Thinking

Upon reading this article, I immediately connected it to what we’re learning in my Culture and Expression class. By studying philosophers such as Nietzsche and James, among countless others, I have learned a lot about types of thought. Just like Roebke says, we may literally perceive the same thing, yet everyone can take it to a different connotation. Being based on experience and upbringing, every action has the potential for a different reaction from all people. For example, we all physically see the same blue couch. Yet, based on your past, you may see the couch in a different way than the next person. When we observe, we naturally see more than just the physical thing in front of us, and that is what makes human thought and cognition so unique and interesting. We all have a different point of view, which is why our society is becoming increasingly open-minded and is beginning to share broad knowledge.

The main weakness in Roebke’s article is the fact that his is confused on his audience. He seems to be speaking towards a general population, everyday people that are affected by different kinds of thinking and feeling. He focuses on trying to explain a phenomenon instead of trying to teach it, yet the language he uses seems to favor the more scientifically apt or educated. So although the way he explains many of his examples can only been properly understood by the people of his field, it is not meant to be a completely scientific work. If he picked one side - scientific or general - and stuck to it, I think his article would be much more clear and effective.