#plato’s chariot analogy

[leebee287]

[renaultphile]

Ghosts of ghosts of ghosts…..and we haven’t even started yet

On this re-read I wanted to think more about the role that Plato's Phaedrus plays in The Charioteer.  The description at the end of chapter 3 makes it feel almost like a character in its own right: 

What I have always found so interesting about the gift of the book is how contradictory it is.  It is meant to be an antidote to Jeepers, but the ideas in it ‘don’t exist in real life’.  The comfort in it for Ralph seems to lie in the idea that he can be held to the same standards as everyone else, offering some kind of redemption. But the message of shame is still there, just as it is in Christian doctrine, and even as he hands the book over he seems already to have admitted defeat.  It feels more like a curse than a gift.

But what an extraordinary passage preceding it!  You can link to it here courtesy of this post by @alovelywaytospendanevening. It is a beautiful, idyllic description.  Everything about his encounter with Andrew seems to follow naturally.  Andrew helps him up but makes it feel like a game, they navigate a difficult subject together (war, not the other one), Andrew utters the immortal words ‘I won’t hurt him.’  Andrew takes his shirt off, and Laurie puts down the tract he was pretending to read.  Symbolically, he seems to stop looking for guidance and enjoy the moment.  They are unfazed by being thrown out of Eden, even elated.  I am struggling to think of another passage in the book where Laurie is so filled with joy.  The experience is rooted in the senses, he is living in his body, not his head.  He is living in the moment. 

But it doesn’t last long.  Within two paragraphs, the very real and beautiful horses have reminded him of Plato's Phaedrus, and he immediately thinks of the analogy of Charioteer.

It’s hard not to think of Ralph if we already know the book.  But the book doesn’t represent him anymore.  It has taken on a life of its own.

I’m waiting to see what happens when he gets the book out again and how it affects his relationship with Andrew……I would love your thoughts.....

[alevelrs]

The Philosophical Language of Soul, Mind, and Body

(in the thinking of Plato and Aristotle)

The term ‘soul’ is used in different ways, making it difficult to grasp what it actually means. It is often blurred with the terms mind and body, causing a difficult discussion.

The Soul

In a philosophical sense, the word soul is used as meaning the same thing as self, to refer to the subject of mental states and of spiritual experience. When someone uses the pronoun I (e.g., ‘I had a panic attack in the supermarket��, the soul is the ‘I’. Philosophers often refer to the ‘self’ rather than the ‘soul’ to remove religious connotations, but ‘self’ has a much wider meaning, as it can include the mind and body as one coherent person, whereas the term ‘soul’ is actually used to refer to one particular part of the self: the part that is capable of having a relationship with God and carries the possibility of living after death.

Plato on the Soul

Plato believed the soul and body are two separate entities. The body is the temporary, physical, material aspect of the person and the soul is the essential (in the sense of being the essence of the person) immaterial aspect. Therefore, Plato says the soul is temporarily united with a physical body but can leave the body and move on. ANALOGY: the soul is the driver of the car inhabits and then can get out and go somewhere else

Plato, like Socrates, believed that the soul is immortal. He argues that every quality depends on its opposite to have any existence and depend on their status relative to one another: something is ‘big’ because there are smaller things, something is ‘bright’ because there are fuller things. Therefore, life comes from death, and death comes from life in an endless chain of birth, death, and rebirth.

Dialogue of Meno: slave boy with no knowledge is given geometry puzzle to solve and can answer it through questioning. Plato illustrated that this boy must have used knowledge he already had, which is clear evidence of knowledge gained before birth, so souls must have lived in the world of perfect Forms.

Metaphor of chariot being pulled by two horses. Two horses are appetite and emotion, basic needs which pull us along and motivate us that are controlled by the charioteer ‘reason’ who holds the reins and make sure the appetite and emotion work together in a rational direction. Without the guiding hand of reason, we can be led astray by letting our emotions get the better of us or letting our appetites tale the lead. People who let reason guide the other aspects of their mental lives are wise. This is a ‘tripartite view’ as he saw the soul consisting of three elements.

Myth of Er: soldier appears to die on battlefield, but his body doesn’t decompose, he comes back to life and says he experienced the afterlife. Said that once he died souls were judged: morally good rewarded and morally bad punished. Souls chose foe themselves new life on earth, either animals or humans. Those punished chose lives of power but didn’t consider immoral actions to achieve that life, those punished tended to choose more wisely because they’d learnt from their mistakes. Only the philosophical who understood the importance of choosing a new life of peace and justice benefited from the cycle of life and death, others switched between reward, punishment, life, death. This myth demonstrates the necessity of seeking wisdom through philosophy for the soul to benefit. Once they’d chosen their destinies, they were given a liquid to drink which made them forget their previous life except for Er who was freed to return.

For Plato, because the soul is immortal and the body is not, they have to be two different and distinct things, a dualist point of view. He was trying to work out what was temporary and subject to change and what was eternal, how humans can relate to the world of the forms and how reason can give the best route to certain knowledge and wisdom.

Aristotle on the Soul

Aristotle saw the soul as a ‘substance’: a term used to mean the ‘essence’ or ‘real thing’. The physical body is in a continual state of change, from a baby to a toddler to an adolescent to an adult to an elderly man, how can we say they are all the ‘same person’? The ‘substance’ is what remains the same, in terms of continuing identity. This continuing identity, or ‘essence’ is what Aristotle viewed as the soul, for which he sued the term ‘psyche’.

Aristotle had a much more materialistic attitude towards the soul than Plato. Rather than being some kind of invisible part of a person, Aristotle considered the soul to include the matter and structure of the body alongside its functions and capabilities – its form (i.e. the formal cause). The soul gives living things its essence, so it’s not just matter but has all the capabilities and characteristics that it needs in order to be what it is. Living thigs are distinguished from non-living things by what they can do, their capabilities, and it is these capabilities that for Aristotle define the ‘soul’. “The soul is in some sense the principle of animal life” – the soul, or ‘psyche’ is that which distinguishes a living thing from a dead thing.

Aristotle thought that there were various types of soul:

Plants have a vegetative or ‘nutritive’ soul – they have the capabilities to nourish themselves and ensure reproduction of their species but have no ability to reason or make plans.

Animals have ‘perceptive’ souls – they have senses to experience the world and react to different stimuli and have enough intelligence to distinguish between pleasure and pain.

Humans have a higher degree of soul – they can reason and distinguish between right and wrong.

Therefore, the soul, for Aristotle, is not an entity sperate from the body, but rather the capacities that the body has, to do whatever it is meant to do. This can be linked to his ideas about causality; the soul is that which gives the matter its form, its efficiency, and its final purpose (telos).

Some examples given by Aristotle to explain what he means. If an axe was a living thing, its soul would be its capacity to chop. A toy axe is not a ‘real/ axe, because it does not have the capacity to chop wood, therefore it is only an axe by name. The capacity to chop wood could not have an existence on its own without the axe. For Aristotle, the soul was inseparable from the living body in the same way that the shape stamped into a block of wax is inseparable from the matter of the wax.

Because Aristotle believed that the soul and the body could not be separated, his view did not allow for the idea that the soul could withstand death.

[hexandbalances]

Curse Tablets 101

A brief overview of defixiones, or curse tablets, in the Greco-Roman world.

What were they used for?

Defixiones expressed a formalized wish to bring other persons or animals under the client’s power, typically against their will and without their knowledge. Most often (but not exclusively) for:

Inflicting death or harm such as illness (ex: fever, consumption, blindness, idiocy, lameness, broken limbs, loss of memory, insomnia)

Loss of consort, family, or property

Defeat in war or athletic competition

Public humiliation

Failure in business

Loss in a legal case or conviction

Denial of afterlife

Injury to race horses

Breakdown of public baths (really!)

To revenge upon an unfaithful lover or to inspire lust in a new or former lover

When (and where) were they used?

The earliest caches of defixiones where found in Attica and date from C5th to C4th BCE – though it should be noted the Egyptian Execration texts testified to an extremely similar practice from as early as C24th to C22nd BCE! The latest example yet found may have been from Cyprus from C7th CE. In between, defixiones have been found in Rome and Sicily, Egypt, Jerusalem, and several sites in Britain.

Who made them?

The individual, certainly, especially with the spread of literacy - but largely defixiones were crafted by professionals. There seems to have been something of a cottage industry for them.

Plato notes in his Laws XI (933A) that there were scribes that could be hired to prepare a katadesmos (κατάδεσμος) for a fee

The development and inheritance of formularies such as the PGM resulting in standardized tablet conventions

Caches of tablets found in places otherwise not visited or easily accessible to multiple people - such as a single grave containing multiple tablets commissioned by different clients against different targets

Some Roman tablets were even prepared with spaces left for later inscription of a target’s name, as evidenced by notably different handwriting and noticeable gap between words (Gager, p.14)

What did they contain?

Most of the Attic defixiones contained simply a target’s name. Over time verbs (intended action against the target) and the name of an assisting god or daemon were included. In some cases the text of the spell or just the target’s name were written from right to left (ex. JOHN to NHOJ).

Voces mysticae, or unintelligible words exclusively used in magic, became increasingly present, sometimes taking up to 80-90% of the tablet in later (C4th to C5th CE) Roman samples. Roman tablets in general were much more complex, often including:

Palindromes

Charaktêres - one might describe these as sigils or astrological/celestial symbols

Vowel or consonant series

Geometric shapes formed of letters

Egyptian elements

Names ending in -êl and -ôth built on Jewish conventions

What were they made of?

In general, the medium appears largely driven by availability and economy:

Ostraca (broken shards of pottery)

Wax

Papyrus

Limestone

Gemstones, particularly when fashioned as an amulet

Most often thin sheets of metal; in particular lead or a lead alloy such as pewter

Why lead?

Cheap

Widely available (PGM VII 397 even recommends “borrowing” lead from public plumbing pipes)

Easy to make in sheet form

Was already in use as a writing medium

Over time the properties of lead became viewed as appropriate for the use. For example, “just as this lead is cold and useless, so let them (my enemies) be cold and useless.” (DTA nos 105-7)

What tools were used?

Preferably a bronze stylus (according to PGM VII lines 396ff) but ostensibly any tool used for scratching the inscription was sufficient.

Separate items were often attached, in particular dolls, hair, and nails.

Dolls

Often made of lead, mud, or wax

Depicted with hands bound behind their backs and/or deliberately disfigured

Often inscribed with the target’s name

Used in love/sex magic, to assault enemies, or in one instance, to hinder a charioteer and his horses who were specifically named.

Hair (and/or Clothing)

Sometimes referred to as ousia (“stuff”) in several surviving love spells.

Nails

Nearly all defixiones were rolled or folded but several were also pierced with one or more nails. The purpose of this is somewhat debated. It may have been used as a method of sealing the spell like one seals an envelope. To follow this analogy, some defixiones even bore a sort of “supernatural address” on an exposed outer sheet.

Given that the tablets were deposited where no human would have access to them it seems privacy would not be the primary concern. It’s more likely the nails were used in a supernatural compliment to their literal function: to fasten, “tie” down, to bind.

Where were they deposited?

Thrown into rivers, sea, wells, bath houses, or streams

Buried in coffins or graves, particularly belonging to the prematurely dead

In the home of the intended target, usually under the floor

Under stadium floors or at the gates of race courses

Sanctuaries of cthonic dieties, including crossroads

Final Note

Please let me know if there is a particular aspect you would like to read more about. I’m contemplating 102 & 201 posts in the near future to address the motivations, counter binding and protection, and practical application - please let me know if this interests you.

In the meantime I’ll leave this clip from HBO’s ROME. While not terribly historically accurate (there’s only so much you can do in two seasons), the show was marvelously authentic in their world building.

Resources

Dufault, O. (2017). Who Wrote Greek Curse Tablets? Prophets and Profits, Ed. Richard Evans (London: Routledge).

Gager, John G, ed. (1992), Curse tablets and binding spells from the ancient world, New York: Oxford University Press.

Ogden, Daniel (2002), Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds: a Source Book, New York: Oxford University Press.

Tomlin, Roger (2005), Curse Tablets of Roman Britain, et al, Oxford, ENG, UK: Oxford University.

Society, H. (2015, September 19). Roman Curse Tablets. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/video/642/

www.abc.net.au, 2008. Sex curse found at ancient Cyprus site. [Online] Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-07-12/sex-curse-found-at-ancient-cyprus-site/438076

[tripartitexsoul]

The “Tripartite Soul"

Plato’s analogy depicts the soul as a charioteer, noble horse, and base horse. Essentially, the charioteer (the individual) is always struggling to keep the two horses in control. In general, these three parts of the soul are taken to represent, respectively, reason, our noble desires (such as honor and courage), and our base or animal desires (such as ambition, lust, greed, avarice, and anger).

[abwatt]

So... we’re just going to turn Plato’s analogy of the chariot into a 1950′s informational booklet for white people?

[assignmentcrackers]

Compare The Buddhist Simile Of The Chariot And Plato's Chariot Analogy.

Compare The Buddhist Simile Of The Chariot And Plato’s Chariot Analogy.

Philosophy 101:

Essay Paper Assignment

Compare the Buddhist Simile of the Chariot and Plato’s Chariot Analogy. How are the same and how are the different?

1. Paper must be typed and submitted in a file format that is commonly readable (Word or .rtf files are best).

2. Paper should be 6-7 pages in length when double-spaced and using a 12 point font.

3. Include at least four sources; the textbook…

[mademoiselle-red]

Yes! The metaphors are inadequate analogies for capturing the complexity of his feelings for both men and their three dimensional personalities. That’s something that Laurie also learns throughout the book: when he tries to apply the platonic model to his love interests, he denies them their humanity. He thinks he can protect Andrew’s “innocence” but robs him instead of his agency. He tries to dismiss Ralph as the unruly immoral dark horse (“too many Bunnies”), which prevents him from seeing Ralph’s innocence (both his innocence in the accusation of visiting Andrew, and his “curious innocence” about love and sacrifice, as Alec tells Laurie at the party).

I disagree with the analysis that Laurie betrays his convictions and let the black horse win. It is rather sloppy literary analysis, in my opinion, to look at the protagonist’s growth and change at the end of a coming-of-age novel and call it a “betrayal” of their convictions. In the end, Laurie learns that there is more to love than the model of love as a ethical ideal, the love as the shared pursuit of philosophy presented in the Plato, more than following the “hard logic” of the platonic model. Laurie learns through his relationship with Ralph that love is also forgiveness, kindness, compassion. In the end, he finally sees Ralph’s vulnerability and innocence about love, and is then able to fulfill his long cherished desire to protect and save Ralph. By doing so, he levels the playing field between them: he now protects and takes responsibility for Ralph as Ralph does for him. In Renault’s rewriting of the charioteer myth at the very end, the black horse doesn’t win, but rather the white and black horses are reconciled, only for one night because they can never be reconciled forever: it’s the human condition to be pulled in two directions by reason and emotion. I would also note here that when Laurie was with Andrew, the black horse was fully suppressed, which mirrors how Laurie’s pain and physical senses were suppressed by medication. His journey to true medical recovery and the return of his sexual desire coincides with and is facilitated by his reunion with Ralph. Laurie is not “destined to be Ralph’s lover for now because Andrew is not ready to face the truth”, Laurie is Ralph’s lover because he chooses to confide in Ralph and spend time with Ralph again and again, because they have so much in common: their disabilities, war experiences, their shared past, their tendency to interfere in other people’s lives, their shared sense of humor, their shared intellectual (!!!) interest in queer philosophical and literary figures. Furthermore, Andrew is not ready to face the truth because Laurie chooses to keep him at arm’s length as the platonic ideal rather than get to know him as a human being. Note how we and Laurie don’t see Andrew’s room, his belongings, his quirks, but we get details of Ralph’s quirks and belongings. I believe Laurie uses protecting Andrew from sexual knowledge as an excuse to reject Andrew’s attempts to deepen their friendship. Andrew is treated like a vessel for philosophical intercourse (which seems to be the purpose of love in Plato’s model) and a surface for protecting Laurie’s platonic ideals, but the close third person narrator never observes how he eats, how he likes his tea (!!!!), what few personal belongings he has in his room that he shares with other people, what books he likes to read, what his friends and acquaintances are like as people, and what he thinks of them. Laurie is Ralph’s lover because he loves Ralph, and has learned to stop feeling guilty about loving him in an emotional and sexual way. Laurie is Ralph’s lover because he has finally found some compassion for himself and his love for Ralph in a world and ethical system with very little compassion for queer people. Oh, and because he knows how Ralph likes his toast and Ralph knows how he likes his tea~ (that was a long rant but ranting at other academic papers is something they train you to do in grad school lol)

having a cozy start of autumn by reading stuff about the charioteer and relistening to the audiobook😌 uwu

from History's Queer Stories: Retrieving and Navigating Homosexuality in British Fiction about the Second World War by Natalie Marena Nobitz

[academicheroes]

Buddhist Simile Of The Chariot And Plato’s Chariot Analogy Assignment | Top Essay Writing

Buddhist Simile Of The Chariot And Plato’s Chariot Analogy Assignment | Top Essay Writing

Compare the Buddhist Simile of the Chariot and Plato’s Chariot Analogy. How are the same and how are they different? 1. The paper must be typed and submitted in a file format that is commonly readable (Word or .rtf files are best). 2. The paper should be 6-7 pages in length when double-spaced and using a 12 point font. 3. Include at least four sources; the textbook may …

The post Buddhist Simile…

[renaultphile]

"What is it about?" Phaedrus re-enters the narrative (TC re-read week 5)

At the beginning of this year's re-read, I thought it might be interesting to follow the Phaedrus as if it were a character in the book. Part one is here.

When Laurie finally gets out the Phaedrus again, he is alone, and he has sought out another location to read it, one from 'two operations back' before he knew Andrew. Their last encounter has been fraught to say the least (as we were discussing!)

While he is reading, Andrew creeps up on him and surprises him. The book serves as a test of Laurie's sincerity - Andrew couldn't believe he was really absorbed in the book and thought he was deliberately ignoring him. Laurie passes the test in part - he was genuinely absorbed, but he spends the rest of their conversation wishing Andrew would go away or fall asleep. He has been reading a passage all about mirrors, masks, and imitation, and the effects of being in love:

"He is in love, therefore, but with whom he cannot say; he does not know what has become of him, he cannot tell."

Andrew says by way of apology for being irritable,

"I don't know what's come over me, to make me behave like this."

No wonder Laurie is desperate not to reveal what he has been reading!

At this point I remember one of the key messages of the book and its biggest ironies - Socrates (as written by Plato) says that one shouldn't trust the written word, because one cannot interrogate it.

Andrew is not going to be given the opportunity to interrogate anything because Laurie initially hides the book altogether, then reveals only the most elusive hints at its content. Andrew, however, is a natural at Socratic questioning. He asks what the book is about, and Laurie, groping for something 'safe' to say, opts for rhetoric. Andrew merely remarks that Laurie doesn't seem like the kind of person who would be interested in that subject. Meanwhile, Laurie is trying desperately to be truthful and sincere with Andrew, and failing very badly.

Andrew really won't let up. He asks more about the book, and is not satisfied with Laurie's summary of it. When they move on to the analogy of the Charioteer, Laurie seems to read the book as poetry rather than philosophy. He seems to have fallen in love with the book as a fixed entity, for what it represents. Andrew on the other hand has already had to do some hard thinking and examine his moral choices.

Still none the wiser about the content and Laurie's thoughts on it, Andrew begins to interrogate the book itself and its provenance. He asks Laurie if he will lend it to him, Laurie forestalls him again with a false excuse about the state of it, and Andrew insists that does not matter. For a second time, Laurie ignores the message of the book he is reading. When Andrew says 'you needn't for me,' he is trying to connect on a deeper level, where appearances don't matter, and Laurie is resisting.

Finally, we hear those fateful words out of Andrew's mouth: 'Ralph Ross Lanyon', and another attempt to find out what the book means to him. Laurie over-does his denial of Ralph and Andrew responds by saying 'A lot of people would have just told me to mind my own business.'

In the end, Andrew says he will sleep for a bit and then tells him,

"Just forget about me. You looked so peaceful before I came disturbing you. Now you can get on with your book as if I weren't there."

Finally, Laurie can enjoy his book in peace, undisturbed by the real Andrew.

On one of their regular talks in the kitchen, Laurie attempts a bit of sophistry himself:

A cockroach scuttled into a crack behind the draining-board; he watched Andrew reach for a tin of Keatings and sprinkle the crack with it. "Does life stop being sacred," he asked, "when it gets down to cockroaches?" "Well, the Jains don't think so," said Andrew seriously. "But I never know how they meet the fact that our own bodies destroy millions of micro-organisms every day, without giving us any alternative to it except suicide. One has to draw the line where one sees it oneself." "Is that what you call the inner light?" "If you like, yes."

Andrew argues for individualism, not to impose his views on others, but for the right to make his own moral choices as he sees them. We don't find out if they ever discuss Plato again, but Laurie begins to carry the book around with him in his trouser pocket as he had done previously. We're not done with Plato yet…….not by a long chalk.

[djgblogger-blog]

Healthy choices are neither good or bad; only thinking makes them so

http://bit.ly/2frP1gS

Healthy choices are more complicated than a devil-angel contest suggests. Serggod/Shutterstock.com

Doing healthy things can feel like a battle between the angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other. The devil impels me to order the bacon burger for lunch, but the angel nudges my hand toward the salad.

This dichotomy goes way back in Western thought. Plato likened the process of making such choices to the charioteer of the soul commanding two horses, one “noble” and the other wicked. This allegory echoes throughout history in various forms. Other ready examples include reason versus passion as described by the Greeks, the Judeo-Christian battle between sin and redemption, and Freud’s account of the psyche’s superego and id. Our intuitions about healthy behaviors are deeply shaped by this history. Plus, hard choices simply feel like we are being pulled in two directions.

Getting to the root causes of healthy behaviors is important to science because they are a big part of individual and public health. The leading causes of death in the United States – cancer, heart disease and respiratory illness, among others – are all caused at least in part by our behavior. As a society, we could reduce the onset of these afflictions by learning new ways to change our behavior.

Despite the intuition, health behaviors are not the result of a battle between two opposing forces. So what are they? My colleagues and I recently suggested that they are the same as any other choice. Instead of a battle between two forces, self-control of unhealthy impulses is more like a many-sided negotiation. Various features of each option in a choice get combined, then the total values of the options are compared. This is kind of a fancy version of a “compare the pros and cons” model.

Problems with the battle analogy

These days, psychologists refer to the dichotomy in Western thought as “dual-process” models of health behavior. Such models come in many varieties, but they share two notable features. First, they describe behavior as a winner-take-all battle between two opposing forces. There is no compromise. Whichever force is stronger dictates behavior.

Second, beyond being in opposition to one another, the forces are also inflected with a moral tone, with one being good and the other wicked. The devil impels you to do bad things, the angel advises toward virtuous ones. Psychologists call the warring parties impulse and control, or hot and cold processes.

Casting behavior in the stark terms of pros versus cons is intuitive but might not be accurate. After all, our minds contain many more than just two systems for making decisions. As Walt Whitman said, “I contain multitudes.”

Plus, people have many ways to choose healthy options that don’t involve a battle. Avoiding a temptation in the first place is effective. If I know that I have trouble not ordering the bacon burger, then I can choose to go to a restaurant that doesn’t have one on the menu.

Also effective is fighting fire with fire by getting excited about a healthy option. And being healthy doesn’t need to be moralized. Indulgence can be a good thing, such as when it serves as a reward. Some people even plan indulgence in advance to give themselves a break. In studying healthy choices, scientists have learned that they are more complex than we previously thought.

Advantages of thinking of many choices

The cheeseburger is not bad. Only thinking makes it so. Michaylovskiy/www.shutterstock.com, CC BY-SA

Let’s revisit the burger-vs.-salad example. Sure, the burger tastes good (a “hot” feature) and you know that the salad is healthy (a “cold” feature). But many other features could be relevant, too. Not all of them will fall clearly into the hot-cold dichotomy. The salad will seem more attractive if you want to impress the friends you’re with if you think they value health. Or maybe I think of myself as a “bacon person,” so I know ordering the burger with that topping will affirm that part of my self-concept.

The key point here is that people can have many reasons for making the healthy or unhealthy choice. A good psychological theory will be able to account for that diversity of motives.

Beyond being more realistic than hot-cold models, there are several ways that thinking of health as a choice can help us better understand it. Researchers working across a variety of disciplines have uncovered what they call “anomalies” in choice. These anomalies are quirks where choice differs – predictably – from what would be optimal. If health is a choice, then these anomalies apply to health, too.

One of my favorites is the decoy effect. There are cases where having a third option in a choice, even one that someone would never choose, can change behavior. Suppose I always prefer a burger to a moderately healthy salad. A restaurant owner could add a decoy choice to the menu, such as an Extremely Healthy SuperFood Salad, that would nudge me to choose the moderately healthy salad over the burger when I considered all three options. This behavior is anomalous – why would an option that I never choose influence my choice between two others? – but it is also useful in helping change health behaviors.

Another anomaly that can be useful for changing health behaviors is realizing that the value of something good is not constant. This is called the law of diminishing marginal utility. The value of something good depends on how much of that thing you’ve already consumed.

This is intuitive, but technically irrational. If I like M&M’s, eating the first one (going from 0 to 1 M&M’s) should feel just as good as eating my 104th one (going from 103 to 104 M&M’s). But we all know that is not the case. The deliciousness of things like M&M’s wears off as you keep eating them – their utility diminishes. In a clever series of studies, researchers found that merely imagining eating tasty treats before being served them reduced the amount people ate. Imagined eating, it seems, caused their utility to diminish.

Casting health behaviors as choice also helps clarify their neural underpinnings. The brain systems involved in simple choice are increasingly well-understood. The science has even progressed to the point that researchers can use computers to predict what people will choose and precisely how long it will take them in specific conditions. This improved understanding will eventually lead to more effective interventions for behavior change.

But wait – if healthy is just like any other choice, why does it feel like being pulled in two directions? We tend to moralize health behaviors in our society. Part of that feeling is probably related to the anticipated guilt of choosing the “bad” option.

An angel expels Adam and Eve from Paradise for making a bad choice in this Benjamin West painting. Everett - Art/Shutterstock.com

And, morality aside, choice models show that people will feel torn when their preferences vacillate between options.

Just because there are two competing options doesn’t imply there are two competing systems. Feelings of conflict and indecision can arise even in a simple choice system such as the one described here.

Remember that your health is not helpless amidst a battle between temptation and grace. It’s your choice, and science offers solutions to making a better one.

Elliot Berkman receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. He is director of Berkman Consultants.

[essayprof]

Part 1: Interview Contact a professional individual to interview, in person or on the telephone, who knows of an existing crisis response plan. Identify the person you interview and their specific job or role, such as crisis counselor or a member of the Red Cross or Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or therapists who work with victims of PTSD or are involved in CISD, and arrange an interview. Once you arrange a personal interview, develop a set of open-ended questions that will allow you to gain a clear and complete picture of the plan as it currently exists. (See the sample interview questions provided within the assignment.) Ask your interviewee to give you a specific example of an actual crisis and the details of the various roles that are involved in the plan that is utilized, including any mental health professional. Examine what you are told by the interviewee, and compare it to the identified elements recommended for response plans in the Mental Health All-Hazards Disaster Planning Guidance from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS, 2003), provided in the Resources. Part 2: Description and Analysis Describe and analyze a counselor’s role and responsibilities in a crisis response. Summarize the responsibilities of the counselor within the mental health component of the crisis response system in order to identify the type of necessary training for the role of the counselor. To successfully complete this project, you will be expected to do the following: Compare and contrast the elements of a real-world example of an emergency management plan, obtained through your personal interview of a professional in the field, to the elements identified in the course studies, particularly the Mental Health All-Hazards Disaster Planning Guidance (USDHHS, 2003), provided in the Resources. Summarize the responsibilities of the counselor, including the professional role, functions, and relationships as a member of a crisis response plan during a local, regional, or national crisis, disaster, or other trauma-causing event (CACREP, 2016). Describe in detail the specific skills and knowledge required by a counselor in order to function effectively as a member of an interdisciplinary emergency management response team. Describe the types of training a counselor requires to develop the required skills and knowledge relevant to emergency management. Exhibit proficiency in effective, credible academic writing and critical thinking skills. Note: A template for your APA formatted paper is included in the assignment Resources. Please use the template to present the assignment criteria in an organized way. The headings guide you to the criteria, and the details that are included describe what is necessary to complete the assignment to a Distinguished degree. To achieve a successful project experience and outcome, you are expected to meet the following requirements. Content: Prepare a comprehensive paper that includes all sections described above. Components: The paper must include a title page, abstract, and reference list. Written communication: Develop accurate written communication and thoughts that convey the overall goals of the project and do not detract from the overall message. APA formatting: Resources and citations are formatted according to APA (6th Edition) style and formatting. Number of pages: The body of the paper should fall within 10–12 pages, excluding title page and reference list. Number of resources: Minimum of 5 current resources, published within the last 12 years. Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12-point.

Part 1: Interview Contact a professional individual to interview, in person or on the telephone, who knows of an existing crisis response plan. Identify the person you interview and their specific job or role, such as crisis counselor or a member of the Red Cross or Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or therapists who work with victims of PTSD or are involved in CISD, and arrange an interview. Once you arrange a personal interview, develop a set of open-ended questions that will allow you to gain a clear and complete picture of the plan as it currently exists. (See the sample interview questions provided within the assignment.) Ask your interviewee to give you a specific example of an actual crisis and the details of the various roles that are involved in the plan that is utilized, including any mental health professional. Examine what you are told by the interviewee, and compare it to the identified elements recommended for response plans in the Mental Health All-Hazards Disaster Planning Guidance from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS, 2003), provided in the Resources. Part 2: Description and Analysis Describe and analyze a counselor’s role and responsibilities in a crisis response. Summarize the responsibilities of the counselor within the mental health component of the crisis response system in order to identify the type of necessary training for the role of the counselor. To successfully complete this project, you will be expected to do the following: Compare and contrast the elements of a real-world example of an emergency management plan, obtained through your personal interview of a professional in the field, to the elements identified in the course studies, particularly the Mental Health All-Hazards Disaster Planning Guidance (USDHHS, 2003), provided in the Resources. Summarize the responsibilities of the counselor, including the professional role, functions, and relationships as a member of a crisis response plan during a local, regional, or national crisis, disaster, or other trauma-causing event (CACREP, 2016). Describe in detail the specific skills and knowledge required by a counselor in order to function effectively as a member of an interdisciplinary emergency management response team. Describe the types of training a counselor requires to develop the required skills and knowledge relevant to emergency management. Exhibit proficiency in effective, credible academic writing and critical thinking skills. Note: A template for your APA formatted paper is included in the assignment Resources. Please use the template to present the assignment criteria in an organized way. The headings guide you to the criteria, and the details that are included describe what is necessary to complete the assignment to a Distinguished degree. To achieve a successful project experience and outcome, you are expected to meet the following requirements. Content: Prepare a comprehensive paper that includes all sections described above. Components: The paper must include a title page, abstract, and reference list. Written communication: Develop accurate written communication and thoughts that convey the overall goals of the project and do not detract from the overall message. APA formatting: Resources and citations are formatted according to APA (6th Edition) style and formatting. Number of pages: The body of the paper should fall within 10–12 pages, excluding title page and reference list. Number of resources: Minimum of 5 current resources, published within the last 12 years. Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12-point.

Compare the Buddhist Simile of the Chariot and Plato’s Chariot Analogy. How are the same and how are the different?

1. Paper must be typed and submitted in a file format that is commonly readable (Word or .rtf files are best).

2. Paper should be 6-7 pages in length when double-spaced and using a 12 point font.

3. Include at least four sources; the textbook may be used as one of your sources. 

4.