1. What personal connections can you make that illustrate some of Brooks' main ideas?
2. What connections to the different Areas of Knowledge does Brooks make in his talk?
3. How does he view the relationship between emotion and reason? How is his view different from that of many Enlightenment philosophers? Do you agree or disagree with his view? Explain.
1. Brooks clearly believes that emotion and reason should not be separated, at one point I think he even says something like "emotion is the foundation of reason." This reminded me of one of the TOK presentations (shout out to whoever did this one :) ) where they talked about how ethics are a vital part of science, for example in animal testing. If you use only logical reasoning, it makes sense to test different medicines on animals before administering them to humans, but part of the reason these medicines are being tested is because they have unknown and potentially harmful side effects. However, because of emotion, we do have certain ethical boundaries when it comes to experimenting on living organisms, primarily out of compassion and a belief that all life is valuable.
ReplyDelete2. Brooks connected his argument to the Natural Sciences when he talked about the effects of brain trauma or lesions inhibit normal functions of the brain. he also (kind of) talked about psychology when he discussed the stereotypes of the "uber-mom" and politicians.
3. Brooks believes that emotion is a foundation for reason which differs from the Enlightenment philosophers who advocated exclusively reason and fact and believed that emotion had no place in rational thought. I believe that whether we like it or not, humans do have emotions so we might as well learn how to use them to better ourselves rather than waste time trying to suppress something we can't control.
1. Brooks illustrated a point about lacking how we suppress the emotions and uncertainty that we come across in everyday life. I thought this hit the nail on the head because we often disregard the uncertainty associated with everyday things in life. To a certain extent, I think this is a good thing though because if we cautioned against every uncertainty we would fail to "live." For example, there is an uncertainty every time we get into the car, yet we suppress this and reach our intended destination. Those who are aware of this uncertainty also tend to be cautionary drivers. We wear our seatbelt, check the mirrors, utilize the turn signal, etc.
ReplyDelete2. Brooks focused primarily on the connection of social science and natural sciences. He used numerous stories and factual figures to support his argument that we do not fully recognize the social sciences. One of the primary natural science relations he used was with the negative effects brain trauma has on a person's life.
3. I think Brooks advocates a life with an equal balance of reason and emotion. This is critically different from the reason-based logic advocated by the Enlightenment philosophers. I do agree with Brooks point on the equal balance of emotion and logic. I am a great advocate for logic, but I often use my emotions to get my points across. I do slightly disagree with Brooks approach though. He was a bit too blunt in a negative manner and his frankness could be taken the wrong way by certain viewers/listeners.
1. I would like to qualify Brooks’ argument that we constantly lack the ability to suppress our emotions. I think we only suppress our emotions for certain purpose and in certain circumstances. For example, when I worked as a lifeguard I had several pool customers pick fights with me. I had to be professional and resist fighting back. I had to think of the consequences before acting. However, I was not able to suppress my tears when my grandmother died. So when it comes to issues at the personal level it may be impossible to suppress your emotions.
ReplyDelete2. Brooks seems to observe the social culture around him (human sciences) and study history to back up his arguments with examples. These examples capture his audience since they observe the same things and can relate to them.
3. Brooks’ idea is that emotion is stronger than reason and seems to be our defining characteristic as human beings. This differs from the Enlightenment philosophers because the Enlightenment was about exploring the aspects of reason. The early Enlightenment philosophers tried to throw out the old ways of faith and emotion and use the unexplored method of reason. Brooks is trying to argue that emotion is humanity’s defining characteristic and we cannot change to a completely rational species. I disagree with Brooks’ argument because I think reason is the foundation of our thinking, and emotion would just strengthen our opinions. Emotion is what gives us the confidence to know whether we are right or wrong. Reason is our foundation because since the beginning of our lives, we learned to observe people and things around us and decide what is right and what is wrong. Emotion always made us confident if we were right and fearful of the consequences if we were wrong. So emotion would only be a secondary way of knowing compared to reason.
1. Emotion and reason are conjoined because they are used to make decisions in everyday life. Emotion is usually the initial gut reaction that we respond with and then we evaluate this response with reason to judge if it is appropriate or not
ReplyDelete2. Brooks uses natural sciences and social sciences in his presentation. He uses statistics and short narratives and examples to back his facts and reasoning.
3. Brooks seems to believe in equal harmony of emotion and reason but emphasizes the importance of emotion. I agree with Brooks over the Enlightenment thinkers that reason isn't the end all be all because it lacks a certain passion and creativity that emotion brings to the table
1. I can see how we tend to be dehumanizing in some aspects of life. I can be competitive and start seeing other people as not humans and just competition that I have to destroy. I guess this is a negative relationship that turns into competition in a capitalistic sense.
ReplyDelete2. This connects to indigenous knowledge systems. In the past the relations and bonds in a clan are what allowed us to alive. You also have the mother and child relationship that never changes in history. This is where we would get any skills that Brooks talks about.
3. Brooks has the transcendentalist view that you need emotion to reason but I disagree. People who work buying out small businesses for example dont use emotion to do what they do. They dont use regard for the relationships that Brooks talks about.
1. This talk relates to me on a personal level in that I am more comfortable taking about reason more than emotion because reason is more sound and there is a greater degree of certainty than there is in emotion which varies from person to person.
ReplyDelete2. He linked his argument to human science, even more specific, political science, which was present in his real life connections to the conventions he attended and how they changed his perspective.
1. This reminds me of the whole Kroger situation that my group did for our project presentation. It was a debate about whether the perpetrators for a crime should be punished as adults (reason) or be let off (emotion).
ReplyDelete2. He, obviously, made a connection to ethics seeing as it is the prime example of emotion in an AoK and mathematics is a good example of reason in an AoK. Human science was a good mix of both. Yeah, and he did some other stuff but I forgot it, lol. #Swag
3. Brooks' view of emotion as the primary (or perhaps most useful) way of knowing contrasts with the Deists' view. Deists believed that reason was superior. He doesn't. So he disagrees. I disagree with the agreements of his disagreements with their agreements. Reason, ftw! It's more logical and fact-based, and the best decisions are made using reason (math, science, history, etc.)
1. I personally connect with this talk because I usually separate emotion and reason, and this talk opened me up to think differently and try to bring them together.
ReplyDelete2. He linked his argument to social sciences with his several examples, including the stereotypes about "uber moms"
3.He differs from Enlightenment views because Brooks does not believe that reason is the highest power, and that it should work with emotion rather than separate from it.
1. Personally I am very competitive so some aspects of my life are influenced by emotion, but I try to maintain a clear head which I do through reason so that I can make the right decisions.
ReplyDelete2. He relates his argument to human sciences, especially with politics and how a politician advertises themselves and then behave in the office.
3. He says that they should not be separate and instead they are used together. He claims that we have developed reason through emotion. Many enlightened philosophers would disagree with this and state that they come separate and should remain separate or your emotions could become an unnecessary factor in decision making. I would connect both of these ideas into a compromise and that is what I would agree with. There are certain situations and environments that we have to make reason and emotion work together or keep them separate.
1. I can relate to this because he talked about the separation of emotion and reason and how he believes they're connected, which I agree with. What each person considers reasonable is determined by their emotions and connection to the subject.
ReplyDelete2. He related his argument to human sciences, specifically philosophy. He talked about how we are considered children of the French Enlightenment, that reason and logic trump everything else, and emotion needs to play no role in our thinking. Truly, we seem to be more children of the Scottish or British Enlightenments which believe emotion is the foundationbelieve emotion is the foundation for reason, and without emotion our philosophical questions wouldnt really exist.
3. Going along with my answer to #2, I agree that emotion and reason and more closely connected than what is commonly believed. Many enlightenment thinkers believe that emotion basically doesn't exist, so therefore it is irrelevant when talking about logic and reason. It doesn't influence our thinking at all.
1. Emotion and reason go hand in hand when we make decisions. At first we base a decision off of what we feel is right based on our state (emotion) but when we start to thing logically about what the best decision is we bring in reason
ReplyDelete2.He used history and Human sciences to talk about stereotypes and to make jokes about the things people do.
3.I think he himself views emotion and reason as going together with an emphasis on emotion. Enlightenment thinkers would only view reason as the most important. I however think a balance of both is needed because that yields the best decisions.
1) I usually involve emotion into many of the things I do because it's more based on your gut feeling and what your subconscious tells you. Emotion gives me a drive to do things and lack on other things as well. But overall it's makes each of us an individual with different goals, competitiveness, social skills, quietness etc.
ReplyDelete2) Brooks connected to the area of knowledge, human science and specifically political and social science skills. He said that politicians now a days have much social skill but are deprived of it when it comes to dealing with policy so their charisma is not put to good use.
3) Brooks states that emotion and reason should go hand in hand because emotions are the center of thinking and therefore affect reason in our actions. It differs from enlightened philosophers, like Descartes, because they usually keep each isolated and separate from the other because things are based on logic. I agree with Brooks in that emotion and reason should compliment one another because both logic and intuition intertwine accordingly depending on the situation.
1) As Brooks pointed out, our societal emphasis on reason has dulled our biological predispositions as empathic creatures. We are naturally inclined to feel other's pain and happiness, yet rational thought has caused us to go to war over things deemed "logical", such as resources or territory. Emotion would think the opposite, that no amount of resources would make up for the loss of human life caused by a war. If we follow Brooks's theory, we should be able to become more agreeable with others at both the macro and personal level
ReplyDelete2) Brooks referenced the human sciences when he referred to the various philosophers, contrasting his theories with those of Kant and the French Revolution
3) Brooks views emotion as just as, if not more important than reason. He thinks that emotion is the foundation for reason, and that we should use it more. This contrasts with the theories of Enlightenment philosophers, who believed that reason was the only way to find truth, and that emotion should take a secondary role in controlling our lives. I disagree somewhat with Brooks, because as nice as it would be to just say that reason and intuition can go hand in hand, many people don't have the common sense required for such autonomy, either because of supression or lack of it in the first place.
1. What personal connections can you make that illustrate some of Brooks' main ideas?
ReplyDeleteWe often believe that reason is the highest of the faculties, but our sentiments are often trustworthy, even though we may tend to discredit our intuition and emotions which are labelled as biased and unreliable. However, overconfidence in reason is a frequent and more potent bias that we are unaware of because it can lead us to the illusion that false correlations exist where they do not. When we are overconfident in the ways that reason speaks for itself, sometimes we are unaware of throne-sidedness with which the data interpreted. When this occurs, the full context of the situation is not taken into account, and our assertions eventually could loose their credibility. For example, students often base success as being dependent upon reason that is associated with excelling in school, but fails to rise to the same importance as emotion in the context of life as a whole because it does not lead to a deeper satisfaction.
2. What connections to the different Areas of Knowledge does Brooks make in his talk?
Brooks links his points to the human sciences when he describes his interpretation of people as the social animal. He relates his discussion to psychology by generalizing the manipulative behavior if politicians and the way that they employ their social skills to gain false credibility. He asserts that when politicians convert to their policy-making mode, their use of social skills vanishes to reveal their true intentions. He relates the psychological realities of situations to the broader application of making pivotal decisions such as involving financial regulatory regimes and military invasions that require a true understanding of the cultural atmosphere (ie Iraq) rather than just a superficial awareness that is primarily based on heuristics.
3. How does he view the relationship between emotion and reason? How is his view different from that of many Enlightenment philosophers? Do you agree or disagree with his view? Explain.
Brooks views the relationship between emotion and reason to be linked to the dehumanization of social adeptness when it comes to policy making decisions, based on the concept that we are divided individuals that separate reason from emotion. However, when we try to interpret human behavior using the laws of physics, it leads to a shallow and unauthentic view of human nature and character. He views emotion and reason to be necessary for an approach of optimal rationality to be achieved. His view is different from that of Enlightenment philosophers because he esteems both reason and emotion to be used to make appropriate decisions that are not ignorant or impartial to the genuine situation. I agree with his view because if we divide ourselves between reason and emotion, we are not making the most of our own judgment and are limiting ourselves to a manipulated view of reality.
1. David Brooks stated that social skills are lost once politicians think about policies. This reminded me of how humans lose their social abilities in formal situations. When a talkative person is put in a serious event like a banquet they lose their bubbly personality. This is because in formal situation humans value a certain seriousness because we see a lack of emotion as a form of intelligence.
ReplyDelete2. David Brooks talked a lot about ethics in that reason and emotion should act on each other instead of being separate are because then we can use our social skills as well as our intelligence which benefits us in the long run. This is because we can use our social skills to attract people and draw them into our way of thinking which makes it easier to get our point across.
3. David Brooks thinks that ESPN and emotion should work together instead of be separate. He differs from many philosophers because many people think that emotion hinders reason. I think that emotion an reason should work together because even though logic allows for power and intelligence but emotion allows for mercy and grace which is what creates a good leader.
Marissa Smith
ReplyDelete1. One main point that I made a connection with is that sometimes we unconsciously dehumanizes others and value reason over emotion. I know that sometimes when I talk to my friends about their problems, I tend to use a rational approach in 'comforting' them which often leads to the opposite effect. It is like in social situations, when we should be using our emotions to be compassionate and sympathetic, we use reason and hardcore logic to solve problems. Another point that the speaker made was how we are good at talking about material things but bad at talking about our emotions. I find this to be true in many situations in my life. I am very bad at communicating my emotions and feelings. I think sometimes it is because I do not want to acknowledge them. I feel we are in a society that tell us that trusting emotions is irrational (idiotic) problem solving.
2. He makes an allusion to the natural sciences when he talks about humans thinking that we can figure out human behavior through the study of physics. And also when he says it is a study of the brain, he implies that biology (neuroscience) is the way to find out how humans tick. When he makes his argument about consciousness and unconsciousness, he is talking about the human sciences (basically the whole point of the TED talk) and more specifically Cognitive/Behavioral Psychology. He also talks a lot about different experiments done which is psychology related. I also feel like it would also connect to indigenous knowledge systems when he states that we are social creatures not rational creatures, because indigenous groups rely heavily on each other, they are a very community based society. They value the relationships they have. He also goes through history by talking about the thoughts of the ancient Greeks and the Enlightened intellectuals.
3. Brooks feels that emotion and reason are interconnected and you need both to be fully functioning human beings. He says that emotion is at the center of our thinking. This is in opposition from Enlightened intellectuals because they thought that reason was the highest of all faculties. And many humans today still believe this. In valuing reason, we as the intellectuals, neglect emotion and do not take it into account. Whether we neglect it or not, as humans, emotion is at the center of every decision we make, even if it is not conscious. We are not purely rational, but we try to suppress the emotion to became rational beings. I agree with the speakers assessment of the human mind, we are driven by emotion (Some more than others). I think it is hard for us to truly shut emotion off and that is a good thing. We are not robots and computers. We are given the gift of rationalization but we are also given emotions and feelings that should be acted on. I think we could make better decisions, build better relationships, and become overall better people if we just accept that emotion is apart of out lives and try to learn to use it more in tandem with reason. It is all in moderation. You cannot rely too much on reason but you also cannot lean too much on emotion. Either would lead to negative consequences.
1. Humans are social creatures: I can’t go without human interaction for too long without going insane. I was home sick for a while recently and was limited to seeing people only when my parents got home. I couldn’t take it so I went to school feeling sick still.
ReplyDeleteWhen I watch movies, I definitely get into the emotion of them, like Brooks explained most humans do, but for me I think I get more into them than most. I cry in most movies I watch. If there is a sad part, I’ll most likely cry. I can’t handle scary movies well because I am IN the movie when I watch it. I don’t enjoy experiencing life threatening situations. After watching a happier movie, I am in a fantastic mood and am on some sort of happy high. What Brooks describes is completely true.
2. Brooks talks about both the natural sciences and the human sciences. He connected them through the idea that biology affects how one behaves and interacts. Brain lesions in the emotion centers of a human’s brain can make one helpless and limits his/her world. Connections to parts of history were also made. Brooks refers to the French Enlightenment and describes how they might have gotten it wrong and reason might not be the highest faculty. Brooks brings up art when he refers to Picasso and how Picasso merged Western thinking with African masks (and morals), which is a complex, difficult concept. Brooks brings up religious knowledge systems when he explains that the subconscious part of our brain seeks to be at peace or one with things. A believer, one of his examples, then seeks to be one with God.
3. Brooks views emotions as not separate from reason but instead the base/foundation of reason. He said, “Emotion is the central organizing process of the way we think.” Most Enlightened philosophers think that reason is the “highest of faculties.” Brooks thinks reason is often weak and sentiment can be strong and reliable. I agree with Brooks. When making a decision, reason is important to consider but I think emotion is the most important. If I need to decide on something big, the first thing I take into consideration other people’s feelings and emotions and of course my own. I do believe reason is important but more as a check to make sure your emotions aren’t going crazy or maybe use reason as a compromising device. You can think things through and still use emotion as your primary Aok.
David Brooks
ReplyDelete1. Brooks described that as the human race advances we as a whole become shallower, which reflects in our social endeavors. In the United States this concept can be illustrated by the extrinsic motivation of materialism, and I, like millions of Americans pursue capitalist rewards which like how Brooks said, makes us shallower.
2. Brooks connects to the AOK of human sciences to illustrate an idea, specifically when he talked about human history as a whole. Here he states that the collective our conscious produces the autobiography of our species. Though our unconscious does all the work.
3. Brooks believes that emotions are vital when it comes to reason because emotions lay the groundwork of what we should value when it comes to reason. This contrasts to the existentialist’s philosopher who viewed both as irrelevant due to absurdity and alienation. Though personally reason should be favored over emotion from a practical standpoint, though both can equally influence each other if not maintained.