Week Eleven: Argument and Counterargument

Materialistic science is far from sufficient for explaining
a subjective phenomenon such as deja vu. A much more
effective method of science is phenomenology,
which accounts for the human consciousness and its
subjectivity in analyzing phenomena with science.

     

    My current argument calls for the deja vu phenomenon to be explained using subjective science, rather than a simple biological explanation. This subjective approach may closely parallel the approach through which the synchronicity phenomenon, a theory set forth by Carl Jung, is understood. My thesis statement argues this point and proposes a future application for the understanding of deja vu, saying:

The applicability of Carl Jung’s ideas to the déjà vu phenomenon help to explain why déjà vu has more-frequent occurrences in the minds of those who are significantly aware that the phenomenon is prevalent in their daily life. Additionally, those with psychological disorders such as heightened anxiety levels are likely to induce stress surrounding the déjà vu phenomenon, further subjecting themselves to more-severe cases of false recollection that may be detrimental to their mental well-being. By tracing the conscious roots of the déjà vu phenomenon, treatment for those heavily-impacted by repeated memories can be formulated in order to improve patients’ quality of life.

    An opposing view to my argument, AKA the counterargument, claims that the deja vu phenomenon is far from subjective and can be simply explained using biological analysis. This claim, which is quoted directly from a scientific journal titled Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, says the following:

“Disruptions to this ‘temporal coding’ mechanism result in false signals of recollection which may occur without actual retrieval and which, ironically, may arise particularly during situations of contextual novelty” (O’Connor).

Although this explanation may be applicable in average cases of déjà vu, many severe cases have shown that the phenomenon is not simply a result of erroneous neural firing. It is important to realize that materialistic science is not the ideal approach for analyzing deja vu, since research has proven that the phenomenon is one with many environmental triggers and limiting factors. Therefore, rather than using science that points to a tangible, biological explanation, it is important to utilize science that investigates the deja vu phenomenon as a phenomenon, rather than as a simply delay in processing. This approach, called phenomenology, studies how the first-person aspect of human consciousness is objectifiable and may differ in its perceptions of the world based on bias, past experience, and future expectations (Smith). By making room for subjective explanation, phenomenology provides a more in-depth analysis of deja vu. The possible triggers of persistent deja vu, such as heightened anxiety levels as were found in my case study, are not explained using materialistic science, despite being a determining factor in the severity and frequency of deja vu episodes. Consequently, the counterargument of using biological explanation to trace the roots of a deja vu episode are not sufficient in explaining the phenomenon, and will provide far from enough insight in order to develop a treatment for those suffering from debilitating volumes of deja vu episodes that are induced by conscious factors.

The citations for my counterargument and rebuttal are as follows:

O’Connor, Akira R., et al. “Novel Insights into False Recollection: A Model of Déjà Vécu.”

        Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, vol. 15, no. 1-3, Taylor & Francis Group, 2010, pp. 118–44,

        doi:10.1080/13546800903113071.

Smith, David Woodruff. "Phenomenology." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer

        2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

        https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/phenomenology.