Humanism vs. Behaviorism – Empiricism vs. Rationalism redux?
I’m noticing a trend as the semester goes on, and it’s probably not just limited to Humanism and Behaviorism. Ever since the Empiricism (experience) versus Rationalism (reason) debate was brought up, it seems like it continues to show up in some form another throughout history. Even before Behaviorism was Mechanism, a precursor of sorts that assumed man was like a machine (something Behaviorism might agree with in how man is capable of “being programmed” through conditioning), both of which falling on the side of experience. When you breakdown the common Behaviorist’s position, it seems to suggest that man is kind of blank slate that is either operates or is operated on the environment. Nothing about this seems to imply there is anything to man prior to these “operations,” and seems to argue that whatever substance mankind has behind it is a result of consequences or the events that occurred through an individuals life, shaping them to behave the way in which they do.
The counter to this seems to be Humanism for the moment (though Pscyhoanalysis fits as well). The line that caught my attention the most was Abraham Maslow’s comment that “anyone who had a baby couldn’t be a behaviorist,” a comment that would stand in direct opposition to the Behaviorist/Empiricist position. It instead insists that people aren’t born with a blank slate just waiting to be filled with experience or be conditioned, that we are instead born with something already instilled within us. Psychoanalysis most certainly would be in line with this sort of thinking in its emphasis on the unconscious, a force that nigh constantly demands instant gratification (that doesn’t appear to be learned, but latent). Overall, the schools of thought, unlike Behaviorism, stress an emphasis on a sort of consciousness or reasoning to supersedes experience alone.
It would probably be less interesting if the theories were as ancient as the ideas they represent, but it provides only further evidence that the Experience/Rational debate is far from over, and continues to thrive even to this day. I can’t say if there will ever be an obvious answer to this question, but with all the technology and progress that has been made, I would expect to be closer to some sort of resolution. The fact that this argument continues to exists only makes me all the more skeptical.
Michael Bartholomew on in the eye of the beholder, we see the beauty they want us to
11:33 am, 11.22.10
Though probably to a lesser effect on me with the beauty products, you’re right in that a lot psychology goes into advertisements. It makes me wonder just how many of my decisions are driven by subliminally-primed advertisements. It also makes me curious if some people are less affected than others, and if so, just what variable is responsible for it? Or maybe it’s not so much a general immunity to an advertisements but less a susceptibility to the more common methods of subliminal advertisements. In which case, it would only be a matter of time before companies figure out their weakness at the rate this keeps going.
Michael Bartholomew on Is Hogwarts a Mental Institution?
11:28 am, 11.22.10
I’ll have to take a closer look at this site; I like the idea and it seems to fit pretty well. Children are often known to embrace delusions of better parents and fantastic thinking, and as you said, Harry Potter seems to fit this stereotype very well. Could this be expanded even more though? Could these imaginary tales be part of the author’s subconscious speaking through her writing? I’m curious, but that may be taking it too far. It’s very likely this is just creative writing being over-analyzed by somebody with too much time, but interesting thoughts.
Michael Bartholomew on So vintage.
3:47 pm, 11.18.10
“I have really only known this as my conscience and the Devil trying to tempt me. Freud instead calls it the id and superego.”
I like this quote; it really brings up a good point. It brings to question whether or not we as society have overblown our natural “id” as the devil, to discourage the id’s often obscene practices, or whether we have actually taken the devil and given him a lesser, more natural and comfortable name to reconcile with. I suppose that would depend on the individual, the perspective, and how often this symbolic id’s desires coincide with that of the what we believe the devil’s to be. They are certainly not completely independent of each other.
Loved the video, too.
Michael Bartholomew on Watson and the Devil
1:42 pm, 10.25.10
I didn’t have a chance to go over the song, but I wonder how much of our “childhood” phobias are the result of association and conditioning. The fear of the dark seems instinctual, even before conditioning comes into play, and makes me question if we need to be conditioned to fear it. Or do we simply fear what we can’t see, what isn’t there? I always found more frightening not the thought of what was waiting for me, but more the fear of the unknown, dealing with something I can’t be sure of.
Michael Bartholomew on AI of the Future
1:39 pm, 10.25.10
I find it hard to believe that technology could ever become that advanced. In another class, we talked about how we could essentially “preserve” a photograph of people’s minds and synthetically recreate them. The problem is they cannot learn. So while the possibility seems likely as time continues to move forward and technology continues to advance, I have a hard time believing we can ever give the gift of life to something else. Creating life is just one of those areas I feel man is always apt to fail in; it’s just too complex.
Michael Bartholomew on A Formula for Brilliant?
1:37 pm, 10.25.10
That’s a very interesting thought. It’s a trend I never picked up on, but it should have been fairly obvious. Much like you say, we do read about these stories all the time. It makes me wonder if these things are prerequisites of the greats, the ones that get remembered. Or if perhaps life is just that universal and we are reading too much into it, also a possibility. Still, further study on this would be interesting. I would love to see the results.
Michael Bartholomew on Functionalism: History and Reflection
5:48 pm, 10.10.10
It’s an interesting thought that the work we do now serves the foundation for future studies. However, your comment about psychology always improving and getting better- do you think that maybe there is a end to how much we can know about ourselves? That maybe an invisible wall stands between us and full exploration of the human mind? As much progress as has been made, looking at how much we still have left to learn, I wonder if it’s possible to explain everything. Technology can only get us so far, after all.
Michael Bartholomew on Choice
5:44 pm, 10.10.10
This is an interesting study, I had never heard of it before. I agree, it would be very interesting to test this in other areas of the individual. I suppose this demonstrates fairly well the influence of environment on individuals, if there was ever any doubt. Unfortunately, I cannot watch the video at this time as my machine does not support it (“technical difficulties”).
Michael Bartholomew on Right or Left Brained...
5:40 pm, 10.10.10
You make an interesting case for the right side of the brain (in regard to philosophers). I find it interesting that to the same question, I would have probably replied the opposite. Not that there’s any obvious answer here, but I could see the more structured and organized advantages of the left side being helpful in thinking through complex/metaphysical trains of thought. But then again, I have a tough time wrapping my mind around a lot of philosophy, and being an individual who demonstrates mostly right-brained tendencies, that might be where that’s coming from.
Michael Bartholomew on What's Love Got to Do with It?
1:13 pm, 10.04.10
I don’t think it’s as black and white as it sounds. If our genes were truly in control, then the world would probably more systematic than it is. Humans are inconsistent, kind of chaotic by nature, and it’s in this inconsistency that things like love occur, I think. So in other words, genes aren’t everything, but I don’t think we should rule out the idea that they might be providing a push every now and then. Though like you, I’d like to think my actions/personality are a personal decision and less an expression of genetics.