(![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bluestareyed Aug. 18th, 2005 01:28 pm)
bluestareyed Aug. 18th, 2005 01:28 pm)the finished product
(cut for long rant about how philosophers suck)
Dorian Adams
Metaphysics
Summer 05’
Black and White People
Polarized thinking is that lovely event when someone can only see an issue in terms of “is/is not” and cannot or will not acknowledge the existence of gray areas, or accept the fact that the conclusion that he/she has reached may not be applicable to people with different beliefs and experiences. I personally believe that there is not a single issue we have discussed that is not affected by polarized thinking. I would go as far to say that there is very little in the world as far as issues go that is not affected by only seeing things in stark “is/is not” terms. Some would go so far as to say that it is human nature to see things this way.
Just the existence of so many different theories about the existence of the mind and the effect it has on the body illustrates one of the most frustrating aspects of polarized thinking. The worst of these is the theory of Materialism. Rather, the theory is not at fault, but the theorists who purport it are. The theory of Materialism states that there is no mind, that what we think is the mind is simply a function of your brain processes and imagination. When confronted with the holes and flaws in their theories, many Materialists respond with “you are just confused” instead of either backing up their claims or stopping and thinking that maybe there can be a mind that is the function of the body, but is a very real entity.
Mind/body theories also cover what life is, if there is a soul, when does that develop, or does it just pop into being? Many philosophers cannot accept the view that not being to being may be a gradual transition as well as alive to dead. To them, you are either alive, or you are not. This creates problems in many practical debates, a few of which were touched upon in class, such as abortion, in regards to the “being” of the fetus. Also mentioned, but not focused on, the issue of the mentally handicapped, such as when someone is brain dead, and the issue of removing them from life support. Polarized thinking has played huge roles in the development of the debates surrounding these issues, both philosophically and practically.
The problems these debates generally run into is when all is said and done, and the main points are boiled down to their lowest common denominator, that the debate was centered around the fact that the debaters did not agree on which line of thinking was true. Polarity in the debates regarding the nature of life and the soul and what makes you a “being” are part of what fuels the debates in the first place. Which leads to another big problem with polarized thinking. If you believe that something is either X or it is Y, it is very hard to accept that maybe that thing could be Z as well, or both X and Y. This is because Polarity usually arises from our own experiences and our own personal viewpoints. This seems to make people more emotionally charged about such beliefs. This makes debate very difficult indeed.
Polarity of thought has been my problem with philosophers since I started this class. As a result of polarity, we end up looking at sixteen different theories for one issue. It would have just been easier and more efficient to say “well, my theory states this, but it might be wrong” considering the fact that most of the issues covered in this class have been subjective. I have yet to see evidence that philosophers debate anything that can be proven empirically; therefore it is foolish to subscribe to polarized thought when there is no proof of the claims that are being made. They are based on logic, perspective, beliefs and personal experience, which are different for everyone. So, in my opinion, in a case like that, insisting on viewing the world through a lens that is purely black and white is ignorant at best and intolerant at worst.
(cut for long rant about how philosophers suck)
Dorian Adams
Metaphysics
Summer 05’
Black and White People
Polarized thinking is that lovely event when someone can only see an issue in terms of “is/is not” and cannot or will not acknowledge the existence of gray areas, or accept the fact that the conclusion that he/she has reached may not be applicable to people with different beliefs and experiences. I personally believe that there is not a single issue we have discussed that is not affected by polarized thinking. I would go as far to say that there is very little in the world as far as issues go that is not affected by only seeing things in stark “is/is not” terms. Some would go so far as to say that it is human nature to see things this way.
Just the existence of so many different theories about the existence of the mind and the effect it has on the body illustrates one of the most frustrating aspects of polarized thinking. The worst of these is the theory of Materialism. Rather, the theory is not at fault, but the theorists who purport it are. The theory of Materialism states that there is no mind, that what we think is the mind is simply a function of your brain processes and imagination. When confronted with the holes and flaws in their theories, many Materialists respond with “you are just confused” instead of either backing up their claims or stopping and thinking that maybe there can be a mind that is the function of the body, but is a very real entity.
Mind/body theories also cover what life is, if there is a soul, when does that develop, or does it just pop into being? Many philosophers cannot accept the view that not being to being may be a gradual transition as well as alive to dead. To them, you are either alive, or you are not. This creates problems in many practical debates, a few of which were touched upon in class, such as abortion, in regards to the “being” of the fetus. Also mentioned, but not focused on, the issue of the mentally handicapped, such as when someone is brain dead, and the issue of removing them from life support. Polarized thinking has played huge roles in the development of the debates surrounding these issues, both philosophically and practically.
The problems these debates generally run into is when all is said and done, and the main points are boiled down to their lowest common denominator, that the debate was centered around the fact that the debaters did not agree on which line of thinking was true. Polarity in the debates regarding the nature of life and the soul and what makes you a “being” are part of what fuels the debates in the first place. Which leads to another big problem with polarized thinking. If you believe that something is either X or it is Y, it is very hard to accept that maybe that thing could be Z as well, or both X and Y. This is because Polarity usually arises from our own experiences and our own personal viewpoints. This seems to make people more emotionally charged about such beliefs. This makes debate very difficult indeed.
Polarity of thought has been my problem with philosophers since I started this class. As a result of polarity, we end up looking at sixteen different theories for one issue. It would have just been easier and more efficient to say “well, my theory states this, but it might be wrong” considering the fact that most of the issues covered in this class have been subjective. I have yet to see evidence that philosophers debate anything that can be proven empirically; therefore it is foolish to subscribe to polarized thought when there is no proof of the claims that are being made. They are based on logic, perspective, beliefs and personal experience, which are different for everyone. So, in my opinion, in a case like that, insisting on viewing the world through a lens that is purely black and white is ignorant at best and intolerant at worst.