Finally we arrive at the first “real” journal entry for this year of EMC. For me, time management has already become quite a substantial issue so I must continue on improving my efficiency.
To start off on this grand journey, I have begun reading The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt. As of today (9/29/18), I have read 33 pages. But wait, it’s a book on Moral Psychology! I thought to myself: “Have I already deviated from my original plan after one journal?” But upon a quick google search, Moral Psychology is defined as “a field of study in both Philosophy and Psychology.” I have a gut feeling that this is the true topic I wanted to dive into all along because “Philosophy” is indeed a very broad field and Moral Psychology seems to tie into Biology better. Why? Because Haidt is already questioning why humans think something is right or wrong — in essence, morality. I am already convinced that there must be some sort of Biological cause to this phenomenon.
How do we define what is morally right and wrong? Instead of being strictly nature or nurture (as people suggested in the August Round Table meeting), it seems to be combination of both. But of course, all people vary. Haidt managed to narrow down all cultures into two general patterns: Individualistic (the West post-Enlightenment) and Sociocentric (traditional societies where order is more important). Among these two, the “moral domain” (the area of what is defined as right and wrong), is more bounding in sociocentric societies. Universally, everyone agrees that harm is morally wrong. But in sociocentric societies, some would argue that “a boy who calls his father by his first name” is morally wrong and not just ignoring a social convention. Why is that? For me — and I’m sure for all of us as well — I cannot even begin to understand that thinking process. To be blunt, it just simply doesn’t make any sense. I realized that by thinking this way, I am already fitting into the individualistic culture that Haidt defines and I found that actually quite interesting. Morality is very complicated and I want to be able to understand what gears and drives people to think a certain way. As suggested by the title of this book, I can now easily see how this ties into Politics as well. In this interesting era of a Presidency, I often cannot even begin to understand how others could think from a viewpoint so polarizing from mine. Hopefully by the end of this project (or book), I can understand why someone would think opposite from me and regard their opinion with respect, instead of feeling instantly aggravated or annoyed.