Taeyanna Pannell's Archive

As the end of the semster appraoches and we have been through the different schools of psychology, Behaviorism, Psychoanalysis, Humanistic. All three of these schools have a place in the present day some more than others but still a place. There are so many arugments against this and that how do you decide what is right. How do you, I guess find the balance between your faith and practice. Like people who study history find that there are some discrepancies in the Bible and things that they find in the field. My question is I guess how do you find your balance and how do stand up for what you do as a counselor without discrediting the Bible. Obviously, it is possible, but when you come up against that one person who is so dead set on that if God has not fixed it then it should not be fixed how do you persuade them that you are here to help.

When we watched that video in class I thought to myself I do not think I agree so much with how we tend to search out for our mate. I thought when they said that women tend to prefer men with softer features were more suitable for long term relationships I thought that was ridiculous because if you look at pictures Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer they had softer features than the average “masculine” man. I see that they were both married and all that, but the point I am touching upon is the aggression being linked to the facial features.  I know these are exceptions and so I should not linger on these but it does just stand out. Most notorious serial killers tend to blend into surrounding looking “normal” so they tend to not have overly masculine features. These men obviously had much more testosterone than their counterparts. So you cannot judge how much testosterone a man has just but the features of his face. You cannot just tell how aggressive someone will be by looking at their faces; there is probably a lengthy back story of abuse and other issues that have not been brought to light.

I found that Nietzsche was a very intelligent man growing up and his relationships are what shaped him and his writing. After his father died he was left with a lot of women For example, when Lou rejected his proposal twice he finally went into a depression and he ended up writing Zarathustra which seemed to be like an autobiography. Nietzsche took a lot of his everyday life and belief systems and morphed them into his well known ideas today.  When he claimed the statement “God is Dead” he was referring to the philosophers who took a view that we are alone in this universe because we get our knowledge from the universe.

The way Nietzsche uses his experiences and beliefs to develop ideas that are still prominent today and still firmly believed in my many is a huge accomplishment even though I think that he is a bit radical but true in his ideals.

When listening to the lecture on the differences and similarities of the Greek philosophers I thought to myself that as Christians we take a little from each philosopher and morph it into something that is something that we can make sense of and apply to our everyday life.

Take Plato, he believes that pleasure is a temporary shadow. He could be talking about physical physical  pleasure or he could be talking about physical pleasure as in materialistic items and  how we should not take pleasure in things here on Earth because our true pleasures are in Heaven. As Christians I feel we that that to heart as our treasures are in Heaven. If you are not a Christian I feel you can still say that pleasure is only a temporary thing .

When Aristotle’s’  statement ¨Happiness (eudaimon) comes from fulfilling one’s purpose, from the complete life (hence not to the young)”  was presented I felt that that is not all true. I think that one can be happy from fulfilling one’s purpose be you young or old. I mean how do you  know if you have or have not already fulfilled or purpose. Your purpose could be just being.  We never know what God’s purpose is for us so we cannot assume that it can only happen when we are older.

The differences of between these views of happiness are great indeed. One is more rational and the other more sensation based.  The fact the their views of happiness are a little similar is a lot surprising. Plato being the logical and rational and Aristotle being sensational and experience driven that their ideas of happiness are a like in any way baffles me.  I found this video that is horribly made and only skims their views but I thought it to be funny.