Final thoughts on mental illness

Just some final thoughts about the theme of mental illness:

1) Based on the evidence provided by empirical scientific observation of the human brain and nervous system, I cannot accept that notion that the concept of mental illness has no physical reflection in the material world
2) The term mentally ill is a term which can be marginalizing given the treatment of those who are mentally ill it is clear that this cultural group faces both social and political oppression in various forms
3) Without question given the relative newness of psychiatry and psychology, our understanding of mental illness is still met with difficulties in defining, identifying and properly treating mental health conditions
4) There exists a variety of factors which complicate the discourse on mental illness including the nature of pharamaceutical interests in the diagnosis of certain conditions, the social misconceptions of mental illness, and the power relationship that exists between doctors/counselors etc. and patients
5) While the social construction of mental illness has traditionally been discriminatory and oppressive towards those with the conditions, that is not to discount any progress and change that has occurred in our current definition of mental illness and how to treat and diagnosis it

On the spectrum

The link provided is to an article related to our several discussions about people being on the spectrum for autistic behaviors and personal characteristics:

http://nymag.com/news/features/autism-spectrum-2012-11/

Animal standpoint theory

For those of you interested I found an intriguing read about animal standpoint theory.
The link is posted below:


http://www.stateofnature.org/theRevolutionaryImplications.html

Q&A #9: Question two

My second question this week is whether there is anything notable contribution that is made by standpoint theory. As we discussed earlier there are a number of difficulties and questions raised by trying to approach a practical application of this concept. I do believe that if anything gained by standpoint theory is that it seems to encourage an empathetic approach to gathering knowledge. What I mean is that it seems to promote the idea of trying to understand the particular experience of a person or group of persons, to more fully comprehend why they arrive at the conclusions they do and what evidence is used. I am unsure if this is a necessary quality when trying to arrive at truth but it at least promotes a more open dialogue in which a persons unique experiences are given some appropriate attention. I will try and think this over more but I do believe an empathetic approach to understanding another person would be preferred than one in which the circumstances of one's life are considered trivial.

Q&A #9: Question One

My first question this week was one that I proposed to the class during our discussion today about whether there was any value in the various blanket terms we use to classify people and cultural groups by race, class, gender etc. From the discussion I gathered a few points it seems we all agreed on in principle:

1) There is value in the unique experience every individual faces
2) The terms we use often do not encompass the many persons within a cultural group, but rather generalizes the experience of these persons by labeling them with said terms
3) There is not often times not a unified belief or experience shared by all members in a group
4) By claiming that certain issues are specific to cultural groups, it isolates that group by reinforcing the differences between these social groups over their shared experiences and difficulties

Think I got most of it but feel free to add or clarify anything I posted here.

Intersections

Last year I read an article in which Kimberle Crenshaw who is a black feminist anthropologist in which she analyzed the culture of hip hop from the perspective of an African American woman. She uses a term called intersectionality which seems very similar to the idea of the situated knower mentioned in the Stanford reading for this week. Essentially the term means that every person is situated within several cultural categories, for example I am not only a male but a straight male who is also a student of particular ethnic background, social class etc. Crenshaw uses the term to explain how our perspectives from these several groups collectively influence how we perceive the world around us. While I believe this to be true what is important to remember is that we cannot reduce people to simply their gender, race, social class but look holistically at their circumstances as the various realms in which we occupy help us form our understanding of the human experience.

Q&A #8: Question Two

My second question this week is partially in response to two blog posts I saw related to the issue of when critical thinking. It seems that one must admit as Avery stated, that every degree of knowledge is based off of some basic assumptions. For example one cannot have a discussion analyzing the effects the bacteria on human organ tissue without admitting that the principles of cellular biology are accurate. In philosophical arguments many authors work from certain axiomatic points which provides a framework for the discussion at hand. This is the difference between being a critical thinker who is able to recognize inconsistencies in evidence provided in given circumstance, and being a radical skeptic who denies the validity of any claim. I also agree with Tommy that in some cases we need not be critical thinkers, in his example he uses the bible as an instructional piece for moral behavior. I agree that we can agree the bible is a flawed work when analyzed by contemporary global citizens, however a critical thinker I believe would be able to recognize the danger is using the Bible as justification for a given argument, but would still be able to disseminate the valuable lessons found within scripture.

Q&A #8: Question one

My first question regarding criticality was whether we could apply the method of critical pedagogy to institutions beyond that of education. The answer seems to be an obvious yes: there is no question that other social systems are unfortunately marked by internalized forms of oppression and methods of marginalizing particular social groups. While this is true I do believe that it would be dangerous to simply look at social institutions such as politics, educations, medicine and other cultural realms as only being sources of oppression. It cannot be denied that there are still obstacles to overcome to allow equal opportunities for all individuals regardless of social status, however there is also present a significant amount of progress within these realms as well. The handicapped, minorities, and women have all made strides to open public spaces and allow them to become full fledged contributing members to society in various ways. This is not to say that the task has been completed however to simply approach cultural analysis with the pessimistic outlook of anticipating inequality, you may miss the underlying advancements and methods by which people overcome adversity today.

Chimps and Mortality

The link below is an article by Scientific America discussing primates potential understanding of the concept of death

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chimpanzees-understand-death

Q&A #7: Question Two

My second question this week on the status of nonhuman animals is whether there is an immoral facet to the concept of owning pets. I have come up with three potential mutual benefits to why owner and pet relationships can be a moral good. One is the simple fact that typically both owner and pet are pleased by the companionship of the other, usually there is emotion invested from the owner to animal which is compassionate and loving. Second in the case of adopting animals, many of which may have been previously abused or face uncertainty given the lack of resources and funding for animal shelters, adopting that pet into your life may significantly increase its health and its happiness. Third is that it would seem that people who grow up with pets, would be more sympathetic to the rights of animals having established an intimate connection with animals in their lives already. This is not to say that all animal owners and adopters behave in the manner I described earlier but I would hope that these people are a small immoral minority.

Note:
It would seem also that in order to be an owner who respects the life of the animal that it would be wrong to restrict them to a life of domestication indoors, however many people have outdoor cats and pets such as lizards or snakes which are not confined to cages or tanks.

Q&A #7: Question One

The first question I had regarding the status of nonhuman animals was whether the argument could be put forward that it is wrong to intentionally harm animals, as it compromises the potential for their living a full and meaningful life. This line of argumentation was similar to that which came up during the discussion of abortion and the rights of the potential human being (i.e the unborn fetus). I think that this claim could work, only if the value assigned to a human life and its prosperity were considered comparable or equal to that of an animal.  Our standing hierarchy in society is that human life surpasses all others in inherent value, which in principle I support but again preferring human life as more valuable reduces the value of animal lives. It would seem that in order to use potentiality as an argument for treating nonhuman animals with moral consideration, would require the claim that all life (not only human life) is inherently valuable and worthy of respect

Q&A #6: Question two

The second question I had during this week was about the nature of ethics in a deterministic universe. I am unsettled by the idea that we could remove all responsibility from our actions simply because a particular state of affairs was determined to happen. My resolution to this problem looks something like this, when a moral decision for me arrives, I arrive at that state of affairs due to the antecedent events which preceded it. If this is true, and in a previous state of affairs I was taught that stealing was wrong, then could we not blame me for stealing because the previous state of affairs should have influenced me to not steal? I guess I am speculating about whether a person's learned moral code counts as a previous event which should then influence the event in which I face a moral dilemma. Perhaps I am not articulating this properly but let me know if any of you have any thoughts about my hypothesis here.

Q&A #6: Question One

My first question this week is whether there is a difference between determined and pre-determined given the topic for this week. I have yet to come to a distinction so I will post a response to this question after our discussion in class today.

Q&A #5: Question Two

The second question I had this week regarding time is how we can deny the existence of time as force of nature altogether. I can understand that due to the inability to properly define the stages of time (past, present, future) concretely, we may become skeptical about the use of such terms to describe the passage of time. I do find it difficult however to deny the concept of duration, as for practical purposes we need this concept to live in our day to day lives as a species. We cannot deny that a human life is finite, no matter how we measure this duration in years or otherwise, human beings do not live forever. Not only do human beings have a finite existence but a majority of the material and perceivable world around us does not have an infinite lifespan. Again for the purpose of trying to find meaning in our lives and to support our species physically, we have to accept some concept of time so that we can survive. Aside from this I am still wondering whether a person can dismiss time altogether and still function day to day in our society successfully.

Q&A #5: Question One

The first question I had about this weeks topic of time is in regards to the block theory of time. If the past, present, and future already exist, it implies that the world is predetermined . If this is so then the contentious debate about whether we have free will in a deterministic universe is bound to arise. The author brings up some points about this topic saying that we may eventually commit a particular action of our own volition, so in that sense free will does not disappear in a determined system. It seems to me that accepting that we will one day perform a particular action seems fatalistic, it seems to remove some responsibility for the action as a proper defense of an immoral act would be "well I was going to do it anyways because it is inevitable". If there is a moral system in a predetermined universe, it seems it would have to be based on intention, I can hope for the best when committing a certain act but whether I do something immoral is already determined. I can still intend to do the right thing but inevitably I am bound to perform whatever action I have already committed in the already existing future.

More On time

The link below provides some further reading about scientific theories form physics relating to time

http://www.timephysics.com/

More on Nationalism

The links below provide further readings by theorists Gellner and Andersen who have contributed greatly to the socio-anthropological understanding of the modern nation state.

http://www.nationalismproject.org/what/anderson.htm

http://www.nationalismproject.org/what/gellner2.htm

Q&A #4: Question One

One of my question's this week was whether or not the term itself patriotism was inherently morally complex or if the complications arise more in its application. At face value it seems that there is nothing wrong with the notion of having a special affection and sense of duty to one's nation, however what kind of policies and actions this sentiment is used to defend is where issues seem to arise. I can have pride in my nation and believe that I have an obligation to contribute to it, but when I use the term patriotism to defend an unwavering and unquestioned support my nation's military intervention in foreign nations, the term has taken on more than it's textbook definition. As we discussed briefly on Monday internationalist sympathies were combined with American nationalism to defend military intervention in many parts of the world, the most recent examples would obviously be in the Middle East in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again I do believe it is compatible to be a patriot and an internationalist, but it seems that political interests attach meanings and obligations that are not inherently a part of what it means to love one's nation.

Q&A #3: Question One

My first question based on this weeks reading we touched on briefly during the last class conversation: can science provide the human life with validation and purpose? We discussed briefly how evolutionary theory would suggest that our purpose is to further the species and ensure its survival, however I would like to suggest an alternative. Perhaps the methods of scientific inquiry and the fact that we are seemingly always trying to find answers, could be evidence that as conscious and sentient beings, our purpose is to keep looking for answers. As organisms with the ability to categorize, analyze, and interpret sensory data, perhaps it is the purpose of our being to eternally search for knowledge and the nature of the world in which we occupy. The obvious objection to my suggestion is what evidence am I using to base my claim off of, aside from the observable fact that there are many unanswered questions about our existence still. Personally the idea that I am purely here to procreate leaves many questions about the human experience, and so I am contemplating whether the pursuit of knowledge itself is enough to justy

Q&A #3: Question Two

My second question after reading this weeks article is about what the criteria for a faith based epistemology would look like? Obviously empirical evidence would not be a strict requirement, but how would we validate intuitions and feelings as being evidence of truth about the world? Is there a hierarchy in which some people's intuitions about human nature or the existence of the soul are more accurate? It seems that one aspect of this epistemology would be the claim that: since there is no scientifically explanation for phenomenon X, then X must be explainable by supernatural explanation. Ideas such as human consciousness are often used in this debate, as psychologists, neuroscientists, and biologists still cannot locate the anatomical processes which we label the conscious mind. Even if some phenomena are not explainable by scientific inquiry thus far, it does not mean that this will be thee case forever. My other speculation is that a theistic epistemology would be based on the Scriptures and the literature of clergymen and other faith workers. If this is so, then wouldn't their system of knowledge be based on human writings and thus be based in the natural world?

God without the supernatural?

The title of my blog comes from a book by a philosopher of religion named Peter Forrest who defends a position he calls scientific theism. One objection Forrest has with the notions ascribed to the supernatural is the model is outdated, thus the idea of God as an anthropomorphic entity resembling human beings. While I was intrigued by Forrest's position, later in the sample you can view by searching Google books and reading the first few pages, he decides to defend a God that created us not for our earthly lives but for an afterlife. I would suggest reading the first couple pages, including an introduction to the books overall themes, as some of his concepts are interesting and the argument to support them would be entertaining from a metaphysical perspective.

Q&A #2: Question Two

The other question I had based on this weeks essay was what von Glaserfeld's opinion of how language plays a role in our understanding of reality. Many theorists in language and cultural analysis insist that we live in a world of verbal realism, that is we bring concepts and objects into reality by having terms to signify them. We discussed briefly that things must be brought into the observers reality, so my question is a word or term for a concept enough to include it in our reality according to the author? If someone explains and defines the term God or beauty for me, does  that mean that both have entered my experience and thus are now part of the reality I construct? If this is so what about terms that I simply have not acquired, surely our language and vocabulary develop as we age, so does that mean the reality I create exponentially grows based on the language skills I gain? Its difficult to state my inquiry here so I will try to bring it up in class tomorrow, but if anyone has any thoughts I would love to hear them

Q&A #2: Question One

One of my questions in regards to this weeks reading is how we are using the term and what is considered to be "experience". It seems for the most part we have been using the term to describe tangible and sensory experiences such as observing something visually, coming into contact with solid objects etc. My inquiry would be whether we would consider mental contemplation and cognitive activities such as the imagination, to be forms of experience. For example if I had never heard the term apple, and had never come into contact with one in the material world. One day I hear the term apple and am try to imagine it, the person who uttered the term gives me some terms to help me picture it: red, smooth, round, etc. In my mind I picture a fruit with a striking resemblance to an apple, does this count as experiencing the apple? In the same way when we see a play or film and are moved to tears or drawn to the edge of our seat in fear, are we not experiencing the emotions of the story via the mechanism of imagining ourselves in the narrative? Questions and comments are always welcome so blog on fellow constructors of reality.

Further inofrmation on Coherence

The following link is a brief reading on the Coherence Theory of Truth. I believe it was Heigel and Spinoza which defended the theory so search for some work by them as well.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/

Q&A #1: Question 2

My second question regarding this week's topic was to respond to Kant's notion that pleasure in the aesthetic is not grounded in nor produces desire. From our reading alone there are several sections in which Zangwill discusses that we seek agreement in our aesthetic judgments, we desire the agreement of other about our claims about beauty. In addition to desiring universal agreement about our claims of beauty, the desire to encounter the beautiful and the aesthetic seems to me to be a plausible theory. Given Kant's support of a priori faculties and abilities in the human mind, would it be untenable to say that people are drawn towards the aesthetic; that we have a natural inclination and desire to seek out the beautiful. While it would be difficult to explain what that inclination would look like, these were just some possible responses I mulled over when rereading the piece for a second time.

More on Recognizing beauty

After our brief discussion about the nature of beauty in last class, I still feel myself leaning towards the idea that beauty itself is a property of an object or experience (although it may be a property determined by its other non aesthetic properties). That would explain why often there is at least some consensus about whether a sunset or painting or song is beautiful; if beauty is a property anyone can recognize and is present in the object, then it would come as little surprise why many can come to same judgement. This would mean however that all people would recognize a present beauty in an object or experience, and given the fact we do have typically have at least one dissenter who disagrees about the beautiful, I have yet to understand why some people would and others would not call something beautiful. Just some thoughts I've been mulling over since last class but I would love to get some feedback if anyone has any comments or questions.

Additional Kant reading

The link provided gives some additional information about Kant's theory on aesthetic judgement and its conditions for those looking for more insight into his theories.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantaest/

Q&A #1: Question One

Question One: Is beauty a property we believe is present within objects or one we assign to an object?

I was intrigued by the notion that we often say something is beautiful as if an object or scene possesses the quality of beauty. However there are situations in which we may look for beauty or may be convinced that to some degree an object or experience is beautiful. It seems similar to our working definitions of art, there are contexts in which we  may not apply the term work of and others might. In the same way it seems that two observers could view a painting and one could state that it is beautiful and the other may disagree. I had always considered beauty to be a property which was recognized or discovered in an object or setting, but it seems that more often we apply the term beauty rather than find it. Questions and Comments always welcome so blog away.

Introductions

Hello all! For those who you who do not know me I am senior at MCLA, philosophy major with a minor and social justice and anthropology. I am currently working on my thesis regarding the potential relationship between music and language and how similar the two may be. I am looking forward to a great semester and lets see if we can figure out this whole reality thing together.