Big Think

Controlling instinct by rational thought is what makes us human

The ability to transcend 'instinct' as the driver of our actions and replace, or at least guide that instinct by rational thought that takes account of the 'outcomes' is what lifts us above the animal. That is, we can now see our actions as not just 'good' (it worked and I got what I wanted), or bad (didn't work and I didn't get what I wanted), but as also 'good' (morally correct, in line with societal norms etc), or bad (criminal, dangerous, immoral etc). Of course some would say (Nietzsche please stand) that this is a degenerative step, but not many could say that seriously. When man began to use rationality to temper instictive reaction he became human. Prior to such a momentous step murder, theft, rape, incest etc. did not exist as they were but consequences of instinctive action that sustained personal survival. Such concepts/labels only came about when instinct began to be tempered by rationality and (importantly) that rationality was also itself subject to a 'history of rational action'. So then a 'society' was born that had a history, both physical and moral. Society did not exist in an age where all actions were instinctive. … Read More

October 24, 2008   | 

What is a 'News Story' anyway?

So what exactly does the phrase 'News Story' actually convey and mean? It seems to imply a contradiction in that we expect 'news' to be one thing and a 'story' another. Or is it actually a contradiction if you take the view that the vast majority of such stories should always be treated with great caution, i.e. as 'faction'? I have personally suffered a number of incidents where my words were parsed (sic) through the jouralistic encryption device (his/her ears) and de-encrypted (into a newspaper in print) with a completely different and innacurate meaning. The 'story' remained, but in the traditional sense, i.e. a work of fiction, that may be based on some kind of fact, or not (like the Gospels, or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). The 'news'? Well that is more difficult to assess, as it cannot now be extracted from the 'story', as they are now inextricably linked. I can tell a 'story' easily and it is understood in its context as just that. But can I relate the 'news'? I could I suppose if, and only if, I could report the facts as they actually are without prejudice, or innacuracy. But can a journalist ever really do this unless they are reporting on personal experience? No, is the obvious answer. So maybe we define the output as a 'news story' simply to mark it as almost certainly innacurate and probably also biased? But if that is the case, does the viewer/reader understand the usage of the term and therefore treat the words in an appropriate manner? I doubt it. … Read More

October 24, 2008   |