Response to ETM- "Bad Writing"

While Ed points out that eloquent, verbose language can certainly be "bad writing", I would also like to challenge the notion that one must have a good handle on the "rules of grammar" to be a good writer. I believe that language is created by humans; therefore, there is no wrong way to speak. There are many different dialects in the world, and speaking in professional jargon is really just another dialect, and it is no better or worse than slang, which is another dialect. Each human has a way of expressing him or herself through words. The rules of language are constantly changing and evolving. How can anybody police the way somebody else uses language? This is a kind of elitism, to assume that our way of using language is the best. However, I do realize that we need a basic common ground for grammar in order to understand one another. But there is a fine line (though I will admit I'm not entirely sure where that line is!) between enforcing a common ground and enforcing a specific dialect that one believes to be the "right" way of speaking.

This is a great post about language on one of my favorite blogs ever. It points out that each dialect (which includes all forms of slang, "spanglish", etc) has it's own grammar. This makes sense, because if a dialect didn't have it's own form of grammar, then nobody would understand it. However, people do understand different dialects, so why do we consider them to be less legitimate then ours? People often get irritated when people (who tend to be uneducated, poor, or both) use "bad grammar". But is there such a thing as bad grammar? Obviously this form of language has a grammar, because otherwise nobody would understand it.

References to an External World

I have wanted to write a post about radical constructivists' making references to the external world for a while now.

Jules: Jules, a radical constructivist, references his C- grade and Allison. If his reality is constructed, then why does it really matter if Allison gave him a C-? Why does the grade even exist in his reality? If, in his experience, he is an A+ student, then why is he letting this C- get to him? He is trying to convince Allison that he is right and she is wrong about her evaluation of him, which is contradictory to the beliefs of radical constructivism.

Von Glaserfeld: I found it a little humorous that in von Glaserfeld's "Introduction to Radical Constructivism", he lists references at the end. This seems contradictory to the principles of radical constructivism. Von Glaserfeld has not experienced what the people he cites have experienced; how does he know he is accurately referencing them? What if he completely misinterpreted what they wrote and is drawing an incorrect conclusion about their work?

Haans interacts with Allison and Russell, and references Jules' letter. These things may seem nit-picky, but I really don't understand how a radical constructivist can never reference an external world.

Constructivism and Mental Illness

According to radical constructivism, there is no objective reality or truth that we as humans can know about. Mental illnesses, often diagnosed due to "abnormal behavior", are relying on the assumption that there is a "normal" and objective way to behave, think, and feel. First of all, if all we can ever know is how we ourselves feel, how can we medicalize the way somebody else feels? A radical constructivist would say that we cannot tell a delusional or hallucinating person that what they are experiencing is not real; a doctor/medical professional has only his or her own experience to pit against the patient's.

Even a medical professional cannot know the way most people feel, or the "normal" way to feel. They can only know the way they feel. So, how can they determine if somebody's mental state is abnormal? How do they know that their own state isn't abnormal? Are medical professionals judging what is normal based on what they experience? Furthermore, what is considered abnormal, and is it socially constructed?

(Another) Response to Becky's Post, "A Radical Construction of People"

Although I already responded to Becky's post about Constructing people, I have been thinking about it more and I want to respond again. Becky said in her post that you couldn't really know a person until you experience them yourself; you can't trust other people's judgements and opinions. According to the radical constructivist, you cannot know anything outside of your own experience. However, what if you trust another person's judgement enough to take their word as fact (or almost fact)? If a radical constructivist knows somebody who always seems to interpret the world the same way you do, can he or she rely on that person for the "truth" (or their version of the truth that tends to match up with his/hers)? Can a radical constructivist rely on other people for information?

Response to Becky- A Radical Construction of People

Becky asked about constructing people in her blog. She gave the example of hearing about somebody, without ever having experienced the person. For the sake of making things easy to understand, let's pretend that Becky overhears people talking about a person named Mark. If Becky has never experienced Mark herself, a radical constructivist would conclude that she cannot prove that Mark exists, despite the fact that other people claim to have met him. Not only can Becky not make conclusions about Mark's personality or characteristics, but she cannot prove his physical existence in the world. However, even if she had experienced Mark, I still think a radical constructivist would argue that there is no proof that he actually exists. She has experienced Mark, so to her, he exists. But since we all construct our own realities, according to radical constructivism, this is not enough to prove that Mark exists in an objective world. Is this radical constructivism, or is it getting into solipsism, where an individual does not believe that anything exists outside of him/herself?

Radical Constructivism, Education, and Mathematics

A constructivist approach to educating would involve letting students construct their own knowledge. Educators often simply tell their students "the facts" and expect them to memorize formulas without understanding them. A constructivist would let their students invent their own version of knowledge through experimentation. For example, being told that pi=3.14, and that the circumference of a circle equals its diameter times pi, will not help a student really understand the meaning of pi. However, some educators let their students discover the meaning of pi by giving them a string and a cylinder and having them realize that the circumference is 3.14 times greater than the diameter. This is constructivist because the students are constructing their own knowledge; they aren't simply being told what pi is. However, since all students would theoretically construct the same ideas about pi, are they really inventing their own knowledge, or are they discovering something about an objective universe? If the latter is true, then this approach to education is not constructivist, since radical constructivists believe there is no objective reality or universal truth. So, is mathematics discovered or created? How does this fit into radical constructivism?

Many people would agree that the world is somewhat, if not completely, constructed. Given the many conflicting ideas, perspectives, and versions of truth, some may conclude that there is no objective reality. Radical constructivists believe that individuals construct their own version of reality through cognitive processes. However, I think there are other ways for knowledge to be constructed. Groups of people can construct aspects of their reality. There are many social institutions that have been constructed by humanity as a whole, not just one individual person. These social constructs do not, however, reflect any objective reality. This is similar to radical constructivism because the knowledge and ideas constructed do not reflect any empirical data. What is the relationship between social constructs and cognitive constructs of knowledge?

Radical Constructivism and Daily Life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpWbUWroPuA

I came across this video of Ernst von Glasersfeld talking about how radical constructivism impacts one's daily life. This was interesting to me because, as I read "An Introduction to Radical Constructivism", I wondered how a radical constructivist would operate in his/her daily life. I wonder how someone who believes believes that their knowledge doesn't necessarily reflect any empirical facts of the world can go to school, get a job, or even have a conversation with someone. That is why I was interested in this video, in which Ernst von Glaserfeld says that radical constructivism can improve one's daily life. He explains that a radical constructivist doesn't care if someone else agrees with them. They are content believing what they believe without trying to persuade other people to agree with them. I wonder what other benefits radical constructivism might offer to one's daily life? What obstacles does a radical constructivist face in his/her daily life?

"Myth of Passage" Theory vs. Dynamic Theory

Becky asked in her blog what the difference was between the "myth of passage" theory and the dynamic theory. The way I understood it was, people who subscribe to the "myth of passage" theory believe that time does not flow, the flowing is simply an illusion. People who believe in the dynamic theory think that there is an objective flow to time, beyond human perception. "Myth of Passage" theorists argue that, although events appear to move from future, to present, and to past, that is just how the events relate to us as humans. Here is a quote from the reading that explains the "myth of passage" theory:

“Events simply are or occur…but they do not ‘advance’ into a pre-existing frame called ‘time.’ …[T]ime is a system of relations between events, and as events are, so are their relations. An event does not move and neither do any of its relations.” - Adolf Grünbaum

What interests me is the fact that physicists tend to defend the "myth of passage" theory, while philosophers tend to defend the dynamic theory. Why is it that philosophers and scientists seem to be at odds a lot? What is the relationship between science and philosophy? How can their differences be reconciled?

Response to Sara, Re: Sensory Depravation

Sara brought up sensory depravation and how it can distort one's perception of time in her blog. I have done a little bit of research on this topic but have not found much information (there's a lot about sensory deprivation but not much on its effect on perception of time). In my last post I spoke about how our bodies have their own sense of time. If we have a "biological clock", then why would we need sensory stimulation to sense time? Our 24-hour day is roughly based on the human body's 25 hour cycle. So, does sensory deprivation disrupt one's inner circadian rhythm? Or is it something else? Does time feel longer than it actually is after experiencing sleep deprivation the same way doing a boring task seems to take forever?

Human's Imperfect Construction of Time

Humans have attempted to interpret time in order to gain control over it. We have constructed a 24 hour day based on the cicadian rythym in humans and animals. However, scientists have found that when they put people indoors with no time cues, their bodies naturally adjust to a 25-hour day. Similarly, the commonly used calendar adds an extra day in February (a leap year) because the astronomical year is 365.25 days. Since our calendar year has 365 days, the leap year occurs every four years to make up for this discrepancy.

Does anybody have any insight to why our interpretation of time is skewed? Is there a way to make it more accurate?

Envy and Hate

If jealousy is the wanting of the beloved object, and envy is the feeling of competition with the rival, then I think jealousy is a normal emotion that shouldn't necessarily be considered negative. However, envy seems to be more about hatred of the rival. An envious person wont be happy if he/she gets the desired object/person/thing; he/she just wants to see the rival lose it and suffer. This sounds like hatred. I'm wondering why hate is not one of the seven deadly sins and envy is. Hatred is probably at the root at most envy, so how can hate and envy be distinguished?

Giving Up Power

In class we spoke a little bit about how it is wrong to expect a privileged group to give up some of their power. It was referred to as bringing them down to a lower level instead of the under privileged group striving to reach their level. I think that in many cases, privileged groups need to be willing to give up some of their power. As I feminist, I don't always desire the power that males have. For example, I do not want females to have the power to have a presence in society that is so threatening to men that they have to live in fear, the way women do. One big issue in feminism is sexual assault and male violence against women. But the goal of feminism is not to get women to be as powerful and threatening as males are so they can compete at their level. Men need to give up some of their power to achieve gender equality. This applies to many other issues, such as racial equality and economic equality. In his essay "What Motivates Socialists", Dr. Mark Cooray, argues that the problem with socialism is that there is a desire to bring privileged people down to the level of less privileged people. I agree with him, except I don't see anthing wrong with this.

Question: What's wrong with wanting a privileged group to give up some of their power?

Systems of Oppression

Our discussion on animal rights reminds me that all systems of oppression are connected. You cannot separate racism, sexism, classism, speciesism, or any other form of oppression. Bell hooks, a writer who focuses on the intersection of race, class, and sex, calls this ultimate system of oppression the "imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy". These different forms of oppression are not mutually exclusive. So, to stick up for one oppressed group, you must stick up for all of them. The ultimate enemy will always be the same thing. The human domination of other species is directly related to male domination, racial domination, class domination, etc.

Question: Why do so many people only care about the issues of one oppressed group, instead of all of them?

Attitudes about Feminism in the Classroom

Today in class, Professor Johnson simply mentioned a book about the connection between meat-eating and the oppression of women, and with the single mention of the word "feminism", comments were made that I thought were rude and insulting. For some reason, many people like to treat feminism as a joke, when they would never treat racial issues, other human rights issues, and animal rights issues as anything but gravely serious. The reason I am writing about this is because I find this offensive behavior appalling, especially in a classroom setting. Our class is male-dominated. The discipline of philosophy itself seems pretty male-dominated too. While this isn't necessarily anyone's fault, these insulting attitudes towards feminism could make it even more of a challenge for female students to be active participants in class discussions. I personally am drawn to philosophy because it challenges me to be open-minded and question things that I never did before. This dismissal of feminism and women's rights is the complete opposite of what philosophy should be about, in my opinion. To just write off women's perspectives without really considering them is a huge mistake, and it reflects poorly on you and your intellect. I am not counting this post as one of my 2 per week, I just really think this needed to be said.

Response to Michelle Webb

Michelle stated in her post that people who eat "cheap" meat such as McDonalds are making poor, uneducated decisions about their food and should probably spend more money on better quality meat. In an ideal world, this would be possible for everyone. However, many people- in America as well as all around the world- simply cannot afford to do that. This constant criticism towards McDonalds, and especially towards people who eat at McDonalds, is a kind of elitism. Not everyone has the means to eat high quality food, and even if they do, it's not our place to judge them for their decisions. The same thing goes for genetically modified food. The reality is that it is just cheaper and easier to eat food that has been genetically modified. Also, genetically modified food can help end starvation around the world.

It is completely valid to prefer organic, non genetically modified food. However, it is completely unfair to judge people who don't share this same view, or simply cannot afford to eat like that.

Response to William Trial

William asked, "When it comes to subject of religion, should an individual segregate their personal beliefs (Religious) from ethical and legal decisions?". First, I believe that it is impossible to separate personal beliefs from legal decisions and policy making. All laws are reflections of a society's values and morals. If your morals stem fro religious beliefs, than you will feel that your morals are just as valid as anybody else's. Second, I don't see anything wrong with basing political and legal opinions on religious beliefs. Since all beliefs are subjective, it shouldn't really matter where your morals stem from. Whether they have been shaped by personal experiences, empirical information, religion, or anything else, all beliefs are equally valid. Since we live in a democracy, our laws are supposed to reflect the values our society as a whole can agree upon. If the majority of our society has religious beliefs that impact their political views, then our laws should reflect that.

A Common Ground?

In class on Wednesday we decided that, although Clark's "pragmatic empiricism" is not a neutral ground for naturalists and supernaturalists, it is a common ground, because everybody has access to "this-world" empirical facts. However, I would have to disagree that everybody has equal access to this kind of knowledge. Not everybody is privileged enough to receive a quality education- or any education at all. We are forced to rely on people- parents, teachers, scientists, etc- to give us information. We trust them to give us empirical facts, but we don't have the same access to this information as they do.

Question: How can we even the playing field for people who don't have direct access to empirical knowledge?

Response to Shelby; "Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism"

I, too, found Clark's essay to be biased in favor of naturalism. Clark portrays religious people as dangerous extremists, but anyone can be an extremist, whether or not they are religious. For example, Clark cites Sam Harris, who stated that it may be ethical to kill religious extremists. But isn't he, too, an extremist? He sounds more dangerous than the average church goer/temple goer/ etc.

Clark's essay implied that naturalists are more grounded in reality and facts than supernaturalists. However, I think that even if you simply believe in science-nothing else- that is still a belief. You are still faithful to something and worship it. I think Shelby was right when she said that supernaturalists probably question their beliefs more than naturalists. However, as somebody who relies more on science than faith, I think I should challenge my own views that I believe to be based in fact. It is no secret that facts can be misconstrued, misinterpreted, and twisted to fit the beliefs of the person presenting them. It is important to question things that we take for granted as being true.

Why does our society tend to favor science over faith?

Women as Aesthetically Pleasing Objects

Many people believe that women are seen as objects of desire in our culture. However, I would like to argue that women, in some respects, are actually seen as aesthetically pleasing objects. Contemporary women are expected to wear makeup. Makeup is analogous to paint. Women paint their faces to become aesthetically pleasing to both men and women- not sexually but simply aesthetically. Similarly, fashion is considered a kind of art- women like to get dressed up not for necessarily for men, but just to look pretty. But the most concerning beauty standard for women is probably the "thin ideal". Contemporary women are expected to be thin, and often too thin. I believe that, for some reason, thin women are aesthetically pleasing (to both men and women). Although women with eating disorders are often thought of as sexy, there's really not anything sexual about them. They tend to lose their sex drive, as well as their ability to conceive and carry a child. In class, we briefly discussed the evolutionary perspective of this: certain features are considered beautiful in women because they represent fertility or nurturance. I disagree. As I just described, the ideal women in our society would be physically ill-fitted to mother a child. So, we created this thin ideal because it aesthetically pleasing- not because it is sexually desirable.

How many times have we heard someone compare a women's body to a violin? This comparison is not being made because both things are desirable (I'm assuming here that the person saying this is not attracted to the violin) but because both things are aesthetically pleasing. Art is far more likely to depict female nudity than male nudity. This is not sexual. It's because we find women's bodies to be something nice to look at. Women's bodies are canvases for them-or others- to form a work of art. The objectification of women in our society certainly has something to do with sexuality and desire, but we tend to overlook the aesthetic aspect of it.

Question: Why are thin women aesthetically pleasing to us?

NOTE: I hope this post isn't found to be offensive. I am certainly not attacking thin women/women with eating disorders. I simply disagree with the thin ideal in our society.

An Objective Truth (Response to Barry Sullivan)

In response to the quote "There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that play the devil" stated by Alfred North Whitehead, Barry said that truth is subjective. I think that the way we perceive truth is definitely subjective, and we may never know an objective truth in this life. However, I do believe that there is an objective truth beyond our ability to perceive it. I interpreted Whitehead's quote a bit differently. To me, he is saying that the way humans perceive and relate truth are really only have truths, because we are limited in our understanding of truth. However, that doesn't mean that there is no objective truth out there. What I'm wondering is, as humans, do you think it's possible that we can find an objective truth?

What Is Real/True?

In high school, I always preferred Math and Science to English and History. My reasoning was this: English and History are products of humanity, which is flawed. Math and Science were discovered; they were always here. How could I accept the rules of grammar, when they seemed so random? I always asked my English teachers, "Why can't you say someone "did good"? The only answer I ever got was "that's just the rule". This didn't seem very "real" to me. Similarly, I found it very hard to really believe my history textbooks- how could I really know that the authors were telling the whole truth? They had to have been biased when they wrote it. Despite my skeptical nature, I never questioned math and science. I really believed (and I still do, so far) that math had always existed; it was simply discovered by humans- not created. However, I am very open to possibly be proven wrong. In what way has math been constructed by humans? Also, I think we tend to value natural, inherent things over the "constructed". Why is that? Is something not true just because it was constructed?