Thursday, June 30, 2016

PHI 210 Week 1 Summer 2016

The presentation may contain content that is deemed objectionable to a particular viewer because of the view expressed or the conduct depicted. The views expressed are provided for learning purposes only, and do not necessarily express the views, or opinions, of Strayer University, your professor, or those participating in videos or other media.

We will have two ten-minute breaks: at 7:30 and 9 pm. I will take roll at 9:30 pm--when we will do our in-class Discussion--before you are dismissed at 10:00 pm.

appeal to ignorance: could be found on

appeal to authority can be found on

Week 1 Lecture 1

Week 1 Lecture 2



1. Thinking
Learning Objectives
Define critical thinking.
Chapter Pages
1.1 What is Critical Thinking?
1.2 Webtext Overview: What is Critical Thinking?
Practice: What Is Critical Thinking?
Why Think Critically?
Practice: Why Think Critically?
The Best Possible
1.7 Practice: The Best Possible
2. Barriers
Learning Objectives
Develop skills for overcoming barriers which limit objective and productive critical thinking.
Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals
and abuses of language.
Chapter Pages
2.1 Emotions and Biases
2.2 Practice: Emotions and Biases
2.3 Culture and Stereotypes
2.4 Practice: Culture and Stereotypes
2.5 Thinking Independently
2.6 Practice: Thinking Independently
3. Arguments

Learning Objectives
Apply the principles of argumentation to analyze, evaluate, and compose
effective arguments.
Chapter Pages
3.1 Arguments are Support
Practice: Arguments are Support
Practice: Deduction
3.6 Practice: Induction
4. Fallacies
Learning Objectives
Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals
and abuses of language.
Chapter Pages
4.1 Fallacies
Practice: Fallacies
More Fallacies
Practice: More Fallacies
Even More Fallacies
4.6 Practice: Even More Fallacies

5. Sources
Learning Objectives
Apply the principles of argumentation to analyze, evaluate, and compose effective
Chapter Pages
5.1 Credibility
Practice: Credibility
Practice: Experts
Everyone Else

6. Explanations
Learning Objectives
Develop skills for overcoming barriers which limit objective and productive
critical thinking.
Chapter Pages
6.1 Qualities of Explanations
Practice: Explanations
Scientific Explanations
Practice: Scientific Explanations
Statistics and Fallacies
6.6 Practice: Statistics and Fallacies
7. Problem Solving
Learning Objectives
Devise an action plan for overcoming the hindrances to the decision- making
process by applying problem-solving skills to personal, professional, and academic
situations and experiences.
Chapter Pages
7.1 Define and Analyze the Problem
Practice: Define and Analyze the Problem
Generate Options
Practice: Generate Options
Make Your Choice
7.6 Practice: Make Your Choice
8. Language
Learning Objectives
Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals
and abuses of language.
Explain how critical thinking improves the ability to communicate accurately,
both orally and in writing.
Chapter Pages
8.1 Language and Thinking
Practice: Language and Thinking
Define Your Terms
Practice: Define Your Terms
Word Games
8.6 Practice: Word Games
9. Ethics
Learning Objectives
Devise an action plan for overcoming the hindrances to the decision-making process by
applying problem-solving skills to personal, professional, and academic situations and
Chapter Pages
9.1 Ethical Claims
Practice: Ethical Claims
Ethical Reasoning
Practice: Ethical Reasoning
Moral Theories
9.6 Practice: Moral Theories
10. Case Study
Learning Objectives
Apply the principles of argumentation to analyze, evaluate, and compose effective
Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals
and abuses of language.
Chapter Pages
10.1 Introduction to the Case Study
Multiple Perspectives
Exploring the Context
Taking Sides
10.5 Debating Whether to Act
10.6 Challenging Credibility

My supplemental text, which is not required, for this class:

Thinking: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Critical and Creative Thought, Fourth Edition Author(s): Gary R. Kirby; Jeffery R. Goodpaster

Assignment 1.1: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay -- Part 1, should be on one of five possible topics:

WTC Muslim Center, gay marriage, Obamacare, drones, or illegal immigration.


Chapter 1: The Value of Thinking Critically

  • What is Critical Thinking?
  • Why Think Critically?
  • The Best Possible
1.1 What is Critical Thinking?

What is Critical Thinking? A Definition, 2:52

Critical thinking is the study of clear and unclear thinking. It is primarily used in the field of education, and not in psychology (it does not refer to a theory of thinking).
The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking (a non-profit organisation based in the U.S.) defines critical thinking as the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skilfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.


One sense of the term critical means crucial; a second sense derives from κριτικός (kritikos), which means discerning judgment.

Hand-out of Critical Thinking Definition

Individually, and then in a small group, answer the following questions:

1. In your own words, what is critical thinking as defined by the National Council for Excellence?

2. What is a brief conceptualization of critical thinking?

3. Why Critical Thinking?

4. How does Edward Glaser define critical thinking?

Critical thinking has been defined as:
* "the process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion", "critical thinking," in's 21st Century Lexicon. Source location:, LLC. thinking. Available: Accessed: June 22, 2013.

* "disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence", "critical thinking," in Unabridged. Source location: Random House, Inc. thinking. Available: Accessed: June 22, 2013. * "reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do"Ennis, Robert (20 June 2002). "A Super-Streamlined Conception of Critical Thinking" Retrieved January 18, 2013.

* "purposeful, [[self-regulatory]] judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgement is based"Facione, Peter A. ''[ Critical Thinking: What It is and Why It Counts],'', 2011, p. 26

* "includes a commitment to using reason in the formulation of our beliefs"Mulnix, J. W. (2010). Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory. {{DOI|10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x}}, p. 471

* in [[critical social theory]]: commitment to the social and political practice of participatory democracy, willingness to imagine or remain open to considering alternative perspectives, willingness to integrate new or revised perspectives into our ways of thinking and acting, and willingness to foster criticality in others.Raiskums, B.W. (2008). ''An Analysis of the Concept Criticality in Adult Education.'' Capella University. ISBN 0549778349{{page needed|date=November 2012}}

*the skill and propensity to engage in an activity with reflective scepticism (McPeck, 1981)

*disciplined, self-directed thinking which exemplifies the perfection of thinking appropriate to a particular mode of domain of thinking (Paul, 1989, p. 214)

*thinking about one's thinking in a manner designed to organize and clarify, raise the efficiency of, and recognize errors and biases in one's own thinking. Critical thinking is not 'hard' thinking nor is it directed at solving problems (other than 'improving' one's own thinking). Critical thinking is inward-directed with the intent of maximizing the rationality of the thinker. One does not use critical thinking to solve problems - one uses critical thinking to improve one's process of thinking. Carmichael, Kirby; letter to Olivetti, Laguna Salada Union School District, May, 1997

1.2 Why Think Critically?

Critical thinking is an important element of all professional fields and academic disciplines (by referencing their respective sets of permissible questions, evidence sources, criteria, etc.). Within the framework of scientific skepticism, the process of critical thinking involves the careful acquisition and interpretation of information and use of it to reach a well-justified conclusion. The concepts and principles of critical thinking can be applied to any context or case but only by reflecting upon the nature of that application. Critical thinking forms, therefore, a system of related, and overlapping, modes of thought such as anthropological thinking, sociological thinking, historical thinking, political thinking, psychological thinking, philosophical thinking, mathematical thinking, chemical thinking, biological thinking, ecological thinking, legal thinking, ethical thinking, musical thinking, thinking like a painter, sculptor, engineer, business person, etc. In other words, though critical thinking principles are universal, their application to disciplines requires a process of reflective contextualization.

Critical thinking is considered important in the academic fields because it enables one to analyze, evaluate, explain, and restructure their thinking, thereby decreasing the risk of adopting, acting on, or thinking with, a false belief. However, even with knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, mistakes can happen due to a thinker's inability to apply the methods or because of character traits such as egocentrism. Critical thinking includes identification of prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc. Given research in cognitive psychology, some educators believe that schools should focus on teaching their students critical thinking skills and cultivation of intellectual traits.

Socratic method is defined as "a prolonged series of questions and answers which refutes a moral assertion by leading an opponent to draw a conclusion that contradicts his own viewpoint." Critical thinking skills through Socratic method taught in schools help create leaders.

Instructors that promote critical thinking skills can benefit the students by increasing their confidence and creating a repeatable thought process to question and confidently approach a solution. Students also accomplish follower-ship skills that can be used to probe the leader's foundations. Critical thinking skills through Socratic method serve to produce professionals that are self-governing. However, Socratic method for critical thinking skills can become confusing if an instructor or leader uses the method too rigidly, the student may not know what the instructor or leader wants from him. An instructor or leader may disillusion the students if he uses particular style of questioning. Instructors must reveal their reasoning behind the questions in order to guide the students in the right direction. "Socratic method can serve twenty-first-century leaders to instruct students, mentor protégés, motivate followers, advise other leaders, and influence peers."

Supplemental: Week 1, Lecture 1, 5:04


Definition (s) of "thinking"

Roles of thinking: possibility, communicating, writing, dialogue

Thought can refer to the ideas or arrangements of ideas that result from thinking, the act of producing thoughts, or the process of producing thoughts. Although thought is a fundamental human activity familiar to everyone, there is no generally accepted agreement as to what thought is or how it is created. Thoughts may or may not arise in the mind from the product of subconscious brain processing.

Because thought underlies many human actions and interactions, understanding its physical and metaphysical origins, processes, and effects has been a longstanding goal of many academic disciplines including psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, artificial intelligence, biology, sociology and cognitive science.

Thinking allows humans to make sense of, interpret, represent or model the world they experience, and to make predictions about that world. It is therefore helpful to an organism with needs, objectives, and desires as it makes plans or otherwise attempts to accomplish those goals.

The Scientific Power of Thought, 2:49

Pre-Built Course Content

Week 1, Lecture 2, 8:12


Reasons objectivity is difficult

Enculturation, religious opinions

p. 18

What is the difference between the Absolutist and the liberal responses to modernity?

Is religion violent, or, at least, conflict-ridden?

Why do some people resist "the Other," or reject those of another faith?

Click here to view this lesson about Enculturation.

"Those who resist contemporary influences and affirm what they perceive as the historical core of their religion could be called absolutists. . . . They may encourage antipathy or even violence against people of other religious traditions (p. 18)."

Geller vs. Choudry, 4:41





The id (Latin for "it",[4] German: Es)[5] is the unorganized part of the personality structure that contains a human's basic, instinctual drives. Id is the only component of personality that is present from birth.[6]

The super-ego (German: Über-Ich)[27] reflects the internalization of cultural rules, mainly taught by parents applying their guidance and influence.[28

The ego (Latin "I",[18] German: Ich)[19] acts according to the reality principle; i.e., it seeks to please the id's drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bring grief.[20] At the same time, Freud concedes that as the ego "attempts to mediate between id and reality, it is often obliged to cloak the [unconscious] commands of the id with its own [ preconscious ] rationalizations, to conceal the id's conflicts with reality, to profess ... to be taking notice of reality even when the id has remained rigid and unyielding."[21] The reality principle that operates the ego is a regulating mechanism that enables the individual to delay gratifying immediate needs and function effectively in the real world.

An example would be to resist the urge to grab other people's belongings, but instead to purchase those items.[22]

The ego is the organized part of the personality structure that includes defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive functions. Conscious awareness resides in the ego, although not all of the operations of the ego are conscious.

Originally, Freud used the word ego to mean a sense of self, but later revised it to mean a set of psychic functions such as judgment, tolerance, reality testing, control, planning, defense, synthesis of information, intellectual functioning, and memory.[1

The ego separates out what is real. It helps us to organize our thoughts and make sense of them and the world around us.[1] "The ego is that part of the id which has been modified by the direct influence of the external world. ...

The ego represents what may be called reason and common sense, in contrast to the id, which contains the passions ... in its relation to the id it is like a man on horseback, who has to hold in check the superior strength of the horse; with this difference, that the rider tries to do so with his own strength, while the ego uses borrowed forces."[23]

Still worse, "it serves three severe masters ... the external world, the super-ego and the id."[21] Its task is to find a balance between primitive drives and reality while satisfying the id and super-ego.

Its main concern is with the individual's safety and allows some of the id's desires to be expressed, but only when consequences of these actions are marginal. "Thus the ego, driven by the id, confined by the super-ego, repulsed by reality, struggles ... [in] bringing about harmony among the forces and influences working in and upon it," and readily "breaks out in anxiety—realistic anxiety regarding the external world, moral anxiety regarding the super-ego, and neurotic anxiety regarding the strength of the passions in the id."[24]

It has to do its best to suit all three, thus is constantly feeling hemmed by the danger of causing discontent on two other sides. It is said, however, that the ego seems to be more loyal to the id, preferring to gloss over the finer details of reality to minimize conflicts while pretending to have a regard for reality. But the super-ego is constantly watching every one of the ego's moves and punishes it with feelings of guilt, anxiety, and inferiority.

To overcome this the ego employs defense mechanisms. The defense mechanisms are not done so directly or consciously. They lessen the tension by covering up our impulses that are threatening.[25] Ego defense mechanisms are often used by the ego when id behavior conflicts with reality and either society's morals, norms, and taboos or the individual's expectations as a result of the internalization of these morals, norms, and their taboos.

Denial, displacement, intellectualisation, fantasy, compensation, projection, rationalization, reaction formation, regression, repression, and sublimation were the defense mechanisms Freud identified. However, his daughter Anna Freud clarified and identified the concepts of undoing, suppression, dissociation, idealization, identification, introjection, inversion, somatisation, splitting, and substitution.

"The ego is not sharply separated from the id; its lower portion merges into it.... But the repressed merges into the id as well, and is merely a part of it. The repressed is only cut off sharply from the ego by the resistances of repression; it can communicate with the ego through the id." (Sigmund Freud, 1923)

In a diagram of the Structural and Topographical Models of Mind, the ego is depicted to be half in the consciousness, while a quarter is in the preconscious and the other quarter lies in the unconscious.
In modern English, ego has many meanings. It could mean one’s self-esteem; an inflated sense of self-worth; the conscious-thinking self;[26] or in philosophical terms, one’s self. Ego development is known as the development of multiple processes, cognitive function, defenses, and interpersonal skills or to early adolescence when ego processes are emerged.[20

What Does The Ego Mean? | Concept Explained, 5:05

Emotional Intelligence, 2:52

A short animation breaking down the concepts of emotional intelligence and how it's an integral part of thinking and decision making.

Errors in thinking

Pre-Built Course Content

What Did I Do to Prepare in WEEK 1?
Know the course outcomes:
Define Critical Thinking
Access the Web text and review the course guide.

Consider Socrates: "The unexamined life is not worth living."

Philosophy for the Masses - A conversation with Angie Hobbs (Preview), through, 2:22

"The unexamined life is not worth living", Socrates once said. But how exactly do we examine life?

To be discussed:

In debates, politics, and public policy, why should we reject politicians who talk about fairness?

What should we appreciate from philosophy?

Enter Angie Hobbs, the UK's first Senior Fellow in the Public Understanding of Philosophy. Philosophy, Angie believes, anchors our human experience: it's where we find the principles on which we build our knowledge, the tools to critical thinking and the keys to a more fulfilled life.

We sat down with Angie in London's RSA to discuss the importance of philosophy and how to best share it with the world.
You can watch the full conversation at or on our iPad app on Apple Newsstand

Socrates, The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living.html

Philosophers have long done their best thinking when directly engaging with the outside world, not in isolation from it. Socrates roved the Athenian agora, courting trouble with the authorities. Rousseau immortalized his rambles through nature on the printed page. Nietzsche once said that only ideas conceived while walking have any value.

In Examined Life, filmmaker Astra Taylor accompanies some of today's most influential thinkers on a series of unique excursions through places and spaces that hold particular resonance for them and their ideas.

And while driving through Manhattan, Cornel West - perhaps America's best-known public intellectual - compares philosophy to jazz and blues, reminding us how intense and invigorating a life of the mind can be.

What is your reaction to what Dr. West says?

Peter Singer's thoughts on the ethics of consumption are amplified against the backdrop of Fifth Avenue's posh boutiques.

Is it a moral problem to consume when so many others have so little?
Should you save children or spend more on shoes (or, whatever you desire)?

In the full production, Michael Hardt ponders the nature of revolution while surrounded by symbols of wealth and leisure. Judith Butler and a friend stroll through San Francisco's Mission District questioning our culture's fixation on individualism.

Offering privileged moments with great thinkers from fields ranging from moral philosophy to cultural theory, Examined Life reveals philosophy's power to transform the way we see the world around us and imagine our place in it.

Featuring Cornel West, Avital Ronell, Peter Singer, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Martha Nussbaum, Michael Hardt, Slavoj Zizek, Judith Butler and Sunaura Taylor.

How have some of today's most influential thinkers considered Socrates' question?

We will discuss your answers following the video.


How aware are you?

p. 8: thinking activity.

Thinking Activity 1.2

There are three columns to write out.

On a piece of paper, jot down the things around you that are obvious in one column.

Next, in the second column, jot down more things that are less obvious but that you notice now.

In the third column, jot down things that you did not notice at first but now that you are concentrating on your awareness, you did notice. 

Finally, think about what you sensed and felt. What does it mean?

Thinking, Chapter 2: “Personal Barriers.”

pp. 17-18 Religion and Enculturation

p. 18 Think About It

Secularization, Religious Resurgence, and Multiple Modernities, 2:10

As modernity has advanced across the world, some people are surprised that in most societies faith not been relegated to the private sphere or altogether abandoned. Investigate the manner in which cultures modernize in unique ways, many of which accommodate or even promote religious belief and practice.

What is secularization?

Secularization or secularisation is the transformation of a society from close identification with religious values and institutions toward nonreligious (or irreligious) values and secular institutions. The secularization thesis refers to the belief that as societies progress, particularly through modernization and rationalization, religion loses its authority in all aspects of social life and governance.

Are religions everywhere in decline, or are they resurging?

In Europe, does modernization and secularization go hand in hand?

Modernization theory is a theory used to explain the process of modernization within societies. Modernization refers to a model of a progressive transition from a 'pre-modern' or 'traditional' to a 'modern' society. The theory looks at the internal factors of a country while assuming that, with assistance, "traditional" countries can be brought to development in the same manner more developed countries have. Modernization theory attempts to identify the social variables that contribute to social progress and development of societies, and seeks to explain the process of social evolution

Is the same true for the United States?

Food for thought: has modernization led to secularization in the Middle East?

The scientific revolution was the emergence of modern science during the early modern period, when developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology (including human anatomy) and chemistry transformed views of society and nature.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] The scientific revolution began in Europe towards the end of the Renaissance period and continued through the late 18th century, influencing the intellectual social movement known as the Enlightenment. While its dates are disputed, the publication in 1543 of Nicolaus Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) is often cited as marking the beginning of the scientific revolution.

A first phase of the scientific revolution, focused on the recovery of the knowledge of the ancients, can be described as the Scientific Renaissance and is considered to have ended in 1632 with publication of Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.[8] The completion of the scientific revolution is attributed to the "grand synthesis" of Isaac Newton's 1687 Principia, that formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation.[9] By the end of the 18th century, the scientific revolution had given way to the "Age of Reflection".

The concept of a scientific revolution taking place over an extended period emerged in the eighteenth century in the work of Jean Sylvain Bailly, who saw a two-stage process of sweeping away the old and establishing the new.[10]

The relationship between religion and science has been a subject of study since classical antiquity, addressed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others. Perspectives from different geographical regions, cultures and historical epochs are diverse, with some characterizing the relationship as one of conflict, others describing it as one of harmony, and others proposing little interaction.
Science vs. Religion, 2:05

Are Science and Religion in conflict? Have you got the notion from pop-culture that science and religion are in constant conflict? Like two rival boxers vying for the title of heavy weight champ. We're reminded about the Catholic Church's opposition to Galileo, the Scopes trial and more recently, the creation evolution debate or discussions around stem cell research.

It's called The conflict thesis, and holds that religion and science has and always will be in conflict throughout history, and it was made popular in the late 1800's, by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. However, today much of the scholarship that the conflict thesis was first based on, is considered to be inaccurate. An example is the claim that people of the Middle Ages widely believed that the Earth was flat. That idea is still very common in popular culture.

But this claim is mistaken, as historians today know "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge that earth was a sphere and even knew its approximate circumference." Regarding the model in itself, historical research indicates that religion has a much more complex and close relationship with science than the conflict thesis acknowledges.

Today historians know that many scientific developments, such as Kepler's laws were explicitly driven by religious ideas and organizations. But one reason for the current appeal of the conflict thesis is the existence of ongoing debates that seem to follow a pattern of religion versus science, or religion versus what some claim to be social progress, where this supposed progress is linked in some way to science or technology. But hopefully, as time passes so will the misinformation, because to the nonpartisan both science and religion have important parts to play in our world. Science tells us how the world works and religion tells us why.

What is the relationship between science and religion?

Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness whilst also acknowledging philosophical and metaphysical explanations with regard to the study of the Universe. Neither science nor religion are unchanging, timeless, or static because both are complex social and cultural endeavors that have changed through time across languages and cultures.[1] Most scientific and technical innovations prior to the Scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Elements of the scientific method were pioneered by ancient pagan, Islamic, and Christian scholars. Roger Bacon, who is often credited with formalizing the scientific method, was a Franciscan friar.[2] Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world. Confucian thought has held different views of science over time. Most Buddhists today view science as complementary to their beliefs.

Events in Europe such as the Galileo affair, associated with the scientific revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, led scholars such as John William Draper to postulate a conflict thesis, holding that religion and science have been in conflict methodologically, factually and politically throughout history. This thesis is held by some contemporary scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg and Carl Sagan, and some creationists. While the conflict thesis remains popular for the public, it has lost favor among most contemporary historians of science.[3][4][5][6][7][8]

Many scientists, philosophers, and theologians throughout history, such as Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins, have seen compatibility or independence between religion and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould, other scientists, and some contemporary theologians hold that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between science and religion, while others such as Ian Barbour believe there are even parallels.

Public acceptance of scientific facts may be influenced by religion; many in the United States reject the idea of evolution by natural selection, especially regarding human beings. Nevertheless, the American National Academy of Sciences has written that "the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith", a view officially endorsed by many religious denominations globally.[9]

Does SCIENCE = TRUTH? (Nietzsche) - 8-Bit Philosophy, 3:07


Simon Critchley Examines Friedrich Nietzsche,

The philosopher takes a look at Nietzsche's approach to life and death.

Critchley: Yeah. Nietzsche describes a mad man who runs into a public square shouting, God is dead. God is dead and the people didn't believe him, and he's laughed at, and he leaves. He came too soon. He says, he came, I came too soon. But the thought here is deeper, more interesting. It's not that the Nietzsche said, God is dead. Something you can find on _____ worlds, the world over is that God is dead, we have killed him, and what Nietzsche means by that I think is that the outcome of history is the death of God. We no longer need or we no longer can believe in those sorts of assurances which theology gave us through let's say, let's say through the development of science and technology. We've got ourselves to a position where God is an accessory that we can do without. So, it's not that Nietzsche was celebrating the death of God. He thinks that God is a pretty bad idea. He makes us cringing, cowardly, submissive creatures but it doesn't mean the opposite is something to be celebrated. We shouldn't just celebrate our, you know, that would lead to sort of nihilism. What Nietzsche thought is that, you know, human history is led to a point where we are, we find the idea of God incredible. We can no longer believe it and at that point he says, there's a risk of us throwing up our hands, and saying, well, nothing means anything. That's what Nietzsche calls nihilism. Nietzsche's thought is not nihilism. This is a key thing. Nietzsche is trying to think, a counter movement to nihilism and this is what he calls a re-evaluation of values, or an overcoming of nihilism. It's what Nietzsche wants us to do. Nietzsche is, you know, Nietzsche wants us to reject our usual ways of thinking morally in terms of a new way of conceding of value that would be in terms of life ultimately, the affirmation of life, something like that.

Nihilism - life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

What basis for moral values and behavioral codes do we have (if not religion)?

The Big Bang Theory - Nietzsche on Morality, 1:42

What is Real? (Plato) - 8-Bit Philosophy, 2:48

The Cave: An Adaptation of Plato's Allegory in Clay, 3:11

Can you apply the allegory to your own life, personlly?

An excerpt from Plato's Republic, the 'Allegory of the Cave' is a classic commentary on the human condition. It is a story of open-mindedness and the power of possibility.
We have adapted and brought it to life by shooting thousands of high-resolution photographs of John Grigsby's wonderful clay animation. To learn more, visit

p. 26, Ego Defenses

AP Psych Defense Mechanisms Video, 3:06
BTB (Beyond the Book) project for AP Psych.
Project by Abigail Pulizzano, Cameron Chan, and Eric Liu.

Defense Mechanisms:

What are Defense Mechanisms? 11 Examples of Defense Mechanism, 5:14

What are defense mechanisms? 11 Defense Mechanism Examples. In this video Andrea Cairella, LPCC in Long Beach, CA covers what are defense mechanisms and provides 11 examples of defense mechanisms. C'mon over to where the main discussion happens after the episode. What are defense mechanisms you use? Today you'll learn what are defense mechanisms you use and the top 11 examples of defense mechanisms used in our intrapersonal and interpersonal relationships. Some examples of defense mechanisms are: 1. Blaming or Attacking Others -- This defense mechanism is used when your ego becomes threatened, you feel vulnerable and hurt, or you don't want to admit your short-comings or contributions to the problem. 2. Rationalization -- This example of a defense mechanism is a subconscious justification, excuse or reasoning given to make a behavior seem logical. 3. Excuses -- Instead of taking responsibility for your actions or lack of action, you instead share all the reasons why it could not be done or blames others for your behavior. 4. Deflection -- When you change the subject and focus on someone or something else, instead of speaking about yourself. 5. Playing the Victim -- To avoid dealing with the problem or feeling responsible for the situation, the victim finds it easier to make the other person the bad guy and believes that everything is happening to them. 6. Displacement - This defense reduces anxiety or pressure by transferring feelings toward one person to another. 7. Conversion - Mental conflict converted to a physical symptom. 8. Regression - Giving up current level of development and going back to a prior level. 9. Reaction Formation - Over-compensation for fear of the opposite. When there are two conflicting parts in self-one is strengthened while the other is repressed. 10. Simple Denial - Unpleasant facts, emotions, or events are treated as if they are not real or don't exist. 11. Fantasy - Retreating into a dream world of times past. What are the defense mechanisms you use? Give your examples of defense mechanisms over on the blog. If you enjoyed this video, subscribe to our channel and sign up for your free weekly relationship and life advice at And if you're interested in more videos on relationship advice for couples, check out our YouTube playlist on that exact topic here: Thanks for watching! My YouTube channel: Examples of defense mechanisms on my website: Examples of defense mechanisms on YouTube:




Psychological repression, or simply repression, is the psychological attempt made by an individual to direct one's own desires and impulses toward pleasurable instincts by excluding the desire from one's consciousness and holding or subduing it in the unconscious. Repression plays a major role in many mental illnesses, and in the psyche of the average person.[1] Repression (German: Verdrängung), 'a key concept of psychoanalysis, is a defense mechanism, but it pre-exists the ego, e.g., 'Primal Repression'. It ensures that what is unacceptable to the conscious mind, which would arouse anxiety if recalled, is prevented from entering into it';[2] and is generally accepted as such by psychoanalytic psychologists.[3] There is debate as to whether (or how often) memory repression really occurs[4] and mainstream psychology holds that true memory repression occurs only very rarely.[5]
Repressive Defenses, 3:44

Presentation on repressive defenses. For more information, go to Visit us at Facebook at



In Freudian psychology, displacement (German: Verschiebung, "shift, move") is an unconscious defense mechanism whereby the mind substitutes either a new aim or a new object for goals felt in their original form to be dangerous or unacceptable.[1] A term originating with Sigmund Freud,[2] displacement operates in the mind unconsciously, its transference of emotions, ideas, or wishes being most often used to allay anxiety in the face of aggressive or sexual impulses.
Displacement Defined, :13

Examples of Displacement, 2:10


Psychology: Displacement, 1:10

A short film showing an example of the defense mechanism by the name of "Displacement."


Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It can take the form of blame shifting. According to some research, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life.[2]
Lucid Rich Jr - Psychological Projection, 1:59
A short educational cartoon about Psychological Projection. A little something to educate others. Inspired by Tim P Nokio

In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[3] Rationalisation happens in two steps: A decision, action, judgement is made for a given reason, or no (known) reason at all. A rationalisation is performed, constructing a seemingly good or logical reason, as an attempt to justify the act after the fact (for oneself or others). Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt or shame). People rationalize for various reasons — sometimes when we think we know ourselves better than we do. Rationalization may differentiate[clarification needed] the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.
Defense Mechanism: Rationalization - Scrubs, 1:13
An example of rationalization in Scrubs. Turk makes up an excuse for being afraid during surgery.


Israel Charny: Psychology of Denial, 4:25

Dr. Israel W. Charny, psychologist and executive director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, tells the story of how he became a “devoted student of the denial of the Armenian Genocide” and suggests several reasons why the Turkish government, over the last one hundred years, has gone to great lengths—politically and at great financial cost—to continue its policy of denial. Dr. Israel W. Charny is an Israeli and American psychologist who is widely known as the co-founder and past president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, founder and first president of the Israel Family Therapy Association, and a past president of the International Family Therapy Association. Three of his works have been awarded "Outstanding Academic Book of the Year" by the American Library Association including Fascism and Democracy in the Human Mind. He has written and lectured extensively on the psychological motivations and impact of denial. He is also the author of Encyclopedia of Genocide, a two-volume reference work that examines the entire historiography of all genocides, including the phenomenology of the denial.


-Reaction Formation

I do not own any of the songs used in this video; no copyright infringement intended. All credits go to the artists (Rascal Flatts, Chester See, and NeverShoutNever).

Ian Hunter Something to Believe In.html 5:47
Ian Hunter, God (Take 1), 1976, with lyrics, 5:46

 Self-concepts
 Ego
 Emotions
 Errors in thinking
 Faculty introduction, course overview, and expectations
 Review course philosophy, expectations, assignments, late policy, grading, academic integrity, APA use if appropriate, and attendance policy.
 Student introductions
 Lecture on definition(s) of “thinking” and the role of thinking – possibility, communicating, writing, and dialogue.
 Lecture on reasons that objectivity is difficult, enculturation and religious opinions, self-concepts, ego, emotions, and errors in thinking.
 Discussion: “Thinking About Thinking.”
o Select a quote about “thinking” from Chapter 1 that best describes your own viewpoint and explain why this quote is meaningful to you.
o Identify which of the sources of enculturation has had the most impact on your own thinking and explain why you think this is the case.
o Identify one of the “5 Errors of Thinking” that you recently observed in another or even committed yourself and explain how this affected productive communication.

Week 1 Objectives

Upon completion of this lesson, you will be able to:

To meet the overall objectives we will cover the following topics in Part 1:
  • Definition(s) of "thinking"
  • Role of thinking — possibility, communicating, writing, dialogue
To meet the overall objectives we will cover the following topics in Part 2:
  • Reasons objectivity is difficult
  • Enculturation, religious opinions
    • Enculturation is the process by which people learn the requirements of their surrounding culture and acquire values and behaviours appropriate or necessary in that culture. As part of this process, the influences that limit, direct, or shape the individual (whether deliberately or not) include parents, other adults, and peers. If successful, enculturation results in competence in the language, values and rituals of the culture.
  • Self-concepts Classical Notions of the Self - Philosopher Raymond Martin.html
  • Ego
"Ego" is a Latin and Greek (ἑγώ) word meaning "I", often used in English to mean the "self", "identity" or other related concepts.
Ego, Elton John.html
  • Emotions
  • Errors in thinking
What Will I Do to Prepare for Week 2? 9:45 - 10 pm


The News is Fake
Obama Censors Islamist Statement from French President
Shapiro vs. Pro-Choice
Pastor vs. Islamist on Hannity
Watter's World Easter

Lord of the Flies (2/11) Movie CLIP - Whoever Holds the Conch Gets to Speak (1990) HD, 2:26
Lord of the Flies movie clips: BUY THE MOVIE: Don't miss the HOTTEST NEW TRAILERS: CLIP DESCRIPTION: Ralph (Balthazar Getty) leads the boys in a discussion about how they should set up camp. FILM DESCRIPTION: Harry Hook directed this second screen adaptation of William Golding's cult novel about a group of British schoolchildren who revert to savagery when marooned on a deserted island. The new adaptation replaces British school children with a group of American military cadets and instead of a shipwreck, their plane crashes into the sea. The children swim ashore onto an island and try to fend for themselves, with the only surviving adult wracked with fever and crazed with pain. As the children get the feel of the island, the group separates into two different camps: Ralph (Balthazar Getty) and his followers prefer to act civilized and want to expand their efforts toward finding a way off the island; on the other hand, Jack (Chris Furrh) and his band revert to painting their faces, carrying spears and exploiting the island for survival. When the chances for rescue become less and less likely, the two factions go to war with each other, with tragic results. CREDITS: TM & © MGM (1990) Cast: Vincent Amabile, Chuck Bell, Angus Burgin, James Badge Dale, Gordon Elder, Everado Elizondo, Chris Furrh, Balthazar Getty, Michael Greene, James Hamm, Brian Jacobs, Braden MacDonald, Brian Matthews, Judson McCune, Charlie Newmark, Danuel Pipoly, Zane Rockenbaugh, Gary Rule, Robert Shea, Shawn Skie, Andrew Taft, Edward Taft, David Weinstein, Terry Wells, Martin Zentz Director: Harry Hook Producers: Lewis M. Allen, Jeffrey Bydalek, Ross Milloy, Lewis Newman, Walker Stuart, Peter Newman, David V. Lester Screenwriters: William Golding, Sara Schiff