Translate this page from English Print Page Change Text Size: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, Winter,
He majored in economics and sociology and has studied philosophy, psychology, politics and spirituality. He's been employed as a social worker for the last 18 years. His weekly radio show, "The Ruminator," is archived at www.
His blog is www. Intellectual differences are pervasive in intellectual life and so make this a difficult task. Randall Collins begins his magisterial study, The Sociology of Philosophies, with the sentence: A truly integral theory would need to surmount these basic disagreements.
I explore the nature of the rational disagreements that intellectual discussants encounter when reason-giving comes to an end and they reach the basis of their beliefs. At that point, there are no more reasons for believing and the question of why one believes arises. Beyond our stated reasons for believing, a non-rational basis of belief is shown to undergird our rational worldviews.
I describe this non-rational or psychological realm, give examples of it and show how to explore it. The result of this investigation is an integration of the rational and non-rational aspects of our beliefs and knowledge.
This kind of investigation leads to an increase in self-knowledge and an alteration in collective knowledge.
Wilber and Difference Contemporary knowledge contains profound differences in its welter of views regarding the world. Ken Wilber's integral theory exemplifies the attempt to overcome these epistemological differences.
Wilber criticizes modern and postmodern thinking because it cannot organize the whole of knowledge coherently or meaningfully. Modern and postmodern pursuance of critical reason has led to an undermining of all epistemological, metaphysical and moral foundations.
The problem then is how to integrate those diverse knowledge-claims to create one coherent understanding and historical narrative while respecting, what Wilber sees as, postmodernism's valuable undermining of metaphysics.
Reality must now be understood as perspectival. If Wilber only spoke of perspectives as creative of reality there would be no way to assess the value of differing perspectives. Everyone would have their own perspective so the view of the sane would be as valid as that of the insane.
A person is given an injunction or instruction on how to look at reality: They then take their perception and share it with the relevant inquiring community of people who have also done that injunction and see whether their perception agrees or disagrees and thereby gain an evaluation of its validity.
The construction of Wilber's Integral Methodological Pluralism, like his previous model, is dependent for its validity on the validation of the relevant community of inquirers.
The key problem here, as it was in Wilber's previous model, is what to do with the differences or disagreements in the relevant knowledge communities? As I demonstrated in Bald Ambition, in the natural and social sciences, humanities and mysticism there are deep disagreements about the very subjects that Wilber needs consensus around to build his system.
Wilber's integral theory itself, and the relevant knowledge communities he relies upon for the developmental constructs that build his integral model, do not provide the validating consensus of their knowledge communities.
The debated and debatable nature of academic and non-academic knowledge remains. The enemy of the consensus required for validation is disagreement. The validity of Wilber's project founders on this disagreement.
He builds a massive system using materials of variable quality. My approach begins by inquiring into the fact of disagreement and asks: Rational Disagreement The disagreements I am discussing are rational disagreements in which two or more discussants are using reason to settle an intellectual difference.
They have no other interest besides settling the disagreement rationally.
So there are no jobs, power, money or status at stake in the outcome of the intellectual disagreement.Critical Analysis of Emotional Intelligence At this point let us turn to Daniel Goleman’s book, Emotional Intelligence.
My overview of the book is that it provides a useful reminder of the importance of emotions in human life and of the fact that our emotions are intimately connected with cognitive matters, with thinking, in short. Belief reasoning and emotion understanding in bilinguals.
Belief reasoning and emotion understanding in monolinguals are positively correlated with language acquisition (de Villiers, de Villiers, J. (). The interface of language and theory of mind.
Jun 10, · The reason for why no effect was found in Experiments 1 and 2 might be that the material was not as personally relevant and therefore did not trigger sufficient emotions for an effect to show. This does not explain why in Experiments 2 and 4 best performance was with negative content.
Lecture 7: Hume's Analysis of Belief Hume's analysis of Belief in the Treatise of Human Nature 1 is familiar to all students of philosophy, and has been discussed so often that the reader may well think there is nothing more to be said about it. Few people would question nowadays that emotions influence beliefs but until recently little scientific research has been done on exactly how this effect takes place.
This important new book, with contributions from some of the leading figures in the study of emotion, explores the relationship between emotions and beliefs from a number of 3/5(1). An Analysis of the Effects of Reason and Emotions in Knowledge and Belief PAGES 2.
WORDS 1, View Full Essay. More essays like this: emotions and reason, guatemalans and albanians, the reasonable man. Not sure what I'd do without @Kibin - Alfredo Alvarez, student @ Miami University.