Mengyuan Tang's Archive

Unconditional positive regard is a technique used by Carl Roger in his client-centered therapy. Positive regard involves receiving things such as love, warmth, and acceptance from the important people in a child’s life. According to Roger, we all have a basic need for positive regard in our childhood. Those who receive unconditional positive regard-full and warm acceptance of people for who they truly are-early in life are more likely to actualize their positive potential. However, some children receive positive regard only when they act in certain way. They acquire conditions of worth-they must act and think in line with the values of the important people in their lives to receive positive regard. Thus, these children may distort actions and thoughts that do not meet their conditions of worth. They live their lives according to other’s values and do not know their own true feelings and who they truly are.

I want to put unconditional positive regard under the category of redemption. Giving unconditional positive regard is very difficult. We will more or less set up our own standards to judge if someone is lovable and acceptable. But I believe we all receive unconditional positive regard from God-his grace. God’s unconditioned love is not blind. He knows very much about people he loves-their weakness and sins, but fully accepts them and never asks anything in return. There is nothing we can do to win his love. His giving of love is without any preconditions. As in Ephesians 2:8-9, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast.

Modeling is a learning theory that learning occurs by observing the behaviors of others. People, especially children learn behaviors simply by watching and imitating others. In this basic form of learning, the model plays an important role. The model can be an actual individual in daily life, such as parents or teachers, or can be a real or fictional character in media programs. The model can also be a verbal instruction to describe a behavior. People are naturally apt to engage in observational learning. Therefore, modeling can be unintentionally, and it can also occur on purpose by the model trying to teach a particular behavior. Both desirable and undesirable behaviors will be learned through modeling in either way.

As we live in a fallen world, people may easily learn undesirable behaviors by poor modeling. In the famous Bobo doll experiment, which was conducted by Albert Bandura, we are surprised to see the little children hit the Bobo doll so aggressively after observing the violent actions of an adult model. Due to the undesirable behaviors learned by modeling, I want to put it under the category of Fall. Here I am thinking of a specific example-the contagion of suicide. Suicide is a sin, for the giving and taking of human life should remain in God’s hands. Researches have reveals that one suicide case can be a model for anther suicidal act. People, especially teenagers, are more likely to kill themselves when they observe or hear of the other person’s suicide. The cases of suicides by celebrities or other highly publicized cases will bring about imitators and trigger more similar suicides. Even an educative video about suicides may have the contagion effect. Suicides by familiar people, such as friends, classmates or colleagues can also be a model for another tragedy.

James-Lange theory of emotion is very interesting. The common belief is that from the perception of an event, people first have an emotional experience and then respond. For example, if we lose our best friend, we are sad and we cry; if we see a bear, we are frightened and we run. James-Lange theory, however, is reversed. With William James, emotional experience occurs as a result of bodily reaction to events. Emotions depend on how we interpret the physiological reactions. According to the theory, when we lose our best friend, we begin to cry. We have increased heart rate and sweating. We then interpret our bodily manifestations and concluded that we are sad. Therefore, we are sad because we cry and we feel afraid because we run. Although this theory had been harshly criticized, there is something positive. It suggests the direct relationship between emotions and physical changes within the body. It also emphasizes the role of involuntary nervous system in having emotions. But it overemphasized the role of involuntary nervous system and misses out on the role central nervous system that are related to emotions.

I want to put James-Lange theory of emotion under the category of Redemption. An implication of the theory is that we should act according to the way we want to feel. I think of the process how we become Christians and saved by God. When we come across a religion called Christianity, we get to know the fact that we are all sinners and Jesus’s sacrificial death on the cross redeems us from our sins. Getting into heaven that filled with happiness and glory is only granted by God’s grace-Perception of an event. We want to be real and eternal happy. We first accept Jesus as our savior (to be Christians)-Act. We then feel real fulfilled and happy through the belief (develop faith)-Emotion. Although it may not be very appropriate, the process is similar with James Lange theory of emotion is some way.

Phrenology is first developed by Franz Joseph Gall who believed that the strengths and weakness of one’s mental faculties could be determined by examining the bumps and depressions on one’s skull. According to Thomas Reid, faculties were aspects of mind that influenced human behavior and thought. Gall claimed that the faculties were located in specific areas of the brain. A bump on the skull could reflect its well-developed corresponding faculty; likewise a hollow on the skull meant its corresponding faculty was underdeveloped. Gall attempted to associate specific parts of brain and forms of skull with specific personality characteristic and behavior patterns. For example, by examining the skull of a group of pickpockets, he suggested that the bump behind their ears was related to their tendency to steal.

I want to put phrenology under the category of Fall.  According to Gall’s phrenology, the shape of a person’s skull determines the development of his or her mental faculty and thereby influences his personality traits and behaviors. People may develop prejudice to others or even racial discrimination. Take the pickpockets for example again. Because of the belief that who has the bump behind their ears is more likely to steal or lie, people will make their unfavorable attitude or negative judgment towards someone based on bumps behind his or her ears, not actual experience. Moreover, by examining skulls from different races, phrenology becomes a way to measure the degree of evolvement of each race: whether one race is smarter or more advanced than the others. It may lead to discrimination and hate crimes. Wars and holocaust can make the consequence even worse.

Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy can be related to the category of Creation or Fall. Here I want to discuss about Creation, about “who are we” and “what we ought to do”. To understand his moral philosophy, it is important to know Kant’s view of human being. He thinks we are beings who are capable of reasons and choosing freely. Rational capacity separates us from animals.  Kant’s analysis of moral behavior is based on reason and free will: “there is reason fro acting morally and if that reason if freely chosen, moral behavior results.” In his opinion, to choose or act freely is to act according to a law that is not imposed on us, not like the laws of nature or laws that involve personal needs. For Kant, Such a law comes from reason, and categorical imperative is a command of reason

According to Kant, categorical imperative is the supreme principle that governs our moral behavior, from which all moral principles could be derived. There are three formulations of the categorical imperative. The textbook describes the formulation of universal law, which is “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” Kant took the maxim “lying under certain circumstances is justified” and “always tells the truth” as examples. When we universalize the first maxim-everyone one can tell lies, distrust will grow on. Therefore, the result is terrible and the Maxim doesn’t correspond with the categorical imperative. However, when the second maxim is made to a universal moral law-everyone always tells the truth, trust will be built. So the result is good and the Maxim corresponds with the categorical imperative.  From universalization, we can know lying is wrong and telling the truth is right.  I do not completely agree with the examples, for there are white lies that may be harmless and in reality, always telling the truth may not lead to trust and harmony. But the main point of universal moral law is to test whether the reason for the behavior is independent of personal needs and the result that people will be free and equal due to categorical imperative is ideal.

The debate on free will may fall into the category of Creation, because it is related to the understanding of human being and the relationship with God. It may also fit the category of New Creation, because it is also related to the redemption and salvation. St. Augustine had mentioned free will before Erasmus and Martin Luther. According to Augustine, individuals are free to choose between the way of Stan, which is sinful, and the way of God, which is good. He accepted free will and believed that people are personally responsible for their actions. However, according to Augustine, choosing to live a life free of sin doesn’t lead to eternal salvation. He argued that salvation was nothing to do with one’s action and is determined only by God’s grace.

On the basis of Augustine’s postulate, Erasmus and Luther hold two contrasting views over free will. According to Erasmus, he admitted God’s grace but he emphasized the role of human free will. Erasmus defined free will as “the power of the human will whereby man can apply to or turn away from that leads unto eternal salvation”.  In other words, with Erasmus, salvation is attained by two critical factors. One is God’s grace, and the other is human free will. That is, when God’s grace befalls, those who choose well in their lifetime will eventually enter heaven.

Contrarily, Luther denied free will. As he considered, “free will is like a beast of burden. If God rides it, it wills and goes whence God wills…if Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. The riders themselves contend who shall have and hold it.” The will Luther thought was enslaved and had no effect on being saved. Like Augustine, he believed that people were not able to know God and attain eternal life in heaven by their endeavors. In fact, there is nothing people can do. Salvation can be provided by God’s grace alone.

Erasmus idea is in line with Renaissance humanists’ great concern with human potential, while Luther’s view insisted on God of all glory. This thought-provoking debate let people think more about human being, the relationship with God and the way of salvation.

With regard to the perspective of Creation, I am thinking of Protagoras and his statement:” Man is the measure of all things-of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not.” Generally the saying has the following meanings. First, truth depends on Man. Second, everyone is the measure of things, in other words, we know the world or truth from our own point of view. Since no one is exactly the same, the perception will vary from person to person. From Protagoras, the focus of philosophical inquiry first turned to society and human concerns. We are different from animals. We are possessing wisdom, virtue, and skills. We are the center of the society. The idea of Protagoras reveals an awakening of self-consciousness as Man. Man is the measure of “knowledge”-the content, property or state of things. Man is also the measure of values-whether morals are good or not, laws are right or not, or policies are useful or not, are all determined by Man. These rules are artificially established. Man is restrained by rules, but at the same time is also the rule maker. Only Man can make judgment. Moreover, everyone has the right to express his or her opinions and participate in democracy. As far as I am concerned, although the theory of “Man is the measure of all things” has fatal flaws, it emphasizes the role and value of Man. It encourages the variety of human values and may also indicate the pursuit of individual freedom.