Archive for February, 2011

He has some very interesting philosophies that made me think twice about things. One of the ones I enjoyed and related to the most was the one about private property. He believes that the first person that stepped foot on a piece of land and proclaimed this is my property and my property only was a source of evil. He believes that many lives could have been spared if people would have and could just learn to share instead of saying mine mine mine all the time. Think about it, do you not feel better when you give someone something or share with someone then you do saying no that’s mine and you cannot have it. He expands on this more by talking about how if everyone used utilitarianism and cared more about the benefit of the whole than just themselves then the world would be a better place. I have to say for the most part I agree with him on this, even though I know I struggle with this constantly every day. I have to start learning that I cannot just have it my way all the time and look at life from others’ point of view instead of just relying on my own personal experiences.

In reading Soren Kierkegaard’s approximations to personal freedom helped me to look at my own freedom in a new way.  The aesthetic stage is where people focus on experience and seek out many different form of pleasure and excitement, but do not recognize their ability to choose.  I spent sometime in this stage where I was looking for fulfillment in my successes at a young age. It seemed as though the praises I received from parents and others was enough to satisfy my needs.

The ethical stage is where people accept responsibility of choices but use other outside sources as guides.  In this stage I seemed to adopt the beliefs of my role-models such as parents and youth ministers.  My choices always seemed to reflect what I thought would be okay in their eyes.  Kierkegaard considered this better that the aesthetic stage, but I was still not acting on full personal freedom.  I think that I am currently in transition from this stage to the next.  Throughout the past few years I have been transitioning to a more introspection orientated way of decision making.

The final level is the religious stage. Here is where people recognize and accept their freedom through a personal relationship with God.  People existing on this level make decisions based on the nature of God and by one’s self-awareness.  This idea of freedom through self-awareness and responsibility is still a major theme that continues to anchor existentialism today.

While Goethe was known for his skill in writing, his movement towards enlightenment, and his conservative political stance, his influence on Charles Darwin, and his theory of Colours, I wanted to take a look at some of his more philosophical quotes and their meanings. I think you can learn so much about a person from their own words and phrases. I found so many wise and applicable quotes but here are some of my favorites:

• “All the knowledge I possess everyone else can acquire, but my heart is all my own.”
• “Be above it! Make the world serve your purpose, but do not serve it.”
• “Being brilliant is no great feat if you respect nothing.”
• “Certain defects are necessary for the existence of individuality.”
• “Do not give in too much to feelings. A overly sensitive heart is an unhappy possession on this shaky earth.”
• “Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words.”
  “He who possesses art and science has religion; he who does not possess them, needs religion.”
  “I can tell you, honest friend, what to believe: believe life; it teaches better that book or orator.”

It’s amazing how much wisdom and philosophy on life can be put into one phrase. I think I relate to Goethe in many ways. He talks about not conforming to earthy things and being your own person. I think it is very important to maintain your own individuality. He talks about his love for music and the arts and how he applies it to his faith. I think that a lot of Christians today are scared to express their faith in more than one way or see God in things outside of the church. Goethe was not afraid to do that and that is something I really respect and take after myself.  He also talks about having respect for others and God’s creation. The last thing I would like to point out is his push towards experiencing life first hand and making an effort to learn from your mistakes. I think he has some really good and interesting thoughts.

The thing about Kierkegaard that stood out the most for me was his fascinating take on the story of Abraham and Isaac. Kierk starts out trying to find a rational explanation for the story of Abraham being willing to sacrifice his only son because God asked him to, and he thinks to himself, “Maybe Abraham was trying to be a sort of hero,” but he quickly realizes that this requires a definition of a hero. He comes up with two different heroic concepts:

1. The Knight of Infinite Resignation – this knight is the standard hero who performs a sacrificial duty for the benefit of man
2. The Knight of Faith – this man is willing to do the sacrificial duty, but he has faith that God will not actually make him do it; God will provide a way out

Now, Kierkegaard was a big fan of Hegel, and Hegel had this Definition of Universal Ethics (“they benefit the greater good”) that Kierk originally had applied to the Abraham story. Unfortunately, he ran into a few problems with this definition of ethics. First of all, if the definition of ethics is that they benefit the greater good, then Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac was unethical because it benefited no one. This is a problem because if God was the one who asked Abraham to do it, but it was unethical, then we have to conclude that God wills us to do unethical things. The second problem, therefore, is that because Universal Ethics says you have to benefit the greater good, you are forced to choose between God and people. Abraham was asked to sacrifice his only son. This was unethical because it benefited no one, but he did it because God asked him to. So, either Abraham sacrifices Isaac and is unethical but he obeys God, OR he spares Isaac (in effect “benefiting” him) and benefits the greater good and is ethical, but he disobeys God.

I think this is one of the most fascinating arguments I’ve ever read, but the way that I would apply it to psychology would be in the area of motivation.I think it is a very interesting way of looking at why people do the things they do when they make some sort of sacrifice. The man running late to work gives a young lady his taxi. Why did he do that if he was already running late? Either he was just being a hero and making a show of how sacrificial he is, or he did it in faith that another mode of transportation will be brought to him. I’m not saying that the first reason is necessarily wrong, but it’s just interesting to look at even the smallest acts of sacrifice and analyze which kind of Knight that person is, and what kind of motivation they have for certain things.

I was hoping the title would catch your attention, becasuse it certainly did mine. This is perhaps the best known statements made by Friedrich Nietzsche. When I first saw the caption I was like wow…what is his problem? I know he is an existentialist, but really? As I read on I realized what he meant by it, and it was quite profound. When he said this, he was speaking about the influences of European society and how they had become so secular and far from God that they more or less “killed” Him because God was a symbol of values and upholding righteousness and Nietzsche was seeing values being tossed out the window all around him.

Nietzsche’s view of God being a symbol of values showed how important keeping the God “alive” in society would be and without God there would be no objective truth or universal perspective. Perspectives would be individualized and we could only rely on our own perspectives. This introduces the concept of perspectivism, which says all ideas come from particular perspectives. That implys that no way of seeing things is actually true and that is how one of Nietzsche’s contributions to the existentialist view came about.

While attending another class I realized very quickly that the topics of Nietzsche and Existentialism were overlapping. Frederick Nietzsche struck me as a revolutionary thinker upon hearing this quote: “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how”. This hit me like a brick wall! I had been searching for the reasons as to why I do what I do and to what purpose exists for striving to be extraordinary. By hearing this quote I have the answer to this daunting question. If I have a purpose to live, a why, then no matter what the condition placed upon me, the how, I will be able to overcome it.

Existentialism seeks to address the issue that we are not defined by our choices in the past, but by the path we are walking now determined by the choices we are currently making. We are not slaves to the past, but “architects of our future”. There is not a right or wrong answer to a choice, but simply making a choice and owning your decision is enough to provide you with meaning. If we live by other’s standards we are doing ourselves a disservice by not allowing for our “authentic” self to shine. Nietzsche would agree wholeheartedly with this statement. When we as humans give ourselves a why to live, we can accomplish any how we set our minds to.

When I first read about Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s life, I wondered how this man could have contributed anything relevant to the field of psychology. He was a womanizer who had a past of deception and even some crime. He seemed very unstable and I honestly felt sorry for him. But after reading about his theory on education, I started to understand why he is a contributor to psychology.

His belief about education was that “education should take advantage of natural impulses rather than distort them.” It makes sense that a man who had to follow such raw impulses just to survive and eat would consider such a thing. His work Emile provides an example of what it might look like if a tutor responded to a child’s abilities and interests rather than follow a highly structured pattern of education.

This is a very interesting concept to me especially since I have known countless fellow students who struggle to learn information by standardized methods because their learning styles or test anxieties create such boundaries. This idea that Rousseau presented may not be a perfect or even tangible approach to teaching, but it is certainly an idea worth considering. I know his thought inspired more research along the way such as the Montessouri method. His theory on education is definitely relevant to the field of psychology and I am grateful for the attention he gave to education. I am especially grateful for his quote: “…watch your scholar well before you say a word to him…The wise physician does not hastily give prescriptions at first sight, but he studies the constitution of the sick man before he prescribes anything; the treatment is begun later, but the patient is cured, while the hasty doctor kills him.”

While reading about Jean Jacques Rousseau I discovered his belief that children are inherently good. I find that not only interesting but surprising because I disagree.
I think that we are born selfish. As humans, we want to satisfy our desires. I think it makes much more sense that we have no native understanding of goodness, fairness, or equality. I think that we are inherently evil. When I see kids play together I observe the stealing that takes place. I see that Child A finds the toy of Child B interesting, and thus takes it for himself. Children do not know how to compromise. They do not care about the desires of others. Adults teach children how to function in society.
Mr. Rousseau says that children are naturally good. He advises that we let them go, in a sense, and give advice sparingly. I say Nay! Children need disciple, love, and example much more than freedom.

Arthur Schopenhauer’s influence humanity on the most romantic way possible. Schopenhauer’s philosophy reacted strongly against the scientific rationalization of the Age of Enlightenment. He directly challenged the hegemony of science as the sole way of understanding humanity.

Schopenhauer’s belief in literature and other literalistic modes of expression influences our belief today of children learning through the arts. Our emotions are so easily influenced by our experiences with the arts, they can shape whole cultures.

As I was reading through the material regarding Romanticism I found it really interesting that many of their lives were full of emotional turmoil and pain.

Kierkegaard was estranged from his father and religion during his early 20’s as a result of  his father admitting to sexual urges, but at the age of 25 he accepted them both back into his life. His love life was also plagued with troubles,he ended his  engagement to Regina Olsen after two years. After ending his engagement many described him as melancholy and withdrawn. Keirkegaard also considered a relationship with God to be both painful and happy, passionate but unfulfilled.

Different time periods of thought and learning have focused on specific things, especially in psychology. I think what we can take from this would be not to focus merely on the biological, or only on the emotional. We cannot approach things from a very specific focus or we might miss the bigger picture.