Monday, May 9, 2016

Do we generally use reason or emotion (or other wok) to make ethical decisions? Which one should we use?

I'm not good with choosing sides. Do we base our decisions off of our emotions or reasoning? Ethics may seem emotionally motivated, I mean, why would we make an entire system based on feelings of sentimental values otherwise? However, there are fringes of logic in every socially acceptable moral value. If we were to see every issue through an emotionally-motivated lens, it would be difficult (and at times, impossible) to comprehend why there are multiple views regarding a single issue; however, with logic, we are able to reach compromise, (hopefully) understand why someone may think a certain way, and even change our opinions. Without logic, we wouldn't see progression in society, as all our emotionally-driven decisions would remain static. However, it's easier to appeal to someone from an emotional standpoint than a logical one. Our reasoning is individualized but emotion is a common ground we all share, and through this, we are able to exploit it to ignite change. 

This isn't to say that there aren't certain cases where a person makes an ethical decision (ethical in this situation meaning that it doesn't hurt any living creature or break any laws) using only logic or only reason. For example, if I decide to marry an ugly old rich man with a horrible personality, that decision is logical because I want to be financially secure while engaging in as little work as possible. I clearly didn't choose to marry him because I feel any emotional attachment to him. However, if I decide that a movie is sad, there isn't any reasoning behind that, it's simply the way I feel. But more often than not, more complex ethical decisions use a mix of logic and emotion. 

So, is there a correct way to make decisions? Again, I'm not good with choosing sides. Whether to be ruled by logic or emotion is determined on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes it's both, sometimes it's neither. There's no true way to determine how someone can make decisions because we're not that person. There's no way to calculate every single consequence stemming from a single decision. Just go with the flow, man.

Monday, May 2, 2016

What are the three biggest problems facing universities today? What problems of knowledge do these represent?

These issues faced by universities are in no particular order.

Prestige: Rankings have become the be-all, end-all for a majority of universities in the U.S. The top 50 schools in the U.S. are constantly switching spots, as their rankings vary from year to year. These universities find small ways to influence their rankings, such as attracting more applications to the school (this is a factor that influences rankings, and is often why you see emails from colleges asking you to apply) while accepting the same number of students, in order to climb up the ladder and convince teens to invest their time and money in the college. Schools that stay in the lower ranks invest in more superficial things, such as recreation complexes, food, or sports teams, in order to attract potential students for reasons other than academics. Community colleges, which often provide affordable and valuable programs, are shunned in general society, placing a price on knowledge.
Problems of Knowledge:
Emotion - The construction of  these extravagant facilities is to ensure the well-being and enjoyment of the "college experience" by the students. However, does this help or hinder a student's ability to learn? Do all the distractions on campus detract from the reason why people study there (this applies especially to "party schools")? In addition, many people become the value of their school, if a smart person with a good work ethic goes to a community college for any number of reasons, does this take away from their good characteristics as a whole?

Cost: The increasing cost of college has put a burden on both students and parents. Students in the U.S. are paying more than any other generation has had to do so in the past. As people in student debt begin to default on their loans and a market bubble forms around universities, it becomes more and more obvious that this is not a sustainable system.
Problems of Knowledge:
Ethics - The price tag on tuition creates a divide between the value of knowledge and the costs associated with living on a college campus. Is it  right to put a price on knowledge? Is knowledge quantifiable? If so, is the cost of going to university a good measurement?

Value: With growing concern over the cost of college and a university's resources, the question of whether or not a college education is useful begins to appear more and more. If a college is unable to provide sustainable, appropriate employment to its graduates, is it really worth all the money and time? If a student majors in an impracticable discipline, such as philosophy, is it on the university's shoulders to be honest with the student about their choices, or is it solely the student's responsibility to major in something practical, rather than something they are passionate about?
Problems of Knowledge:
Language - Is it time for universities to be honest and tell students that college is not a place to"follow your dreams" if it is not practical? Should colleges be honest about how they can approach job placement in their advertising?

Monday, April 25, 2016

"Ivory Tower" Knowledge Question

To what extent does emotion diminish validity in the human sciences?

Is economics a science?

Economics is one of the few disciplines that lands in the cross hairs of quantitative data and qualitative information. The study of economics is systematic, somewhat  repeatable (the methodology of the experiments are anyway, maybe not the conditions that they take place in), and the conclusions that economists reach are substantiated by the qualitative and quantitative data they collect.

Economics is a study of the physical world and human sciences. Money is a major part of our world and society, and the study of it affects not only our physical world, but a number of disciplines in the human sciences. The frequent use of observing how a part of the physical world functions and drawing conclusions from one's observations makes economics a science.

The study of economics begins to diverge from the traditional scientific method when we take its reliance on human behavior into account. The changing opinions and preferences of millions (or billions) of people is virtually unpredictable. It is impossible to account for a million different, specific lifestyles. While economics fulfills the prerequisites of a scientific discipline, its predictions are almost always inaccurate because it must take into account some of the biggest variables in existence.

Monday, March 14, 2016

Emotional Intelligence Quiz (New and Improved)


  1. I feel that all emotions are important.
    • Strongly agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly disagree
  2. I am able to stay calm in high-pressure situations.
    • Strongly agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly disagree
  3. I am able to take criticism without becoming defensive or overly emotional.
    • Strongly agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly disagree
  4. I am able to handle setbacks and obstacles constructively and easily.
    • Strongly agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly disagree
  5. I manage my anxiety, stress, and fear constructively and healthily.
    • Strongly agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly disagree
  6. I feel good about myself.
    • Strongly agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly disagree
  7. I use the criticism I receive to improve my personal growth. 
    • Strongly agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly disagree
  8. I am positive.
    • Strongly agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly disagree
  9. I am able to explore others' perspectives in a fair and just manner. 
    • Strongly agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly disagree
  10. I recognize how my behavior affects others.
    • Strongly agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly disagree
  11. I can admit to my mistakes.
    • Strongly agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly disagree
  12. I am able to listen without judgement. 
    • Strongly agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly disagree
  13. I understand that being emotionally available to others is sometimes necessary. 
    • Strongly agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly disagree
  14. I think only with my emotions, your heart is your true compass.
    • Strongly agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly disagree
  15. I air my grievances whenever necessary in a healthy and skillful manner. 
    • Strongly agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly disagree

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Which a more reliable source of knowledge, sense perception or reason?


Often we hear the phrase, "seeing is believing", however, this is rarely the case. For example, take a look at the picture above. Your sense perception, what you are seeing, tells you that the picture is moving; when in reality, it is standing still. With this information, you are able to reason that the picture above is an optical illusion. However, without seeing the image above, would you have been able to reach this conclusion? On their own, sense perception and reasoning are both unreliable sources of knowledge. However, when combined, they often allow our minds to reach greater findings and confirm (or deny) them.

The older we get, the more we draw on our reasoning as a source of knowledge. This may be due to the fact that we acquire more background knowledge through our experiences through our memories and experiences as we age, or because our senses begin to weaken and fail us as we grow into senior citizens. Inversely, the younger a person is, the more they rely on their sense perception as a source of knowledge because of the lack of past experiences to reflect upon, as well as how much more there is to taken in with your senses when everything in your environment appears new to you. However, relying on sense perception alone is dangerous because of how subjective it is. The associations that one person has with a certain color, smell, or taste may not be the same as that of another person's. Sure, there are general pieces of information that one can derive from sense perception, such as, "red = danger" or "cold = jacket", but it becomes impractical on its own when one is searching for a greater knowledge or solutions. Reason comes into play at this point, as the conclusions that we are able to come to utilize background knowledge and the thought process in general. However, it is necessary to use sense perception to justify that conclusion.

For example, look at the term "scientific theory" or "mathematical theorem". Often theories or theorems (at least the important ones, anyway) are based on a high amount of reasoning and logical thinking that allows one to reach a conclusion. When a theory can't be "proven" it does not necessarily mean that it is wrong, it simply signifies that the conclusion in question cannot be confirmed or denied by means of sense perception. A theory/theorem does not become a "law" until its actions and implications can be seen (and not just necessarily in nature, a mathematical equation may suffice in some cases), felt, heard, smelt, or tasted. People can formulate their conclusions or theories on other theories, but these conclusions do not become working knowledge in the natural world until they are justified by some form of sense perception.

Therefore, on their own, neither sources of knowledge are truly reliable. Reasoning will always run the risk of being untrue on its own, while sense perception reaches conclusions that are too simple and too common to be truly considered "knowledge". When the two sources work together, they are able to create "reliable" and important deductions.

Monday, March 7, 2016

What would the world be like if everyone spoke the same language? If no one spoke at all?

If everyone spoke the same language, communication would become less diverse and it would become impossible to explore one another's viewpoints. If everyone were to speak the same language, the world would be exactly the same if everyone were not speak at all.

With each separate language, dialect, and region comes a variety of cultural facets and attitudes that are able to expand the knowledge of every individual. While such barriers can be seen as obstacles, I would argue that the differences between each language tempts humans to explore more in order to understand one another better. With every variation in language not only do we, as people, discover more, but we also begin to understand more about the world around us.

In Russian there is a word called Тоска. It is impossible to translate the literal meaning of the word into English, however, it can be paraphrased to mean "yearning" or "melancholy". Yet, no single word in the English language can carry the magnitude of Тоска. It speaks of a type of pain that affects the soul, or the spirit, of a person. It is a type of anguish that seems like it will last forever, it is a type of longing that causes permanent restlessness in the brain. However, if the whole world were to speak only English, there is no possibility that this word could have been created. Without it, one would never be able to understand such a specific, yet important, emotion. While the word may be untranslatable, without it in the Russian language, such a concept would not exist. It would become impossible to sympathize with a person in such pain because it would become impossible to understand. It would become infinitely more difficult to learn more or expand one's knowledge because cultures and each variation in each language would be unable to contribute to the public's knowledge as a whole.

While it may seem that one universal language may only increase clarity in communication, it decreases our understanding of others and world around us, as it disallows for the possibility for multiple viewpoints to be established, developed, or contribute to the world as a whole.

However, if everyone were unable to speak, it would have the same effects as if everyone spoke the same language.

People would still be able to write, but more than likely poor and hard to understand writing would lead to greater misunderstanding. The small nuances that come with communicating with someone face-to-face or even simply through one's voice would be lost. Tone of voice, an important indicator in the meaning of one's words, would be lost. Certain cultural phenomenons, such as sarcasm, would cease to exist in the writing of the public eye. If no one was able to speak, the thirst for discovery and the varied viewpoints that contribute to knowledge as a whole would disappear; much like if everyone were to speak the same language.