Knowledge Evaluation and Conclusion: What Makes Humans Bad?

          Through out this quarter in my Liberal Studies class I have learned so much more of what happens around the world beyond what I witness in my own everyday life. We have been constantly keeping one question in the back of our heads whenever we have class discussions, do our readings, and engage in presentations given by our peers, and that is, "What makes humans bad?" Upon stepping into this classroom I was asked right away what I thought made humans bad, and since then that same question has been following me all along. I came into this class having a mere true belief that humans, like Hobbes believes, are naturally born bad, evil, greedy, and self-centered. I wrote my blog entries in the beginning about how humans are born selfish because they only care about fulfilling self need when they are young. It is not until they learn through their parents or experiences that they have to share with other people and not only look out for their own well being. Although I do still believe that experience is how you learn and grow, I have merged more towards Locke's belief in the end of the course, where humans are born with a blank slate (tabula rasa). With that blank slate, or blank paper, humans learn and make mistakes through experiencing many different situations in life to learn, build knowledge, and become molded into the person they become.
           With that in mind, I believe that after reading the articles and listening to presentations, a person can be considered as a bad person if we judge them right away. In addition, there seem to always be justifications for almost every situation that we have discussed. According to our Mindomo Map that we all contributed to as a class in the beginning of the course, a human being who commits murder, lies, and does not feel remorse after doing something bad are all examples of a bad person. While we automatically think that these people are bad people for doing these things, we often forget that there are different situations a person can be in that may be causing them to do those actions. For example, as we mentioned in a class discussion, if a person committing a crime with homicide is actually a serial killer who may be a psychopath, are they really to blame for their actions? If being a liar is bad then what about pathological liars who do it unknowingly and out of their control? Is a person with a mental illness also a bad person if they commit bad actions that are more extreme? We have to also be aware that some people in the world who are "normal" may also have bad actions because perhaps they were just raised differently, in a rough environment, or maybe lacking love and education. Can we blame them for being this way for trying to cope and get by in life? It seems that everything we have covered in this class, all human beings are susceptible to being bad, but there can also be justifications along the line in almost all of the cases.
             Two people's work which have greatly influenced me this quarter are Prichard and Blackmore. Through reading articles regarding epistemology, the theory of knowledge, I have been able to see things from a different perspective to better understand the idea of what knowledge really is. Prichard described in an article, What is This Thing Called Knowledge, the two different types of knowledge: propositional knowledge and ability knowledge. Ability knowledge is defined as the knowledge that you gain through personal experiences in life. You can see something be done and learn how to do it, it is the "know-how" knowledge. Propositional knowledge is defined as as assertion by a sentence that something is the case. There are also two different types of beliefs: mere true belief and true belief. Though they sound very similar, they are actually very different from one another. Mere true belief is an opinion, second-hand knowledge, and what one thinks to be true based off of prior experience and is resulted by chance. It is not until he/she finds facts to back up the belief, when it becomes a true belief. In the beginning of the course, I have had mere true beliefs about countless readings and topics because it is what I "know" based off of my personal experiences. However, after the entire course and learning everything that I have, some of my mere true beliefs either changed along the process, or were supported by true facts from reliable sources in the end and became true beliefs.
              Blackmore has introduced to me the idea of a very complex theory of consciousness and whether or not us human beings possess it. I have been able to question whether we control our conscience or if our conscience controls us and our bodies before our brains are even aware of it. Are we aware of the mind itself and the world? Are we even awake? The topic of consciousness is what I've learned called, inquiry-based, which is without a correct answer. There hasn't been a clear definition to what it is exactly, but just how each person perceives it to be. I believe that every human being posses this complex feature in our minds and that it warns us what is right from wrong and whether we should carry on with an action or stop it. Our consciousness has the ability to help us
make choices in life and we have the option to either do it or don't. As a class, we have also presented the idea that we cannot possibly know someone else's consciousness, for example, a bat. We know the facts of a bat about how they sleep in the day and how they have wings and hang upside down, but do we really know what it's like to be a bat? We have no absolute understanding of something/someone else because we simply only know our own conscience and no one else's. We have also been introduced to the idea that one's consciousness may be altered through the usage of drugs and it makes us think if the person who is under the influence can be considered bad if they're doing bad actions. Technically they would be considered "bad" for making the wrong choice, but as an individual, I wouldn't consider them a bad person. I think that over the course I have found that there is a fine line between making a bad decision and pursuing a bad action, than from being flat out "bad." Readings from both Prichard and Blackmore allowed me to see that.

               Knowledge in the humanities, social science, and natural science has really helped to encourage me with an open mind and not judge negatively too soon like I have. Specifically in humanities, I have learned the culture in human societies through out the world and how linguistics come into play when it comes to human interaction. Although swearing is bad, we learned that it can be used to create emphasis in, for example, Pulp Fiction. It can also be because the person was brought up that way since childhood and therefore, we cannot exactly blame them for doing something that was basically part of their nature. I learned in social science about human behavior and why humans do the things they do and what may be the cause for them to do it. For example,
bullying occurs and we automatically view it as a bad thing, however, if we take a step back to see the bully's point of view, we can understand that maybe they were raised with the lack of love and the reason to bully is their way to cope. We've also taken a look into explaining, predicting, and describing natural phenomenon in natural science and learned how the brain works and sometimes it doesn't work the way it should for everyone. If someone who is mentally ill commits a bad action, do we blame them for it? Before walking into this class I wold think "Yes, they are still people who are doing bad things." However, that is where I learned about the fine line between bad actions and bad people. I can now walk out this class thinking, "No, these poor people are suffering from a condition that is out of their control and they may not even be conscious of their actions."
 

     I have come a long way into being more open minded after this Liberal Studies course and this picture I drew on the Paper App. is a representation of growth. The tree that is planted in the ground represents the root of our knowledge through what we "know," or, our mere true belief. The many branches from the tree is an idea I got from our Mindomo Map. Since the Mindomo Map branches out into countless different directions with different ideas of what makes humans bad, I thought of drawing the branches to represent how much knowledge I have gained through out this course and how much I have grown as an analytical thinker. In conclusion, I believe that what makes humans bad cannot be a simple label of black or white because in most cases, it can be situational ("grey"). I believe, however, that people tend to be bad when they purposefully hurt other people or put other people down. If that is the case, then I would label them as "black." Otherwise, what makes a human being "bad" would be depended on their situation.

Blackmore, Susan J. Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford UP, 2005. Print. 

Pritchard, Duncan. “Some Preliminaries.” What Is This Thing Called Knowledge?London: Routledge, 2006.

         

Natural Science Knowledge

         

           Natural science is defined as "a branch of science that deals with the physical world, e.g., physics, chemistry, geology, and biology" ("Natural Science"). Although natural science consists of these subjects in the natural world, they also deal with research that involves the human brain activities and the body as well. Researchers often conduct surveys and perform experiments to support their findings in the topics of these natural sciences. Based off of results and patterns they see correlating to their research, they develop multiple theories and ideas that can be best suited for a conclusion. The question is, can these conclusions identify if a person is good or bad? As we discussed in class, a great deal of the time it's difficult to see if a person is black or white solely based off of these findings. In any case, there seems to always be an exception depending on the situation. 

            In the article, "Pathological Lying Revisited," by Dike, Baranoski, and Griffith, the writers discuss the historical evolution on pathological lying and compare it to the "pseudolying" that is found in children. They point out the differences between children who lie and pathological liars by stating that children lie base off of fantasies and a denial to reality, while pathological liars are people who start off that way, but also continue that habit of lying into adulthood. In that case, it is no longer innocent and a way of self-development, but rather a serious condition. 

          In a class presentation by Kevin Glenn, we were able to get a closer look into a specific article regarding natural science in neurology. Researchers in this article, "The Neuropsychological Correlates of Pathological Lying: Evidence from Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia," written by Poletti, Borelli, and Bonuccelli, discussed an experiment they performed on a 57 year old man who deals with pathological lying. Specifically, he told lies about being a computer programmer, when in fact he has no experience dealing with technology at all. Pathological liars uncontrollably and habitually lie without personal gain, and often times are unaware of even doing it. In this man's case, he also wasn't able to recall the lies he tells because his verbal memory was impaired.

        After brain scans and MRI tests, these researchers began to notice that these symptoms dealt with the cognitive function and was caused by a pre-frontal cortex disease. They applied the theory of mind, "the ability to understand and predict other's behavior by attributing independent mental state to them," when evaluating these results. It was later concluded that the man may have behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (BVFTD), which may be the cause of his habitual pathological lying. Although it is a finding through reliable tests, researchers are not for sure that it is the only factor in the man's behavior. It is merely supporting evidence, but not an underlying conclusion. 

         Given these circumstances, I don't believe the mentally ill man is a bad human being at all. It is not only because his lies are harmless and do no intend self gain, but also because his actions for doing so are completely out of his control and awareness. It's simply not their fault that unfortunately pathological liars have to suffer from a pre-frontal cortex disease and cannot function "normally." In cases like these, I would say it's an exception for the person to have bad actions because the condition makes it inevitable and they don't have the intent on purposefully hurting anyone. This is part of the binary bond that is "grey," rather than automatically labelling a person directly black or white. 

"Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online."Pathological Lying Revisited. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2015.

"Natural Science" Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.
"The Neuropsychological Correlates of Pathological Lying: Evidence from."Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2015.

Social Science Knowledge

         

               In this week's class, we discussed the various reasons why a person can be considered as bad and the reasons behind it. Many students, myself included, agree that whatever the reason is that makes a human being bad is also because of society and the situations in life that a person can be put in. Humans, especially at a young age, can be easily influenced to do bad things because of their life situation, but does that necessarily make them a bad person?

            For example, if a teen student were accidentally pregnant and all of a sudden had to support her child all on her own, is it bad that she steals? On one side, we can see that the student is pursuing these actions merely to support another human being so that that human being can have the proper care to stay alive and well. But on the other side, stealing is against the law and someone who does it can be considered as not having morals. So which is it? We come to realize that a person is not just simply black or white, but there is the binary bind that is just in the middle, perhaps grey. It's easy to simply automatically assume a person is bad, but there are always reasons to the story behind the bad action that can actually change one's perspective to think that possibly, the person is doing good. 

            Let's discuss the topic of bullying for instance. Based off of prior knowledge, readings, and class discussions, bullying is something that can be easily started in childhood, and instead of automatically assuming the child is bad because he/she is a bully, let's take a look at the big question, why? Why is a child being a bully? At a young age, children can be put into situations that cause them to make bad choices. The many factors and situations that can cause them can vary from having a bad relationship with their family at home to simply standing up for themselves to cover up the fact that they are insecure deep down, so they put other people down to make themselves feel better. According to the experimental research conducted by social scientists and doctors in Parental Characteristics Associated With Bullying Perpetration in US Children Aged 10 to 17 Years called, The 2007 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) from April 2007 to July 2008, 91,642 interviewees were asked about their relationships with their children and the results indicated that a bad parent to child relationship caused a more likelihood of the child becoming a bully. In this case, it's hard to solely blame the child for acting up in school because their at-home relationship makes matters worse.

          Both of the reasons seem understandable because many of us have probably felt that way or knew other people who have. Although the child still should have full control on the choices they make, it's often hard to when you're stuck in a bad situation. After familiarizing with the fact that a great deal of the situations aren't entirely the individual's, or, the child's fault, we can see that perhaps the black is actually grey and isn't completely bad anymore. 

       

             However, there are other instances where even the individual does not have any control of his/her actions or choices, for example, the mentally ill. Although they are still human, they often times lack the ability to control their actions, which causes them to lash out and act up under any circumstance. We've seen people with mental disorders in movies, but often times they act as serial killers and is the reason why society views all mentally ill individuals as dangerous or bad. As stated in the article, Media Portrayal of Mental Illness and its Treatments, "by the time American children begin school, they will already have spent the equivalent of 3 school years watching television. Thus, by the time
they reach adulthood, they will have ‘witnessed’ untold numbers of media murders the majority of people with a mental illness." This causes for the mentally ill to be depicted as bad or dangerous people and while children are young, they will have grown up to think that all mentally ill are this

way. It is maybe why the mentally ill act up and are encouraged to behave the way they do because society depicts them in such a negative way that they are always shunned and frowned upon by the public. It is my own mere true belief that the mentally ill are not bad people because they simply are unable to control how they react to certain situations, even if they tried. We brought up the idea that what if the mentally ill commit murder, is he or she a bad person? I believe that it isn't their fault that unfortunately they encountered this disorder and that they are not fully to blame. If they committed murder then the action itself is bad, however, the individual is not. When they lash out and kill someone, it doesn't mean they intend on hurting anyone, it can be that they don't know how to react to something that causes them fear or distress.

          Whatever it may be, the situation and society are to blame for the reason why humans are bad. Although sometimes they have a choice on how they might want to act or behave, it is society and the situations they are put in, that pushes them over the edge and leads them to be categorized as "bad."


"Media Portrayal of Mental Illness and Its Treatments." - Springer. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2015.

Shetgiri, Rashmi, Hua Lin, Rosa M. Avila, and Glenn Flores. "Parental Characteristics Associated With Bullying Perpetration in US Children Aged 10 to 17 Years." American Journal of Public Health. American Public Health Association, n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2015.

Humanities Knowledge

           It's often hard to discuss the topic on "bad people," because what really is bad? Is it their past that makes them bad? Is it their actions? Intentions? Thoughts? In any way, there seems to always be an exception for why people are bad or do bad things. Just as discussed in class in correlation to the video of Breaking Bad with Walter White, I see that he does certain things that I do consider as bad. For example, he produces and sells meth in a partnership with a businessman in drug dealing and he lies about what he does by keeping it away from his wife and family. However, if we try to see it from his perspective and see that he is doing it to provide wealth to support his family when he dies and he's doing it to benefit the family, then it's not entirely "bad." In any case, there are always exceptions.

            Another topic we focused on this week was linguistics. Here, we see another version of how humans can be bad besides from merely physical action. Language is a very powerful thing and as we watched in class, Pulp Fiction, for example, Jules Winnfield used a great deal of swearing to get his point across and to emphasize his emotions. This leads to the question, does swearing make a person bad? What if it's a better way to express yourself? According to Bowers and Pleydell-Pearce in "Swearing, Euphemisms, and Linguistic Relativity," there was a research where participants would read a curse word aloud and with electrodermal activity measuring their autonomic activity, they found that the swear words made their autonomic responses to those words were larger than to neutral stimuli. There was another study where eight words including euphemisms, were given to volunteers and their responses were recorded according to seconds of their reaction from seeing the actual curse word, than from "the-f word." It was noted that through those studies, the participants who saw the word "f-word" was less stressed than from seeing the actual curse word. Like discussed in class, the ones who saw the actual curse word felt angry and possessed negative emotions than from seeing "the f-word."
         

  Euphemisms, a similar and less harsh way of saying a word, has the affect on people where they can read it and be less angered by it. Some groups of people, however, prefer to use actual swearing words in their own group called, anti-society. Anti-societies are a group of people who emerged away from the original society to be different and have their own dominance and power-ground. This is the group that uses swearing as natural vocabulary and most of the time can be viewed as "bad." Those people who interact with one another in their anti-society can also be viewed as bad because they influence each other wit that negative language. The original society however isn't viewed as bad because they don't use that language and therefore have "good" people. As Montgomery mentioned in Chapter 5: "Anti-Language," "the anti-society has an antagonist relationship with society at large and their natural suspicion of outsiders make it difficult to study their language..."
         

"Introduction to Language and Society." Goodreads. Montgomery Martin, n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2015.

Knowledge Inventory and Reflection

           As discussed in class, the idea of knowledge is very much inquiry-based because there is no consensus on what knowledge actually is. According to Duncan Pritchard's article on "What is Knowledge," he explains that as something that is proven, a mere fact, and propositional. We've focused on two types of beliefs so far: mere true belief and true belief. Although very similar, they
differentiate in meaning where true belief requires actual proof and is in fact, true, and mere true belief is a result by chance. Secondhand knowledge, for example, is a mere true belief because it may be information not given from a reliable source and there is no experimental evidence. For instance, if I hear from a friend that there is a sale at my favorite shop at the mall, it could be false fact because there is no actual documentation or proof that there is in fact a sale at the mall. Another example of mere true belief is a personal opinion. For instance, if I believe that the cake my mom made is good, it may not be good for others. Often times people base their knowledge off of personal opinion and close off the opinions of others because they think only what they know themselves.
            This brings us to the topic of a theme-based knowledge that we discussed in class, which is 'what makes humans bad'? If someone thinks different from another person, they're likely to believe only what they know and naturally think that the other person is wrong simply because it isn't what they think. So we come to wonder, does that make a person bad? This is a question that can go both ways, whether a person perceives that as a trait of being bad or not. Much of our knowledge comes from perception and we do that by using our senses. The way we experience the world is not just by influences of the objects and experience around us, but is also developed by our own perceptive process and how we take things in. And this makes us wonder, do we as humans actually know anything at all. Can everything be filled with illusions and philosophical skepticism or do we actually know? The truth is, we don't actually have the answers to these questions, however, epistemology's varying theories can help explain the sources of knowledge and the veracity of what we consider truth.

            During class discussions, we focused our minds on thinking whether humans are good or bad (nature vs. nurture) and expanded our perceptions on how we view this topic. Based off of personal knowledge from experience, I believe that a human being is bad when they go out of their way to hurt someone else or affect them in a negative way either physically or emotionally. In other words, I believe that a human becomes bad when their actions or intentions are. In agreement to John Locke's essay, I believe that a human is naturally born like a white paper- blank and without any ideas. However, I think that as humans start to grow up, they grow up with very selfish tendencies such as not sharing with others because they only focus on self need. As children, they naturally want all the candies to themselves and not want to share with any one of their siblings. In this way, others may be affected or hurt because someone else is acting completely selfish and only focusing on benefitting themselves. Selfishness to me, is a form of what makes humans bad.

Pritchard, Duncan. "Some Preliminaries." What Is This Thing Called Knowledge?London: Routledge, 2006. N. pag. Print.