It was, therefore, my sense that Talvitie’s work served as something of a bridge between the two paradigms that drew me to it. As is the case with all mental phenomena, the questions as to just how and where the unconscious might be, is associated with the mind-body problem that distinguishes monists and dualists. For monists, mind emerges from brain activity. Dualists hold that mind and brain are separate and cannot be reduced to each other. Dualism has largely fallen out of favour with most neuroscientists and Talvitie (2009) himself is clearly a monist.
Rachels discusses Descarte’s thoughts on the dreaming state, and how if we can be made to believe that our senses are correct there, than they cannot be trusted. The author discusses Philosophical thoughts on Idealism, in which it is considered that our perceptions of physical objects are not “real”, they are only mental ideas as recorded by our senses and imagined by our brains. Rachels discusses the attempts by Descartes to find a foundation for knowledge by identifying absolute truths, and concludes that the task may too difficult, or impossible. Quotes: I found it intriguing where the author wrote, “The mind does not simply record what passes before it; instead, the mind actively interprets experience according to certain built-in principles. Therefore, what we think of as “simple”
The difference Jung has with Freud’s theory of infantile sexuality and libido. Jung refused to accept that sexual instinct is the main psychological drive which led him to develop his own theory and therefore his own school of analytic psychology. The two characteristics of these theories I agree with are Alder’s four types of people and dream interpretation aided the treatment of patients. The two that I disagree with are Jung’s analytic psychology and Displacement is one of many defense mechanisms which are when a person is upset or angry with someone else and when he or she comes around other people they are still upset taking their anger out on people that had nothing to do with why she or he is
D.D. Palmers followed the metaphysical branch that the body has both an innate and a universal intelligence. This vitalistic approach gained Chiropractors that follow this belief the nickname ‘straights’, preferring to concentrate on subluxations of the spine only. Mechanistic Chiropractors verge more towards the normative sciences branch of philosophy. They reject both innate and universal intelligence as a belief.
The act was created to protect children and Templeman regarded the arguments on the words ‘is suffering’ as a distraction from the aim. ‘This is an example of judicial practicality and desire to see justice down’ . This case illustrates that the ‘rules’ of statutory interpretation do not have to be followed exactly and are merely guidelines. Lord Templeman states that the rules of interpretation have ‘an aura of scientific authenticity about them when the reality is that interpreting any document is more of an art than a science’ . In other words, the rules can only be guidelines because judges will clearly have different interpretations.
A quote by Albert Einstein “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” one of the most influential people discussing limitations on the rational mind. The argument between empiricism and rationalism seems to be a back and forth battle between a bunch of old guys arguing about which came first the chicken or the egg. Although when they were brought together is when it seems to make the most sense. For rationalism we have the belief that reason is the primary source of all knowledge, only reason itself can give meaning to experience and separate reality from illusion. To understand truth we must be completely sure of it, this requires a rational method of inquiry based on doubt.
They all elaborate and personify madness as a derivation of vitality, form of genius, sanity put to good use. You see, if I’m not mistaken, two of society’s most reliable sources contradict between their statements. And yet we haven’t come to the amusing part. Society is unable to differentiate let alone comprehend the difference between such astray notions. Gentleman, reflect and ponder, society should not define madness for us, society itself is mad.
When conducted honestly and thoroughly, the scientific method can and has provided valuable information about the world and the world’s people (Jackson, 2009). Though some people rely on other methods for gaining knowledge, scientists only accept knowledge gained through science to arrive at plausible truths (Jackson, 2009). Due in part to human error and the tendency of human nature to succumb to temptations to bias research, the results of the scientific method should be viewed with skepticism (Garzon, n.d.). The scientific method of seeking knowledge and finding truth must stay within the limits of scientific ability and allow for human fragility in order to be effective (Slick, 2012). References Garzon, F. (n.d.).
His theory is compared to the unseen floating Mass of a floating iceberg; where the unconscious contents far surpass in quantity the information that is in our conscious awareness. Freud maintained his stand by stating that when it comes to understanding personality, one must expose the unconscious. Due to the fact that the unconscious can be disguised to cover up the true meaning of the material it holds, the unconscious content cannot be observed directly. Therefore, you must interpret the unconscious in clues- slips of the tongue, fantasies, and dreams- to understand the unconscious process that direct behavior. For example, a slip of the tongue may be interpreted as revealing the speakers unconscious sexual desire.
What does Paul Feyerabend’s notion of “Epistemological Anarchism” mean? Evaluate this in relation to his critique of Kuhn’s Paradigms. While Emphasizing the subjective side of science, Kuhn claimed that operating within science means existing within the restrictive confines of the dominant paradigm, which attempts to limit particular questions that can be asked, how these are asked, and how their answers are formulated into viable scientific facts that are accepted by fellow scientists. This paradigm, in turn may actually obstruct the progress of science by nature of being untranslatable to other paradigms and impede rational argument. Kuhn states that a scientist’s switch between one paradigm to the next is similar to a “gestalt switch” where neural programming is required rather than argument and persuasion.