Please read chapter 2. After reading chapter 2, please respond to the following questions:
What were two things from the chapter that you found interesting? Why were they interesting to you? Which two things did you find the least interesting? Why? What did you read in the chapter that you think will be most useful to in understanding the history of psychology? Finally indicate two topics or concepts that you would like us to cover/discuss in more depth in class. Why?
Descartes’ reflex and mind-body interaction was interesting to me. I didn’t know psychology could be traced so far back in history. Even though Descartes wasn’t the first do try to explain reflexes he did provide a physiological model with his mind-body interaction. Descartes was wrong in his explanation; he thought reflexes were caused by animal spirits traveling to the mind and back.
Also, I didn’t know John Locke was associated with psychology, which I found interesting. Locke is more commonly known as the father of democracy or liberalism, because of his idea of the social contract. Locke believed ones knowledge of the world came from their experiences and interactions based on ones senses. I really liked Locke on education because being a future educator I could use what he was saying and relate it to something meaningful to me and my future.
Mills Logic was one part of the chapter which I didn’t find interesting. I think I didn’t in enjoy it as much partly because I didn’t understand it. Anytime something is explained with letters, XYZ, my brain shuts down and I have flashbacks to middle school algebra. Also, since I don’t understand Mills Logic it would be a good topic to go over in class with more concrete examples.
David Harley was also not very interesting to me, not necessarily because I didn’t understand some of what he researched. I found him to be more boring than other people in the chapter. Compared to Berkeley wasn’t as extreme in his experiments and I have never heard of him before reading this chapter so I didn’t have the background knowledge to relate to him. I understand he made contributions to the field of psychology, but this section was just not as interesting to me. It seemed to have more theory and important terms than other sections, which probably put my brain in hyper academic mode where it tries to understand the bolded words making the section more work than making connections on a larger scale.
I think learning about Descartes will be useful in studying the history of psychology because he shows how people have always had an interest in the mental process, but the science of psychology is relatively new; “long past, short history.” For me further explanation of Mills Logic and Berkeley’s perception and reality would be helpful. I didn’t understand Mills Logic at all with the examples used in the text. I understand a little of what Berkeley is saying, but it could be clearer.
The first thing that I found interesting came on page 33 of the book and dealt with Descartes Discourse on Methods. I really perked up when I started reading about his 4 methods of thinking. First was to not accept anything as truth unless,"it presented itself so clearly and distinctly to my mind that there was no reason to doubt it". Second he would take problems and analyze them until they were reduced until their fundamental elements. Third moving from simplest forms to more complex and finally check his work to make sure that he had not forgotten anything. I found this interesting because like the book says, they are not revolutionary ideas by todays standards and can be seen in simpler terms. However, at the time when they were conceived they were revolutionary because it relied on nobody but yourself. I like the concept that a person can be individually responsible for find truth and not have to rely on any authority figure to do so.
The idea of empiricist, was also a cool idea that really resonated with me. I am a big believer in experiences being absolutely vital to gaining knowledge and enhancing a persons life. The definition really caught my eye on page 37 because I had no idea this was an actual scientific term. My patents always told me that every experience has something vital and important to it and to make sure that I always took something away from it whether good or bad. Descartes talks about this idea with empiricist and the book reinforces that with the idea of Associationism. Locke also talks about this but his moves a little farther into his social contract, which is great but not exactly something that I want to talk about now. However, Locke's social contract is one of the things i would like to go over in class together.
Berkeley's topic about applying these theories to vision was a little boring for me to read because it shifts the focus away from more abstract ideas to less interesting ones for me. I am more interested in the theories and ideas that the book talked about as opposed to the motor mechanics and biology of the body as it is talked about around the convergence and accommodation section.
Lastly I found the last few pages of the chapter about Lebniz to be much less memorable and interesting as the articles about Mill and Descartes were. Maybe the chapter was just poorly written or I read it too quickly, either way i was much more hard pressed to remember his ideas,experiments and contributions. I feel like his ideas were much more radical and "out there" compared to some of the other contributors but at the same time perhaps that is what makes him so appealing to others, just not me.
The first thing I found interesting was Ebbinghaus' quote, "Psychology has a long past, yet its real history is short." I thought this was a great way to start off the chapter, and it kind of tied in to last week's chapter, which was nice. It just reiterates the fact that the basic questions and topics that concern the psychology field are not a new thing, yet psychology as a science is still relatively new. Up until the 60's or so, people didn't see psychology as a separate discipline whatsoever, whereas now, we see it as its own science, its own field. Another point in the chapter I found interesting was the section on the Empiricist's perspective. I totally agree with the idea that the majority of our knowledge is based on prior experience rather than genetics. The empiricists, unlike Descartes and Kant, do not put much faith in the concept of innate ideas; experience instead is key.
I must say that I found basically this entire chapter to be fairly uninteresting. I took an intro to philosophy class during my sophomore yet, and this chapter was a brief overview of everything I studied there. I guess I don't really see the necessity of this philosophy chapter at all. A particular section that I found to be especially uninteresting was the section on Descartes. I understand that he is considered the father of modern philosophy, etc., but I think the authors went too into depth here. It went into such detail about Descartes' ideas about reflexes and animal spirits, then went on to list all the theories that he put faith into: Rationalism, nativism, dualism, interactionism, and so on and so forth. It seemed to drag on, and I didn't really get much from the section.
The two parts that I did think could be useful in studying the history of psychology were the sections concerning rationalism and empiricism. I am still not entirely sure how important it is in regards to psychology; however, when studying history, names like Hume, Kant, and Locke are definitely important ones to know. John Locke absolutely had a huge effect on psychology; his theory of "tabula rasa" was a very important perspective of the nature/nurture debate. Likewise, it is useful for us to know Immanuel Kant's theories and his (totally false) idea that psychology could never become a science.
The first thing I would like to know more about is: Why exactly is it necessary for us to study philosophy for a history of psych course? I have never even heard these philosophers mentioned in a psychology course before (besides Locke, of course), and if I have, the names have only been mentioned in passing. It is important to know these things for history, true, but psychology? Why? Another thing I'd like some more details on is Hume's 3 laws of assocation. I didn't really understand when we were supposed to use the "laws" or what they were even useful for.
"Likewise, it is useful for us to know Immanuel Kant's theories and his (totally false) idea that psychology could never become a science."
To me, Kant's view was more understandable when taken together with the (hilarious!) section on Mill (i.e., psychology is about as much of a 'science' as meteorology - and we all know how accurate that is).
I thought that grounding psychology in the longer tradition of philosophical thought was interesting, as humans have been asking similar questions regarding knowledge/perception/thought for much longer than the past 100-odd years. Thus the history of philosophy may provide a useful framework for understanding the role and history of psychology as a science/branch of learning.
It was interesting (revealing) to me that Goodwin focused on Dualism and Empiricism as the philosophical foundations for psychology. Goodwin appears to be saying that the history of psychology is the history of experimental psychology. The philosophers discussed seem to have been included more because they can be seen to support this view than because of their contributions to philosophy/psychology. (In other words, I think that Goodwin’s choice of philosophers was more interesting that the actual discussion of those philosophers.)
The primary emphasis in this chapter seemed to be on British Empiricism. This was purely an editorial choice, and one that I think was made only to imply a specific philosophical foundation for experimental psychology. Later Rationalists, Idealists, Phenomenologists and others have more interesting things to say about how we perceive, how we think and how we know than were presented in this chapter.
(Though I did like the inclusion of Leibniz’ ‘veined marble’ analogy, as this seems to speak directly to the individual’s potential and the Nature/Nurture question.)
I also think that a discussion of the Stoics vis-à-vis cognitive behavioralism would have been interesting and appropriate, rather than skipping all the way to Descartes. (That is, if we are interested in learning about the philosophical foundations for all of the schools of psychology, rather than just one.)
In fact, Descartes (a Rationalist) only seems to be brought in as a way to ground the other philosophers (Empiricists) who disagreed with him. That really doesn’t say much for Descartes’ contribution to philosophy/psychology.
Something else that I think might be interesting would be a discussion of mind/body Dualism in terms of the Social Contract. Hobbes saw society as an organic body with the State as its head; can it be said that the mind holds this same station in the individual? (Jokes about the various organs of the body arguing over who is in charge notwithstanding.) Is psychology founded on just this relationship?
One of the things I found most interesting was Gottfied Leibniz and how he formed his own idea on the mind being a blank slate or learning by experience. Leibniz stated that the mind has innate properties that help determine the limits and shape the effects of experience (he describes it like a marble). I found his idea to be intersting because he started to use all of his different interests (mathematics etc) to help prove his ideas with reason and logic, not just experience. I also found John Locke's ideas on education to be interesting. His "advice" to me seemed kind of out there and how it helps with education I'm not sure, but none the less I found it interesting to see how he believed that children who slept on hard beds, and had cold feet would be able to have a sound mind to learn more.
What I really didn't find interesting was the Cartesian System with rationalism, nativism etc. I found it very boring and tough to read through. To me the section on Descartes just continued to go on and on. I found John Mill's section to be slightly dull as well. I read about Mills methods in psychology breifly in high school and still have yet to see how it flows with psychology.
One part of this chapter that I think will be useful in studying psychology's history is the section on John Locke. I believe he had a lot to do with British Empiricism and it would be good to know more about how these ideas emerged. I also think its important and useful to know about the British Association to see the difference between both assoication and empiricism and to see how the added to the science of psychology.
I would like to know more about Mills methods and his psychology because I would like to know how it ties in with psychology and to better understand it. I also think talking about all of the philospers/scientists and how they are connected to psychology and each other is important as well to begin to understand history and for me to have a better view of psycholgy's past.
One of two things I found interesting about chapter two is that psychology’s history begins with advances in many other various subjects such as philosophy, science, and empiricism. I have learned about Descartes, Hume, Locke and Berkley before in history classes. Chapter two provided more in depth knowledge of their discovery and its contributions to psychology rather than to history itself. It was interesting to see how all these different discoveries overlapped and built on each other. The connectedness between so many subjects coming together to create the history of psychology is really interesting.
Another aspect of chapter two that I find interesting is how all these new discoveries in different subjects were just shy of what the book called “the holy grail” of discoveries. As a history I also look at the environment or context of the situation. It is amazing that these discoveries or that these people’s education and discoveries even happened considering the time, and the influence of the church in almost all parts of society.
The parts of the chapter I find the least interesting is the details of the individuals experiments, the comparing and contrasting of one’s ideas to the next individual ideas. I also don’t like the explicit details on the scientific approach and method of psychology.
One of the most important things in the chapter that will be useful to understanding the history of psychology is the environment in which these discoveries are made. It is important to remember that sometimes our surroundings call for certain ideas. Locke, Berkley, Hume, Kant and Descartes made very important progress, but sometimes it fell short by today’s standards and we must remember, the age in which they lived in.
In class I would like to focus on the Renaissances period in history. I think the context of this time period and situation is very important to all these discoveries. It is important to discuss what was going on in society and why the Catholic Church had a list of books that were banned or forbidden. Another important topic to focus on is how these discoveries created the foundation for modern ideas, and d created the stepping stones to guide us to our present place in psychology.
I found the section about Descartes to be particularly interesting. In my cognitive psychology class, we often discussed whether the mind or body could be considered a machine, and we talked about Descartes ideas on mechanistic interactionism. I found it interesting to gain more information on that particular subject since I have previously been partially exposed to it. I also found it interesting that due to the time he lived in, he could not publish his work until after he died or he would have been condemned by the church.
I also found the section on Berkeley to be very interesting. I like learning about the reasoning people have for doing research, so learning that a legend says that Berkeley gained interest in sensation by witnessing a hanging was very interesting to me. I also thought the fact that he arranged to have his friends hang him was fascinating. I enjoyed learning that his work on perception is considered the "first systematic example of empiricist thinking."
I did not find the section on John Stuart Mill to be very interesting. I felt that it was a longer section, and I felt that it was more confusing. As stated before I also found it very hard to read the section with so many letter representations (X,Y) present. I also had a problem while reading this section because I have taken many courses, such as biology, that have covered genes that I could not find interest in reading about them.
I also did not find the David Hume section interesting. I realize that his ideas were important, and that many (such as cause and effect) are still used today. I have taken many classes, such as research methods, that have covered Hume’s proposed laws of association: resemblance, contiguity, and cause/effect. I could not find interest in reading the material.
I think that learning about the time period of time that much of the chapter covers would be helpful in learning about the history of psychology. For example, I like to learn about the church’s role in science and experiments. I also like to learn about risks that many of the philosophers mentioned took in order to have their work known. For example, many delayed the publication of their work, and Galileo’s work was condemned by the church.
I would like to cover Mill’s ideas more in depth because I had a hard time reading through the section in the book. I would like to hear more about it in a way that I may be able to understand. I think it would be interesting to cover how empiricism came to be used in philosophy and psychology. When did someone decide that their opinions weren’t enough, and search for evidence supporting their ideas?
After reading my post, I found my reasoning for interests to be somewhat confusing. I would like to clarify what I find interesting and not interesting. I like learning more background about topics that I am partially exposed to. For example, in my cognitive psychology course, we touched base on Descartes ideas, but we never got into too much detail about him.
Once I cover a topic too many times, I lose interest in it, such as covering genes.
I also enjoy learning more about people and why they research what they do in comparison to the actual theories they come up with.
A couple pages into this chapter I found something interesting about the rediscovering of ancient texts and revolutionizing the arts. In the 1450's Johannes Gutenberg invented a new form of the printing press, which enabled books to be created in larger numbers than ever thought possible (Goodwin 30). What interested me about this was the fact we gain so much knowledge through readings of books. This invention expanded our neurological abilities on so many levels. Reading is something that people take for granted and do not appreciate the works of great authors as much as they should.
Something else that I thought to be interesting was the discovery of our solar system. All it took was a man with a giant lense to demonstrate that the earth is not the center of the universe. I think it is funny how people can be so bashful to new ideas, theories, or other events that may be different than the current norm.
Something that I think we should discuss more in class are the ideas of Rene Descartes. I think the contirbutions of this person brings to the table some great discussions about the dualist argumentations.
Something else I would like to discuss is are there any more individuals who formulate these kinds of theories? I would like to discuss who these people might be? Where they may live, and other information about people simulating a figure like Descartes.
I did not like the discussion on materialism. I am writing this for the wrong reasons. I find it very interesting to talk about determinism and the thoughts that all events have prior causes. I do not like the idea that I am not in control though.
Something else that I did not like was the discussion about subjective idealism. Again I am writing this for the wrong reason. Some of this fascinates me. However at the same time it bothers me. I ask myself sometimes what real, really is? How do you define real? If real is what you can taste, touch, smell, hear, and see than real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. If you don't see it that way than maybe real does not exist. These thoughts kind of scare me. I like believing in the real and believing that I am in control of my mind and body.
I think the talks on philosophy would be great to discuss in class as well. All of these theories would bring out many opinions in people.
The way one person perceives the world is completely different from the person sitting next to them, which many philosophers in this chapter found to be true. The way we interact in the world is based on interactions we have throughout our lives. Finding a way to measure this is nearly impossible. Specifically I found Berkeley’s Theory of Vision to be particularly interesting. He explained this phenomenon as “we do not see objects directly; rather we make judgments about them based on visual information and our experiences” (45). We can only be certain that we are perceiving, which is known as subjective idealism or immaterialism. I found it interesting that he thought it as more individual which gives people more freedom in what they think, it makes it not so black and white. “In Berkeley’s view, all our thoughts, passions, ideas exist within the mind. Anything that is outside of mind is unintelligible; it is impossible that we should ever come to know it, and so we cannot even think about it. Hence anything that is outside of mind has no meaning to us.” (Heath, Ian 2003) We then base the creation of things in our imagination off of this that perceive in the world. (Heath, Ian 2003)
Berkeley was religiously oriented. To explain the questions “does a tree falling in the forest only exist if we hear it?” (45), Berkeley explained this as there being a “Permanent Perceiver”. It gives people a basis to reality. The only flaw with the idea of a Permanent Perceiver is for those who don’t believe in god. What is the basis for reality for these people? By putting this idea into question he changed “how knowledge is acquired from a purely philosophical question to a more psychological one” (45).
James Mill was very interested in the developing mind. He wanted to fill the “empty white paper of his son’s mind with as much information as possible” (50). Growing up John Stuart Mill never interacted with other children and was taught only by his father. He became a remarkable student and by the time he was twelve he was at the same level as a graduate. He was an experiment his entire life. This is such an interesting concept. How would this later affect him in life? He went into a severe depression in 1826 and believed it was caused by his father only developing his intellect and not his emotions (Stanford encyclopedia). He saw life very empiricist and credited his experiences for his talent rather than to his innate ability. (51) He believed that anyone could be knowledgeable if they were given the right opportunities, which I believe, but also they must be willing to put forth the effort to succeed. I would like to discuss the topic of nature vs nurture in class. It is a very debatable topic, but it’s very interesting to hear others perspectives.
I thought a lot of the chapter was uninteresting to me. I’ve never taken a philosophy class and I’m not entirely sure I’d enjoy it. (Sorry for anyone that likes it!) The section on Descartes was very long which made it hard to keep my attention. The multiple pages he had could have been summarized into just a few. Discussing in depth each person’s theories, this tended to be very similar and difficult to pay attention while reading.
Things that would be beneficial to learn more about to help in the study of psychology would be the section on John Stuart Mills. Looking into how he was raised and the effects it had on his development. Another thing that would be important to know would be Descartes ideas about the reflex. It is something important that we need to study to understand more about how the brain interacts with the body and the world around it.
Something I would like to discuss in class would be how these philosophers connect with psychology directly. Another thing I’ve learned about many times was the inverted retinal image, but I’ve never fully understood how it was fully explained.
http://www.modern-thinker.co.uk/4%20-%20criticisms.htm
http://www.modern-thinker.co.uk/4%20-%20subjective%20idealism.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#Lif
One of the topics from the chapter that I found most interesting was Descartes research on nerves. I found this very interesting because of how close he was to describing nerve synapses as well as reflexes. It’s really interesting how close he was on his theories without having much in terms of technology to accurately analyze this topic. The other topic I found very interesting was John Locke’s views on education. His views on the behaviorism of developing children are very similar in ways to how we analyze behaviorism today. It also gives us insight to how people may have reared their children in the 1600’s or potentially the best way parents could have reared their children at their time.
One of the topics of the chapter I found least interesting was the extreme detail of researchers past before the book discusses what the researcher has discovered. These history bits are very informative and necessary to supply the correct background information, but don’t make for the most interesting reading material. Another topic I found un-interesting was the close up on raising a philosopher. The information tied well into the chapter in terms of talking about some of the great thinkers of earlier times. However, I feel that the chapter would have been just as effective with or without the information in this particular close up.
One of the topics I found most interesting will be most useful to me in understanding the history of psychology. Locke’s views on education and behaviorism will be of great use to me as an educator. Understanding how behaviorism was viewed in the past can help me to better understand it now. Having a good grasp of what behaviorism is will help me significantly as an educator.
I think it would be helpful if we went over how each of the people discussed in the chapter influenced psychology. I think this would be good because it would help us to reinforce what we read. Another topic that I would find beneficial if we went over in class would be if we went over Mill’s logic. I found the concept a bit confusing and if we went over it briefly in class it would help to more clearly define the topic.
One of the topics from the chapter that I found most interesting was Descartes research on nerves. I found this very interesting because of how close he was to describing nerve synapses as well as reflexes. It’s really interesting how close he was on his theories without having much in terms of technology to accurately analyze this topic. The other topic I found very interesting was John Locke’s views on education. His views on the behaviorism of developing children are very similar in ways to how we analyze behaviorism today. It also gives us insight to how people may have reared their children in the 1600’s or potentially the best way parents could have reared their children at their time.
One of the topics of the chapter I found least interesting was the extreme detail of researchers past before the book discusses what the researcher has discovered. These history bits are very informative and necessary to supply the correct background information, but don’t make for the most interesting reading material. Another topic I found un-interesting was the close up on raising a philosopher. The information tied well into the chapter in terms of talking about some of the great thinkers of earlier times. However, I feel that the chapter would have been just as effective with or without the information in this particular close up.
One of the topics I found most interesting will be most useful to me in understanding the history of psychology. Locke’s views on education and behaviorism will be of great use to me as an educator. Understanding how behaviorism was viewed in the past can help me to better understand it now. Having a good grasp of what behaviorism is will help me significantly as an educator.
I think it would be helpful if we went over how each of the people discussed in the chapter influenced psychology. I think this would be good because it would help us to reinforce what we read. Another topic that I would find beneficial if we went over in class would be if we went over Mill’s logic. I found the concept a bit confusing and if we went over it briefly in class it would help to more clearly define the topic.
One thing that I found interesting about this chapter was the amount that Descartes accomplished in his lifetime, especially since the textbook portrayed him as a lazy man who slept in and learned about the world as he stumbled upon it. As I read about Descartes, I did not get the impression that he was lax about his work in any way, but the textbook made it clear in one paragraph that this is how he was perceived. I, personally, was immediately intrigued by Descartes when the chapter began. The fact that he was in his third year of his studies at the College de la Fleche at the age of thirteen is impressive. As I read on, I became more and more interested in the work and life of Rene Descartes.
Of course it is respectable to dedicate ones’ self to school, but I find it even more admirable when a person has a thirst for knowledge in any form. This is what stuck out most to me about Descartes. When he left college and realized that he still had few answers to life’s many questions, he did not just sit back and say “Okay, well I guess that is stuff I will never know.” He vowed to search for answers. Our book states that he “resolved to seek no other knowledge than that which he might find within himself, or perhaps in the great book of nature.” As I read this one sentence, I was left thinking, “Wow. What a huge concept for one person to have, and what an even bigger idea to actually take this on as a life goal.”
Another thing that I found interesting in this chapter was the Ebbinghaus quote at the beginning of chapter two. “Psychology has a long past, yet its real history is short” says so much in just a short statement. If I would have heard this before I started this class, I probably would have not had any idea what it meant. I knew what this Ebbinghaus quote meant by the discussions that we have had in class and from chapter one. He is saying that although philosophers had the basis for some psych principles very early on, psychology has only been recognized as its own science for 120 years.
I believe that this chapter was very important in understanding the history of psychology. It teaches us that psychology and its history cannot be understood without knowing philosophy and its background.
I actually found this whole chapter pretty interesting. I guess that chapter two did not hold my interest as much when John Locke was discussed, only because I have learned so much about him in the past. Although the section on Locke did not completely engage me, I do understand why it is important to add this material to the textbook. His beliefs concerning punishment and reward are ones that educators and parents still use to this day.
I am actually more interested in reading more about philosophy after finishing this reading. The fact that psychology came alive after philosophers took their ideas and logic to the laboratory is actually quite inspiring to me. After three years of taking psychology classes and learning the science, this is the first time I had ever heard this.
The first thing I found to be interesting was the Cartesian Dichotomy. I never thought about animals having a huge rule in psychology so to read about Descartes and his theory about them was interesting to me. I liked the way he argued or discussed the difference between humans and animals. To me, the stuff I find interesting are the things that I would never think about unless it was brought up, and that’s why I find this topic to be interesting to me. The most intriguing part about this section is the part that animals are just mindless bodies running around and humans have both the mind power and the body. Along with this, I thought that the animal spirits that Descartes talked about was pretty interesting too. These animal spirits would move with a certain reason, and every time they moved that would activate the brain which would activate the nerves and the muscles. Interesting stuff.
The other topic that I found to be interesting was John Locke. He witnessed a lot during his time, like the London fire, the Civil War, and what seems like the raise of the church. He came up with a lot of cool things but the one that stood out the most was his thought on the “white paper”. That everyone is born with a blank piece of paper, and throughout one’s life the paper beings to fill up with all the life’s events and experiences. I like they way Locke went on to described this, using sensation and the reflection to back up his theory. However, Gottfried Leibniz didn’t agree with this. Reading his view on the idea made the chapter more interesting. It’s neat to see a few people’s views on where or what the mind is. That’s why I found these things to be interesting.
On word to what I didn’t find interesting. John Stuart Mill. Nothing about his works seemed to catch my eye. His method of agreement and difference is what I really didn’t care for. We all know that, for there to be an effect, there must be a cause. Using the X for cause and Y for effect really bugs me. The second I see something explained like that I tend to skip it and read on. At times using the X and Y thing confuses me because I forget what X is or what Y is, and then I just get irritated. Other than that I found this chapter to be pretty interesting.
I think that most of this chapter was useful. It goes over a few of the top people and gives a little background on them and what they did. Learning about this you can get a good idea on what it was like back in the day and get a feel on how these men worked. Or have a better understanding on the first steps of psychology.
The two topics that I would like to learn more about would be John Locke and Descartes. I like Locke and his theories. And Descartes was interesting to read about as well. I’d like to read more about the two.
After reading the chapter the main topic I found interesting was John Locke. As a fan of the TV show Lost I was very familiar with the name and new he was a famous philosopher but that was about it. In one of my history classes a few semesters ago we had learned about the idea of a social contract between a government and its citizens. However, I did not know it was John Locke who had come up with the idea. I find the idea very interesting for government in that it allows for both government and citizens to have a mutually agreed upon contract. If the citizen doesn't like the government than he/she can leave, or as the book says if they fail to participate and pay taxes for example, the government can put them in jail. However, if the government doesn't protect the basic rights and welfare of its citizens than the people can overthrow the government and replace it with a more just one. I also found the work of David Hume to be interesting as well. His theory on cause and effect as one of the three laws of association I found to be the most interesting. I thought it was really interesting that he believed that humans could never be absolutely certain about the causes of an event. It shows how far philosophy had come compared to Aristotle's belief that humans can figure everything out about the natural world just by thinking about it enough. I also liked how it made David Hume a skeptic because in my thinking about the years before modern science and technology, I just kind of assumed that people either thought they knew the cause of something or just assumed that it was God's doing. I think that for science, technology, and really every aspect of life to learn more it is important to be skeptical about it because it is very hard to be absolutely certain about why and how certain events happen.
I found the information spent on Descartes to not be very interesting. It seemed rather boring to me and many of the terms he layed out I found to be confusing at times. Particularly his talk about Cartesian Dichotomy separating humans and animals seemed rather boring and overdrawn in his attempt to differentiate humans from animals. I also got a little confused by his term 'animal spirits' and all the text on him following that term I found confusing. I also didn't like the part on John Stuart Mills' logic. All of the examples of 'if X happens, than only Y can happen' were alright for the first couple sentences, but it seemed to get repetitive after that.
Although I just stated I found John Stuart Mills' logic section to not be very interesting, I do think the few sections on him is most important to understanding the history of psychology because he demonstrated that for psychology to truly become a science like chemistry or physics thorough experimentation with respect to precision of measurement and control needs to be done. His methods all had a scientific method to them in order to be tested and measured which I think helped to push psychology into more of a rigid science.
As I said earlier I found the term 'animal spirits' and all the information after the term by Descartes to be confusing so I would like to cover that a little more if possible because it will help me actually understand what he was talking about. I would also like to discuss the figure of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and his ideas on perception because of his idea of unawareness which was similar to the idea of the unconscious which Freud obviously used for the basis of his theories. Even though it isn't related to psychology I was surprised to read that Leibniz was the coinventor (along with Sir Isaac Newton) of calculus so I think it might be interesting to learn more about him.
It is hard to find just two things interesting in this chapter! So many great tid-bits of information. The first thing that really interested me was on page 26, after talking about the geocentric view of the world (earth being at the center of the universe) and the heliocentric theory (the sun being at the center of universe) the book quickly mentions that Copernicus postponed publication on his book because he knew the complications that would evolve from arguing that "god's planet" earth was not at the center of the earth. This particular statement interested me because, well it freaked me out at first. To know that maybe, possibly, there might be some GREAT knowledge that has been discovered, but that person or persons haven't shown it to the public because of certain reasons. Also, the whole reason that Copernicus's work wasn't published was because of the church. This bothers me almost. That church can get in the way this much. Also, on page 28 I read that Descartes was going to publish his work titled, "The World", but didn't after he learned that Galileo's work had been condemned by the church. Don't get me wrong, the church does great things for many many people, but to learn that it has gotten in the way of such great people discovering completely new things about our world is disturbing.
The second thing out of many things I thought interesting about this chapter was Locke's ideas on education. I loved that he touched on the importance of physical health. Also on educating children early, and his ideas on punishment and rewards. These are ideas that are so ahead of his time. It makes me wonder what he would do or say if he knew that people still beat their children today, and over two thirds of our nation is overweight.
It is hard to find two thing that weren't interesting to me, because saying that history isn't interesting seems kind of odd. But if I had to pick, my first idea that wasn't very interesting to me was Descartes and the rationalist argument. His ideas weren't very interesting to me and I had a hard time following it. Second not very interesting point would be Berkeley's information on convergence and accommodation and other ideas of vision. I guess I just didn't find it to be very interesting because I have learned about the eye before, I was more interested in learning about more "in depth" stuff as far as vision goes, like materialism, determinism, and subject idealism.
I would have to say the most useful thing in this chapter for learning about the history of psychology is learning about all of the great people of our history who have obviously put forth great ideas that we still apply to our lives today. It is important to know about people like Locke, Berkeley, Mill, Leibnitz, and all who were mentioned in this chapter. To not know about what these people discovered is to not know psychology!
Two topics I would like to discuss in class more would be my first interest topic. That of keeping knowledge away from the public due to church. I would like to know how others in the class feel about this issue. Another point I would like to talk about in class would be the bit on "animal spirits". I would be interested to hear what kind of discussion we could get going about this crazy idea.
I found Bacon to be most interesting. I do not know what it is, but I always have been interesting in Sir Francis Bacon. And maybe it is just the word bacon that I am interested in. Due to on the side-note I named our farm pig Bacon! But I liked his approach on nature and how we need to observe nature carefully as it presents itself. No one is able to really know what happens in nature or with nature unless they watch it. Nature is no predictable! I do not agree much on his thought of science playing an active role in controlling nature directly. I feel that nature makes science exist. I know that Bacon was not talked much about in the chapter, but felt that there should have been more about him. I do however wish and want to know more about bacon and about how he truly did contribute to psychology.
The second thing that I found interesting in this chapter was John Locke. While reading some of the things about John Locke throughout the chapter, I got the vibe that he was very dedicated. I enjoyed reading what he did and what he had seen. I was really moved by the idea of a social contract. This social contract would be between the people and the government. This would have the government agreeing to protect the rights of the welfare and common goods of its citizens, the citizens would in return support the government. Which later down the road if the government failed on their part, then the people could overthrow the government and replace it by a more just one. This idea then later helps write the Declaration of Independence. Which I found to be very interesting. From one person’s idea can come something that is so powerful, that people stand by it today! The other thing that I like about Locke was his aspect that all our knowledge about the world derives from our experiences in it. Which I find to be very true. There are so many things about Locke that are just overall WOW.
One thing I did not like was how long the chapter was. This is because I struggle to read and sometimes fall asleep during the readings. I wish that you (the professor) would have written your own book like you did in b-mod. I guess I just have not found the something that inspires me to read more. Yes the book can be interesting at times but not to the point where I find myself saying..ohhhh I want to know more. I feel like the first couple of chapters are going to be that way , since they are in the beginning.
The second thing that I did not like about the chapter was that it dwelled on one people but did not on others. I feel that if they are able to be part of the book they should have at least one page if not two, about what they did and how it pertained to the book. I also thought that some of the information about the longer wrote about men could have been left out. Just do not see the full connection to psychology. I sometimes felt like I was in a philosophy class.
To be completely honest, I did not find much of anything in the chapter to be useful about the history of psychology. I felt like it dwelled on philosophy more than anything. I just feel like I am not getting anything out of this chapter. Like I come to school to learn things and feel like I am able to take what I learned into the real world. This chapter did not have me feel like that, compared to chapter one.
I did not have anything that I wanted to talk more about, except maybe Bacon.
I really thought the first section in the book was quite interesting because although psychology is a relatively new science, it point out that people have been interested in human behavior and why they do the things that they do for a very long time. Most people are focused on what is happening now and who did what and what brought us to that conclusion rather than what the people thought of it hundreds of years ago. I cannot even begin to imagine what people thought of an autistic person years ago, or even what they did to help that person and their family.
I found Mill’s Logic to be a very interesting as well because it was where I really started to see the connection to psychology and this course. One quote specifically stood out in my mind because I feel as though psychology can at times be disregarded as a science. The quote stated:
“it included an argument for the creation for a scientific approach to the study of psychology, on the grounds that although it might not reach the level of precision of physics, it could do as well as some disciplines that were considered scientific at the time.”
I unfortunately, found most of this chapter to be very uninteresting. I avoided any and all philosophy classes like the plague. I am a very mathematical person and see things as black and white and have a difficult time playing the “what-if” game. I ask “why?” and not “why not?” So really following any of the philosophical theories and its history is very difficult for me.
I think what will be most useful in our class was Descartes’ Discourse on Method because it described four rules at arriving at some truth. This to me is the start of a scientific method. Without this, we would not be scientifically where we are today and may still believe the universe revolves around the earth.
I would like more help and discussion in class on the Method of Agreement and the Method of Difference. I found that the examples in the book were very difficult to follow and understand and I would like to understand them a little bit better.
One thing that I noticed from the chapter that I found interesting and that I will most likely remember is Descartes' Discourse on Method. I liked how this method broke down into four simple rules that were used to arrive at the truth of any certain given matter. First, Descartes would accept nothing as true unless if presented itself clearly to himself that it would leave no doubt in his mind. Second, Descartes would take a problem and analyze it all the while reducing them down to their fundamental elements. With these first two simple rules, I feel that they are so cut and dry that any philospher would take forever and a day fretting over ideas. Third and fourth, Descartes said that he would systematically work from the simplest of these elements to the more complex and also that he would carefully review his conclusions to be certain of ommitting nothing. This is all very interesting to me because people question things everyday and all the while this Discourse on Method gives perfect insight as to how people should possibly be going about something to find the truth.
While going through chapter 2 I also found primary qualities and secondary qualities. These were both very interesting to me. According to Locke, a primary quality refers to something that exists as an inherent property of an object. Such examples as shape and motion were used in the book. Secondary qualities were not inherent attributes of objects. The examples used in the book were color, warmth, taste of objects and smell. I think this is interesting because in short you can describe a shape or motion as something that already existed, therefore being given its "Primary" title. The secondary quality seems to be something that is added to these primary things that already exist.
The first thing that I found least interesting is the concomitant variation method. This method allows someone to look and see if changes in X are associated with predictable changes in Y. Even though this is something that we learn very frequently, I felt like I didn't need a repeat lecture about it. Besides the boringness of hearing it again, it was some what interesting to learn where this correlational method originated.
While reading I picked up on the animal spirits referred to by Descartes. These were said to be the driving forces behind all movement. I think that what really made this uninteresting for me was just the name in general. The phrase "Animal spririts" sounded so far away from being medical that I shyed away from taking it seriously.
I think everything in this chapter can be useful to helping someone understand psychology a little better. It lays a good foundation of telling someone where common ideas came from. I feel this chapter also teaches people about finding truth about things. If people do not have a longing for truth, then it would be boring to learn anything more about psychology.
The first topic that I would like to discuss as a class would be the influence the church had on certain philosophers. Did this stop a lot of them from sharing their work? What could we know today from this work if the church had not had this impact?
Second I would like to discuss the terms mechanist and interactionist. I feel that this could really start an interesting discussion.
One of the things I found interesting in chapter 2 was how Decartes, right before he died was discovering what we now call the reflex. He was looking into the mind and body and their interaction, and I always find it interesting to look at how someone so long ago was already on to something we discovered years later.
The next thing I found very interesting was John Locke’s idea on education. He believed that since the mind is shaped by experience then we should create a program of education that teaches them exactly what we want them to know. This idea would be too broad now because we know about different learning styles and different subjects, etc, but for the 1700’s this idea seems very good. To train everyone in medicine and to do it early because young children adapt so well so early. He argued against the use of punishment in children, mostly physical, which is something I have always been very outspoken about. Its always nice to relate to something that was thousands of years ago because things were so different then.
Knowing the history of what we now call psychology is encouraging, because sometimes people think that just because psych is so new, they really think the things weren’t happening before that. When in fact, some of the philosophical things were happening and being discovered thousands of years ago.
This chapter seemed very history book-ish to me, with a lot of names and dates. I have to say I didn’t find too much interesting and look forward to the next chapter(s) where we hopefully get into more interesting things. I do think talking about it in class though helps make it a bit more interesting.
The first topic I found interesting in this chapter was John Locke. I found John Locke interesting because I knew he had ideas that founded our Declaration of Independence, but I did not know that he had ideas that were about psychology too. I thought John Locke's ideas of how one society had to pay taxes and be punished while the other lived freely. John Locke used this idea to go against the authority of the Angelican Church, and his ideas of fundamentalism influenced into other philiosophers that would in the history of psychology.
The second topic I found interesting in this chapter was animal spirits by Descartes. I found this interesting because this philiosopher used animal spirits into his illustration of the reflex action with being afraid. I was fascinated by the fact that Descartes used animal spirits to create muscle movement.
The theory of Berkeley was not very interesting to read. I thought the beginning of this section was interesting but when it got to the end I was confused and the last few paragraphs threw me for a loop.
The other topic I thought that was very uninteresting was Mills Logic. Mills Logic was very boring to read, and i didn't understand all of these methods of X, Y and Z. I don' understand what the logic is for Mills Logic or how is it the truth of philiosophy.
I think everything in this chapter will be useful because it gives somewhat an understanding of philiosophical ideas that influenced psychology.
I would like discuss the influence of the Angelican Church had on philiosophers and other people that went against authority. What did the church do to people that told their opinion against the church. The second topic would be more about the Mills Logic and what are the methods?
There were a lot of things that I found interesting in this chapter and liked reading about them. The first thing that I really liked was that how philosophy was also one of the early beginnings of psychology and how both of them are connected. I thought it was very knowledgeable as a psychology major to actually know that philosophy was a building block for modern psychology. In fact it was the one of the first attempts made in order to study the mankind.
The second thing that I really liked about this chapter was reading about how the church being the power and trying to control and filter the findings and thoughts of philosophers. Coming from a different country and knowing about the history of the western civilization was exciting I also liked to read about John Locke in particular and his thoughts about how people understand and make sense of the experience can vary depending on the defenses in their culture and location. I liked that how his thoughts were liberal.
The two things that I did not like about this chapter was firstly the wide information about philosophy and the philosophical thoughts. I did not like this aspect of the chapter because I did not learn anything about psychology; instead there was more information about history and philosophy rather than psychology. Secondly, I did not like how some of the philosophers connected the being of a person and human mind to god.
As I already mentioned above I think knowing about how philosophy was a building block for early psychology will be useful in knowing about the deep rooted thoughts that gave way to the creation of the discipline of psychology.
I would want to know more about John Locke and his contributions to the field of psychology and how his thoughts connected to psychology as I really liked to read about him and how his thoughts can be applied to, not only a particular part of the world but the two different and broad amount of people in the world. I would also want to know about if ever and how the church or religious authorities ever interfered with the early studies in psychology
In assessing my interests in chapter 2, I continued to ponder the complexity of “cause” and “effect”. In section of the chapter titled “David Hume: The Rules of Association,” cause and effect is described as a relationship. If one event follows another with some regularity, we can start to see patterns and predict happenings. I find that the identifications of cause and effect are up to some perception especially when discussing human happenings. So…I splitting the cause and effect up and thinking of them one at a time.
As a human, I feel the cause of things lies in my personal decision making. I am presented with options and opportunities to learn and apply. Why then do I travel down roads that I know have brought sorrow to others before me?? Possibly because I do not “truly” know for sure, as I have not yet experienced whatever led someone else to defeat. For me, I think I try things because I think I am an outlier, and “it will be different in my case.”
As to the effect of things is an outcome of an infinite amount of “causes.” The effect is well described by the purpose. The outcome is the outcome as always, the question is in how it will be judged. So sometimes individuals self- identify with a club or group to describe their “cause.” For example, someone may communicate association with a religious group to describe reason for their behavior.
This brings up interest areas that wouldn't spark at the time but do now. One being association, and the other being contextual details of day in the life of Galileo. Was there cartoons back then??
Just looking at the title of this chapter, “The Philosophical Context,” I began to sigh thinking that this was just going to be a bunch of questions built on questions of other questions from another philosopher. Confusing right? What I got was somewhat different and less intense. One of the first things I found interesting was Descartes’s Discourse on Method when it said, “the only way to get to the certainty of truth is to arrive at it oneself, relying on the clear use of one’s own reasoning powers.” I thought this was very powerful because the only truth we know may not be true at all. People could state over and over what they believe the truth is, it’s up to us to decide if we want to believe in it or not. When we get on the topic of truth it really made me challenge the truths that I believe in and why I believe they are true. The whole idea of truth in itself is fascinating; how we arrive to the truth is even more challenging for beings to understand. Another part of this chapter I found interesting was the Catholic Church and how they put “books to be avoided by right thinking Catholics” out for the public to see. I found this to be an interesting class discussion too. The idea that people were told what they could and could not read was a type of power that the church held. By viewing any books that were to be avoided, people would most likely look at that person different and most people did not want that. I feel that this even happens in today’s society because schools won’t allow certain books to be put in the library and some churches may tell their followers that some books are not okay to read. The difference is, now there are public libraries and the internet so if someone does want to view additional readings, they can.
There were parts of this chapter that did lose my interest. I have mixed feelings about the first one, “The Beginnings of Modern Philosophy and Science.” One reason I didn’t like it was because it began to talk about the Renaissance and different people that lived during that time. The fact is, many of us have already heard of these people, Leonardo, Michelangelo, etc. Also, the reason I have mixed feelings towards this section is because even though I feel that the printing press is extremely important, we already know of this history. I like that we are emphasizing how important it was to have the printing press because the words of many philosophers were able to get out. However, we have already had to learn about the printing press in the many history classes we are required to take. The animal spirits was another part of this chapter that I didn’t exactly find interesting. I feel that a brief description of how Descartes believed that “these spirits were tiny particles in constant motion and were found in the brain, the nerves, and the muscles,” would have been good enough. Along with this there could have been one example listed rather than a few pages of examples.
Even though there were parts of this chapter that I didn’t necessarily find interesting, I do know that the study of philosophers is very important when it comes to being a psychology major. I feel that it is very important to understand and know where many of the ideas of psychology came from. Philosophy has helped psychology in many ways. One thing to keep in mind is there is plenty of work that we have not seen in this book. There is also some work that will never be viewed by the world because of decisions made by either the discoverer or those in the world around them. I feel it is important to keep an open mind when looking at philosophers and even better when we either build off of their ideas or come up with our own.
Couple of things I would like to go over in class would be philosophers today and how their ideas either agree with or conflict with past philosophers and the issue of the truth. The reason I ask about philosophers today is because it is not something many of us do hear about. I am interested in learning more because philosophy is something that people look at and think that the ideas will be too complex to understand. I would just like to recognize more. For the truth, I just feel that it is such a broad and debatable topic that I am curious to hear what others have to say. There were many controversial topics throughout this chapter and I think it is important to listen to what others have to say before forming an opinion right away.
The philosophy chapter was a lot more interesting than I had originally thought it would be, no offense to those philosophy majors. One of the more interesting ideas to me was Descartes’ concept of innate ideas versus John Locke’s concept of “white paper” being the beginning of the famous nature versus nurture debate that still plagues psychologists today. This chapter emphasized how similar philosophers from the 1400-1600s are to modern psychologists, and this was a perfect example of that. I thought it was so interesting that the nature versus nurture debate goes back that far.
I also enjoyed David Hume’s thoughts on cause and effect. I liked when he said that we really have no way of knowing the absolute cause of an event. As a scientist, I know we can never be positive about anything, and it only makes sense that this also occurs in psychology and philosophy. A great line from the book said, “Hume wasn’t denying causality; he was merely shifting it form a search for absolute causes to a search for greater-than-chance regularities.” I agree with the quote and with a comment someone made in class saying that we will never really reach the absolute truth, but we will get a better idea of something after each time we experience it.
Some of the least interesting things from the chapter were the beginning where it outlined the Renaissance and the backgrounds of most of the philosophers. I have learned about the Renaissance it seems every year since middle school, so the information was just repetitive to me. The backgrounds of the philosophers highlighted in the chapter had some interesting facts, but most of the time it seemed unnecessary to me. I wanted to get to what they had to contribute to philosophy and psychology, not where they born and went to school.
A major theme of the chapter was empiricism, so I feel like this concept is important one to know to understand psychology. Many of the philosophers talked about in the chapter had ideas relating to this idea of empiricism, and this is a basic, fundamental concept in modern psychology.
Since many of the terms from the chapter have very similar meanings, I would like them to be discussed further to compare them and possibly point out the differences to keep all of the terms straight. Also, what was Descartes talking about when he kept mentioning the term “animal spirits”? It was a little confusing, and it seemed like an interesting term to go more in depth about.
I found the section about John Stuart Mill to be very interesting to me. First off I thought it was very interesting because he was never really a kid. I am sure that it must have been very hard for him at times to never go to school with other people. The fact that he was able to match the accomplishments of a college graduate at the age of twelve seems outrageous to me. I think that all in all I am just very impressed with that fact that he was basically forced to learn by his father, and that he was able to embrace it and become successful and contribute in so many different areas of thought.
The other section that I thought was interesting was about George Berkeley. After witnessing a hanging he decided to experience the sensation by letting himself be hung. Talk about guts and commitment to learning! Berkeley also focused a lot of vision which is something that has always been very intriguing to me. I think the most interesting Berkeley in relation to psychology is that he found a way to make philosophical questions psychological. Without people like Berkeley I do no know if psychology could have emerged into a field or area of its own.
I did not think the Descartes section on the Cartesian System was interesting at all. I think I was that I was turned of from the beginning because of words in the title that I knew nothing about. From there I proceeded to read about things that were somewhat confusing to me and I struggled to keep things organized in my mind. I guess I may have found it interesting if I were not as confused as I was. The other section I found to be less interesting was the section on Hartley. Within the first few sentences it said that he was not an original thinker so for the most part while I was reading this I was just trying to figure out why the author decided to put him in the chapter. I am sure there was a reason for him to be in the chapter I just did not find a clear cut one.
I think that reading about all of these individuals and their viewpoints did a lot in helping me understand the history of psychology. It became very evident to me why psychology is the way it is today the more I read this chapter. With so many different philosophers seeing the truth as something totally different from the next person there was a definite need for something more. Knowing that this is the History of psychology proves to me that the experimental test and all of the methodologies used in psychology are very necessary.
In class I would definitely like to talk more about materialism and determinism. I would to talk about these two things because I am not quite sure what my conclusion is on these two concepts and I would love to hear the opinions of others.
I don't consider myself a philosophy enthusiast, but I liked this chapter and was kind of surprised by the backlash against it.
First of all, I found the - I guess you could call them - "prior ideas" fascinating. By that, I mean: the beliefs that were held before the philosophers came along to challenge them, two examples being the geocentric universe and the belief that the heart created blood to feed the rest of the body. It's important to understand the world these scientists and philosophers were living in... knowing that they didn't have a firm grasp on biology or astronomy, but that pretty much their whole world of "knowledge" was unraveling at the discovery of NEW knowledge.
Secondly, the constant thread of God through history was interesting. Again, it goes back to context. I would wager that some philosophers truly believed that God was a part of our everyday perception of reality, while others might have just "thrown in" some God to appease the Church enough that they might not be ridiculed and condemned for their theories. An example was Boyle's belief that to seek out scientific answers was to seek out God's will. It makes me wonder what his motivations were for declaring that. (Did he REALLY believe that? or Was he trying to protect science from a perceived threat?)
I can only think of one thing that gets the snooze button going, and that's whenever the book goes into detail about biological aspects. Like the eye section? I know that should be fascinating, but I had to read it four times and I'm still not 100% sure I know what it said. I think I'm drawn to stories that are used to illustrate concepts in this book or to tell a background story, and the biology portions just don't have that.
Unlike what seems like everyone above me, I thought the philosophy is EXTREMELY useful when thinking about psychology. While the book says that philosophy cannot be simplified down to an early form of psychology, I see a lot of similarities. Philosophers tried to discover the truth about life and the human condition and behavior through observation. I've read - sometimes not by choice - quite a bit of philosophy and some of the early Asian philosophers wrote out poem-like maps to human interaction in war, love, frienship... How is this much different (aside from the poetry) from the psychologists who use labratory tests or test subjects in the real world to figure out, oh... why certain marriages fail while others succeed (or some similar topic). It seems like some of these philosophers had it "figured out" fairly well, otherwise their readings might have been debunked a long time ago. So, I'm not sure I can narrow it down to one thing that was most helpful, although the entire chapter gave a great opening story line to the history of the field of psychology.
I would definitely be interested to discuss more about the role of religion and education in the lives of early psychologists or philosophers. It seems as those a lot of famous psychologists were considered bright or brilliant at an extremely young age, or were sent off to school. I would be curious to know just how common that was.
I would also like to compare more closely John Locke's idea of the blank slate to Leibniz's veined marble theory. At times history feels like a relay of ideas where one person begins a theory and then someone else takes it and refines it before passing it along to someone else. I'm always fascinated by the changes those theories undergo.
I found the information on Descartes interesting, because he was so curious about life and answering life’s questions. If Descartes didn’t know how something worked then he tried to figure it out for himself, like dissecting a cows eye to see how an eye works and making discoveries for himself. He also did not settle for what he was told, but wanted to explore it himself. Even though all of his findings were not correct, such as the pineal gland moving animal spirits, he still was inquisitive about a variety of subjects and pioneered his own way to find answers.
I also found the influence of the Catholic Church interesting. I am a very strong Believer in Christ, and consider my faith the most important thing. I however am not Catholic and never have been, and I do know that not everything that the church did in the past was good. Being religious, I do not believe in all scientific theories, however, I like to be knowledgeable about topics such as evolution, so that I am certain I know everything before formulating my beliefs. I don’t think that faith is authentic if you have not made your beliefs your own by doing a personal search of the truth. I think that the church was wrong for banning these books, because it was preventing people from making their choice in what they wanted to believe, and forced religion does not seem like it would be good for any society.
Overall I thought that this chapter was interesting, but if I had to choose things I did not find interesting it would be David Hume’s rules of association. They seemed like very basic thoughts and he just happened to be the first one to publish this information. I also felt the same way about George Berkeley , however, I did like that he mentioned God and how essential He is for understanding.
I think this will be most useful to understanding psychology because it is the foundations that lead to the field of psychology. If it weren’t for some of the philosophers, we may not be in the same place that we are today with psychological findings. If these philosophers lived today, some of them might have a great interest in the field of psychology, and be doing beneficial research. It is important to know the founders of the field, to be able to see its origins.
I would like to talk more about John Locke, I think his idea of tabula rasa is very interesting. Although, I don’t fully support it, I think it is interesting to look at his explanation as to why he thinks that we start life with a blank slate. I also think that elaborating on the church discussion could be interesting, that could get heated, but if it was in a respectful manner it would be interesting to see peoples opinions.