The biophilia hypothesis also called BET suggests that humans possess an innate tendency to seek connections with nature and other forms of life.^[1] Edward O. Wilson introduced and popularized the hypothesis in his book, Biophilia (1984).^[2] He defines biophilia as “the urge to affiliate with other forms of life”.^[3]

Love of living systems

The term “biophilia” means “love of life or living systems.” It was first used by Erich Fromm to describe a psychological orientation of being attracted to all that is alive and vital.^[4] Wilson uses the term in the same sense when he suggests that biophilia describes “the connections that human beings subconsciously seek with the rest of life.” He proposed the possibility that the deep affiliations humans have with other life forms and nature as a whole are rooted in our biology. Unlike phobias, which are the aversions and fears that people have of things in their environment, philias are the attractions and positive feelings that people have toward organisms, species, habitats, processes and objects in their natural surroundings. Although named by Fromm, the concept of biophilia has been proposed and defined many times over. Aristotle was one of many to put forward a concept that could be summarized as “love of life”. Diving into the term philia, or friendship, Aristotle evokes the idea of reciprocity and how friendships are beneficial to both parties in more than just one way, but especially in the way of happiness.^[5]

In the book Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations edited by Peter Kahn and Stephen Kellert,^[6] the importance of animals, especially those with which a child can develop a nurturing relationship, is emphasized particularly for early and middle childhood. Chapter 7 of the same book reports on the help that animals can provide to children with autistic-spectrum disorders.^[7]

Product of biological evolution

Human preferences toward things in nature, while refined through experience and culture, are hypothetically the product of biological evolution. For example, adult mammals (especially humans) are generally attracted to baby mammal faces and find them appealing across species. The large eyes and small features of any young mammal face are far more appealing than those of the mature adults.

Similarly, the hypothesis helps explain why ordinary people care for and sometimes risk their lives to save domestic and wild animals, and keep plants and flowers in and around their homes. In other words, our natural love for life helps sustain life.

Very often, flowers also indicate potential for food later. Most fruits start their development as flowers. For our ancestors, it was crucial to spot, detect and remember the plants that would later provide nutrition.

Biophilia and conservation

Because of our technological advancements and more time spent inside buildings and cars, it is argued that the lack of biophilic activities and time spent in nature may be strengthening the disconnect of humans from nature. Although, it also has shown strong urges among people to reconnect with nature. The concern for a lack of connection with the rest of nature outside of us, is that a stronger disregard for other plants, animals and less appealing wild areas could lead to further ecosystem degradation and species loss. Therefore, reestablishing a connection with nature has become more important in the field of conservation.^{[8][better source needed]} Examples would be more available green spaces in and around cities, more classes that revolve around nature and implementing smart design for greener cities that integrate ecosystems into them such as biophilic cities. These cities can also become part of wildlife corridors to help with migrational and territorial needs of other animals.^[9]

Development

The hypothesis has since been developed as part of theories of evolutionary psychology in the book The Biophilia Hypothesis edited by Stephen R. Kellert and Edward O. Wilson^[10] and by Lynn Margulis. Also, Stephen Kellert’s work seeks to determine common human responses to perceptions of, and ideas about, plants and animals, and to explain them in terms of the conditions of human evolution.

Biophilic design

In architecture, biophilic design is a sustainable design strategy that incorporates reconnecting people with the natural environment. It may be seen as a necessary complement to green architecture, which decreases the environmental impact of the built world but does not address human reconnection with the natural world.^[11] Caperna and Serafini^[12] define biophilic as that kind of architecture, which is able to supply our inborn need of connection to life and to the vital processes. According to Caperna and Serafini,^[13] Biophilic architecture is characterized by the following elements: i) the naturalistic dimension; (ii) the Wholeness ^[14] of the site, that is, “the basic structure of the place”; (iii) the “geometric coherency”, that is, the physical space must have such a geometrical configuration able to exalt the connections human dimension and built and natural environments. Similarly, biophilic space has been defined as the environment that strengthens life and supports the sociological and psychological components,^[15][16] or, in other words, it is able to:^[17] (i) unburden our cognitive system, supporting it in collecting and recognizing more information in the quickest and most efficient way; (ii) foster the optimum of our sensorial system in terms of neuro-motorial influence, avoiding both the depressive and the exciting effects; (iii) induce a strengthening in emotive and biological terms at a neural level; (iv) support, according to the many clinical evidences, the neuro-endocryne and immunological system, especially for those people who are in bad physical condition.

Having a window looking out to plants is also claimed to help speed up the healing process of patients in hospitals.^[18] Similarly, having plants in the same room as patients in hospitals also speeds up their healing process.^[19]

Thought encompasses an “aim-free flow of ideas and associations that can lead to a reality-oriented conclusion.”^[1] Although thinking is an activity of an existential value for humans, there is no consensus as to how it is defined or understood.

Because thought underlies many human actions and interactions, understanding its physical and metaphysical origins, processes, and effects has been a longstanding goal of many academic disciplines including philosophy, linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, biology, sociology and cognitive science.

Thinking allows humans to make sense of, interpret, represent or model the world they experience, and to make predictions about that world. It is therefore helpful to an organism with needs, objectives, and desires as it makes plans or otherwise attempts to accomplish those goals.

The meaning of spirituality has developed and expanded over time, and various connotations can be found alongside each other.^[1][2][3]1

Traditionally, spirituality referred to a religious process of re-formation which “aims to recover the original shape of man”,² oriented at “the image of God”^[4][5] as exemplified by the founders and sacred texts of the religions of the world. The term was used within early Christianity to refer to a life oriented toward the Holy Spirit^[6] and broadened during late medieval times to include mental aspects of life.

In modern times the term both spread to other religious traditions^[7] and broadened to refer to a wider range of experience, including a range of esoteric traditions and religious traditions. Modern usages tend to refer to a subjective experience of a sacred dimension^[8] and the “deepest values and meanings by which people live”,^[9][10] often in a context separate from organized religious institutions,^[11] such as a belief in a supernatural (beyond the known and observable) realm,^[12] personal growth,^[13] a quest for an ultimate or sacred meaning,^[14] religious experience,^[15] or an encounter with one’s own “inner dimension”.^[16]

Yoga (/ˈjoʊɡə/;^[1] Sanskrit: योग; pronunciation) is a group of physical, mental, and spiritual practices or disciplines which originated in ancient India. Yoga is one of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophical traditions.^{[2] [3]} There is a broad variety of yoga schools, practices, and goals^[4] in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.^[5][6][7] The term “yoga” in the Western world often denotes Hatha yoga, a physical practice of postures called asanas.

The origins of yoga have been speculated to date back to pre-Vedic Indian traditions; it is mentioned in the Rigveda,¹ but most likely developed around the sixth and fifth centuries BCE,^[9] in ancient India’s ascetic and śramaṇa movements.^[10]2 The chronology of earliest texts describing yoga-practices is unclear, varyingly credited to Upanishads.^[11] The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali date from the first half of the 1st millennium CE,^[12][13] but only gained prominence in the West in the 20th century.^[14] Hatha yoga texts emerged around the 11th century with origins in tantra.^[15][16]

Yoga gurus from India later introduced yoga to the West,^[17] following the success of Swami Vivekananda in the late 19th and early 20th century.^[17] In the 1980s, yoga became popular as a system of physical exercise across the Western world.^[16] Yoga in Indian traditions, however, is more than physical exercise; it has a meditative and spiritual core.^[18] One of the six major orthodox schools of Hinduism is also called Yoga, which has its own epistemology and metaphysics, and is closely related to Hindu Samkhya philosophy.^[19]

Many studies have tried to determine the effectiveness of yoga as a complementary intervention for cancer, schizophrenia, asthma, and heart disease.^[20][21] The results of these studies have been mixed and inconclusive.^[20][21] On December 1, 2016, yoga was listed by UNESCO as an intangible cultural heritage.^[22]

In philosophy, ideas are usually taken as mental representational images of some object. Ideas can also be abstract concepts that do not present as mental images.^[1] Many philosophers have considered ideas to be a fundamental ontological category of being. The capacity to create and understand the meaning of ideas is considered to be an essential and defining feature of human beings. In a popular sense, an idea arises in a reflexive, spontaneous manner, even without thinking or serious reflection, for example, when we talk about the idea of a person or a place. A new or original idea can often lead to innovation.^[2]

Theories

Max Weber

The German sociologist Max Weber proposed an interpretation of social action that distinguished between four different idealized types of rationality. The first, which he called Zweckrational or purposive/instrumental rationality, is related to the expectations about the behavior of other human beings or objects in the environment. These expectations serve as means for a particular actor to attain ends, ends which Weber noted were “rationally pursued and calculated.” The second type, Weber called Wertrational or value/belief-oriented. Here the action is undertaken for what one might call reasons intrinsic to the actor: some ethical, aesthetic, religious or other motive, independent of whether it will lead to success. The third type was affectual, determined by an actor’s specific affect, feeling, or emotion—to which Weber himself said that this was a kind of rationality that was on the borderline of what he considered “meaningfully oriented.” The fourth was traditional or conventional, determined by ingrained habituation. Weber emphasized that it was very unusual to find only one of these orientations: combinations were the norm. His usage also makes clear that he considered the first two as more significant than the others, and it is arguable that the third and fourth are subtypes of the first two.

The advantage in Weber’s interpretation of rationality is that it avoids a value-laden assessment, say, that certain kinds of beliefs are irrational. Instead, Weber suggests that a ground or motive can be given—for religious or affect reasons, for example—that may meet the criterion of explanation or justification even if it is not an explanation that fits the Zweckrational orientation of means and ends. The opposite is therefore also true: some means-ends explanations will not satisfy those whose grounds for action are Wertrational.

Weber’s constructions of rationality have been critiqued both from a Habermasian (1984) perspective (as devoid of social context and under-theorised in terms of social power)^[4] and also from a feminist perspective (Eagleton, 2003) whereby Weber’s rationality constructs are viewed as imbued with masculine values and oriented toward the maintenance of male power.^[5] An alternative position on rationality (which includes both bounded rationality,^[6] as well as the affective and value-based arguments of Weber) can be found in the critique of Etzioni (1988),^[7] who reframes thought on decision-making to argue for a reversal of the position put forward by Weber. Etzioni illustrates how purposive/instrumental reasoning is subordinated by normative considerations (ideas on how people ‘ought’ to behave) and affective considerations (as a support system for the development of human relationships).

Psychology

In the psychology of reasoning, psychologists and cognitive scientists have defended different positions on human rationality. One prominent view, due to Philip Johnson-Laird and Ruth M. J. Byrne among others is that humans are rational in principle but they err in practice, that is, humans have the competence to be rational but their performance is limited by various factors.^[8] However, it has been argued that many standard tests of reasoning, such as those on the conjunction fallacy, on the Wason selection task, or the base rate fallacy suffer from methodological and conceptual problems. This has led to disputes in psychology over whether researchers should (only) use standard rules of logic, probability theory and statistics, or rational choice theory as norms of good reasoning. Opponents of this view, such as Gerd Gigerenzer, favor a conception of bounded rationality, especially for tasks under high uncertainty.^[9]

Richard Brandt

Richard Brandt proposed a “reforming definition” of rationality, arguing someone is rational if their notions survive a form of cognitive-psychotherapy.^[10]

Quality

Abulof argues that rationality has become an “essentially contested concept,” as its “proper use… inevitably involves endless disputes.” He identifies “four fronts” for the disputes about the meaning of rationality:

1. The purpose, or function, of ascribing rationality: Is it descriptive/explanatory, prescriptive or subjunctive (rationality “as if” real)?
2. The subject of rationality: What, or who, is rational: the choice, the act, or the choosing actor?
3. Cognition: What is the quality of the cognitive decision-making process: minimal (calculative intentionality) or optimal (expected-utility)?
4. Rationale: Is rationality merely instrumental, that is, agnostic about the logic of human action and its motivations (instrumental rationality) or does it substantially inform them (substantive rationality, focusing on material maximization)?^[11]

It is believed by some philosophers (notably A. C. Grayling) that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and “mechanical”. If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts, or culturally specific moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.

Modern cognitive science and neuroscience show that studying the role of emotion in mental function (including topics ranging from flashes of scientific insight to making future plans), that no human has ever satisfied this criterion, except perhaps a person with no affective feelings, for example an individual with a massively damaged amygdala or severe psychopathy. Thus, such an idealized form of rationality is best exemplified by computers, and not people. However, scholars may productively appeal to the idealization as a point of reference.^{[citation needed]}

Theoretical and practical

Kant had distinguished theoretical from practical reason. Rationality theorist Jesús Mosterín makes a parallel distinction between theoretical and practical rationality, although, according to him, reason and rationality are not the same: reason would be a psychological faculty, whereas rationality is an optimizing strategy.^[12] Humans are not rational by definition, but they can think and behave rationally or not, depending on whether they apply, explicitly or implicitly, the strategy of theoretical and practical rationality to the thoughts they accept and to the actions they perform.

Rationality is the quality or state of being rational – that is, being based on or agreeable to reason.^[1][2] Rationality implies the conformity of one’s beliefs with one’s reasons to believe, and of one’s actions with one’s reasons for action. “Rationality” has different specialized meanings in philosophy,^[3] economics, sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology, game theory and political science.

To determine what behavior is the most rational, one needs to make several key assumptions, and also needs a logical formulation of the problem. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in all information that is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are the model within which rationality applies. Rationality is relative: if one accepts a model in which benefitting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is deemed irrational. It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated.

Rational egoism (also called rational selfishness) is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one’s self-interest.^[1] The view is a normative form of egoism. It is distinct from psychological egoism (according to which people are motivated only to act in their own self-interest) and ethical egoism (that moral agents ought only to do what is in their own self-interest).^[1]

Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness or of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.^[1][2] It has been defined variously in terms of sentience, awareness, qualia, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood or soul, the fact that there is something “that it is like” to “have” or “be” it, and the executive control system of the mind.^[3] Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.^[4] As Max Velmans and Susan Schneider wrote in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness: “Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives.”^[5]

Western philosophers, since the time of Descartes and Locke, have struggled to comprehend the nature of consciousness and identify its essential properties. Issues of concern in the philosophy of consciousness include whether the concept is fundamentally coherent; whether consciousness can ever be explained mechanistically; whether non-human consciousness exists and if so how it can be recognized; how consciousness relates to language; whether consciousness can be understood in a way that does not require a dualistic distinction between mental and physical states or properties; and whether it may ever be possible for computing machines like computers or robots to be conscious, a topic studied in the field of artificial intelligence.

Thanks to developments in technology over the past few decades, consciousness has become a significant topic of interdisciplinary research in cognitive science, with significant contributions from fields such as psychology, anthropology,^[6][7] neuropsychology and neuroscience. The primary focus is on understanding what it means biologically and psychologically for information to be present in consciousness—that is, on determining the neural and psychological correlates of consciousness. The majority of experimental studies assess consciousness in humans by asking subjects for a verbal report of their experiences (e.g., “tell me if you notice anything when I do this”). Issues of interest include phenomena such as subliminal perception, blindsight, denial of impairment, and altered states of consciousness produced by alcohol and other drugs, or spiritual or meditative techniques.

From 1930 onwards, Brecht became part of a wider complex of projects exploring the role of intellectuals (or “Tuis” as he called them) in a capitalist society. A Tui is an intellectual who sells his or her abilities and opinions as a commodity in the marketplace or who uses them to support the dominant ideology of an oppressive society. ] The German modernist theatre practitioner Bertolt Brecht invented the term and used it in a range of critical and creative projects, including the material that he developed in the mid-1930s for his so-called Tui-Novel—an unfinished satire on intellectuals in the German Empire and Weimar Republic—and his epic comedy from the early 1950s, Turandot or the Whitewashers’ Congress. The word is a neologism that results from the acronym of a word play on “intellectual” (“Tellekt-Ual-In”).
According to Clark (2006):
“… the critique of intellectuals which Brecht developed… around the notion of ‘Tuismus’ engages a model of the public intellectual in which the self-image of the artist and thinker as a socially and politically engaged person corresponded to the expectations of the public.”

• Clark, M. W. (2006). Hero or villain? Bertolt Brecht and the crisis surrounding June 1953. Journal of Contemporary History.
• Hunt, T. C. N.-. (2004). Goodbye to Berlin:  For 200 years, German thinkers have shaped British intellectual life – but their influence is fading fast. The Guardian.

According to Mark Clark:
… the critique of intellectuals which Brecht developed… around the notion of ‘Tuismus’ engages a model of the public intellectual in which the self-image of the artist and thinker as a socially and politically engaged person corresponded to the expectations of the public. Partisan without being bound to a party, independent of official institutions yet experienced in surviving within institutions, prepared to entertain risks and undertake unconventional experiments: this was how Brecht accommodated a world which he envisioned as changeable. His antagonistic worldview fed on crisis and found its most productive, creative impulse in the escalation of contradictions.

Brecht routinely referred to the members of the Frankfurt School, particularly Theodor Adorno, as “Tuis”. The corresponding term “Tuism” describes the theory and practice of the Tui-intellectual.

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic and political activist. Sometimes described as “the father of modern linguistics”, Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science.

Noam Chomsky - Neoliberalism & the Global Order (Full Talk - Original Upload)

This is the complete talk (excluding the Q&A) of Noam Chomsky speaking at Yale University on February 25, 1997

Noam Chomsky, "Neo-Liberalism: An Accounting"

Dr. Noam Chomsky, neoliberalism & higher education / society

Pre-Symposium teaser: Dr. Noam Chomsky takes part (in the form of a prologue) in the upcoming "Public Engagement and the Politics of Evidence in an Age of Neoliberalism and Audit Culture" July 23-25, 2015-- University of Regina http://www.politicsofevidence.ca In case you were wondering, yes that interviewer is me, Dr. Marc Spooner (marc.spooner@uregina.ca) Recorded May 26, 2015 over Skype

Noam Chomsky - Neoliberalism & the Global Order (Full Talk - Original Upload)

Noam Chomsky, "Neo-Liberalism: An Accounting"

Dr. Noam Chomsky, neoliberalism & higher education / society

See also:

Partially adapted from Wikipedia:

Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism^[1] is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.^[2]:7 Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade^[3] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.^[11] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.^[12][13]

English-speakers have used the term “neoliberalism” since the start of the 20th century with different meanings,^[14] but it became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 1980s, used by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences^[15][16] as well as by critics.^[17][18] Modern advocates of free market policies avoid the term “neoliberal”^[19] and some scholars have described the term as meaning different things to different people^[20][21] as neoliberalism “mutated” into geopolitically distinct hybrids as it travelled around the world.^[4] As such, neoliberalism shares many attributes with other concepts that have contested meanings, including democracy.^[22]

The definition and usage of the term have changed over time.^[5] As an economic philosophy, neoliberalism emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s as they attempted to trace a so-called “third” or “middle” way between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning.^[23]:14–15 The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which neoliberals mostly blamed on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term “neoliberal” tended to refer to theories which diverged from the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism and which promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.