A Question of Values

In “A Question of Values” I think that the general framework of “mental modes” is one that seems to be intuitively correct and it is clear in human behavior that not all humans process decisions in the same way, be it by nature or nurture. Also the different ways in which one could arrive at a value is robust.  However I take issue with the some of the claims of finding a “Primary mental mode.”  First I don’t think anyone can have a “primary mental mode,” people react to things situationally and the modes that are in use are always in flux, when he asks us to assign different percents to each mode adding up to 100 I don’t think that this should be seen as a static binary condition that makes up the way that “human x” uses each mental node but instead each individual decision or action we make is influenced by our mental and subconscious state at that time, and this is in constant change.  Any person is capable of making an implosive decision out of anger or sadness no matter how much they respect an authority or value logic.  This is where my biggest problem with the article lies.  To say that a Philosophy professor would give advise based on structure or logic, or that a Catholic Priest would hold the authority of the church as the answer, or even that a family member would be an emotional voice is all narrow and simplistic.  Is a Philosopher only concerned with logic?  Of course not, there are philosophies of intuition, the logos is not all of philosophy.  Is a Catholic priest not capable of making any other argument than that of authority?  Of course not, a priest is far more complex and a thinker beyond just church authority.  So while I do think the general ideas are sound the simplistic nature that some things are presented seems flawed.

Filed under Unit 02 | Comment (0)