Moral Imagination

When I first saw the phrase "Moral Imagination" I immediately thought of "morality as externalization of internal values" (I have been reading too much Schopenhauer!), but now see that it refers to the psychology of value judgements.

The "moral hypocrisy" found by Batson et all was not surprising to me; everything we do is for our own benefit, even the supposedly selfless acts. From an evolutionary standpoint, the individual need only appear moral to reap the karmic benefits of a moral life. If he/she can operate under such a guise while secretly fulfilling every desire, then there is great potential for personal power. Authority figures seem to necessarily operate according to this (though possibly not as malignantly as I have described).

Though it wasn't mentioned in the Pardale article, how would "Archetype" work differently from stereotype and prototype? Intuitively, I would say it is something like prototype... I feel a Google search coming!

I am interested in the relationship between the technological deficit and constraint in education. Is it static or dynamic? I understand the deficit, but what is the nature of the constraint? Also, I find the "taboo" of formal emotional education strange, since we do it incessently, though informally.

Doubt11-12

There were many new themes that I noticed the second time through that I glazed over before, specifically the basketball analogy and the emphasis on Flynn’s fingernails. I’m still not quite sure what to think of them… but I know there is something important here. Another thing I noticed was the juxtaposition between Aloysius and James: both have great faith in their convictions, such that neither can come to terms that the other may be right. Since I already knew the plot and the events, I could concentrate more on the symbolism contained within each event, each word. Like Schopenhauer said, “all books should be read twice”, the first time to get the “general idea”, and the next to “find the truth contained within”.

Doubt 11-10

I found it extremely difficult to sympathize with any of the characters; Sister Aloysius and Mrs. Muller both seemed out of their minds, Sister James is too naïve, and based on the available evidence, I cannot make a accurate judgment on Father Flynn. He is very charismatic and likeable, yet these are two essential characteristics of a good liar!

I very much admire Sister James. I wish I could be so optimistic about people, I too often fall into a nihilistic pessimism!

With Aloysius and Flynn we have a very interesting difference in approach to leadership. Aloysius is a strict, detached disciplinarian, while Flynn is a compassionate mentor, but both wish (or seem to wish) for what is best for the child. Flynn’s apparent compassion may stem from something sinister, but it could just as likely be genuine. Aloysius seems very fake to me… as if her convictions are nothing but a front for deep-seeded doubt and uncertainty. I am always very suspicious of someone with such certainty, I would much rather admit ignorance than claim certain truth or falsehood.