You make a comparison between two similar questions. I agree that they are indeed similar:
‘Why do certain people commit crime?’ The question is very similar to another one: ‘What are the causes of crime?’
Yet I think this may push people to try and answer them differently. The first implies that there is a "certain" person who is of a certain "kind" who commits crime. Hence if Christian and Lucas were in the same situation, Christian may crime while Lucas may not. To me this suggests that there may be internal causes for crime and thus possibly even ways to identify individuals who are more likely to commit crimes based on genes/ears/skulls/face archetypes/etc...
The second question to me points to looking at external causes which may have internal consequences (i.e. changing a person level of dopamine). In this case it seems it would be more likely for Lucas and Christian to both commit a crime if they were in the same circumstances or for both of them not to commit a crime.
I wonder whether these are formulations that were used by historial actos. The ways in which they describe research programs often betrays underlying assumptions about possible causes and possible methodologies... It may be worth thinking about what questions certain groups asked and then look at both the methods they used and the kinds of hypothesis they pushed forward.
I am likely reading to much of a difference here...
Some very insightful points, here, thank you! You are quite right that the two different types of question imply that one is looking for two different types of answer. We might indeed broadly call them internal and external types of answer. The distinction may not be so easy, though. The example you give of external causes having internal consequences concerns neurotransmitter levels. Whether one considers them to be internal or external causes probably depends on one's philosophical position. Monists might claim that dopamine levels, for instance, however we adjust them, are an internal cause, whereas dualists are more likely to think there is some kind of 'self', separable from one's physiology and neurochemistry, that is affected by dopamine levels. I am happy to throw up my hands here and say 'It's all too difficult for me'. I have sympathies on both sides, in fact, but, if pushed, would probably come down on the monist side. This is where Psychology overlaps with Philosophy: always a very fertile area, it seems. I'll be interested to know what you think!
Yes exactly re internal/external. Nevertheless, Lombroso and his group were not thinking of neurotransmitters For historical matters looking at the world through the eyes of the historical actors seems important (actor categories). We also want to be valuable today so it is also important to think about what modern thinkers may say about these kinds of questions.
I think that I would also be a monist. Sometimes that makes me worried about the point of spending time reading and writing... but while I am inclined to be a monist, my monist tendencies make me want to rebel against the tyranny of that view.
Is it a paradox that monism makes you want to rebel against monism? It certainly sounds that way. There seem to be a number of philosophical positions that have that kind of implication. The postmodern position that ‘there is no such thing as truth’ is one of them.
You are quite right of course that it’s only right to consider these historical figures through the eyes of their times & not give in to presentism. The lateral always seems to be to load the dice in favour of ourselves. It’s very easy to laugh at Lombroso, for instance (I’ve done it myself) but doubtless in 150 years our research today will look equally crude & primitive.
It does sound that way. I want or at least I wish that there was/is room for some choice, even if it's limited. Some research suggests otherwise.
I agree re postmodernist turn. Nevertheless, I think that postmodernism developed some really useful tools and approaches. Of course taken to its implication it seems to me that the project undoes itself because the very project would also be socially constructed, etc. Despite that, thinking about language, and how we categorize, and how we approach questions, etc... can be very good tools to understand.
Agreed re many aspects of our own thinking will be seen as absurd! However we do not know which parts.
This is an interesting post (again :)).
You make a comparison between two similar questions. I agree that they are indeed similar:
‘Why do certain people commit crime?’ The question is very similar to another one: ‘What are the causes of crime?’
Yet I think this may push people to try and answer them differently. The first implies that there is a "certain" person who is of a certain "kind" who commits crime. Hence if Christian and Lucas were in the same situation, Christian may crime while Lucas may not. To me this suggests that there may be internal causes for crime and thus possibly even ways to identify individuals who are more likely to commit crimes based on genes/ears/skulls/face archetypes/etc...
The second question to me points to looking at external causes which may have internal consequences (i.e. changing a person level of dopamine). In this case it seems it would be more likely for Lucas and Christian to both commit a crime if they were in the same circumstances or for both of them not to commit a crime.
I wonder whether these are formulations that were used by historial actos. The ways in which they describe research programs often betrays underlying assumptions about possible causes and possible methodologies... It may be worth thinking about what questions certain groups asked and then look at both the methods they used and the kinds of hypothesis they pushed forward.
I am likely reading to much of a difference here...
Some very insightful points, here, thank you! You are quite right that the two different types of question imply that one is looking for two different types of answer. We might indeed broadly call them internal and external types of answer. The distinction may not be so easy, though. The example you give of external causes having internal consequences concerns neurotransmitter levels. Whether one considers them to be internal or external causes probably depends on one's philosophical position. Monists might claim that dopamine levels, for instance, however we adjust them, are an internal cause, whereas dualists are more likely to think there is some kind of 'self', separable from one's physiology and neurochemistry, that is affected by dopamine levels. I am happy to throw up my hands here and say 'It's all too difficult for me'. I have sympathies on both sides, in fact, but, if pushed, would probably come down on the monist side. This is where Psychology overlaps with Philosophy: always a very fertile area, it seems. I'll be interested to know what you think!
Yes exactly re internal/external. Nevertheless, Lombroso and his group were not thinking of neurotransmitters For historical matters looking at the world through the eyes of the historical actors seems important (actor categories). We also want to be valuable today so it is also important to think about what modern thinkers may say about these kinds of questions.
I think that I would also be a monist. Sometimes that makes me worried about the point of spending time reading and writing... but while I am inclined to be a monist, my monist tendencies make me want to rebel against the tyranny of that view.
Is it a paradox that monism makes you want to rebel against monism? It certainly sounds that way. There seem to be a number of philosophical positions that have that kind of implication. The postmodern position that ‘there is no such thing as truth’ is one of them.
You are quite right of course that it’s only right to consider these historical figures through the eyes of their times & not give in to presentism. The lateral always seems to be to load the dice in favour of ourselves. It’s very easy to laugh at Lombroso, for instance (I’ve done it myself) but doubtless in 150 years our research today will look equally crude & primitive.
It does sound that way. I want or at least I wish that there was/is room for some choice, even if it's limited. Some research suggests otherwise.
I agree re postmodernist turn. Nevertheless, I think that postmodernism developed some really useful tools and approaches. Of course taken to its implication it seems to me that the project undoes itself because the very project would also be socially constructed, etc. Despite that, thinking about language, and how we categorize, and how we approach questions, etc... can be very good tools to understand.
Agreed re many aspects of our own thinking will be seen as absurd! However we do not know which parts.
It’s like asking what makes it a Caesar salad. Or a martini.