Q:“Why do we have phrases like "follow your heart," "gut instinct," etc? Why is it not like listen to what your mind tells you?”
Phrases such as "follow your heart" and "gut instinct” are popular in our society for the exact idea that your question brings up. People often do not want to use their mind to make decisions because listening to your mind is a type of reasoning. Having a "gut instinct" is more of an instant feeling because you do not have to think about it. A good example of this is a multiple-choice question that you do not know, but you have an instant feeling that one of the choices is the correct answer; a problem soon arises because you start to think about the choices and you begin to think a different answer is the correct choice. At this point, you must make a choice,either go with your “gut instinct” or listen to "what your mind tells you". I understand that the mind controls the “gut instinct”, but I feel that anytime you use the word mind, you are talking about a type of reasoning. I believe that “listening to what your mind tells you,” means that you trust in simple reasoning. The “gut instinct" is more of an automatic feeling that you do not know where it came from. I feel that a true “gut instinct” is something that is impossible to explain; it seems like it may be an unconscious process because we just feel something that we cannot explain the origins of. For this reason, I think that people often say that they used their “gut instinct” when they actually used simple reasoning. When making decisions, people often come up with two choices because of reasoning they use. They may say, “Most people want me to do this, but I’m going to use my gut feeling and do this instead”. Many situations like this do not represent a true “gut instinct” because the person had to decide between two choices, which both were discovered through simple reasoning. With that said, if the person decided to make a choice using a feeling that they could not explain, then that would be an example of using a “gut instinct”. This brings up the idea that “following your heart” and using your “gut instinct” may be two different things. I feel that “following your heart” is used in situations where a person has to decide between two different choices, and they decide choose their original feeling. It seems that “following your heart” could be defined as when a person chooses to follow their “gut instinct” instead of deciding to trust in their reasoning; therefore, I feel that “following your heart" and using your "gut instinct” are not the same concept but relate closely. Even though I understand exactly what these concepts mean, I am wondering when exactly they should be used. It seems like there are examples in our world of situations where using “gut instinct” has worked and other situations where reasoning has worked better than “gut instinct”.
1.Do you think that we should ever follow our “gut instinct”, and if so, in what situations should we use it?
2.What do you think that Plato and Aristotle would feel about using “gut instinct”?
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
That's not what Aristotle meant.
Today in class, we discussed Aristotle’s ideas about happiness in relation to being virtuous. Aristotle was a realist because he believed that people could be miserable, even when they are virtuous. Aristotle went against Socrates idealist beliefs because Socrates felt that people who are virtuous would always be happy. In class, I stated my point that Aristotle may be wrong because everyone has the ability to be happy, no matter what situation they are in. Even though I made my point in class, I feel that I was not able to expand on this idea in a way that I truly wanted. I do not think that people realize the great flaw that Aristotle‘s argument regarding happiness has; I feel it is important for people to understand that in many ways, Aristotle did not outline what happiness truly is.
It makes sense that Aristotle is a realist because his background is in the sciences. This is the reason I understand why he believes that being virtuous does not mean being happy. I agree with him that there are good people who are completely miserable. The major problem is that people often misinterpret Aristotle’s ideas. People often feel that Aristotle meant that we cannot be happy from just living as a good person, but we must look for happiness on the outside of us. I do not think Aristotle meant this, but his argument seems to point to this idea. What people need to realize is that happiness is inside of us; we create our own happiness. For some reason, most people think that happiness relates to what happens to a people in their lives; this idea is simply not true. It is a simple fact that we determine how we feel about the world around us. It does not matter if I have a million dollars, or one dollar, I can be happy whenever I want to. We can change our feelings, by changing the way we view our surroundings.
It is obvious to me why there is so much depression in highly economically developed countries like America. People do not understand that they control their own ability to be happy. There is major problem with flawed cognitive reasoning in our society. People need to realize that what our society provides for information is not always true. People grow up thinking that the happiness is created from things outside of themselves. These people need to follow Socrates advice, and begin to examine their lives. The problem is that people are too busy in their hectic lives to realize that they will never reach happiness until they change the way they feel about their surroundings. I feel that Aristotle may be right that being vitreous does not mean you will be happy, but I think that people our misunderstanding his point. There are good people who can be miserable, but they also have the choice to be happy; being happy does not relate to the what happens in a person’s life, it relates to their thoughts about what happened. Everyone has the choice to be happy, no matter if they are virtuous or not.
1)Do you think it is better to be a realist, or and idealist? Support your opinion.
2)Do you find it interesting that the occurrence of mood disorders is a lot higher in economically developed countries then other countries? Explain.
It makes sense that Aristotle is a realist because his background is in the sciences. This is the reason I understand why he believes that being virtuous does not mean being happy. I agree with him that there are good people who are completely miserable. The major problem is that people often misinterpret Aristotle’s ideas. People often feel that Aristotle meant that we cannot be happy from just living as a good person, but we must look for happiness on the outside of us. I do not think Aristotle meant this, but his argument seems to point to this idea. What people need to realize is that happiness is inside of us; we create our own happiness. For some reason, most people think that happiness relates to what happens to a people in their lives; this idea is simply not true. It is a simple fact that we determine how we feel about the world around us. It does not matter if I have a million dollars, or one dollar, I can be happy whenever I want to. We can change our feelings, by changing the way we view our surroundings.
It is obvious to me why there is so much depression in highly economically developed countries like America. People do not understand that they control their own ability to be happy. There is major problem with flawed cognitive reasoning in our society. People need to realize that what our society provides for information is not always true. People grow up thinking that the happiness is created from things outside of themselves. These people need to follow Socrates advice, and begin to examine their lives. The problem is that people are too busy in their hectic lives to realize that they will never reach happiness until they change the way they feel about their surroundings. I feel that Aristotle may be right that being vitreous does not mean you will be happy, but I think that people our misunderstanding his point. There are good people who can be miserable, but they also have the choice to be happy; being happy does not relate to the what happens in a person’s life, it relates to their thoughts about what happened. Everyone has the choice to be happy, no matter if they are virtuous or not.
1)Do you think it is better to be a realist, or and idealist? Support your opinion.
2)Do you find it interesting that the occurrence of mood disorders is a lot higher in economically developed countries then other countries? Explain.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
In Response to Austin Bodzioch (2/25/10)
Q:"If there was one ultimate truth and goodness, do you think that there would be social conflicts between people of how to be good and true?"
I completely understand what the question is asking, but I think truth and goodness would need to be explained differently from what you explained it as. The examples you used did not really seem to show people having completely different Ideas of what is good and true. If my friend’s mother thinks her son only does good when he gets straight A's, and my mother thinks I did good with C's and B's, It does not necessarily mean that each mother has a different Idea of what Is ultimately good. My mother could know that A's are truly what is good, but she chooses to support me If I get C's because she knew I tried. I feel that you outlined the idea that people have different standards for what is good, but I think you used examples that follow your own opinion about the subject. You made the point that certain people follow religious Ideas of what Is good and these ideas do not apply to all of us, but we cannot really know whether they do not apply to all of us. Maybe certain ideas are actually the truth about what is good, but we just choose not to believe them. You say that someone can be just as good when they do not go to church, but I do not understand how you can know that. Your first claim is that you do not feel that there is an ultimate truth or goodness, but from the examples you use, it seems like you do have an Idea of what is ultimately true and good.I think it is also interesting that you point out that people think being gay or bisexual is wrong, even when people who are gay or bisexual may be nice or true people. I find it interesting because it seems like when you make this claim, you are saying that what gay and bisexuals represent is ultimately good, but before you said that there is no such thing as ultimate truth or goodness. The point I am trying to make is that everyone has their own Ideas of what is true and good, even If they say they do not. For this reason, I feel It would be difficult for everyone to agree on what is true and good because humans naturally have different Ideas of what they believe is true and good. With that said, I feel that if every person were proven what is ultimately good and true, there would still be social conflicts. Even If everyone knew, what is good, people would still commit evils, which would cause conflict; this would happen because people commit wrongs, even when they know what is right. I do not feel this is Important because there could be one ultimate truth about what is good right now, but we might just not know it. I believe it is human nature for people to have different opinions about what they believe is true and good ; even when people deny that there is ultimate good, they still have an idea of what they believe is good.
If we all have some idea of what is good, are we born knowing the basics of what is good, or do we develop it?
I completely understand what the question is asking, but I think truth and goodness would need to be explained differently from what you explained it as. The examples you used did not really seem to show people having completely different Ideas of what is good and true. If my friend’s mother thinks her son only does good when he gets straight A's, and my mother thinks I did good with C's and B's, It does not necessarily mean that each mother has a different Idea of what Is ultimately good. My mother could know that A's are truly what is good, but she chooses to support me If I get C's because she knew I tried. I feel that you outlined the idea that people have different standards for what is good, but I think you used examples that follow your own opinion about the subject. You made the point that certain people follow religious Ideas of what Is good and these ideas do not apply to all of us, but we cannot really know whether they do not apply to all of us. Maybe certain ideas are actually the truth about what is good, but we just choose not to believe them. You say that someone can be just as good when they do not go to church, but I do not understand how you can know that. Your first claim is that you do not feel that there is an ultimate truth or goodness, but from the examples you use, it seems like you do have an Idea of what is ultimately true and good.I think it is also interesting that you point out that people think being gay or bisexual is wrong, even when people who are gay or bisexual may be nice or true people. I find it interesting because it seems like when you make this claim, you are saying that what gay and bisexuals represent is ultimately good, but before you said that there is no such thing as ultimate truth or goodness. The point I am trying to make is that everyone has their own Ideas of what is true and good, even If they say they do not. For this reason, I feel It would be difficult for everyone to agree on what is true and good because humans naturally have different Ideas of what they believe is true and good. With that said, I feel that if every person were proven what is ultimately good and true, there would still be social conflicts. Even If everyone knew, what is good, people would still commit evils, which would cause conflict; this would happen because people commit wrongs, even when they know what is right. I do not feel this is Important because there could be one ultimate truth about what is good right now, but we might just not know it. I believe it is human nature for people to have different opinions about what they believe is true and good ; even when people deny that there is ultimate good, they still have an idea of what they believe is good.
If we all have some idea of what is good, are we born knowing the basics of what is good, or do we develop it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)