The Last Connection

I am so sorry; I am not about to talk about psychology. I honestly don't know how to tie any psych concepts to this zany novel...

I suppose I'll talk about the Big Bang Theory. Being an Atheist, I do believe this theory, sort of. There are lots of places in the theory where opinions begin to split. For me, it begins to split at the causation of the Big Bang. Some people believe that before the Big Bang nothing existed; that we can't even fathom what was before the Big Bang because there was quite literally nothing. I believe that the universe is linear in its birth, progression, and death. I believe that black holes are the key to the Big Bang. Since black holes are such a mystery to the top astrophysicists, they hold great potential in their significance to the universe. Since black holes just continually suck up matter into an incredibly dense oblivion, this matter has to go somewhere. That's just a basic law of physics. I think that once a super-massive black hole becomes so immense and so dense that even it can't support itself anymore, all of that matter simply implodes. The implosion of a black hole is thus the explosion of an entirely new universe. This theory gives rise to ideas like alternate or multiple universes since countless black holes exist. This would explain how something can come from nothing because it wasn't nothing, it was a super-massive black hole. Now obviously we can't prove this theory yet. Our understanding of black holes is still too rudimentary, the math behind it is inconceivably convoluted, and not enough time has elapsed for a black hole to implode (assuming they can/do in fact implode). This theory is easier to comprehend since it suggests that there is a linear history before our specific universe. Though, it does still beg the question as to the Original cause. Assuming this theory is true, what originally sparked this cycle of universe re-creation? This is where things become too unknown and incomprehensible for our current knowledge. I believe that one day, which may take hundreds if not thousands of years, we will eventually be able to fully grasp these pain-staking questions.

The Last Reflection Post

Mr. Wickersham... As this trimester progresses, you never cease to amaze me with your random obscurity in what we watch or read. On that note, what on earth are the final chapters of Sophie's World? It has to be the most convoluted and anti-climatic ending that I've read in recent history. I won't even touch the topic of the garden party since it doesn't really matter as it was all an illusion produced by the Major. The completely backwards series of events- from the kids throwing chicken bones into the house gutters, to Joanna and Jeremy having intercourse in the middle of a currant bush while people watched, to the airplane with the banner flying overhead, to Helene being so nonchalant about never seeing her daughter again- I just don't know what to say (or if there's anything to say). 

The next thing to address is the "Invisible people". First of all, what exactly is this world that Sophie and Alberto find themselves in? Is it a different dimension of space? Is this an allusion to the belief in metaphysical beings when Alberto discusses "spirits"? How exactly did they, along with the other fable characters, wind up there? And lastly, what are Alberto and Sophie's ultimate fates? Is this new world like a purgatory, where they hopelessly drift for eternity, having practically no impact on the real world? This book leaves a lot of questions unresolved.  

Lastly, what on earth is wrong with the Major? He shows signs of Anti-Social Personality Disorder. I think that he is aware that Sophie and Alberto exist, to some degree, yet he finds pleasure in screwing up their lives. If he truly does acknowledge their odd form of existence, then he has absolutely no regard for the well-being of them as he flips their world upside-down and sabotages them. He's like a cat, playing with its prey before going in for the kill; he finds pleasure in watching them squirm. He also has extreme control issues. When Hilde pulls her little prank on her father, he goes crazy. He realizes that he is receiving a dose of his own medicine, yet continues to be paranoid and show odd behaviors like his maniacal laughter on the plane ride.  

Don't be "A-Freud" of Psychology

YES! We finally get to talk about psychology in class! Today's lesson will be a more in-depth lecture about Freud, his ideas about development, and subconscious defense mechanisms.

First of all, Freud believed in the Psychosexual stages of child development, asserting that children were unconsciously sexual with various kinds of stimulation. Freud believed that if a child received too much or too little stimulation in an area of the psychosexual stages, they could become fixated, permanently trying to satisfy their urge for stimulation.

The Psychosexual Stages:

Stage	Focus	Fixation
Oral (0-18 months)	Pleasure centers of the mouth such as biting, nursing, or sucking.	Pleasure seeking activities involving the mouth such as smoking, binge-eating, or chewing gum obsessively.
Anal (18-36 months)	Pleasure focuses on bowel and bladder elimination; coping with demands for control.	Anal Retentive- Child becomes controlled and organized. Anal Expulsive- Child becomes disorderly and hoarded.
Phallic (3-6 years)	Pleasure zone is the genitals; coping with incestuous sexual feelings. When girls and boys first realize that they have different genitals and that arousal creates pleasure.	Fixation causes the child to seek a partner that reminds them of their mother or father (Reminiscent Oedipus/Electra Complex)
Latency (6 to puberty)	Dormant sexual feelings. Girls and boys self-segregate by gender. Cooties!	Fixation causes homosexuality.
Genital (Puberty into adulthood)	Maturation of sexual interests	Fixation can cause sex addiction-like tendencies, or lack thereof.

Freud also believed in Defense Mechanisms, unconscious behaviors that our brain does to protect us from something that we don't want to face or don't know how to handle. While the psychosexual stages are really debatable to their validity/accuracy, I definitely see these defense mechanisms in my everyday life. I frequently see these with myself and others around me. It's quite fascinating. 

Defense Mechanisms:

Mechanism	Definition	Example
Repression	Banishes anxiety-arousing thoughts, feelings, and memories from consciousness.	Avoiding anxiety-arousing queues that provoke a traumatic memory.
Regression	Individuals retreat, when faced with anxiety, to a more infantile stage	Looking for something that provides comfort, like a parent, sibling, or something that reminds that person of childhood.
Reaction Formation	Ego switches and expresses unacceptable, anxiety-arousing impulses as its opposite.	Being a homophobe or being overtly sexual towards the opposite sex to cope with their homosexual urges.
Projection	People disguise their own threatening impulses by attributing them to others. Hypocritical reasoning.	A criminal and pervert criticizes and accuses an entire ethnicity of being rapists and murderers.
Rationalization	Self-justifying explanations in place of real, more threatening, unconscious reasons for one’s actions.	An alcoholic claiming that they only drink to be social.
Displacement	Person shifts aggressive or sexual impulses toward a more acceptable or less threatening object or person	A husband beating his wife or kids because he can't take out his anger at work with his boss or co-workers.
Sublimation	Person channels their unacceptable impulses into socially approved activities	Smoking to calm down instead of becoming hostile.

Reflection Post #6

I don't really have much to say in this post. Since what we've been discussing- Marxism, Darwinism, Psychoanalysis- we've largely talked about in other classes and this was information that was already known. I knew about evolution coming into this class, and I already knew about Ken Ham and his "interesting" ideas about creationism (I type this trying to be as polite as possible); talk about ignorance being bliss: who spends over 100 million dollars to re-create a giant wooden boat in the middle of Kentucky? 64 million of those dollars were paid for by Grant County in taxes (Because that's a secular use of tax dollars). His logic simply profounds me with his arguments such as, "Were you there?" I don't even know what to say to that. His dogma is the epitome of the psychological principle of Belief Perseverance. The best example of this is global warming: It's when someone has a claim, and even when their argument has been disproved, that person with the false claim still holds onto it as being the truth (Such as when Senator Jim Inhofe brought a snowball onto the congressional floor as a testimony against climate change).
I already knew about Marxism because I've witnessed the re-emergence of some of its ideas in modern political discussion; socialist ideas like income equality and government intervention in various parts of society and our economy. There's really not much to talk about because these topics which we've been discussing, this truly is living philosophy. We're still actively having debates over these controversial ideas.
Anyways, it's sort of difficult to really analyze these ideas because they're still hot topic claims today. It's like trying to rate a president when they're still in office. Only time will tell what the ultimate verdict will be.

Psychology "Marx" the Spot

Soon enough you'll be your own psych wizard!

First of all, on page 393, Alberto talks about Marx's ideas about the value of work; that without work we feel an emptiness. He's absolutely right! According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, employment of some sort is needed to feel self-actualization. It fits under the categories of self-perception and environmental approval. We seek for some sort of appraisal or recognition from our peers. One way to do that is to build up a repertoire within our occupation; establish something that we can hang our hats on. Having an occupation where you're valued and respected by your colleagues is crucial. Also, having something significant, such as a job with purpose, helps fulfill our need for self-esteem. This goes along with Erik Erikson's stages of development, more specifically the middle-age crisis of Generativity vs. Stagnation. In this stage of life, around the age of 35-60, people begin to question whether or not they have a purpose in life. It's this seek to be a part of something greater than ourselves that many middle-aged adults have midlife crises. In short, having a meaningful job helps fulfill approval from our environment and approval from ourselves. 

Secondly, on page 391, Alberto claims that the ruling class sets the norms. This is also true! As it was found in Asch's experiment in conformity, people tend to conform based off of social norms of those they perceive to be in a position of authority [refer to Milgram's study of obedience]. Thus, people like the political elites have more influence over public views on public policy, or why celebrities have influence over social trends and culture; they're in positions of authority. In the case that Marx refers to specifically, this has to do with what is called "Normative Social Influence". This is a type of conformity that occurs when someone submits to the majority opinion. It's a logical fallacy as it's a bandwagon tactic, but people do it nonetheless to prevent social conflict among their peers. "Why cause a dispute when you can just blend in?" This is not to be confused with "Informative Social Influence" where the person in the minority can't form an opinion on something, and thus believes that the majority must be right if they all concur. "If they all believe it's right, then there must be some validity in their thoughts, right?"

Here's a cool video explaining Asch's discovery, narrated by Dr. Phillip Zimbardo, the mastermind behind the Stanford Prison Experiment.
https://youtu.be/NyDDyT1lDhA

Analysis #5

First of all, I guess I'm slightly confused about Kierkegaard. We talked about how he was raised on a strict policy by his father who believed wielded the "Wrath of God"; does this mean Soren was abused growing up? I mean, I know it was a different time period and attitudes were different but abuse is abuse. I suppose, just from my personal perspective, I don't understand how someone could be tormented as a child, yet still uphold such a devout faith in Christianity. Unless of course he was so loyal out of fear. Also, his idea of existentialism has strengths and weaknesses, as we discussed in class. For instance, it is good to understand the nitty-gritty details of stuff. I should know, being anal retentive with my need for control on every little thing. However, I do also see where Hegel comes from with his more panoramic view of the world. It's important that we remind ourselves to still be able to see the forest through the trees.
And then there's Marx... The dude is pretty interesting. He is really the first philosopher that we've discussed that had a radical emphasis on political and economic structure. Sure, there was Plato with the Ideal Society (not to be confused with LBJ's Great Society) and there was Locke with natural rights, but Marx really proposes a major change in the way we talk about economics and politics. Obviously raw Communism and Marxist ideals don't work, but I do think some socialist tendencies are fine and even good for a society. For example, consider the issue of healthcare. As it currently stands, it is a largely privatized business, that will become exponentially more privatized if Trump"care" passes. This, I believe, is not good for society. By promoting an open market with health insurance, it'll derail the regulations on coverage and the pharmaceutical industry. More despicable acts like Martin Shkreli's price hike on AIDs medication or the hyperinflation of Epi-pens would occur. It's better to have government involvement in large businesses like the financial sector, so as to prevent another global meltdown like what was witnessed in 2008. While a complete command economy doesn't work, a mixed economy where the government controls or at least influences some aspects of the economy is crucial in providing a fair balance (at least in a perfect world, that is. Then again, there's lobbying- basically a legal form of bribery- but that's a completely different matter).

I "Kant" Wait to Talk About Psychology

Imagine that: another psychology lesson because #PsychIsEverywhere

Kant is essentially the precursor to what we now know about sensation and perception. When Kant talks about the material of knowledge and the form of knowledge, he is basically talking about the two forms of sensory processing. The material of knowledge is what is known as "Bottom-up" processing. Bottom-up processing is the basic form of sensory analysis that relies strictly on the senses. This uses various sensory cues.
For instance, consider visual cues while looking at this painting below:

At first, the cones in your retinas may notice the different colors like the greens and browns and white. The feature detectors of your fovea discern the lines and shapes of objects. You may pick up on monocular cues such as linear perspective and interposition, allowing you to gauge a sense of depth perception. This basic processing allows your brain to easily recognize that there is a forest with what looks like a rancher and some horses passing through. All of this information was picked up from basic sensory information or the material of knowledge.

However, your brain may not have noticed a crucial aspect of this unique painting. The title of this painting is called "The Forest has Eyes". Look through the painting again and see how many faces you can find with this new information. For most people, they don't immediately notice the faces hidden in the scenery. This is because they're not expecting to see such things in the painting. This is called "Inattentive Blindness" (For a fun example, watch the video below). It's a sometimes fatal mistake that our brain can't effectively mutli-task, so if we're not expecting something to happen, we might not notice some stimuli. This is where reason or the form of knowledge comes into play. This type of analysis is called "Top-down" processing and it utilizes the complex cognition and reasoning areas of the brain to interpret and ultimately decide our perceptions. This is like the example that Alberto gave to Sophie with the glasses. Though she may have seen the world with a tint of red, she knows that logically her senses are being deceived and it is only the result of those glasses. When our brain reaches stimuli that don't logically make sense, our brain tries to decipher and fill in the gaps in order to make sense.

Awareness Tests:
Basketball-          https://youtu.be/Ahg6qcgoay4
Who Dunnit?-       https://youtu.be/ubNF9QNEQLA

Analysis #4

Just when I thought this book was getting weird, it really dropped me on my head. This whole thing with Hilde is just madness. I am curious to see how these two worlds are linked because if Sophie and Alberto really are just characters, how do Hilde's possessions wind up into a story? How come Sophie and Alberto at least appear to have the capability to think for themselves? Is this simply an illusion? If so, what implications does this have? That we are not independent beings with no free-will and instead are the toys of some over-watcher? That possibility simply doesn't seem fathomable to me. Then again, I suppose that's the basis of Kant's argument regarding the possible infinity of the universe. That we are simply too insignificant to really comprehend and grasp the magnitude of the universe. That really is a terrifying thought when you allow it to seize your attention. If Kant is indeed accurate in this assertion, then it heightens the absolute awe regarding this entire topic of reality. 

Also, how is Alberto Knag orchestrating all of this? It's all just very weird and it brings a completely new meaning to Descartes' idea of an evil genius and whether or not reality actually exists. It's really a melting pot of different philosophical ideas that are being discussed. For instance, Berkely's idea of the "Ultimate Perceiver" is coming into play as Sophie's world doesn't actually seem to exist except in the mind of this mysterious puppet-master Alberto Knag; the idea that nothing actually exist unless someone perceives it (In this case, Hilde and her father are the perceivers) is exemplified through this odd plot. 

Lastly, what is Alberto Knag's purpose in doing all of this? He continues to become more obscure and random in his mischief. It's one thing to send postcards, it's a completely different thing to have a sea serpent and a fable character appear out of nowhere. Hopefully there really is a point to these preposterous acts, otherwise it simply seems like none-sensible filler on the author's behalf. 

Modern-Day Connection #3

Alberto may be teaching philosophy, but I'm teaching you some psychology.

As I discussed in my analysis blog, Spinoza's take on monism is quite different from what I'd previously learned in AP Psych in that monism tends to be more favored by agnostics and atheists. Since many atheists hold the belief that there is no afterlife, it is reasonable to assume that we don't really have a soul or a part of us that carries on after death. Thus, if the mind and body are connected, once the body has died, the mind has died as well; and there's nothing else after that. It's simply lights out. Dualists, on the other hand, believe that the mind possesses the soul and that when our fleshy vessel expires, our greater energy carries onto whatever our next path may be in the universe. Since Dualists tend to believe in a soul, when we learned about dualists in AP Psych, they tend to talk about near-death experiences. Everyone knows the classic conversion tale of someone during a tragic incident in which they encounter the blinding light and the mysterious voice beckoning, "It's not your time yet", and that person soon recovers. Monist have discredited these near-death phenomenons as nothing more than an altered state of conscious. Because the body is in an unusual state of consciousness, some believe that the unconscious comes into play since the entire body is hyper-stimulated and doesn't know how to react. During this time when the subconscious is active, it produces a dream-like state in which we witness these reported fantastic events. Hence, this is why it is interesting to compare Spinoza's take on monism when I learned a very different approach to it in psychology; Spinoza's monism is spiritual, the monism that I personally interpreted was the antithesis.

I probably should've included this in my analysis, but I just found this. It's humorous to analyze one comment about Descartes' dualism. Alberto mentions that Descartes believed that the mind and body interacted between a part of the brain called the Pineal gland. This is just kind of funny to me because the Pineal gland helps produce melatonin, a natural compound that induces sleep. The only thing the Pineal gland connects our mind to is our unconscious, that is, of course, if you possess a Freudian view on dream analysis. That thought right there I thought was uncanny and oddly coincidental since Alberto discusses the ideas of life just being a dream or alternate reality, and we're currently watching Inception- a movie about alternate realities inside of dreams.

Analysis #3

Descartes and Spinoza are some interesting characters. The main struggle between the two of them is the relationship between mind and body. Descartes, who believed in dualism, believed that the mind and body were completely separate entities. Spinoza, on the other hand, is a monist, meaning he believes that the mind and body are connected. Spinoza establishes the rudiments for the transcendental philosophy that Thoreau and other famous literary artist exemplified in the early to mid-1800's. Spinoza proliferated this idea that the three most basic pillars of the universe are God, nature, and our Substance. Thus, in order to live a good life, in Spinoza's view, we must reconnect with God through nature since God is in every living thing (I will give my thoughts on this theory in my Modern-Day Connection post). Both Sophie and Spinoza also have somewhat of a practical approach to monism as well. It is quite simple to figure that our brain- the mind- controls our movement; If I want to lift my arm, my arm soon lifts. Plus, my body sends signals to my brain, resulting in our reflexes and other processes; If I touch a hot stove, my hand's sensory receptors relay the message to my central nervous system through to the brain-stem (the part of the brain responsible for reflexes) which then activates command neurons to dictate motor neurons in our arm to move away from the painful source. In other words, there has to be some sort of connection between the mind and body in order for anything to work. This is proven by basic anatomy and physiology (Plus psychology!). In conclusion, I concur with Spinoza in the idea of monism, but for different reasons.

Modern Day Connection #2

Yesterday in my analysis of the book I discussed the ontological arguments for faith. In this argument, we discussed the idea that the idea of god is simply too great to be just an idea. This idea of ideas made me think of Carl Jung's "Collective Unconscious" which has probably been discussed when talking about religion. Jung's theory (part of the psychoanalytic field of psychology) proposes that all humans have a shared consciousness that developed over thousands of years of evolution and societal development. It is because of these shared, subconscious values that many cultures have some similar traits, values, and traditions- such as belief in a higher power, or the schema that a mother should be nurturing, or maintaining traditionally patriarchal society, and other innate behaviors. Jung believes that all humans share these deep-seeded, traditional ideologies at birth and are exhibited through our behavior and our dreams. Anyways, the major emphasis with making the connection is the trend that in every ancient civilization, and even today, religion is a major influence in society. The argument here is that since its belief is so overwhelming and held by so many people, there must be some validity in the belief. Then again, this is an illogical fallacy as this appeals to the majority. Just because the majority of people share a similar opinion, and those opinions have lasted for thousands of years, doesn't make their opinion valid.
Take some of the biblical beliefs that have been proven wrong throughout history. For instance, Genesis claims that the earth was made 6,000 years ago. Though through carbon-dating and other undeniable evidence, we know that the earth is at least 4 billion years old; sorry, but we were still in the neolithic age 6,000 years ago. Or note the conflict with the geocentric belief that was held by the church for so long. Once Renaissance and Baroque scientist such as Galileo and Copernicus proposed the Heliocentric Theory, the church did everything in its power to attempt to expunge these blasphemous views; they jailed Galileo for refusing to retract his evidence. Though as we know today, we revolve around the sun. The list goes on of the more contemporary discoveries and beliefs that contradict the bible (Darwin's theory of evolution being another) that all go to show the point that the bible is not an infallible doctrine.

Analysis Post #2

First of all, to continue one with the Hilde phenomenon, I still don't really understand the point of it. I think that the author had a chance to do something interesting with the mystery, but once Alberto started to have direct communication with Sophie, it sort of ruined the whole Hilde thing. I think the fact that Alberto continues to just blatantly ignore Sophie's pursuits and leave her in the dark is just stupid.
"Why did you call me Hilde? What's your relationship with Hilde's father? What does all this stuff mean?" Alberto: "Oh, he certainly is a trickster; leaving those hints all over the place! Hush now, my child! Time for philosophy!"
I think that this whole arrangement that they have isn't very healthy either. The poor mother is left in the dark as Sophie just runs off to some stranger's house and thus has a completely new set of behaviors; whenever the mother tries to confront Sophie, she beats around the bush with a tantrum of some sort or tries to out-smart her mother.

Anyways, to make a more legitimate analysis of the book, I'd first like to address the Hellenistic philosophies. I know I talked about it in the class blog, but the Skeptic-form of the Hellenistic philosophies really resonated with me. Besides Democritus with his materialistic beliefs, this was sort of the first form of religious skepticism. For me, with my unabashed atheistic beliefs, I wholeheartedly support this school of thought. Similar to the religious ideas, the Middle Ages and Renaissance provide some very interesting outlooks on the question of religion. Do I agree with them? No, but they're interesting nonetheless. I find some of the arguments to be a bit far-fetched. For instance, Anselm's ontological argument is sort of an illogical fallacy. It's sort of some circular reasoning to argue that God exist because the thought exist in our head. This is very similar to the basic argument of faith: That though we cannot see or prove god's existence, we have faith that he exist. This is still a pretty weak argument because there is no evidence to back it up. We make the assumption that the idea of god is too great to not be real. However, the same claim could be said about anything: I could found a religion in which Richard Simmons created the world between high-kicks and jazzersize because the idea sounds too glorious to not be true. In essence, after hundreds of years of arguing against some of these elden rationales, they seem too antiquated to still exist in modern debate.

Blog #1- Am I doing this Right?

This is my first blog post, so bear with me here. I'm still figuring out how to use this new website.

I suppose the first thing I'd like to say about Sophie's World is that the writing seems very basic. The writing style of the author is very simplistic and a seven-year-old could keep up with the text and story line in between Sophie's lessons. Plus, the whole thing about Hilde and the weird gifts, and Sophie's odd relationship with "Alberto" is just obscure.
However, on a less superficial level, the information within the book is quite interesting, though it can also be confusing. I think the most difficult thing to understand, just in terms of reading and concept comprehension would be the whole debate about "forms". With the natural philosophers and Plato's Theory of Forms, it's sometimes confusing just what on earth they mean with all of their ideas. For example, I'm a bit confused as to what Heraclitus means when he says that stuff naturally "flows". What does that mean for something to flow? The only real part I understand about that is his iconic quote about never stepping into the same river twice. Or, just to be crystal clear, what exactly is a "form"? Also, with his Theory of Forms, Plato believes that every idea has already been thought of. What does he mean by that? If it's already been thought of, who thought of it first? Is he proposing that some sort of higher power or alternate universe contains these "ideal forms" or thought of these ideas first? Take the chapter regarding Aristotle: They talk more about Plato's Theory of Forms, and Plato claims that first there is an "idea" and then there is a form. How could that be though? The way Aristotle explains it makes much more sense. The idea that we observe something and as our brain begins to establish a relationship or title for that thing, it turns into an "form"; They use the example of horses in the book to explain this. That makes sense to me because it sounds like the rudimentary proposal of schemas (The unique, mental framework that we use to perceive the world)- as we acquire new information and have different experiences, we either assimilate the information into a pre-existing schema, accommodate the schema to make more sense with the new information and prevent cognitive dissonance, or we form a new schema entirely. Aristotle really did explore all fields of science, and that included psychology!

#Psychiseverywhere