Aggression

Trying to put into words a theory of aggression caused me to question the evidence that supports various ideas of the origin of aggression. Freud's instinct theory of aggression is typical of most of what he wrote, focusing on the libido and his over-the-top motivation of sexual desires. While I give Freud credit for being creative, I cannot support his theory of aggression for several reasons, but my main complaint revolves around one point. That point is despite his concentration on childhood development, he apparently failed to observe children in his studies. His theories are, to a large extent, based on a guess.

Biological theories of aggression have a lot to offer about the physical and neurobiological causes of aggressive acts. Studying this theory has been intriguing because it leans toward my belief that there is a neurobiological component to behavior. The problem for me is that I have only seen limited confirmation in this area. I believe that evidence for biological causes of aggression will probably increase in the future.

For me the social learning theory seems to be the most well supported and documented theory of aggression. Not only is it widely applicable to men and women, girls and boys and members of all different age levels, but it also has been repeatedly modified and improved through the years.

One important thing I have learned throughout the years is that we should not examine a problem from just one angle. Doing so leads to narrow conclusions that are only applicable in certain situations.

Since this is a physiological class let’s look at aggression as an expression of the central nervous system. As I have learned, behaviors can be generated by an external input, from within the nervous system, by transitional reasons, or even by built-in inconsistency. Finally, in today's violent world we must consider aggression as a combination of many factors. By themselves, the factors are probably are harmless, but when they are added together, they can give rise to aggression.

Perceptions

Perception is a very tricky topic. If we are talking about the material world (physical realm) I believe that the reality of a situation is based upon the correspondence view of what is true (real). Metaphysically speaking, as I suppose we should be engaged in doing within this forum, perceptions could be described as, “what is there?” and “what is it like?”

This topic could encompass volumes of writing, but within this forum there is a need to be brief.

I have used the following many times to illustrate how perceptions can differ, but reality is static. If I say, “The grass is green,” I have offered my perception of what I believe the grass to look like. That perception is based on light emanating from the sun (or some artificial source), reflecting of off the grass, enters through the cornea, passes through the lens which bends the light, which then passes through the vitreous gel, and then is focused on the surface of the retina which contains the rods and cones. From there it travels via electrical impulses to the brain through the optical nerve. Is my perception accurate? That depends on several factors. Is the pathway the light travels through my eye healthy and “normal?” Does my brain process the electrical impulse correctly? Do I have the cognitive ability to decode the information? Finally, is the grass, in fact, green? If the grass is green, and I am healthy and/or at least functioning correctly, I am accurate in my assessment. At that point, the grass being green makes the content of my perception true. However, is it a true statement to say, “The grass is green,” if I am blind? Not only is it an accurate statement, it would an accurate perception even if I did not believe it to be true. It is reality that makes our perceptions true or false. I posit that it is through evidence that we determine if our perceptions are in tune with reality.

Do you believe truth is absolute?

Do you think it is possible to understand any subject completely?