Behave rationally

We all need to predict the world around us, including what other people will say and do. By definition, if others cannot predict how we will act, they will define us as irrational and hence avoid or attack us. It thus makes sense for us to at least appear rational, even if our thoughts are inconsistent.

To be rational in the eyes of others, we first need to be able to explain our own actions to ourselves. We are our own greatest judges, and only we know the truth, although having said that we do suppress negative feelings even from ourselves (although this is not an ultimately winning strategy -- the stress of suppression often comes back to bite us).

A defensive way of being rational is to judge the rationality of others, thus setting ourselves up as authorities and hence automatic winners. Blaming people and situations is to attribute cause, which is itself a rational action.

A common way of rationally helping others suppress negativity is in face-saving. By not criticizing them in public (or even in private), we enable them not to appear as losers. This approach, which is particularly strong in many global cultures, counter-balances the tendency to blame. Where face-saving strong, there may be special situations reserved for where honest and critical feedback may be given. In companies this typically is the annual performance appraisal process, where after months of face-saving, the criticism can come as a huge shock.

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?

Stoics and Epicureans

The Hellenistic period began with Alexander the Great taking the throne of Macedon in 336 B.C., and it lasted to the death of Cleopatra VII of Egypt in 30 B.C. Alexander's successful invasion of the Persian Empire has been noted as a starting point. The period came to a close after the Near and Middle East, between Rome and the Iranian kingdom of Parthia was divided.

Stoicism was a new philosophical movement that began during the Hellenistic period. Stoicism got its name from the porch in the Agora at Athens were people gathered and held lectures. Zeno of Citium (334-262 B.C.) is credited with being the founder of stoic philosophy. It is, however, the follow-up to materialism and Plato. The ultimate goal of stoicism is wisdom. The idea of the philosopher had been of a supreme power which was a principle rather than a person (Bryant, p. 28). The main edict given by stoicism was that one should be free from all worldly demands, and achieve wisdom by recognizing that one needs to harmonize personal desires and nature. Being frugal and unconcerned is the worldview of the stoic person. The stoic theory of knowledge turns about the enquiry after a criterion or standard by which what is true in our notions may be distinguished from what is false (Zeller, p.74). The Stoics did hold the position that emotions like fear and envy either came from, or out of, false thinking, and that a person who would be considered a sage was one who had attained moral and intellectual perfection and would not experience this type of faulty thinking. Stoics also adhered to the idea that the soul was a blank slate and that character was developed experientially from the outside world.

The fundamental idea of self-discipline has its roots in stoic philosophy. Epictetus being a student of Zeno helped firmly implant stoicism into the Roman culture. Of all of the Greek philosophical system transplanted to Rome, Stoicism was probably the most successful (Albert, p. 66). The Stoics identify as a moral people those who live in accordance with the dictates of reason (Albert, p. 67). They actually believe that happiness does not depend on having material wealth or success, but on the character of the individual is based on rationality or logic arising from knowledge. The origins of knowledge, in the Stoic system, enter the mind through the senses. This is the where the blank-slate theory comes in to the picture. The knowledge which enters through the senses is inscribed on the blank-slate.

From the ethical perspective, virtue is a good in itself. Good consists of acting in accordance with nature. Therefore, stoicism is somewhat deterministic in its approach because it says that a person can do nothing but conform to nature, and when there is a balance between virtue and nature wisdom is obtained. The stoic teaches that the universe is governed by absolute law without exceptions. They also teach that the essential nature of humans is reason. Seneca had a famous saying which seems to sum their ideas up, “Live according to nature.”

Epicurean philosophy, unlike the Stoic philosophy which embodied forms and ideas, was born from Atomism. Atomism basically says that 2 thing make up the universe, moving atoms and void (a giant black nothingness) which is basically a radical materialism. Epicurean philosophy is a mutually dependent system which says that the goal of human life (happiness, resulting from absence of physical pain and mental disturbance), a pragmatic theory of knowledge, an account of nature built on a form of atomistic materialism, and a naturalistic explanation of evolution, that spans the creation of the world to the appearance of human civilization. To put their system into layman’s terms is means they believe happiness equals pleasure. Epicureans believe that they should never do something without considering the pleasure it will yield. The level of pleasure received has a direct correlation on if it should be done. The real flaw in their thinking is that is pleasure equals the absence of pain, then to not be living would be preferable to life at all. According to Epicurus, it is not the state of the body, but the state of the mind. Bodily pleasure is of short duration, and has much of a disturbing character about it (Zeller, p. 451). However, Epicureans should be consistent in their beliefs and they are not. If they are consistent with their principles, (they) cannot deny that the bodily pleasure is the earlier form, and likewise the ultimate source, of all pleasure (Zeller, 451).

A mark of Epicureanism is friendship. The Epicurean philosopher places a high value on friendship because it is one of the greatest methods of achieving pleasure. Friendship provides the greatest security. They believe that a life without friends is lonely and full of trouble.

The basis for the Epicurean thought process is very empiricist and anti-skeptical. They believe that all of our knowledge comes though the senses, similar to the Stoics, and that we can trust the senses when used correctly. Unlike the Stoic belief that virtue is a good in and of itself, Epicureans believe that virtue contributes to happiness. There is a huge difference in this belief between the schools of thought. Virtue, or doing right because it is right (Stoicism), and virtue, or doing right because it makes one happy (Epicureanism) can often lead to very divergent places. If it makes me happy to take your car, am I doing the right thing? The Epicurean type of virtue, more often than not, leads to plain old hedonism, which means that the only good is found in what brings me pleasure, and anything else of value is only a tool to use to bring me the pleasurable experience. Epicurus, however, offered some idiosyncratic views about pleasure which is supposed to lead to a virtuous life without as much hedonistic influence. Hedonistic behavior is often attributed to Epicurean philosophy, but it is a common misconception.

In The Extant Remains, Bailey offers a final thought from Epicurus that gives insight to his eternal outlook,

“Some men throughout their lives gather together the means of life, for they do not see that the draught swallowed by all of us at birth is a draught of death. Against all else it is possible to provide security, but as against death all of us mortals alike dwell in an unfortified city...[But] I have anticipate thee, Fortune, and entrenched myself against all thy secret attacks. And we will not give ourselves up as captives to thee or any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who here vainly cling to it, we will leave life crying aloud in a glorious triumph-song that we have lived well. We must try to make the end of the journey better than the beginning, as long as we are journeying; but when we come to the end, we must be happy and content…Meditate therefore on these things and things akin to them night and day by yourself, and with a companion like yourself, and never shall you be disturbed waking or asleep, but you shall live like a god among men. For a man who lives among immortal blessings is not like a mortal being” (Albert, p. 63).


Crudelius est quam mori semper timere mortem
It is crueller to be always afraid of dying than to die

Albert, D. P. (1984). Great Traditions In Ethics. Belmont: Wadsworth, Inc.

Bryant, J. H. (1866). The Mutual Influence of Christianity and The Stoic School. London: Macmillan and Co.

Zeller, D. E. (1870 ). Stocis, Epicureans, and Sceptics. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.

t