Seminar Life

I got back from class a little while ago. We discussed the approach of Weber and Geertz. I get frustrated sometimes when there is a big group and I don't get the chance to express much of what I'm thinking. Really, after 3 people it gets problematic. But also, I was listening today and I was thinking, "I hate the way we are approaching these issues." It seemed to me that were were analyzing in an inefficient way. I like to start with the roots of issues, with the motivation behind an action. I take the pleasure principle for granted and then try to map out why individuals are oriented toward this or that. Why do they value what they value? Why do certain particular experiences have those particular effects on their state of being? What interactions have led the individual to react in that particular way to that particular stimulus? What THINKING has led the individual to react in that manner? So this is where I like to start. It just seems so wrong to go about it another way.