Originally Written: 18 September 2008
“You will either step forward into growth or you will step back into safety” (Napier). As suggested by Abraham Maslow, a PhD in psychology, you can either take a journey and try something new, or you can remain in your box, figuratively speaking. This is the issue that the residents in the movie, Pleasantville, are confronted with in the end. The filmmakers are perhaps suggesting that a lack of predictability is preferable to a lack of anticipation of what will come in the future. I would have to disagree, although many would say that life is boring without any variation to stir things up. However, I would argue that people would be better off and altogether more content, if the world were not such a volatile place. There is a reason that the common phrase, “ignorance is bliss”, exists. If people are ignorant to the fact that they are missing out on something, they won’t realize that they don’t have it, and thus there is no harm done. The residents of Pleasantville are delightfully unaware of the fact that their lives are so full of monotony. But isn’t this what makes Pleasantville so pleasant? People are so content with their lives due to the fact that they are unaware of all of the strife and variation in day-to-day activities that they could be ‘enjoying’, if one wishes to call it that. The main element to my argument is that we have grown up in a world where certainty is absent. We never know what may come at us the next day, or ten years from now. So the idea of “Pleasantville” seems strange, abstract, and boring to some. But the citizens of Pleasantville don’t think so! Imagine being born into that society, one would have no idea that life could be any different. Their life is the one to which they have become accustomed, and thus there is no harm, no foul done. One would be completely content within such a society, so full of stability. Is the lack of security really a risk worth taking, as the prompt asks? No! If you could be raised in a society full of certainty, you wouldn’t know the difference. In fact, would the concept of boredom even exist? Most likely not, because people are so used to doing the same thing, day after day, it becomes a routine. This is not to say that people couldn’t engage in different activities, but I am saying that people would be more satisfied with life in general, because of the stability and predictability within that kind of society. The devil is in the details! One must realize that we can’t judge other societies or their inhabitants based on our own ideals or present state. Other societies’ citizens think differently, behave differently, and are assimilated differently. If security is the price of growth, I’ll keep my security, and forego the growth that most certainly keeps people from leading what the blissfully ignorant see as fulfilling lives. The cost of this approach is ignorance, albeit unrecognized, and the chance to experience variability and variety. But as I’ve already argued, what people don’t know can’t hurt them.
Works Cited
Napier, Eric. 2008. Quotes about Security. Quotation Collection. Retrieved September 17, 2008, from http://www.quotationcollection.com/tag/security/quotes
giovedì 18 settembre 2008
lunedì 15 settembre 2008
Formal Essay #1: Education and Self-Examination
Originally Written: 15 September 2008
“The world is in need of annoying, troublesome, Socratic-like thinkers who will keep us from intellectual and spiritual slumbers brought on by lethargy, hyperstimulation, self-satisfaction, or simple discouragement over the magnitude and complexity of the challenges that have been set before us” (Morowitz 7). This quote, from a paper by Professor Harold J. Morowitz of George Mason University, serves to summarize the reasons why the University of the Pacific believes that critical thinking is the most important purpose of undergraduate education. UOP wants to send its students out into the world not only prepared with the skills necessary for their vocation, but also with a set of skills needed in order to be productive, acutely aware members of society, not just passive global citizens. UOP hopes that its students will challenge ideas in an intellectual way, not just accepting any one thing for truth, but also proving to one's self why it is the truth. As shown through several pieces of writing throughout Chapter One of the Pacific Seminar One What is a Good Society? text, and the articles Purposes and Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion by Derek Bok and John Stuart Mill in particular, UOP values critical thinking above all else in regard to undergraduate education.
Derek Bok stresses eight principle purposes of undergraduate education in his writing, including critical thinking skills. In his work, Purposes, Bok, a former President of Harvard University, states that “a student should always be free to question principles of behavior both in and out of class, no matter how correct they may seem” (Bok 12). In other words, a university should seek to cajole its students, through argument and intellectual demonstrations, as to why policies or widely held beliefs are right. Students should not simply accept them because they’re rules, but understand why, and agree or disagree with them. They should challenge whatever it is that is being presented, and prove to themselves what is right, and what is wrong (Bok 13). If the University of the Pacific didn’t believe this, why would its faculty select a reading such as this for its students to read? It begs students to question, and incites an individual to inquire. “An ability to recognize and define problems clearly”, to identify biases and relevant information pertaining to all sides, to “perceive as many plausible solutions as possible, and to exercise good judgment in choosing the best of these alternatives after considering the evidence” is vital in Bok’s opinion, as well as in the opinion of UOP (Bok 15). Furthermore, Bok continues by saying that students should also have a basic knowledge of statistics, probability, and math, as well as an idea of their common applications, to aid them in sifting through problems and situations that require these abilities (Bok 15). It should also be mentioned, however, that the ability to think critically also aids in the realization of the other purposes of higher education as identified by Bok, namely Moral Reasoning, Preparing Citizens, Living in A More Global Society, and Preparing for Work. Bok himself even states that “these aims…interact and overlap in many important ways” (Bok 22). Perhaps this is why the University of the Pacific holds the ability to think critically in such high esteem when it comes to the students who pass through its institution. However, another writer also shares this emphasis on the ability to think critically.
In addition to Bok, John Stuart Mill also makes an effective argument for the importance of critical thinking. In Mill’s Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, he argues that “Judgment is given to men that they may use it” (Mill 27). He says that no opinion should be silenced. Instead, everyone should share their opinions so that the rest of society can benefit from them, or at least the conversation that leads to their dismissal. He conveys the fact that when people are silenced into not sharing their opinion, society is “deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error” (Mill 26). This more clearly defined realization of the truth comes about when members of society think critically in order to arrive at a logical answer or stance. This is why it is imperative that universities make their students’ ability to think critically one of their top priorities, and is perhaps the reason that UOP has done so. In addition, Mill plainly asserts that constantly adjusting your own opinions and points of view by comparing them to those of others is a good habit to get into. Not only does it reevaluate and possibly reassert your own beliefs, it challenges others and forces both parties to think critically, looking for gaps in logic.
In conclusion, the ability to think critically is valued above all else when it comes to the undergraduate education provided by the University of the Pacific. UOP, among many other academic institutions, believes that this proficiency is absolutely essential in developing people who will become more than just the average, everyday resident. UOP wants to cultivate members of society who will be adept at making decisions and profoundly cognizant of what is going on in the world around them. These people will be more productive and will create a positive effect on society as a whole.
Works Cited
Becker, Jeffrey, ed. Pacific Seminar 1 What is a Good Society?. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2008.
Bok, Derek. “Purposes.” Becker 8-24.
Mill, John Stuart. “Of Thought and Discussion.” Becker 25-38.
Morowitz, Harold J. “Prison of Socrates.” Becker 5-7.
“The world is in need of annoying, troublesome, Socratic-like thinkers who will keep us from intellectual and spiritual slumbers brought on by lethargy, hyperstimulation, self-satisfaction, or simple discouragement over the magnitude and complexity of the challenges that have been set before us” (Morowitz 7). This quote, from a paper by Professor Harold J. Morowitz of George Mason University, serves to summarize the reasons why the University of the Pacific believes that critical thinking is the most important purpose of undergraduate education. UOP wants to send its students out into the world not only prepared with the skills necessary for their vocation, but also with a set of skills needed in order to be productive, acutely aware members of society, not just passive global citizens. UOP hopes that its students will challenge ideas in an intellectual way, not just accepting any one thing for truth, but also proving to one's self why it is the truth. As shown through several pieces of writing throughout Chapter One of the Pacific Seminar One What is a Good Society? text, and the articles Purposes and Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion by Derek Bok and John Stuart Mill in particular, UOP values critical thinking above all else in regard to undergraduate education.
Derek Bok stresses eight principle purposes of undergraduate education in his writing, including critical thinking skills. In his work, Purposes, Bok, a former President of Harvard University, states that “a student should always be free to question principles of behavior both in and out of class, no matter how correct they may seem” (Bok 12). In other words, a university should seek to cajole its students, through argument and intellectual demonstrations, as to why policies or widely held beliefs are right. Students should not simply accept them because they’re rules, but understand why, and agree or disagree with them. They should challenge whatever it is that is being presented, and prove to themselves what is right, and what is wrong (Bok 13). If the University of the Pacific didn’t believe this, why would its faculty select a reading such as this for its students to read? It begs students to question, and incites an individual to inquire. “An ability to recognize and define problems clearly”, to identify biases and relevant information pertaining to all sides, to “perceive as many plausible solutions as possible, and to exercise good judgment in choosing the best of these alternatives after considering the evidence” is vital in Bok’s opinion, as well as in the opinion of UOP (Bok 15). Furthermore, Bok continues by saying that students should also have a basic knowledge of statistics, probability, and math, as well as an idea of their common applications, to aid them in sifting through problems and situations that require these abilities (Bok 15). It should also be mentioned, however, that the ability to think critically also aids in the realization of the other purposes of higher education as identified by Bok, namely Moral Reasoning, Preparing Citizens, Living in A More Global Society, and Preparing for Work. Bok himself even states that “these aims…interact and overlap in many important ways” (Bok 22). Perhaps this is why the University of the Pacific holds the ability to think critically in such high esteem when it comes to the students who pass through its institution. However, another writer also shares this emphasis on the ability to think critically.
In addition to Bok, John Stuart Mill also makes an effective argument for the importance of critical thinking. In Mill’s Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, he argues that “Judgment is given to men that they may use it” (Mill 27). He says that no opinion should be silenced. Instead, everyone should share their opinions so that the rest of society can benefit from them, or at least the conversation that leads to their dismissal. He conveys the fact that when people are silenced into not sharing their opinion, society is “deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error” (Mill 26). This more clearly defined realization of the truth comes about when members of society think critically in order to arrive at a logical answer or stance. This is why it is imperative that universities make their students’ ability to think critically one of their top priorities, and is perhaps the reason that UOP has done so. In addition, Mill plainly asserts that constantly adjusting your own opinions and points of view by comparing them to those of others is a good habit to get into. Not only does it reevaluate and possibly reassert your own beliefs, it challenges others and forces both parties to think critically, looking for gaps in logic.
In conclusion, the ability to think critically is valued above all else when it comes to the undergraduate education provided by the University of the Pacific. UOP, among many other academic institutions, believes that this proficiency is absolutely essential in developing people who will become more than just the average, everyday resident. UOP wants to cultivate members of society who will be adept at making decisions and profoundly cognizant of what is going on in the world around them. These people will be more productive and will create a positive effect on society as a whole.
Works Cited
Becker, Jeffrey, ed. Pacific Seminar 1 What is a Good Society?. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2008.
Bok, Derek. “Purposes.” Becker 8-24.
Mill, John Stuart. “Of Thought and Discussion.” Becker 25-38.
Morowitz, Harold J. “Prison of Socrates.” Becker 5-7.
giovedì 4 settembre 2008
Essay on the Work of John Stuart Mills
Originally Written: 4 September 2008
“Judgment is given to men that they may use it.” This brief sentence sums up the main idea of English philosopher John Stuart Mill’s work, Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion. Mill was a well-educated man who wrote on many topics in order to convey his opinion. And ironically, that is exactly what his paper is about. Opinions – the necessity to look at both sides, Mill writes. He sifts through many examples throughout his examination of the topic, encompassing various themes.
Mill begins by mentioning government, and providing several examples having to do with this theme. He says that government should not limit free speech, even though it could if the people wanted the government to do so. He argues that by denying dissenters the opportunity to express their opinions, the “human race” and posterity lose out on the chance of “exchanging error for truth”, or appreciating the general consensus more if the dissenters are in fact wrong. Mill goes on to write that individuals and government have a responsibility to form their own opinions – but never force others into agreeing or going along with them. These opinions serve as a guide for our own conduct. He says that individuals should constantly compare, edit, and adjust their opinions by paying attention to the stances of others. However, he creates an exception, saying that as long as the public consents, government may enforce some laws simply to preserve individuals’ well-being (as long as it is necessary and vital). However, government is not the only theme for examples that Mill explores.
Religion also seems to be a common theme for arguments in Mill’s work. He condemns the Roman Catholic Church for its practices and it’s parishioners’ perception as the Church being the ‘be all and end all’ of reasoning. Furthermore, he questions as to why, if people believe so fervently in the fact that their viewpoint is truth, they don’t try and make their religion into laws? He even goes so far as to say that those who placed Jesus on the cross were justified in doing so. They did what they believed was right, he argues. However, it seems contrary to his point when he presents this example. By killing Jesus these men forced their opinion on others, Jesus especially, and thereby changed history, in arguably perpetual terms. In order to perhaps become more convincing, Mill also tries a more general approach, devoid of any one theme, except perhaps the theme of miscellaneous examples.
Mills also references several non-themed arguments in his work. He mentions Socrates, who was generally believed to be wrong in his time, but actually came up with many revolutionary ideas. He also appeals to the more scientific mind when he says that if someone is so confident in their opinions, why not let them be challenged? Just like a hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be tested, so too should a truth, argues Mills. It must be testable in order to prove its worth as a fact. He points out that it’s as if people are threatened by having what they hold to be truths questioned, once again referencing the Roman Catholic Church. He states that if society as a whole wants to enrich the minds of it’s citizenry with knowledge and critical thinking skills, what better way than to debate over the validity of something which some people regard as a truth, or hold as an opinion? He goes on to say that until the irrefutable evidence is acquired to say that something is a fact, we don’t fully comprehend or appreciate the foundation of our opinions. Lastly, a vital point that Mill makes in his justification for his reasoning is that in order to have a true comprehension of “moral and human subjects”, individuals must look at all sides of an argument. If there isn’t more than one side, says Mill, it is hard to believe anything (because there is no opposing view to compare it to).
In summation, Mill explores several themes throughout his work, in order to convince his readers that everyone should use the analytical abilities given them to discover their own versions of the truth. He presents several arguments, many of which prove to be logical and unbiased. However, he does at times represent a slanted point of view – clearly expressing his distaste for the Roman Catholic Church several times. Yet, in the end, it is up to his readers to decide whether or not to take what he says as true. Because after all, how could he refute what he believes to be the fact that everyone should reach his or her own final analysis of an opinion or truth?
“Judgment is given to men that they may use it.” This brief sentence sums up the main idea of English philosopher John Stuart Mill’s work, Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion. Mill was a well-educated man who wrote on many topics in order to convey his opinion. And ironically, that is exactly what his paper is about. Opinions – the necessity to look at both sides, Mill writes. He sifts through many examples throughout his examination of the topic, encompassing various themes.
Mill begins by mentioning government, and providing several examples having to do with this theme. He says that government should not limit free speech, even though it could if the people wanted the government to do so. He argues that by denying dissenters the opportunity to express their opinions, the “human race” and posterity lose out on the chance of “exchanging error for truth”, or appreciating the general consensus more if the dissenters are in fact wrong. Mill goes on to write that individuals and government have a responsibility to form their own opinions – but never force others into agreeing or going along with them. These opinions serve as a guide for our own conduct. He says that individuals should constantly compare, edit, and adjust their opinions by paying attention to the stances of others. However, he creates an exception, saying that as long as the public consents, government may enforce some laws simply to preserve individuals’ well-being (as long as it is necessary and vital). However, government is not the only theme for examples that Mill explores.
Religion also seems to be a common theme for arguments in Mill’s work. He condemns the Roman Catholic Church for its practices and it’s parishioners’ perception as the Church being the ‘be all and end all’ of reasoning. Furthermore, he questions as to why, if people believe so fervently in the fact that their viewpoint is truth, they don’t try and make their religion into laws? He even goes so far as to say that those who placed Jesus on the cross were justified in doing so. They did what they believed was right, he argues. However, it seems contrary to his point when he presents this example. By killing Jesus these men forced their opinion on others, Jesus especially, and thereby changed history, in arguably perpetual terms. In order to perhaps become more convincing, Mill also tries a more general approach, devoid of any one theme, except perhaps the theme of miscellaneous examples.
Mills also references several non-themed arguments in his work. He mentions Socrates, who was generally believed to be wrong in his time, but actually came up with many revolutionary ideas. He also appeals to the more scientific mind when he says that if someone is so confident in their opinions, why not let them be challenged? Just like a hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be tested, so too should a truth, argues Mills. It must be testable in order to prove its worth as a fact. He points out that it’s as if people are threatened by having what they hold to be truths questioned, once again referencing the Roman Catholic Church. He states that if society as a whole wants to enrich the minds of it’s citizenry with knowledge and critical thinking skills, what better way than to debate over the validity of something which some people regard as a truth, or hold as an opinion? He goes on to say that until the irrefutable evidence is acquired to say that something is a fact, we don’t fully comprehend or appreciate the foundation of our opinions. Lastly, a vital point that Mill makes in his justification for his reasoning is that in order to have a true comprehension of “moral and human subjects”, individuals must look at all sides of an argument. If there isn’t more than one side, says Mill, it is hard to believe anything (because there is no opposing view to compare it to).
In summation, Mill explores several themes throughout his work, in order to convince his readers that everyone should use the analytical abilities given them to discover their own versions of the truth. He presents several arguments, many of which prove to be logical and unbiased. However, he does at times represent a slanted point of view – clearly expressing his distaste for the Roman Catholic Church several times. Yet, in the end, it is up to his readers to decide whether or not to take what he says as true. Because after all, how could he refute what he believes to be the fact that everyone should reach his or her own final analysis of an opinion or truth?
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)