jason (61)
michael (35)
andy (29)
sharon (29)
daniel (27)
leslie (22)
tulipgirl (22)
brian (13)
ben (12)
foomonkey (10)
aj (6)
joe lance (6)
pudding (6)
jeff (5)
agirloutthere (4)
beck (4)
beth (4)
c.davis (4)
davidm. (4)
joe (4)
phil w (4)
rebecca (4)
aaron (3)
andy duncan (3)
hugo (3)
jeremy clifton (3)
joedumas (3)
joshua (3)
kevin (3)
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
Chatter
Chickamauga Lock Project
Computer
Ed Bryant for Senate
Environment
Family
Fox Den Lane
GulfShore Baptist Assembly
Homebrew
Hurricane Katrina
Movies
Music of New Orleans
National Lampoon's European Vacation
Now Discover Your Strengths
Opinion
Politics
quotes
Recipes
Religion
Search
Signs
Things to do in Chattanooga
Torchbearers
Work
September 05, 2008
Calling all Philosophy Majors
For several months I have, not so secretly, wondered how to help others get out of this neo-federalist thought process that both parties are stuck in. I feel strongly about the revival of a more pure and historical constructionist view of the constitution needing to take root.
The problem is that it took me years (3-10) of reading and studying history to finally be open to the possibility that the reality be presented and the arguments being made in our current political paradigm are a result of, for the lack of a better term, us having lost our way.
All that said, Blackburn, Jason, and myself were on the way back from lunch today, and we were talking about politics when Jason brought up a principle or study he had heard of that basically goes like this: New concepts, to which someone has little or no reference point, take time to introduce or else the person will think they are either silly or misguided and will dismiss them out of hand.
Does anyone know what this principle is called? I'm sure this principle is covered in a freshman philosophy class, but for the life of me I can't seem to pin it down.
I am kind of working with these keywords: conceptual change pedagogy and knowledge reconstruction
Please, someone fill me in. I really would like to understand this concept a bit better.
Posted by gid at September 5, 2008 02:16 PMGood to see you blogging again! I enjoy your sister's blog very much also!
I can not answer your question but it is a very common reaction.
Of course I see it more in the Spiritual because that is where my mind goes.
There are basic foundational truths that the church as a body has drifted away from. New reality and new "truths" have replaced what is right and true. And so when what was spoken of by prophets of old is brought up....it is passed over as old thinking. Sad.
I'll post a portion of what you posted and see if someone can come up with an answer for you.
Perhaps what you're describing is cognitive dissonance. The situation reminds me of the pie of knowledge, and that people are comfortable with ignorance - or unaware of what they think they know but don't, and what they don't know they don't know, etc.
It takes a tremendous effort to build a lexicon up around someone's unfamiliar assertion. That assertion may draw upon a different philosophy than your own, and it's likely that similar words and phrases have vastly different meanings and values attributed to them.
This will likely make someone feel uncomfortable if you suggest that, say, neo-conservatives are bad, to a traditional conservative.
That's because they might not understand the term well enough, but may understand 'conservative' and may take offense to the perceived slight to the group they affiliate with. Ideas shouldn't be offensive...
A true intellectual can appreciate an assertion someone makes by placing it into a logical context by making an effort to understand where the idea comes from and how it benefits the individual, their family, society, etc. Which frameworks does the assertion fit into, and which is the person using?
There are also strategies that people employ to deal with cognitive dissonance, ideas, and philosophy in general. Check out the bottom of the page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
I could over simplify the problem and suggest that people would rather be comfortable and develop strategies to manage ideas, which range from a scientific strategy, to a fundamentalist strategy, etc. There can be positive benefits to accepting perceived contradictions - but only if you follow through to understand the logical framework for each. This is bewildering to some and inappropriately used by others.
By the way, http://www.bulliondirect.com/ and http://www.honeyvillegrain.com/ are your friend. Totally unrelated. :)
Posted by: Andy Duncan at September 24, 2008 11:54 AM