The Radical Nietzsche Theory is one of many controversies. It rejects the idea of solidarity with others, compassion and pity. On the other hand, it focuses on self reliance and strength. He believes that humans are currently like tamed animals, forced to be passive and meek. He believes that humans have unlocked potential greatness and through freeing ourselves from the chains of society, we can become our true nature. He believes that society is dictating these moral codes in order to control us and our natures. Nietzsche's moral heroes are supermen whom have the ability to reject conventual moral codes and therefore become beyond good and evil.
Therefore, let's say that you were one of these "supermen" (or women) and you saw a young child crying over a popped balloon. You would probably ignore the child because you believe that the child would need to grow up and become stronger, rather than cry over such a small thing.
Another example would be if you were hungry but you had not food in the house, you would go outside and just get some, because its what you want, whether or not it is legal to go out to someone else's house and eat their food, or hunt in the backyard for birds, or steal from the supermarket in order to find something to eat. You basically go back to your primal perspective on life and push away reason and logic and just focus on instinct.
Although this moral theory is quite empowering, I personally have to disagree with it's overall perspectives. I believe that because humans have the ability for thought, reason and logic, we should use that ability to our advantage. The way that we conduct ourselves is more to show how we want to be treated and if the entire would was as primal as what this moral code would take us to, our society would simply become animals and therefore there would be no real need for any our abilities, which I personally think are a waste. I would not like to go back to an animal when I have already experienced the joy of understanding. But that is just me.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Ethics, ethics, everywhere!
We started a new unit of ethics, which is all about how we come up with ethics and why we believe in them. It poses an interesting question, why do we think certain values are important. I mean, we never really think why we believe stuff like; killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, drugs are bad. I mean, there is the obvious reasons, some are bad for your health, some are against our human rights, but still, we never really consider the motives behind our internal moral compass. I guess it depends on the society or culture we are immersed in and our personal beliefs, which are often instilled in us through our family's beliefs and instincts. I guess in a way, most moral dilemmas are really just roundabout reasoning, like we learned before, it is circular reasoning to believe in something because your reasoning relies on that reasoning. I mean, our morals are instilled in us because that is the general concensus and we then create the concensus for everyone else. It really is a strange concept if you think about it and I wonder if it is really trustworthy to believe in morals just because everyone else does. I guess each person needs to sit down and think, like I have, and decide what they believe is good or bad. Some of the morals around me I find are not really as extreme or singular as others tend to believe while some are important, and should be paid more attention to.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Reason Comes From Emotion?
The article by Dr. Richard van de Lagemaat was about how emotions provide us with a reason for doing everything we do. Emotions give us goals, give us directions and priorities. He said that those who do not have emotions are those who are completely indifferent. Without emotions we would have no reason to live or die. No reason to learn or think. We do not want. He believes that those we consider without emotion, completely rational beings with logical thinking, are simply those in control of their emotions. This poses an interesting question. Is emotion the motivation or reason to do everything we do? I guess in some way, what we do, even our most primal instincts, are based on things that feel good. Eating feels good, drinking feels good, being healthy feels good, etc. While being sick feels bad, thirsty feels bad, hungry feels bad... So in someway, our emotions are directing our way of thinking to believe that what we do is important if it feels good. If it feels good, it is necessary for our bodies. There are a few exceptions of course, but that is mostly because our instincts have not developed to the same capacity and the range of substances and things we have become adapted to. We (in primal times) were unable to really take good things in excess. Now that we have access to the things that we enjoy, we sometimes take things too far and that leads to things being bad for us. But if we were a the more prehistoric lifestyles, we would not have such access and would not be to an access. I personally agree that emotions are important to life, and that if we control some of our more wayward and unnecessary emotions in order to not do things we do not want to do or think completely irrationally because we want to do something, then that is the best form of emotions. I also think that emotions are INCREDIBLY difficult to control, and if you take the effort and have the ability to control such complex emotions to think about things rationally before acting, that is the perfect balance and you should be commended for your efforts.
Emotions Final Essay
Emotions are detrimental to the human race because of five reasons (although this is actually not my belief).
The first reason is because they make people make stupid decisions that sometimes lead to ruin because they are swayed by emotion. A person will sometimes sacrifice millions of innocent lives to save one person who may not be particularly good because they are important to that person, simply because their emotions are tied to a particular person and are therefore choose selfishly. This causes problems with doing the logical things, as people will do what they feel like doing, rather than what is reasonable.
The second reason is because people allow emotions to affect how they see other people and react to those people. Many a conflict was started because someone felt negatively towards that person from something they said or seemed like, which would lead to them acting with bias and sometimes starting wars simply to get ‘revenge’. Conflicts lead to death and people getting hurt, and therefore are simply selfish acts, because the only people who enjoy conflicts (for a time) are those triggering them.
The third reason is the different things that are caused by emotions, such as the 7 deadly sins; greed, lust, gluttony, wrath, sloth, pride, and envy. All of these ‘sins’ are caused by negative emotions and selfishness. We want to feel better so we go into an access something in order to feel those good emotions and end up causing more problems with that. You could assume that selfishness is caused by emotion, because by wanting to feel better or feel good emotions, you will try to do stuff just for you. Selfishness itself is the root of many problems such as but not exclusive to, the 7 deadly sins.
The fourth reason is that emotion is unnecessary for life. If you remove emotions from the way you think and act, you are still thinking and acting. You are only being entirely logical rather than using emotions as an excuse to alter your thinking. Without emotions, humans can function properly and effectively. In fact, efficiency will increase because people will not become bored, tired, or lazy. You can get a lot more done in life without emotions and it will still be possible to live.
The fifth reason is that emotions are sometimes negative and can lead people to lose their ability to properly think because of things like depression, stress and extreme anger. People allow negative emotions to sway their behaviors. In fact, people will sometimes allow negative emotions to end their lives, which is completely irrational and wrong. Suicide because you are depressed should be removed from possibilities and if people are without emotion, they will not do such drastic things. In fact, they wouldn’t have need to, because they would never feel sad again. You would never have to feel depressed because something went wrong in your life and stressed because you had a lot to do. IT would make people more rational and less de-motivated.
Although this is not my true belief, these are reasons to perhaps why people would believe that emotions are not necessary or we would be better off without them, like the leader in the film “Equilibrium”.
The first reason is because they make people make stupid decisions that sometimes lead to ruin because they are swayed by emotion. A person will sometimes sacrifice millions of innocent lives to save one person who may not be particularly good because they are important to that person, simply because their emotions are tied to a particular person and are therefore choose selfishly. This causes problems with doing the logical things, as people will do what they feel like doing, rather than what is reasonable.
The second reason is because people allow emotions to affect how they see other people and react to those people. Many a conflict was started because someone felt negatively towards that person from something they said or seemed like, which would lead to them acting with bias and sometimes starting wars simply to get ‘revenge’. Conflicts lead to death and people getting hurt, and therefore are simply selfish acts, because the only people who enjoy conflicts (for a time) are those triggering them.
The third reason is the different things that are caused by emotions, such as the 7 deadly sins; greed, lust, gluttony, wrath, sloth, pride, and envy. All of these ‘sins’ are caused by negative emotions and selfishness. We want to feel better so we go into an access something in order to feel those good emotions and end up causing more problems with that. You could assume that selfishness is caused by emotion, because by wanting to feel better or feel good emotions, you will try to do stuff just for you. Selfishness itself is the root of many problems such as but not exclusive to, the 7 deadly sins.
The fourth reason is that emotion is unnecessary for life. If you remove emotions from the way you think and act, you are still thinking and acting. You are only being entirely logical rather than using emotions as an excuse to alter your thinking. Without emotions, humans can function properly and effectively. In fact, efficiency will increase because people will not become bored, tired, or lazy. You can get a lot more done in life without emotions and it will still be possible to live.
The fifth reason is that emotions are sometimes negative and can lead people to lose their ability to properly think because of things like depression, stress and extreme anger. People allow negative emotions to sway their behaviors. In fact, people will sometimes allow negative emotions to end their lives, which is completely irrational and wrong. Suicide because you are depressed should be removed from possibilities and if people are without emotion, they will not do such drastic things. In fact, they wouldn’t have need to, because they would never feel sad again. You would never have to feel depressed because something went wrong in your life and stressed because you had a lot to do. IT would make people more rational and less de-motivated.
Although this is not my true belief, these are reasons to perhaps why people would believe that emotions are not necessary or we would be better off without them, like the leader in the film “Equilibrium”.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Dating Data
This article was about a 47-year old woman with autism. She writes about her experiences with support from studies on autism. She mentions several times that those who are autistic often have trouble understanding emotions. This causes a contrast to the fact that most of our actions are indirectly effected by our feelings. She looked at every experience in her life as an observer, a logical perspective on her actions rather than a person who has little idea of what they are REALLY thinking.
I consider myself as a fairly logical person, I feel that I think about my actions before I do something and analyze things around me level-headedly. But that does not exempt me from emotions. Often I am ruled by my emotions, and am only able to look at it impartially after the event. I find this rather annoying :) simply because it is uncomfortable for me to have no control over myself. Nonetheless, I have accepted my emotions as a part of who I am and rather than try to hide or prevent them, I spend more time trying to understand them. That way I know why I am doing something or feeling something, rather than trying to stop myself without knowing why. I think that those with autism must have to spend a lot of time doing that as well, but instead of trying to understand their own emotions, they have to understand everyone else's. To me that is one of the hardest things to do, simply because you usually don't have enough information to really know what a person is thinking. In that way I can sympathise with those with autism. To be completely logical in a world where everyone around you is ruled by complex emotions you cannot understand, I find that to be something truly difficult, but I think that we should all try to understand eachother better like those with autism have to. This is because I think that everyone has a reason for feeling some way, and if we can understand that, we can understand the person much better, which will help us know truly how we feel about that person and what type of person that really is. I think that we should look inward as well, because knowing yourself is probably the most important thing we can hope to achieve in our lives.
I consider myself as a fairly logical person, I feel that I think about my actions before I do something and analyze things around me level-headedly. But that does not exempt me from emotions. Often I am ruled by my emotions, and am only able to look at it impartially after the event. I find this rather annoying :) simply because it is uncomfortable for me to have no control over myself. Nonetheless, I have accepted my emotions as a part of who I am and rather than try to hide or prevent them, I spend more time trying to understand them. That way I know why I am doing something or feeling something, rather than trying to stop myself without knowing why. I think that those with autism must have to spend a lot of time doing that as well, but instead of trying to understand their own emotions, they have to understand everyone else's. To me that is one of the hardest things to do, simply because you usually don't have enough information to really know what a person is thinking. In that way I can sympathise with those with autism. To be completely logical in a world where everyone around you is ruled by complex emotions you cannot understand, I find that to be something truly difficult, but I think that we should all try to understand eachother better like those with autism have to. This is because I think that everyone has a reason for feeling some way, and if we can understand that, we can understand the person much better, which will help us know truly how we feel about that person and what type of person that really is. I think that we should look inward as well, because knowing yourself is probably the most important thing we can hope to achieve in our lives.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Emotions
How many emotions are there? Psychologists think there are six primary emotions – happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, disgust. Are these like the three primary colours in light, where all others can be made of combinations of these six? Do you agree with the idea of “primary emotions”?
I do not agree with the idea of primary emotions entirely. I think that emotions are very subtle and there are many more than just six main emotions. Although it is possible to think of very common emotions and feelings, I think that there are a lot of emotions that you cannot categorize of get from mixing together those six emotions above. Where would you put complicated emotions such as love and hate? You could say that they are a mixture of the above emotions but there is more to it than that I think. Personally, I think that emotions are one of the hardest things to categorize and it is nearly impossible to find the root feelings from each emotion, therefore it is nearly impossible to find the primary emotions. I also feel that it is unnecessary to find the root of each emotion. Emotions are not something I think SHOULD be categorized at all. The whole point of emotions is to go beyond reason and feel something without being logical in most cases, therefore what is the point of trying to turn something specifically un-logical into a logical order and category? It seems a bit hypocritical and useless to me. Emotions in my mind are something beyond reason, that can be both a good thing and a bad thing, but therefore you must just trust in them instead of analyze them as if they were something you could truly control. Emotions are not entirely controllable. You can still feel them (without the use of narcotics or brainwashing) and therefore unpredictable so STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THAT!
I do not agree with the idea of primary emotions entirely. I think that emotions are very subtle and there are many more than just six main emotions. Although it is possible to think of very common emotions and feelings, I think that there are a lot of emotions that you cannot categorize of get from mixing together those six emotions above. Where would you put complicated emotions such as love and hate? You could say that they are a mixture of the above emotions but there is more to it than that I think. Personally, I think that emotions are one of the hardest things to categorize and it is nearly impossible to find the root feelings from each emotion, therefore it is nearly impossible to find the primary emotions. I also feel that it is unnecessary to find the root of each emotion. Emotions are not something I think SHOULD be categorized at all. The whole point of emotions is to go beyond reason and feel something without being logical in most cases, therefore what is the point of trying to turn something specifically un-logical into a logical order and category? It seems a bit hypocritical and useless to me. Emotions in my mind are something beyond reason, that can be both a good thing and a bad thing, but therefore you must just trust in them instead of analyze them as if they were something you could truly control. Emotions are not entirely controllable. You can still feel them (without the use of narcotics or brainwashing) and therefore unpredictable so STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THAT!
Monday, February 22, 2010
End of Logic Final Essay
1) What are the different types of reasoning? In your opinion, is one type more valid or reliable? Explain why, using terms and examples.
There are several types of reasoning and they are; deductive reasoning which includes syllogisms and truth vs. validity, inductive reasoning which includes confirmation bias (a.k.a. generalization, prejudice and scientific law), and informal reasoning which includes circular reasoning, equivocating, arguing using ad ignorantiam, binary thinking, and loaded questions.
Deductive reasoning is the process of moving from one general truth to a particular subject to get a conclusion. Some of the types of deductive reasoning are syllogisms and truth vs. validity. Syllogisms are a series of statements with two premises and a conclusion which have three terms that occur twice as well as quantifiers. An example of this is: all carrots have an orange colour, my salad has carrots, and therefore my salad has an orange colour. Truth vs. Validity is the fact that although a statement can be false it can still be valid. The reason for this is because a statement that is valid has two true premises but it may not have a true conclusion. Reasoning understands this while logic would consider all valid statements to be true. An example of a valid yet untrue statement is: cats are small, lions are a type of cat, and therefore lions are small. This statement is valid as there is a truth to the logic and premises, but it is not a true conclusion as lions are not small by most standards.
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning, instead of moving from a general truth to a particular subject, it is the process of moving from a truth about a particular subject to a general conclusion. This is also an example of stereotyping. One of the types of inductive reasoning is confirmation bias, examples of which are generalization, prejudice and scientific law. Confirmation bias is the fact that we usually believe and remember what supports our beliefs and perceptions more so than those that contradict them. This is probably one of the problems that have lead to culture clashes and arguments the most as people are unwilling to accept truths that do not agree with what they already believe. Generalizations are when you come up with a general principle about something from examples of particulars. An example of this would be if I only knew birds that sung, I would then believe that all birds sing. This is probably not true as the amount of examples that I was deriving my generalization was relatively small in comparison to the actual population of the subject. The best way to validity a generalization is to come up with it from examining a large percentage of the population of the subject or culture you are generalizing. This will ensure that the generalization is more accurate. Prejudice is when you already have an idea in your head about a particular subject and that affects your thinking and perceptions on that subject. An example of this would be that if you thought all blondes were dumb, you would be much more receptive to the less intelligent statements a blonde made and not pay as much attention to the examples of intelligence she actually gives. Scientific law is the direct link between the cause and effect of a phenomenon deduced from experiments and/or observations. An example of this would be if I experimented on water and found that it contained certain amounts of chlorine, I would believe that it was pool water because pool water contains that amount of chlorine. This system could be applicable to events such as the Big Bang, which the theory of was hypothesised from the experiments done on such conditions.
Informal reasoning is reasoning where you make a quick decision given on the information you are given, which is often used against you by deliberately manipulating the way in which you will most likely respond to the information. Post hoc ergo propter hoc means mistaking something following another thing to be the cause for the first thing. An example of this would be; McDonald’s sales are up this year, so is the obesity rate. Equivocating is using a word or idea in two different meanings in order to support your argument. An example of this would be; Smoking kills and criminals kill, so criminals must smoke. Circular reasoning is assuming that part of your argument is true without proving it first. An example of this would be; I am cool, because I say so, and I never lie. Arguing ad ignorantiam means believing something is true just because we cannot prove it isn’t true. An example of this is believing in ghosts because there is no way to prove there are no ghosts. Binary thinking believes in black in white sides of an argument, therefore thinking that one extreme will happen if you do/do not do something. An example of this is; I need to wear make-up or everyone will hate me. A loaded question is when you ask a question that even if you answer yes or no, will make your response mean a certain connotation. An example of this would be; Are you always ugly or is it just today?
Out of all of the different types of reasoning, it seems to me that the most accurate form of reasoning is deductive reasoning because it is generally more accurate to believe that if something usually happens, then most likely the same will be true in a particular case. There are always exceptions, but an exception is the oddity to in most cases you will be correct. Therefore that seems to be the most accurate type of reasoning. Inductive reasoning is less reliable in my opinion as it moves from particular cases into a general idea, and it is usually best to avoid stereotyping and generalizing because it can lead to issues if your generalizations are untrue and can lead to offending the parties that are being stereotyped. Informal reasoning is the manipulation of reasoning to give untrue conclusions in most cases, therefore I believe it is by far the least accurate type of reasoning and often lead to untrue and misunderstood conclusions.
There are several types of reasoning and they are; deductive reasoning which includes syllogisms and truth vs. validity, inductive reasoning which includes confirmation bias (a.k.a. generalization, prejudice and scientific law), and informal reasoning which includes circular reasoning, equivocating, arguing using ad ignorantiam, binary thinking, and loaded questions.
Deductive reasoning is the process of moving from one general truth to a particular subject to get a conclusion. Some of the types of deductive reasoning are syllogisms and truth vs. validity. Syllogisms are a series of statements with two premises and a conclusion which have three terms that occur twice as well as quantifiers. An example of this is: all carrots have an orange colour, my salad has carrots, and therefore my salad has an orange colour. Truth vs. Validity is the fact that although a statement can be false it can still be valid. The reason for this is because a statement that is valid has two true premises but it may not have a true conclusion. Reasoning understands this while logic would consider all valid statements to be true. An example of a valid yet untrue statement is: cats are small, lions are a type of cat, and therefore lions are small. This statement is valid as there is a truth to the logic and premises, but it is not a true conclusion as lions are not small by most standards.
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning, instead of moving from a general truth to a particular subject, it is the process of moving from a truth about a particular subject to a general conclusion. This is also an example of stereotyping. One of the types of inductive reasoning is confirmation bias, examples of which are generalization, prejudice and scientific law. Confirmation bias is the fact that we usually believe and remember what supports our beliefs and perceptions more so than those that contradict them. This is probably one of the problems that have lead to culture clashes and arguments the most as people are unwilling to accept truths that do not agree with what they already believe. Generalizations are when you come up with a general principle about something from examples of particulars. An example of this would be if I only knew birds that sung, I would then believe that all birds sing. This is probably not true as the amount of examples that I was deriving my generalization was relatively small in comparison to the actual population of the subject. The best way to validity a generalization is to come up with it from examining a large percentage of the population of the subject or culture you are generalizing. This will ensure that the generalization is more accurate. Prejudice is when you already have an idea in your head about a particular subject and that affects your thinking and perceptions on that subject. An example of this would be that if you thought all blondes were dumb, you would be much more receptive to the less intelligent statements a blonde made and not pay as much attention to the examples of intelligence she actually gives. Scientific law is the direct link between the cause and effect of a phenomenon deduced from experiments and/or observations. An example of this would be if I experimented on water and found that it contained certain amounts of chlorine, I would believe that it was pool water because pool water contains that amount of chlorine. This system could be applicable to events such as the Big Bang, which the theory of was hypothesised from the experiments done on such conditions.
Informal reasoning is reasoning where you make a quick decision given on the information you are given, which is often used against you by deliberately manipulating the way in which you will most likely respond to the information. Post hoc ergo propter hoc means mistaking something following another thing to be the cause for the first thing. An example of this would be; McDonald’s sales are up this year, so is the obesity rate. Equivocating is using a word or idea in two different meanings in order to support your argument. An example of this would be; Smoking kills and criminals kill, so criminals must smoke. Circular reasoning is assuming that part of your argument is true without proving it first. An example of this would be; I am cool, because I say so, and I never lie. Arguing ad ignorantiam means believing something is true just because we cannot prove it isn’t true. An example of this is believing in ghosts because there is no way to prove there are no ghosts. Binary thinking believes in black in white sides of an argument, therefore thinking that one extreme will happen if you do/do not do something. An example of this is; I need to wear make-up or everyone will hate me. A loaded question is when you ask a question that even if you answer yes or no, will make your response mean a certain connotation. An example of this would be; Are you always ugly or is it just today?
Out of all of the different types of reasoning, it seems to me that the most accurate form of reasoning is deductive reasoning because it is generally more accurate to believe that if something usually happens, then most likely the same will be true in a particular case. There are always exceptions, but an exception is the oddity to in most cases you will be correct. Therefore that seems to be the most accurate type of reasoning. Inductive reasoning is less reliable in my opinion as it moves from particular cases into a general idea, and it is usually best to avoid stereotyping and generalizing because it can lead to issues if your generalizations are untrue and can lead to offending the parties that are being stereotyped. Informal reasoning is the manipulation of reasoning to give untrue conclusions in most cases, therefore I believe it is by far the least accurate type of reasoning and often lead to untrue and misunderstood conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
