Sample Question

[Guest Dudey]

Can someone please clarify on this topic. What the heck are they asking for?

 

Our belief in an idea only lasts until the introduction of the next idea.

 

Describe a specific situation in which an idea might continue to be believed even after the introduction of an idea that challenges it. Discuss what you think determines whether or not our belief in an idea will be displaced by a new idea.

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hey there Dudey,

 

This one sounds like a pretty ambiguous one. Some thoughts: you can take the essay prompt in different directions depending partly on how you define "idea". "Idea" could be defined as philosophies, theories, approaches, beliefs...any sort of conjuring of the mind. Once you define that, then your examples can sprout from there (or vice versa, depending on how you prefer to approach these essays).

 

With respect to examples, how about these: one of the first things I thought of was religion as "idea", e.g., missionaries traveling to Africa to spread the word on their religion. They attempted to displace native ideas of gods, spirits and natural occurrences with those of their own, e.g., Christianity. Another one: western medical approaches or "ideas" and their adoption (or lack thereof) by the Canadian indigenous population. The latter could represent a case where the cadre of western medical "ideas" were introduced to the native Canadian population, but have proven largely unpopular given their lack of effectiveness in attempting to improve the general health of native Canadian populations. As such, some medical thinkers are trying to tackle some of the native Canadian medical issues via the use of native healing approaches such as shamans, etc., which represents a set of "ideas" that continues to be believed even after the introduction of a set of "ideas" that challenges it.

 

I'll leave the resolution to you, but hopefully the above gets some neurons firing!

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest missing Manitoba]

Taking the topic to mean that our belief in one idea vs. another on the same subject (e.g. creationism vs. evolution, Earth revolving around the sun or vice versa, old vs. new ways of doing things, etc.) is quite malleable and that we tend to accept the theory du jour, some factors to consider could be:

 

- Who is advancing the idea?

- Is the idea evidence-based or simply conjecture?

- How long-held is/was the previous idea?

- Does either idea have any basis in people's belief systems?

- Is the belief in the new idea widespread/global?

- Must the two ideas be mutually exclusive or can they co-exist?

- In the grand scheme of things, how important is the subject at hand? We might be more open to change in beliefs that mean less to us.

 

 

It could also be possible to interpret this statement as relating to the often inconstant nature of human loyalty. An issue or ideal might be important to us only until the next issue comes along. (This interpretation of the statement would stem from the definition of "belief in". To clarify: saying someone "believes in" an idea or issue can mean that issue is important to him.) Given the choice, though, I would probably go with the first interpretation.

[Guest Dudey]

Hey Kirsteen & missing Manitoba:

 

Thank you very much for your replies. Your responses made me think.