Essay+Title+5

//"Habit is stronger than reason."// To what extent is this true in two areas of knowledge? Knowledge issues brainstormed in class. (//Be aware that these knowledge issues in some instances need reworking)//
 * ESSAY TOPIC 5**
 * To what extent has the acquisition of knowledge become habitual?
 * To what extent does habit influence the way people of different ages produce visual art?
 * To what extent does habit influence the way human beings acquire knowledge?
 * Can habits contribute to the way a person acquire knowledge?
 * Can habits affect the way a person creatively interacts with knowledge?
 * Can reason overcome habit in the acquisition of knowledge?
 * To what extent do humans rely on reasoning in the creative generation of knowledge?
 * Can reason and habit interfere with the ways humans generate knowledge?
 * In order to acquire knowledge in the Natural Sciences does reason or habit play a greater role?


 * The ideas about question 5 that follow are from **

[]

You must reference this website if you use the ideas that follow.  It's a bit of a let-down compared to the other five topics, and that is why mainly two kinds of students will attempt it: the brilliant risk-takers and the unimaginative. <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">What I'm a little irked about is the lack of attribution: if George Santayana did indeed say this, at least attribute it to him as you did for Einstein and Conan Doyle in the same set! That said, the quotation looks horribly boring on first sight.No doubt, this kind of question is a staple of the 'Theory of Knowledge Diet', of the form [quotation by famous person] + [request to justify with respect to two (or more) areas of knowledge]. But what to make of the 'X > Y' format used also in <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">[|Question 3] <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Georgia','serif';"> (which has a better quote from Uncle Albert)?

<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'georgia','serif'; font-size: 130%;">I think that 'habit' must refer to people doing things automatically (as in 'force of habit'), as opposed to thinking about it first (i.e. 'reason'). If that's the case, then how to link it to areas of knowledge? Surely it's a commonly known fact of human existence that people do things out of habit more easily than with the use of reason.Perhaps a discussion of the topic can be made more substantial by discussing what exactly 'habit' is. The word 'habit', from the Latin, has the original meaning 'to have' or 'to live in a specific state' — hence 'inhabit'. The modern sense is one of being in a constant state of existence, doing the same things and responding the same way to things.

<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">Habits are patterns of life, patterns of behaviour, that have developed from uncritical existence in specific environmental situations. Here, I have craftily inserted the word 'uncritical'. After all, if one were to be critical, one would probably not continue to live the same way all the time. But it provides us with a proper basis for argument — we can now say that reason is critical, and habit is not. (I used a similar trick when handling <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">[|this] <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Georgia','serif';"> older question.)Now we have a proper epistemological argument. To what extent, in various areas of knowledge, is uncritical behaviour (not necessarily bad, perhaps instinctive or intuitive) more useful or more powerful than critical behaviour (which must involve reasoning and judgement)? This is where it would be good to draw boundaries between disciplines that require more critical thinking and those requiring less. I've discussed this elsewhere. Enjoy...