My older brother is my role model. I admire his intelligence, passion, and zest for life. Despite his ADHD, which I saw as more of a superpower than an impairment, I considered him the epitome of physical and mental health. When I received a call my freshman year that my brother had a psychotic break, my world turned upside-down. I strongly agree with Dr. M’s realization that “Normal is a fiction when it comes to mental health.” Although my brother’s situation is uncommon, it showed me that anyone - even those who seem healthy - is susceptible to unexpected mental health challenges, and more importantly, capable of overcoming them. After a year at a psychiatric treatment center and moments of deep uncertainty, my brother has emerged with a renewed insight on life. His struggles have become a part of his journey, enriching his perspective and making him even more inspiring to me.
I completely agree with your concept that a person's outwardly expressed manners may not accurately reflect their inner turmoil or psychological state. Someone who vocally expresses anger and other emotions might be perceived as having more mental issues than someone quiet, polite, and reserved. I have personally dealt with such conflict in my own life. As an adolescent, I was very reserved and struggled with expressing my emotions. Eventually, I found myself exploding with anger and confusion in larger fits. Through therapy and with the help of my sister, who graduated from UCSC with a Psychology degree, I began to express myself much more genuinely with my family and friends. By avoiding the suppression of my negative emotions and allowing myself to be more vocally angry or passionate, I was able to better understand and work through my frustrations. As a result, I have felt much more psychologically comfortable since.
One of the concepts you teach us as the audience is that "appearance is deceptive." Dr.Marchbanks suggests that how an individual expresses oneself might not reflect the true state of that person. For example, a friendly person might not reveal their struggle to maintain a good relationship. On the other hand, an aggressive person might not shy away from expressing their emotions in front of people. The best person is the one who expresses oneself freely. The second point from the video is that intermittent and inconsistent behavior reinforcement gives better results than consistent ones. This is interesting as the speaker challenges us as the audiences to rethink reinforcement methodologies and adopt one that could provide the best results.
It was interesting to hear Dr. M speak of how Virginia Woolf wrote about characters who experienced similar mental health struggles as herself because that is something that I also did growing up. I used to be an avid writer (I wish I could say I still was) and as many writers do, would base my protagonists on myself. These self-insert characters were always hyperactive or obsessive-compulsive just like me, and I created them before ever knowing that there were official terms and diagnoses for these things. Writing these characters allowed me to, in some ways, gain control of the parts of me that felt uncontrollable. I may not have been able to understand and control my own thoughts and actions but I could control these characters, and, most importantly, give them happy endings.
The question of “Does it matter?” stuck out to me on both my first and second watch of Dr. M’s video. I think the question stayed with me because my answer is both varied and not entirely satisfying to my personal morals. Dr. M’s example of a person who donates all of their money to a good cause yet harbors spiteful, bitter feelings about the donation is a good one; however, my mind immediately jumped to how we so often see hyper-rich individuals donate thousands or millions of dollars to charities and directly fund undeniable good, but they donate this money to direct media attention away from a crime or scandal they were involved in. Logically, I reach the conclusion that no matter the source, an action should be judged independently as good or bad. However, emotionally, the idea that someone can do good in the process of doing bad and get praised for it revolts me.
Having taken AP Psychology in high school, your explanation of mental health resonated with me; I am a true believer that everyone experiences mental struggles at some point in their lives due to either brain chemistry, experiences, etc. Moreover, learned helplessness, as mentioned by Dr. M, is the idea that one can feel trapped in their positionality due to pain they’ve experienced, constructing a docile personality. In James Joyce’s “Eveline”, I see this characteristic in her viewing Frank as her “escape! She must escape! Frank would save her” from her abusive father and family situation. In my eyes, this makes Eveline a truly sad character bowing to misogynistic ideals by fulfilling the role of a helpless damsel in distress.
I really liked your point that “appearances can be highly deceptive” because it is directly connected to something I mentioned in my last plea- even in literature, our perceptions may mislead us. For instance, in The Secret Agent, Winnie Verloc is repeatedly described as quiet and seemingly unopinionated. Her personality and temperament throughout the book make her abrupt actions in the 11th chapter seem completely out of character. You mention the importance of self-expression as an outlet, a therapeutic way of managing thoughts and feelings. In hindsight, her aggressive and ultimately fatal outburst is clearly a consequence of carrying heavy tension and built-up emotions. This leads me to wonder- had Winnie outwardly expressed her thoughts and opinions sooner, would Adolf have suffered the same fate?
To study psychology, I would argue that one has to have sure knowledge of themselves and a willingness to let themselves be changed by their studies. Dr. Marchbanks says, morality is an obstacle to self-actualization. To truly be willing to study the mind, you have to be able to separate from your morals and view things objectively. Reading Amiri Baraka’s “The Invention of Comics” demonstrates perfectly Dr. Marchbanks’ point that to live in a successful society we need some sense of what is going on in our minds and what is going on in other people’s lives and our material world. The poem is a reflection of the mind on nature, society on the individual, and those inexplicable intrinsic connections we feel.
Objectivity helps with precision, though whether we can truly, totally divorce ourselves from the moral and ethical systems that have shaped us is debatable.
The last point made about morality's necessity forced me to consider how we derive morals. I would argue that society dictates a standard moral code based more on public perception-or fear of a negative perception-and less on personal beliefs. This reminds me of how Conrad’s character Stevie reacts to violence with moral instinct rather than the indifference of the other characters. This characterization also addresses your idea about how temperament can be deceiving because, again, Stevie’s character is seen as inferior because of his behavior, yet he possesses “universal charity” and is “supremely wise in knowing his own powerlessness” (124). Stevie’s morals govern him more than those prescribed by society, allowing him to maintain higher emotional intelligence despite his apparent mental challenges.
The questions of personal sacrifice for the greater good and the dismissal of moral guilt are echoed in Siegfried Sassoon’s “They.” The Bishop describes how the “‘boys’” that went off to war “‘will not be the same,’” and how their courageous sacrifices are for the greater good, regardless of what it costs them personally. To conclude, the Bishop states “‘the ways of God are strange’” and displays indifference towards the soldiers’ comments about the brutality of war, illustrating his lack of moral guilt. Sassoon’s portrayal underscores the importance of considering individual morality amidst institutional or societal goals, urging humanity to aspire beyond utilitarianism and towards a greater degree of moral responsibility, rather than the proposed erasure of moral guilt due to a lack of value.
Clarify, since the Bishop brings Antichrist into the mix. Also, the Bishop notes that the soldiers will individually be changed/refined-that personal-presumably spiritual-benefits will accrue to the combatants. His observation does seem heartless, but it does allow for individual transformation.
Having a similar experience with psychology as Dr. M in college, I often find myself questioning my every action and motivation. Concrete understanding of the mind proves more elusive with more study, an understanding further blurred with the addition of a spiritual element. The intersection of conscious decisions, subconscious motivations, sin, spirits, and mental illness creates an irreconcilable convolution. This convolution further emphasizes the fact that we, as humans, cannot understand everything. Realization of this fact produces disillusion at first, but ultimately leads to deeper faith in a Truth that knows more than us.
Learning from William James’s Textbook Of Psychology, it’s difficult to know when society can be blamed for my downfalls or if I need to take a deeper look inward to find a more personal solution to them. Looking back at Wilfred Owen’s “Disabled”, I am now able to see how some of the speaker’s sentiments about his impairment stem from how he perceives society sees him. Thus, his sadness is not directly derived from society’s view of him nor from his view of himself, but both. Viewing Dr. M’s analysis of C.S. Lewis’s The Problem of Pain through the lens of disability, it becomes evident that Owen’s speaker feels a complex guilt sourced from both the “social consciousness” and the overarching “corporate” system.
Clarify, since the Bishop brings Antichrist into the mix. Also, the Bishop notes that the soldiers will individually be changed/refined-that personal-presumably spiritual-benefits will accrue to the combatants. His observation does seem heartless, but it does allow for individual transformation.
The concept of “corporate guilt” from the beginning of the video struck a chord-the idea that we have underlying guilt for actions us modern people didn’t directly cause, like slave labor, is uncomfortable to think about, similarly to how the white Mrs. Carteret in "Marrow of Tradition" feels a sense of guilt towards the end of the novel regarding the poor treatment of her biracial half-sister, Janet. Mrs. Carteret’s sudden motivation to accept Janet as her sister is messy, however! Without spoiling plot, Mrs. Carteret’s guilt for neglecting Janet plays some part in her acceptance, but also because Mrs. Carteret needs something from her. Whether a character, someone else, or yourself is doing something to resolve guilt for a “good” reason is difficult to determine.
The parallel is imperfect because Mrs. Carteret desperately wants something from Janet, as you proceed to point out, but also because Mrs. Carteret directly harmed Janet by withholding the truth about their father’s second marriage.
During your talk about corporate guilt (3:20), I couldn’t help but think of Stevie in Chapter VIII of The Secret Agent. You argue that the activist mindset can be prompted by a desire to distract oneself from their own problems, and I think a similar self-interest is behind the actions taken by the anarchists and authorities in the novel to achieve what they perceive to be the “greater good” - Verloc’s laziness motivating his espionage, for example, or Heat framing Michaelis to maintain his reputation. Stevie’s actions, on the other hand, are driven primarily by pure altruism. Coupled with his aggressive behavior, I think Stevie falls in line with your example (7:24) of someone unmarred by learned helplessness who can freely express their desires.
Stevie is, however, repeatedly confronted with his own impotence. He wishes to take the horse and cabman to bed with him, for instance, but knows he cannot. His altruistic bent remains frustrated.
Expounding upon Lewis’ comparison between corporate and personal guilt, we must see past the mirage of tolerable guilt erected by society to confront personal sins. Such are the causes behind the current system. The cure to humanity’s vile condition lies in individual hearts. Character and actions are both praiseworthy. Individuals are most commendable when good actions accurately reflect good character. Actions tell half the story. Motivation reveals the second half, the “why?” behind an action, inevitably tracing back to character. Thus, motivation must be considered when ascribing praise or blame for one’s actions, and the story shared to promote virtue.
Grappling with the ability of someone to get into heaven intertwines with how one may define a morally “good” person. Two common forms of judging moral code are biblical acceptance and implementation into life, and if a heavier weight of positive traits and actions outdo the negative. The debate of what defines a morally good person is arguably at the forefront of defining religious traditions, including different Christian denominations. In my opinion, dreams are a manifestation of one's inner turmoil. Although not necessarily morally culpable, they can provide insight into the hidden priorities and ethical boundaries someone holds.
William James argues that our inner faculties operate in response to our environments, and anything that lies within us is a response to these surroundings; thus, the creative power of writers must derive from external influences. In W.B. Yeats’ “The Stolen Child” (1886-1889), the subject fleeing to a fairyland escapes a world “...full of weeping” (12). Yeats’ fairyland, conjured by his conscious mind, is influenced by and reveals his subconscious. Even his escapist fantasy is corrupted by malicious faeries tormenting helpless trout; this is Yeats’ troubled inner life surfacing, and he cannot shake its influence. Like sifting through layers of dreams to reveal personal, integral truths, writing can reveal the struggle of the writer to arbitrate between their conscious and subconscious, and understand themselves.
The idea of normalcy being fictional is a dangerous one, as it crumbles easily when it is questioned. It makes me think of Verloc and his relationship to sleep. It is mentioned that he has a difficult time sleeping, and even though we are not sure why exactly this is, there is substantial evidence to suggest it is due to some psychological matter. Insomnia, in his case, is how his psychological issues normally rear their head. When his normalcy is truly called into question (via events of ch.10), his response is alike to stages of grief. In short, people take the idea of “normal” more seriously than they consciously know.
Actually, we know exactly why Verloc can’t sleep. He’s been told by Vladimir that he will lose the embassy funding paying his bills unless he blows something up.
I find that the discussion around whether or not motivation matters increases in complexity when your point about how what we do and feel is not within our conscious control is considered. If someone has negative motivations for doing good, it feels difficult to judge them for those negative intentions if perhaps those feelings are a response that's deeply rooted in a formative experience that we, as outsiders, have no knowledge of. The act of examining our one’s actions and motivations seems like a healthy practice to me, but I’m not sure if acting on any conclusions about them is.
Well, I definitely wouldn't suggest, like B. F. Skinner, that free will is an illusion. We can recognize that forces outside our conscious control shape our behavior without relinquishing autonomy altogether. The more we learn about the forces that shape our behavior, the more we can reshape the behavior consciously, I think.
Dr. M, Self-realization is a hard pill to swallow. Some people avoid it best they can because they don’t want to come to terms with the fact that they need to change. I have a lot of self-realization when I am in prayer. That is the time God shows me what I need to work on. Again, it is not easy to admit to yourself that you are imperfect. It is a daily struggle to die to yourself. I believe that no matter how much we try to fix ourselves whether it’s a mental illness or just lacking patience, we will never be “fixed.” That is where Jesus comes in. He took away the sins of the world and that also includes depression and impatience. The point I am trying to make is that we will never be perfect; our brains will never be free from illness. If a problem is solved in our brains, another issue will come up. There is just too much to unpack. That does not mean that we should not go to Christ in prayer or visit our therapist, it just means we should find something worth living for. If we live for something that is bigger than ourselves, we then find something to live for. Our problems will not fade away, but I would rather be depressed and live for God than depressed and not live for anything at all.
Acting based on personal morality supersedes being governed by societal guilt because one has more control over individual actions than the problems of humanity; however, this control is not without its difficulties. As a person greatly motivated by faith in God, I require spiritual truths to endorse my guiding principles. My morality then relies on my belief, one which often fluctuates and opposes other’s perceptions. This relativity makes acting difficult without reliable standards to trust during moments of doubt. Dependance on God’s will and commandments allows for consistent personal morality.
Dealing with the morality of things for your self compared to the greater good comes with a lot of self realization. Morals or the concept of goodness is not easily defined because it is ran by society. While, myself I try to deal with my morality for others, I struggle to deal with what is good for myself. Consequently, looking at one self in society is considered selfish. It’s a double edged sword, that goes with a lot of philosophical dilemmas. Personally, I think the over-well being of oneself is part of being good and morally sound. Destroying self for cause is more biblical sound, but even the Bible has its own limitations on what is selfless.
Although utilitarianism appears to be rational and ethical, I would argue that it is rather apathetic and lacks the importance of the means we utilize for a desired outcome. In the aforementioned example of a morally gray, but effective doctor, his desire to provide medical care to the poor is good and commendable, but falls short due to his inability to care for his wife and children. Don't they deserve the acknowledgment of their pain even if they are the minority? Truly, appearances are deceiving, and one must seek to have compassion for all sides.
My older brother is my role model. I admire his intelligence, passion, and zest for life. Despite his ADHD, which I saw as more of a superpower than an impairment, I considered him the epitome of physical and mental health. When I received a call my freshman year that my brother had a psychotic break, my world turned upside-down. I strongly agree with Dr. M’s realization that “Normal is a fiction when it comes to mental health.” Although my brother’s situation is uncommon, it showed me that anyone - even those who seem healthy - is susceptible to unexpected mental health challenges, and more importantly, capable of overcoming them. After a year at a psychiatric treatment center and moments of deep uncertainty, my brother has emerged with a renewed insight on life. His struggles have become a part of his journey, enriching his perspective and making him even more inspiring to me.
I completely agree with your concept that a person's outwardly expressed manners may not accurately reflect their inner turmoil or psychological state. Someone who vocally expresses anger and other emotions might be perceived as having more mental issues than someone quiet, polite, and reserved. I have personally dealt with such conflict in my own life. As an adolescent, I was very reserved and struggled with expressing my emotions. Eventually, I found myself exploding with anger and confusion in larger fits. Through therapy and with the help of my sister, who graduated from UCSC with a Psychology degree, I began to express myself much more genuinely with my family and friends. By avoiding the suppression of my negative emotions and allowing myself to be more vocally angry or passionate, I was able to better understand and work through my frustrations. As a result, I have felt much more psychologically comfortable since.
One of the concepts you teach us as the audience is that "appearance is deceptive." Dr.Marchbanks
suggests that how an individual expresses oneself might not reflect the true state of that person. For example, a friendly person might not reveal their struggle to maintain a good relationship. On the other hand, an aggressive person might not shy away from expressing their emotions in front of people. The best person is the one who expresses oneself freely. The second point from the video is that intermittent and inconsistent behavior reinforcement gives better results than consistent ones. This is interesting as the speaker challenges us as the audiences to rethink reinforcement methodologies and adopt one that could provide the best results.
It was interesting to hear Dr. M speak of how Virginia Woolf wrote about characters who experienced similar mental health struggles as herself because that is something that I also did growing up. I used to be an avid writer (I wish I could say I still was) and as many writers do, would base my protagonists on myself. These self-insert characters were always hyperactive or obsessive-compulsive just like me, and I created them before ever knowing that there were official terms and diagnoses for these things. Writing these characters allowed me to, in some ways, gain control of the parts of me that felt uncontrollable. I may not have been able to understand and control my own thoughts and actions but I could control these characters, and, most importantly, give them happy endings.
The question of “Does it matter?” stuck out to me on both my first and second watch of Dr. M’s video. I think the question stayed with me because my answer is both varied and not entirely satisfying to my personal morals. Dr. M’s example of a person who donates all of their money to a good cause yet harbors spiteful, bitter feelings about the donation is a good one; however, my mind immediately jumped to how we so often see hyper-rich individuals donate thousands or millions of dollars to charities and directly fund undeniable good, but they donate this money to direct media attention away from a crime or scandal they were involved in. Logically, I reach the conclusion that no matter the source, an action should be judged independently as good or bad. However, emotionally, the idea that someone can do good in the process of doing bad and get praised for it revolts me.
Having taken AP Psychology in high school, your explanation of mental health resonated with me; I am a true believer that everyone experiences mental struggles at some point in their lives due to either brain chemistry, experiences, etc. Moreover, learned helplessness, as mentioned by Dr. M, is the idea that one can feel trapped in their positionality due to pain they’ve experienced, constructing a docile personality. In James Joyce’s “Eveline”, I see this characteristic in her viewing Frank as her “escape! She must escape! Frank would save her” from her abusive father and family situation. In my eyes, this makes Eveline a truly sad character bowing to misogynistic ideals by fulfilling the role of a helpless damsel in distress.
For a time, yes, but she ultimately does not go with Frank and thus avoids being the rescued damsel, yes?
I really liked your point that “appearances can be highly deceptive” because it is directly connected to something I mentioned in my last plea- even in literature, our perceptions may mislead us. For instance, in The Secret Agent, Winnie Verloc is repeatedly described as quiet and seemingly unopinionated. Her personality and temperament throughout the book make her abrupt actions in the 11th chapter seem completely out of character. You mention the importance of self-expression as an outlet, a therapeutic way of managing thoughts and feelings. In hindsight, her aggressive and ultimately fatal outburst is clearly a consequence of carrying heavy tension and built-up emotions. This leads me to wonder- had Winnie outwardly expressed her thoughts and opinions sooner, would Adolf have suffered the same fate?
To study psychology, I would argue that one has to have sure knowledge of themselves and a willingness to let themselves be changed by their studies. Dr. Marchbanks says, morality is an obstacle to self-actualization. To truly be willing to study the mind, you have to be able to separate from your morals and view things objectively. Reading Amiri Baraka’s “The Invention of Comics” demonstrates perfectly Dr. Marchbanks’ point that to live in a successful society we need some sense of what is going on in our minds and what is going on in other people’s lives and our material world. The poem is a reflection of the mind on nature, society on the individual, and those inexplicable intrinsic connections we feel.
Objectivity helps with precision, though whether we can truly, totally divorce ourselves from the moral and ethical systems that have shaped us is debatable.
The last point made about morality's necessity forced me to consider how we derive morals. I would argue that society dictates a standard moral code based more on public perception-or fear of a negative perception-and less on personal beliefs. This reminds me of how Conrad’s character Stevie reacts to violence with moral instinct rather than the indifference of the other characters. This characterization also addresses your idea about how temperament can be deceiving because, again, Stevie’s character is seen as inferior because of his behavior, yet he possesses “universal charity” and is “supremely wise in knowing his own powerlessness” (124). Stevie’s morals govern him more than those prescribed by society, allowing him to maintain higher emotional intelligence despite his apparent mental challenges.
The questions of personal sacrifice for the greater good and the dismissal of moral guilt are echoed in Siegfried Sassoon’s “They.” The Bishop describes how the “‘boys’” that went off to war “‘will not be the same,’” and how their courageous sacrifices are for the greater good, regardless of what it costs them personally. To conclude, the Bishop states “‘the ways of God are strange’” and displays indifference towards the soldiers’ comments about the brutality of war, illustrating his lack of moral guilt. Sassoon’s portrayal underscores the importance of considering individual morality amidst institutional or societal goals, urging humanity to aspire beyond utilitarianism and towards a greater degree of moral responsibility, rather than the proposed erasure of moral guilt due to a lack of value.
Clarify, since the Bishop brings Antichrist into the mix. Also, the Bishop notes that the soldiers will individually be changed/refined-that personal-presumably spiritual-benefits will accrue to the combatants. His observation does seem heartless, but it does allow for individual transformation.
Having a similar experience with psychology as Dr. M in college, I often find myself questioning my every action and motivation. Concrete understanding of the mind proves more elusive with more study, an understanding further blurred with the addition of a spiritual element. The intersection of conscious decisions, subconscious motivations, sin, spirits, and mental illness creates an irreconcilable convolution. This convolution further emphasizes the fact that we, as humans, cannot understand everything. Realization of this fact produces disillusion at first, but ultimately leads to deeper faith in a Truth that knows more than us.
Learning from William James’s Textbook Of Psychology, it’s difficult to know when society can be blamed for my downfalls or if I need to take a deeper look inward to find a more personal solution to them. Looking back at Wilfred Owen’s “Disabled”, I am now able to see how some of the speaker’s sentiments about his impairment stem from how he perceives society sees him. Thus, his sadness is not directly derived from society’s view of him nor from his view of himself, but both. Viewing Dr. M’s analysis of C.S. Lewis’s The Problem of Pain through the lens of disability, it becomes evident that Owen’s speaker feels a complex guilt sourced from both the “social consciousness” and the overarching “corporate” system.
Clarify, since the Bishop brings Antichrist into the mix. Also, the Bishop notes that the soldiers will individually be changed/refined-that personal-presumably spiritual-benefits will accrue to the combatants. His observation does seem heartless, but it does allow for individual transformation.
The concept of “corporate guilt” from the beginning of the video struck a chord-the idea that we have underlying guilt for actions us modern people didn’t directly cause, like slave labor, is uncomfortable to think about, similarly to how the white Mrs. Carteret in "Marrow of Tradition" feels a sense of guilt towards the end of the novel regarding the poor treatment of her biracial half-sister, Janet. Mrs. Carteret’s sudden motivation to accept Janet as her sister is messy, however! Without spoiling plot, Mrs. Carteret’s guilt for neglecting Janet plays some part in her acceptance, but also because Mrs. Carteret needs something from her. Whether a character, someone else, or yourself is doing something to resolve guilt for a “good” reason is difficult to determine.
The parallel is imperfect because Mrs. Carteret desperately wants something from Janet, as you proceed to point out, but also because Mrs. Carteret directly harmed Janet by withholding the truth about their father’s second marriage.
During your talk about corporate guilt (3:20), I couldn’t help but think of Stevie in Chapter VIII of The Secret Agent. You argue that the activist mindset can be prompted by a desire to distract oneself from their own problems, and I think a similar self-interest is behind the actions taken by the anarchists and authorities in the novel to achieve what they perceive to be the “greater good” - Verloc’s laziness motivating his espionage, for example, or Heat framing Michaelis to maintain his reputation. Stevie’s actions, on the other hand, are driven primarily by pure altruism. Coupled with his aggressive behavior, I think Stevie falls in line with your example (7:24) of someone unmarred by learned helplessness who can freely express their desires.
Stevie is, however, repeatedly confronted with his own impotence. He wishes to take the horse and cabman to bed with him, for instance, but knows he cannot. His altruistic bent remains frustrated.
Expounding upon Lewis’ comparison between corporate and personal guilt, we must see past the mirage of tolerable guilt erected by society to confront personal sins. Such are the causes behind the current system. The cure to humanity’s vile condition lies in individual hearts. Character and actions are both praiseworthy. Individuals are most commendable when good actions accurately reflect good character. Actions tell half the story. Motivation reveals the second half, the “why?” behind an action, inevitably tracing back to character. Thus, motivation must be considered when ascribing praise or blame for one’s actions, and the story shared to promote virtue.
Grappling with the ability of someone to get into heaven intertwines with how one may define a morally “good” person. Two common forms of judging moral code are biblical acceptance and implementation into life, and if a heavier weight of positive traits and actions outdo the negative. The debate of what defines a morally good person is arguably at the forefront of defining religious traditions, including different Christian denominations. In my opinion, dreams are a manifestation of one's inner turmoil. Although not necessarily morally culpable, they can provide insight into the hidden priorities and ethical boundaries someone holds.
William James argues that our inner faculties operate in response to our environments, and anything that lies within us is a response to these surroundings; thus, the creative power of writers must derive from external influences. In W.B. Yeats’ “The Stolen Child” (1886-1889), the subject fleeing to a fairyland escapes a world “...full of weeping” (12). Yeats’ fairyland, conjured by his conscious mind, is influenced by and reveals his subconscious. Even his escapist fantasy is corrupted by malicious faeries tormenting helpless trout; this is Yeats’ troubled inner life surfacing, and he cannot shake its influence. Like sifting through layers of dreams to reveal personal, integral truths, writing can reveal the struggle of the writer to arbitrate between their conscious and subconscious, and understand themselves.
What of his inner life births this tension, and don’t you think he very consciously, determinedly added these faeries from Irish myth?
The idea of normalcy being fictional is a dangerous one, as it crumbles easily when it is questioned. It makes me think of Verloc and his relationship to sleep. It is mentioned that he has a difficult time sleeping, and even though we are not sure why exactly this is, there is substantial evidence to suggest it is due to some psychological matter. Insomnia, in his case, is how his psychological issues normally rear their head. When his normalcy is truly called into question (via events of ch.10), his response is alike to stages of grief. In short, people take the idea of “normal” more seriously than they consciously know.
Actually, we know exactly why Verloc can’t sleep. He’s been told by Vladimir that he will lose the embassy funding paying his bills unless he blows something up.
I find that the discussion around whether or not motivation matters increases in complexity when your point about how what we do and feel is not within our conscious control is considered. If someone has negative motivations for doing good, it feels difficult to judge them for those negative intentions if perhaps those feelings are a response that's deeply rooted in a formative experience that we, as outsiders, have no knowledge of. The act of examining our one’s actions and motivations seems like a healthy practice to me, but I’m not sure if acting on any conclusions about them is.
Well, I definitely wouldn't suggest, like B. F. Skinner, that free will is an illusion. We can recognize that forces outside our conscious control shape our behavior without relinquishing autonomy altogether. The more we learn about the forces that shape our behavior, the more we can reshape the behavior consciously, I think.
Dr. M,
Self-realization is a hard pill to swallow. Some people avoid it best they can because they don’t want to come to terms with the fact that they need to change. I have a lot of self-realization when I am in prayer. That is the time God shows me what I need to work on. Again, it is not easy to admit to yourself that you are imperfect. It is a daily struggle to die to yourself. I believe that no matter how much we try to fix ourselves whether it’s a mental illness or just lacking patience, we will never be “fixed.” That is where Jesus comes in. He took away the sins of the world and that also includes depression and impatience. The point I am trying to make is that we will never be perfect; our brains will never be free from illness. If a problem is solved in our brains, another issue will come up. There is just too much to unpack. That does not mean that we should not go to Christ in prayer or visit our therapist, it just means we should find something worth living for. If we live for something that is bigger than ourselves, we then find something to live for. Our problems will not fade away, but I would rather be depressed and live for God than depressed and not live for anything at all.
Thank goodness, then, that God does not call believers towards depression as some demonstration of virtue, but towards joy!
Acting based on personal morality supersedes being governed by societal guilt because one has more control over individual actions than the problems of humanity; however, this control is not without its difficulties. As a person greatly motivated by faith in God, I require spiritual truths to endorse my guiding principles. My morality then relies on my belief, one which often fluctuates and opposes other’s perceptions. This relativity makes acting difficult without reliable standards to trust during moments of doubt. Dependance on God’s will and commandments allows for consistent personal morality.
Dealing with the morality of things for your self compared to the greater good comes with a lot of self realization. Morals or the concept of goodness is not easily defined because it is ran by society. While, myself I try to deal with my morality for others, I struggle to deal with what is good for myself. Consequently, looking at one self in society is considered selfish. It’s a double edged sword, that goes with a lot of philosophical dilemmas. Personally, I think the over-well being of oneself is part of being good and morally sound. Destroying self for cause is more biblical sound, but even the Bible has its own limitations on what is selfless.
Although utilitarianism appears to be rational and ethical, I would argue that it is rather apathetic and lacks the importance of the means we utilize for a desired outcome. In the aforementioned example of a morally gray, but effective doctor, his desire to provide medical care to the poor is good and commendable, but falls short due to his inability to care for his wife and children. Don't they deserve the acknowledgment of their pain even if they are the minority? Truly, appearances are deceiving, and one must seek to have compassion for all sides.