Sunday, May 28, 2017

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.

1 comment:

  1. yeah, "were you there?" is a completely problematic line of thinking / reasoning. He's big on faith, and he's discrediting history by saying that the only valid account of history is through being an eyewitness. Yet faith requires much more than being an eyewitness to God's works. So, his reasoning seems flawed.

    ReplyDelete