and less on tangible derivations). But what about the implications? Are we really just an increasingly complex version of lower animals, galvanized to our current state of success through centuries of adaptations brought about by our environment and random genetic shifts that offer either advantages or impediments? Can “the human being” really be debased all the way back to a primal ancestor?

It seems increasingly common to find people who have no problems with the idea, especially considering evolution’s increasing popularity. Obviously, depending on your views, this may vary considerably. Those that subscribe to Creationism may obviously feel drastically different about the situation. I personally feel we accept the idea far too readily. Are we really no more than the success of feral ancestors centuries ago, brought to success by random chance and good genes to boost our odds? Could it really have been so easy for some other dominant creature to take the reins of civilization, had events occurred in a slightly different fashion?

The video on the origin of human expressions had me wondering if the explanations for how we came to be are really that simple.  Can something as complex as social interactions and varying facial expressions be tied all the way back survival mechanisms back in a less sophisticated state? I’d like to think not, but in the same way evolutionary psychology offers more conjecture than evidence, I have nothing with which prove it wrong.

What about laughter (as brought up in class)? What survival mechanism did that serve? Is it possible that as time went on and people become the more “dominant” creature on this world, we were able to socially develop these behaviors in a time where security and time were not scarce resources (as in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs), as a complex byproduct of increased social interaction?

It’s the implications that bother me the most, that our dominion on this world is more a product of chance and our claim to it even less tenuous than before, that at the core we have our primitive ancestors driving our race, that our behaviors can be traced back to behaviors that promoted survival, engineered by instrumental conditioning. Looking back, it’s kind of like comparing us to machines. As much like I’d like to take a stand and say no, that we’re something above all that, I have nothing with which to prove it. We could just be a bunch of over-glorified primates for all I could prove.

On Monday, when we were talking about Kant and his take on the idea of Tabula Rasa, or blank slate, I was reminded of one of my favorite shows from last year: Dollhouse. This clip describes the basic idea of the show, but if you don’t want to watch it I can sum it up for you.

Basically it’s about an organization that rents out people. These people’s personalities are wiped when they come in and they are programed with different personalities for the different jobs. It’s a really interesting take on the idea of tabula rasa, because at first it seems as though everyone is indeed a blank slate. However, as the show progresses you begin to see the ‘dolls’ or ‘actives’ develop personalities or have basic personality traits. One of them is basically psychotic, as was his personality before he volunteered to be in the dollhouse. It’s really interesting from a psychological standpoint to see what the creators include in the basic personality traits and what is the extras they get from being programed. One of the things that is included in the blank slate for a lot of the dolls (excepting the psychotic one) is morality, which is one of Kant’s ideas. The show is really interesting and poses many psychological questions, not to mention ethical ones. I would definitely suggest it to anyone who is okay with lots of crazy ideas.

This semester I am taking a class entitled: “The Psychology of Religion”. While I went into this class expecting it to be another ACU class taught about how Christ can shape our psychology, I was very wrong. We are instead studying all different religions and how psychology can affect whether or not a person even has religious beliefs. I have connected History of Theories to this class a lot especially in our dicussions lately about free will.

In Psyc. of Religion we have discussed a lot of factors about religion. For example, because I was raised in the southern protestant church I have much different beliefs than a girl born into an Islamic country. Now of course I could not choose what family I was born into, so did I technically “choose” my belief system? And that girl that was raised in an intense Muslim community did not “choose” to be raised there. The idea that we do not fully have free will when deciding our religious morals really blew my mind. Thinking of all the different factors and acknowleding how much of my beliefs are based off of how I

In the class we are reading this book entitled “The Fabric of Faithfulness.” I encourage everyone to go pick it up, it is honestly one of the most interesting books I have ever read, and I feel is very applicable to every college student’s life.

(Now that you know what it looks like, you have no excuse not to grab it next time you are in the bookstore.)

So basically this book talks about how do we connect what we believe to how we live. And I think this is a huge issue for countless college students. They are wrestling with the ideas that they have been taught since childhood and have to learn how to implement them into the rest of their lives. Do we really have free will, and if so how do we act out what we each believe.

So as we continue to talk about the idea of free will, I propose we do not just talk about the normal topics, but instead we venture out and ask the hard questions, even about religion. I think ACU is a great place for students to push their boundaries and ideas of how they got their religion and dig deep.

In light that science has its roots in philosophy, a lot of Medieval Philosophy and later philosophy is a reaction to religion, I think it is interesting the amount of dogma that accompanies philosophy.  Often times, philosophy reacts to religion by accusing it of being dogmatic and close minded.  However, a lot of philosophy is just as bad.  The empiricist and rationalist movements are great examples.  One emphasizes experience and the other rational thinking, yet many leaders of both movements rejected the other side as wrong.

Science and religion continue to do the same thing today.  Science rejects religion as being based in myth, and religion attacks science saying that what science teaches is incompatible with God’s truth.  The most famous example being Galileo’s support of the heliocentric model of the solar system, and the Church persecuting him for it.  Galileo was a member of the Church, but because of what he said he ended up under house arrest and eventually died of sickness.  The funny thing is that he wasn’t rejecting God’s truth, but merely the influence of Aristotle’s thinking of how the Universe worked, it seems the Church cared more about it’s authority then what is the actual truth.

And so my question is, is this problem rooted in the disagreements of philosophy, religion, and science as based in the Renaissance, or is it a problem that has always existed between these different but still (with some exceptions) compatible views of the truth?

I have been stuck on the subject of free will and whether it is even free anymore. Where do we as a society draw a line on whether one has control over their actions or no control at all? Exactly what is free will and what is determinism?
I have come to the conclusion that there really is no black and white index to determine what is free will and what is not. One always wants more out of what they already have or one always wants what they think they cannot have. I believe all of our outcomes are influenced by our own free will, but I also strongly believe God has a hand in everything one does in life. What do y’all think about this topic and what is your opinion on my thoughts of free will?

John Stuart Mill believed psychology could be studied as a science. Psychology can be tested, hypothesized, and analyzed. If you are in counseling with a client you have gotten to know very well, you can predicted fairly well how they will react to different circumstances. Human beings have been found to react similarly in many situations, which is seen in primary laws. Psychologists can recognize these things and apply them to each of their clients to better understand and help those they work with. However, there are always those few exceptions. People whom react poorly to everything in their life that is out of the ordinary, good or bad. Or those who show little emotion as if they just don’t seem to care. Or there could be something randomly impacting the client that was completely unexpected.

Also, look back to all of the experiments done over the past centuries in psychology. Each one looking in to how the mind works and reacts in different situation. The mind can adapt to anything. It is how we prove our theories. Many psychologists today refer to different experiments performed to support their theories or arguments. These scientific experiments are what have allowed us to learn so much about what goes on in the mind of each person. Yes, the philosophers were brilliant and able to come up with many ideas that gave us insight in to the way human beings think. But it is the experiments that made these things clear and more defined.

It all can be explained and studied. People can talk about how they feel and how they react. There are many tests that can be done to observe and analyze the way the mind works. Though there are no absolutes, most of the things discovered work for the vast majority of people. That is why I agree that psychology can be studied as a science.

I found Immanuel Kant’s ideas on categories of thought very interesting. He felt that the things that we expreience are modified by purely mental concepts. This increases the meaning of these experiences in our minds. These categories are merely mental constructs, but they influence how we see everything. He included categories such as time and space, totality, cause and effect, reality, possibility-impossibility,  and existance-nonexistence. He used these to try to disprove Hume, who felt that all conclusions we ever reach are based on experience. How then, Kant would argue, can we make statements such as certain things being impossible? Does our experience tell us that? Is it truly impossible? What about statements that begin with the word all? Do we ever really know all of something? Of course not! We can’t know all of anything! These categories are so ingrained into our mental processes that once we become aware of them, we realize that we are incapable of viewing the world without them. Kant said that “a mind without concepts would have no capacity to think…” and I think he is right.

I tried really hard to think of things outside of these concepts, and found myself incapable of doing so. Every experience I called to mind, I had applied these concepts to. This is especially true of my spiritual experiences. I view all things along a certain possibility-impossibility bias, and yet my view of spiritual things directly contradicts this view. Indeed, I use a whole different scale for spiritual things. I apply the concepts of time and space to everything; in fact, I do not know how not to view things within these two concepts. As such, I have a really hard time thinking of a God who exists outside of these two concepts. These categories or concepts are so ingrained into my way of thinking that I am unable to think without them.

Firstly, if you were hoping this is about the television show Lost, allow me to dash those preconceptions promptly. Its not. Suffice to say, I like my title (the show is pretty cool too), and if you choose to judge (my title), you likewise choose to risk the guilt of err. So cut it out. Besides, I mention a television show later which far exceeds Lost in its entertainability. All this considered, allow me now to begin: In class, our talks of determinism and rationalism reminds me of one of my favorite tales:

A long time ago, during my travels in mid Asia, I stumbled upon a secluded temple. Venturing further within, a lone guru confronted me. He spoke slowly, deliberately of vagueness that I was fraught with vexation for a time until now. The guru, whom I shall refer to now as The Wimon, elaborated on the meaninglessness of life: he spoke of the heavenly bodies, how they rotate and spin, continually on a path of where they were always meant to go. He emphasized how all we can do is watch as such an astronomical event transpires. Next, he directed my attention within. He asked of me the knowledge of the composition of my skin. My reply referred to matter and atoms; the proton, neutron, and electron. My puzzled expression ushered an enlightening response from The Wimon: he pointed out how the electrons spun on their paths around the nucleus, how we could, in theory, alter their current condition, but they would eventually return to a set pattern. I was still unable to grasp what it was that he was trying to communicate, so he simply told me: the macrocosm is the microcosm. Within us, our atoms and composition, are thousands of universes in and of themselves similar to the ones we can see through a telescope. I furrowed my brow at such a claim. He continued, claiming that each one of us pursues a meaningless and pointless existence, that we are tossed by whims that arise from our circumstances only to realize later that none of it bore lasting relevance to what we are. Yet we are also of the utmost importance, that each precious moment of life we have must be optimized in its time.

Now, I must admit, it was much more impressive in person. I do a horrible job recounting the tale. In fact, I may have dreamt the whole thing. The point being that I walked away (or woke up) with a sense that we are all on set pathways, it is our perspective or attitude that shapes our experience of life. Nothing around us is real or relevant except our notion or perspective we choose to take in regard to it. That is our free will. Could life have progressed in any other way? Quantum Leap, a television show from the late 80s, may suggest so, but The Wimon hinted at a deeper truth: a pattern that is fixed and followed by all creation, and is evident within our everyday selves. So are we purely creatures of training and behavior, driven to action by previous learning? Or are we spirits riding a pendulum swing that is reflected in our daily walks? Perhaps our behavior is the sum of our experiences, and who we are is a reflection of that. I still don’t know anything. How frustrating.

Thoughts?

When I think about the Renaissance, what I think about most are the different major factors that stirred the spirit of objective inquiry. We have seen throughout history that certain bold accomplishments have triggered change and these contributing factors are what made it all possible. Marco Polo’s explorations of central Asia, Christopher Columbus’ discovery of the New World, and Luther’s challenge to Catholicism are just a few of these events. These ideas were bold in that they challenged ideas and opinions that had been accepted as laws once before. These ideas expanded what the world knew and they helped the world to better understand that some of the “truths” were indeed not truths at all. Events such as these shaped our world today and enlightening changes are always happening even today.

While I can think of many changes that have reawakened our society the one that I would like to discuss for just a moment is the tea party activists in American politics. When I came to ACU I began to get involved in the political views that our country held. I have followed Obama’s presidency and have found that political parties in our country are slowly changing. Recently I have come to find out that there is yet another political party that is rising in America, the tea party activists. I once believed that these people were traditional Republicans but as of late I have discovered that while they are Republican they are taking on a new face entirely. Not only are their ideas becoming more popular but tea party activists are now winning elections against other esteemed Republicans in states all over the U.S. in hopes to win back the House and Senate in the upcoming midterm elections.

While tea party activists believe very conservatively as traditional Republicans they see that the Republican party has not been doing it right and that changes need to be made. While this is just a small example it is proof that there are still events happening that are awakening the spirit of objective inquiry.