Emily Pennington's Archive

Evolution and Free Will

3 Commentsby   |  03.21.11  |  Pre-Renaissance (Part I)

I was raised in an extremely conservative Church of Christ where they believed that Creationism was the only theory and that Evolution was the devil, so I was raised to think that it was either one or the other. But now that I’ve been exposed a little more to the concept of evolution, I’ve finally been able to come to the conclusion that evolution and creation can both go hand in hand and that maybe it’s okay for us to have evolved from less capable human beings to the efficient humans we are today. My struggle now is the concept of evolution on human free will. I mean, if all we are is a bunch of genes and the most fit genes passed on, then do we really have a say in the matter or when we pick a spouse are we really just instinctively choosing the most fit genetic being? I’m not saying that I buy into that notion completely, but as far as psychology goes, when a person becomes mentally unstable, I would like to think that my work as a therapist isn’t based on furthering my species, but that I’m doing it because I actually care. Some of the studies and research I’ve encountered claims that anything we could possibly do, from buying a car to adopting a child, is simply a way of filling some subconscious need to be more appealing genetically, and it’s devastating to me to think that even counseling someone or giving advice could be construed as some genetic advancement instead of simply an act of altruism. Darwin’s concepts of evolution and genetics are absolutely fascinating and have been proven to an extent scientifically, but I refuse to believe that psychology itself is simply genetics and animalistic urges to better the species.

Another Kierkegaard Post – but cooler

2 Commentsby   |  02.21.11  |  Renaissance/Premodern (Part II)

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.

A second look at “The Cave”

6 Commentsby   |  01.27.11  |  Pre-Renaissance (Part I)

I took Philosophy with Randy Harris last semester, and one of my favorite classes of that semester was where Randy explained Plato and his story of “The Cave”. From that class, I came to a different interpretation of the story than was explained in class and I thought I should share it to see what the rest of you think.

Remember the story from class. The men who are tied to the rocks can only see shadows and believe that everything is just a dark blob with a distorted figure. A man from outside the cave came in and released one of the prisoners, who learned that there was more to the world than what he had previously thought. When he went back to try to explain to the other men, they were simply incapable of opening their minds to what he was saying.

The lesson I took from this story wasn’t necessarily the lesson that says, “you cannot separate the perception from the perceiver,” although this is a very good interpretation. I also took away the idea that falls into Plato’s Elitist political hierarchy; the idea that some people are born to be ignorant, some people have the ability to become enlightened, but are not wise enough to enlighten others, and some people are born enlightened and have the ability to enlighten others.

This is where I connected it to his hierarchy – the person who is doomed to ignorance and has no hope of becoming enlightened is what he called the “laboring class”, or in this story, the men chained to the stone who are doomed to ignorance. He thought that people in that “lower class” are in that class for a reason, and the reason is that (according to Plato) they are simply not smart enough to do anything else. (Disclaimer: I in no way agree with Plato’s views of social class, I am simply explaining how I interpreted the story in relation to his Elitist political theory.) The man who was wise enough to become enlightened, but not wise enough to enlighten others is Plato’s “military class”, also know as the man who was released from the cave but could not enlighten his fellow prisoners. And last, there is the man from outside the cave who came in and released the prisoner. This is Plato’s famous “Philosopher King”. He is born enlightened and has enough wisdom to enlighten others and because of this innate wisdom, he should rule the world.

Although the “perceiver/perception” interpretation is very applicable, I also thought this was a very interesting way of looking at the story and applying it to Plato’s political/social hierarchical philosophy.

Emily Pennington's Comment Archive

  1. Emily Pennington on Humans Vs Animals
    6:11 pm, 03.21.11

    I totally agree. And it brings up the debate over whether or not animals have minds and actually understand what is going on around them or if they’re just mechanic beings that eat, poop, and sleep, you know? So if we evolved from animals, it makes you wonder when humans became “human” and suddenly developed a conscience or whether animals have it too.

  2. Emily Pennington on Facial Features and Aggression
    6:06 pm, 03.21.11

    I agree with what you said about us selecting guys based on how soft their facial features are. I think it’s accurate in certain circumstances, but it’s definitely not a universal truth so I think it was a little ridiculous that they were saying it as if it was scientific fact.

  3. Emily Pennington on Darwin
    6:04 pm, 03.21.11

    I used to struggle with that idea a lot – what exactly did we evolve from – because I don’t believe humans evolved from bacteria. I think that’s just absurd, but I do believe that it’s very likely that Adam and Eve were a less developed human being, and that God created us so that we were able to evolve as we needed to, but when it was just Adam and Eve, it’s not like they needed huge brains and finely-tuned motor skills to sit around and name animals.

  4. Emily Pennington on Unity of Self
    11:10 pm, 02.21.11

    Wow I really like his concept of the self and how it’s always changing. You’re right though, when I first read this I was thinking, “I don’t really change. I’ve hated Brussels Sprouts since I was born.” But then when you think about it, your taste in people changes, your taste in music changes (unless you still listen to nursery rhymes before you go to bed) and I think that’s kind of a comforting thought that you can change; you don’t have to be stuck as the girl who hates Brussels Sprouts. I think that’s kind of a neat and comforting thought:)

  5. Emily Pennington on Kierkegaard
    11:01 pm, 02.21.11

    I bet Freud had a field day with this guy haha it seems he had some serious psychosexual discrepancies brought on by an upsetting encounter with his father during early adulthood that he carried over to influence his spiritual life as well

  6. Emily Pennington on Jean Jacques Rousseau says what?
    10:56 pm, 02.21.11

    I think it’s really interesting that he thinks people are born good, and when we take the criminally insane to therapy, we’re essentially trying to wipe the bad out of them and restore them to their natural “goodness.” I just think it’s oddly presumptuous of us to try and press the ‘reset’ button on people and take them back to Rousseau’s original state of goodness, but as you pointed out, we are actually pretty selfish in our primary state, so as psychologists we shouldn’t exactly aim for their youthful goodness, but we should be aiming to instill a new sense of goodness in them just like a parent instills a sense of goodness in their selfish child

  7. Emily Pennington on Plato and Aristotle
    11:19 pm, 02.02.11

    I always thought it was really interesting that, not only were they taught in similar ways, but Plato himself taught Aristotle, but Aristotle went almost in the complete opposite direction of his own teacher. I would have understood that if Plato was an idiot and Aristotle was like, “No, man, you’re so wrong.” and then went in the opposite direction, but Plato was no idiot, so it’s quite an ordeal for the student of such a brilliant teacher to completely turn on his heal and have such drastically contrasting concepts and viewpoints.

  8. Emily Pennington on Dreams, Pleasure-P vs. A.-and MORE ON DREAMS
    11:14 pm, 02.02.11

    Oh my goodness, this was my favorite post that I read. I too can remember hundreds of dreams and can tell you the very first dream I ever remembered from beginning to end. Also, like you, I remember around two dreams per night. Because of this, I started really paying attention to my dreams and everything that you said in this post. I pay attention to clarity, vividness, colors, location, what the central theme of the dream is, how often I dream about different things, etc. so I really really enjoyed reading about this and knowing that I’m not the only one who experiences dreams like this.
    (P.S. I think someone should mention the special interest class idea to Dr. Beck) 🙂

  9. Emily Pennington on Analyzing a Few Beliefs
    11:07 pm, 02.02.11

    Wow, this is very impressive. I really like how you took a view from each philosopher and were able to relate it to scripture like that. This is very insightful and I am very impressed.

  10. Emily Pennington on Happiness
    11:05 pm, 02.02.11

    I loved how you looked at their views of happiness. I particularly like Aristotle’s belief in Nichomachean Ethics – that everything is aimed toward good, and the way to happiness is through goodness, and I think that your last sentence agrees with that in the sense that everything we do should be aimed toward good, but it shouldn’t just be monotonous. Our strive for goodness should also reflect who we are and our own personal way of reaching that goodness.