Austin Fontaine's Archive

Reflecting on the events of the class throughout the semester, the one discussion that I remember the best was the one on the nature of humor. More importantly on why physical comedy is comedic at all. Some of the theories that were thrown out there were that it was made funny by way of sympathising, or possibly by years of social conditioning; another possibility is that it could be due to watching Looney Tunes too often as a child. The implications of this are very interesting, and what is implied relates directly to what origin of this humor you subscribe to. Does it show that we are inerently spiteful people who take pleasure in the pain of others? Does it show that we can be so easily trained to enjoy pain, therby baiting an entirely new discussion on the nature of military training, desensitization, and dehumanization during war times? Does it show media influences, or just a sociocultural shift? Is this any new discovery, or are there historical accounts of physical humor before electricity was invented and comedians were recorded? All of these questions are very interesting to me; I am not entirely sure why. It always seems strange how a seemingly trivial topic can be made philisophical if viewed differently. I believe that the psychology of humor is one thing that I may actaully revisit and do some research on at a later date.

The media and their use of behaviorism is, in my opinion, spectacular. It exploits basic human processes in simplest way in order to achieve the best results. It is actually a win win situation for both the consumer and the company. The company wins obviously by way of selling their product, but the consumer wins by gaining a sense of desire, or fulfillment, or whatever else might be warranted from the attainment of that product. By pairing the product with safety, happiness, sexual attractiveness, or healthiness in the commercials, the consumers begin to associate the product with the paired attribute. This then compels a sense of desire for the merchandise being marketed, but only if the consumer wants the paired attribute. In this sense, behavioral conditioning in marketing acts as a form of placebo effect that placates those who desire whatever their product offers; of course being a discerning consumer is a necessary safeguard for those companies who unscrupulously advertise. This marketing technique does however provide satisfaction to many of those who they market to, and even though it may seem that they are satisfying a need they themselves created through their advertising, I would argue that this is not true on the basis that they did not create a need for their product, but rather coupled their product with a need that the consumer already held. In this way companies are satisfying a previously unmet need.

There is a great deal to be learned from Bandura’s experiment about social learning. Comments such as “children are sponges” come to mind. The truth is that if children learn from all that they are exposed to, and are not provided with the appropriate guidance to productively process the information, children will be left with nothing but to act directly as they have seen, right or wrong. When initially exposed to something, even for adults, mimicry is the best way to get adjusted. For children however, almost everyhting is new. There is not any prior knowledge to be drawn from to determine how to react in a new situation. Also, I believe that there is something to be said for the concept of children being taught to respect adn listen to adults, shich admitedly would not factor in until a later age, but it should still be considered a potential factor in why children default to mimicking adults without question. It is also interesting to note that the children mimicked the complete stranger in the video. What does that then imply for a child who grows up in a home where he hears foul language all the time, or witnesses domestic violece regularly; it is no longer a stranger who is demonstrating activities. It has become the child’s very own parent to whom he or she has a much stronger connection. That is just a thought of possible rammifications implied by the existence fo thsi principle.

This seems to be a topic that many people have decided to run with, so I think I'll just go ahead and throw my 2 cents in. The only way an individual can know something is through his or her perception, if it is not percieved to be applicable or relevant it is not acted on, and the respective oposite is true as well. How do we know there is a chair in the middle of the walkway? Because we see it, and act accordingly to not trip over it. Perception is an intellectual sense. Perception is why your freind gets mad at you when your phone dies in the middle of a conversation because they think you hung up. It is percieved that you hung up, and even though it is not particularly "real", the consequence of them becoming angry is very real. Just as, for a more dramatic example, the case of "fanatics" knowing that God told them that it is allright to comit mass suicides or participate in pedophilism. They percieve that they are told to do something, and wether or not they are actually told to do it, the consequences of them being told that are very very real. There are many many more examples that could be mentioned, but people act on what they think adn percieve, that is a fact, and actions are very real to those around you, with the conept of the matrix excluded. 

Free will versus determinism is one of the biggest topics of this section, and I believe it to be of limited practical importance becasue iether way we are going to follow whichever view is correct. If we truly have free will, then we can just continue arguing for all time if we so desire, but that would accomplish nothing. On the other hand, if we all operate under pre determined circumstances, then we are supposed to argue over the topic for however long each one of us argues over the topic and whatever happens in the end was alwasy going to happen so it still doesnt really matter. It is easy to see how the debate itself serves no real purpose in advancing the Kingdom of God or serving any other purpose except personal gratification. However, concerning the topic of personal gratification, I have come to a conclusion on the matter. My belief is that we all have free will to operate our lives in whatever way we see fit, but because God is omniscient, he already knows everything that we will ever do, therefore making an illusion of determinism. Another way to look at the situation is with the analogy of flipping a coin. What side lands face up on a coin is in no way a random occurance; if all influencing factors are known in exacting detail it can easily be determined prior to its landing. An example of how much you would have to know would be like what follows: force applied to the coin, speed of rotation, terminal velocity, distance dropped, weight distribution, wind resistance, and many more on an almost interminable list. All of these things are far too miniscule for us to be able to determine, but due to God's omniscience, He can know the end result of anything. God knows everything about our biology, everyhting about how we think, and everything about everything around us; it stands to reason that he could then know everything about how we would react to any given situation. In this sense it can be said that our actions are determined, but I arue that they are not determined, just known. That knowledge in no way limits our choice, but rather incorporates it. No qualm can be held with this for of determinism in regards to a violation of free will, because free will is fully functional.

<span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:
Arial”>Ever since my senior year of high school, I always thought I was
somewhat of a Hedonist, but last Wed. in class, a differentiation of Hedonism
and Epicureanism was made in passing. Epicureanism is not something I had ever
been informed about before and I always knew that there was something that
didn't quite fit within the description of Hedonism, so it was somewhat of a
revelation of identity to have that put forward. Epicureanism holds that joy in
moderation should be the ultimate goal of life, and I absolutely agree. God
created us and placed us here that we might live life to the fullest. It is an
innate property of humanity to seek out pleasurable experiences and eliminate
the unpleasant ones. The refined nature of Epicureanism in stating that it need
be in moderation however is the true selling point in my mind. Hedonism is more
of an uninhibited gluttony of pleasure, while Epicureanism is a calculated
indulgence where practical. This difference seems to be more of a safeguard
than an actual ideological shift. If the sole focus of an individual is the
attainment of pleasure, then that same individual is blind to the dangers and
requirements of life around him to continue simply to exist, let alone enjoy life.
Ultimately to me, Epicureanism would seem to be more of a canopy theory that is
behind all others, and is not particularly any profound revelation, just a very
adequate statement of what so many people believe and strive for on their own.