Mirror Images

"What can be more similar in every respect and in every part more alike tom y hand and to my ear than their images in a mirror? And yet I cannot put such a hand as is seen in the mirror in the place of its original, for if this is a right hand, that in the mirror is a left one, and the image or reflection of the right ear is a left one, which never can serve as a substitute for the other." Immanuel Kant pg. 27

This to me suggests that Kant is saying no two things are alike. Everything is somewhat different no matter what way you look at it. Even if you look at something in a mirror it appears the same but if you try to duplicate it with something you think is similar it will not work.

Supreme Understanding & Will

"If I say that we are compelled to consider the world as if it were the work of a Supreme Understanding and Will, I really say nothing more than that a watch, a ship, a regiment bears the same relation to the watchmaker, the shipbuilder, the commanding officer as the world of sense (or whatever constitutes the substratum of this complex of appearances) does the unknown, which I do not hereby cognize as it is in itself but as it is for me, i.e., in relation to the world of which I am a part." Immanuel Kant pg 91

This to me says that people see the world the way that they want to see it. That is from their own point of view from whatever situation or part of life they are looking at it from.

Supreme Being

"We must therefore think an immaterial being, a world of understanding, and a Supreme Being (all more noumena) because in them only, as things in themselves, reason finds that in completion and satisfaction, which it can never hope for in the derivation of appearances from their homogeneous grounds, and because these actually have reference to something distinct from them (and totally heterogeneous), as appearances always presuppose an object in itself and therefore suggest its existence whether we can know more of it or not." Immanuel Kant pg. 89

Depending on certain information sitings of a supreme being or an immaterial being can or cannot be known.

Homogeneity

"When we have to deal with extended magnitudes, all the parts must be homogeneous with one another and with the whole. But in the connection of cause and effect homogeneity may indeed likewise be found but is not necessary, for the concept of causality (by means of which something is posited through something quite different from it) does not in the least require it." Immanuel Kant pg. 78

Kant is saying that cause and effect does not really have to be connected. But when talking about extended magnitudes those ideas should be connected through homogeneity.

Connection of Accidents

"Consequently, I do not say that things in themselves possess a quantity,, that their reality possesses a degree, their existence a connection of accidents in a substance, etc. This nobody can prove because such a synthetic connection from mere concepts, without any reference to sensuous intuition on the one side or connection of such intuition in a possible experience on the other, is absolutely impossible." Immanuel Kant pg 47

I believe what Kant is trying to say is that one cannot have any ideas that possess quality if they do not have some sort of intuition behind them. If there is no intuition where did they come from?

PG. 85 KANT CONCLUSION ON DETERMINATION OF THE BOUNDS OF PURE REASON

THE CLEAREST ARGUMENTS HAVING BEENING ADDUCED, IT WOULD BE ABSURD FOR US TO HOPE THAT WE CAN KNOW MORE OF ANY OBJECT THAN BELONGS TO THE POSSIBLE EXPERIENCE OF IT OR LAY CLAIM TO THE LEAST KNOWLEDGE OF HOW ANYTHING NOT ASSUMED TO BE AN OBJECT OF POSSIBLE EXPERIENCE IS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT IT HAS IN ITSELF.

I think that no one can know exactly what is going to happen in certain things if people do not experience it for themselves. A person can argue that they know what is going to happen or may know some of the possibilities but these are just guesses. For example a person can not know what it is like to be in love without experiencing this emotion for themselves. They can have an educated guess or an idea of how it may feel to be in love from a description but they will never know the true felling until they experience it for themselves.

Metaphysics

"How are synthetic propositions a priori possible?... Metaphysics stands or falls with the solution of this problem; its very existence depends upon it. " Immanuel Kant p. 18

Kant is basically saying that if synthetic propositions a priori are not possible than metaphysics can not exist. If you can not infer that something metaphysical exists from something synthetic then what is the point in a priori if you have no synthetic proof?

KANT ON PURE NATURAL SCIENCE PG. 35

NATURE IS THE EXISTENCE OF THINGS, SO FAR AS IT IS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO UNIVERSAL LAWS. SHOULD NATURE SIGNIFY THE EXISTENCE OF THINGS IN THEMSELVES, WE COULD NEVER COGNIZE IT EITHER A PRIORI OR A POSTERIORI. NOT A PRIORI, FOR HOW CAN WE KNOW WHAT BELONGS TO THINGS IN THEMSELVES, SINCE THIS IS NEVER CAN BE DONE BY THE DISSECTION OF OUR CONCEPTS (IN ANALYTIC JUDGEMENTS).

I do not totally agree with this statement. I think that things do exist in nature but nature is not the existence of things. If nature was the existence of things then where would people fall and their existence. But then you must think of all the things that exist in nature like the bodies of water, animals, people, and plant life. i do belice that without all these things nature could not exist but some of the things that exist in nature are not dependant on it. I think this statement proves that is value to human and plant life but it is not the means of existence. I think that nature is something that is a posteriori because it is based on observation and how people, animals, and plant life adapt to there surroundings.

Kant page 13

"The essential and distinguishing feature of pure mathematical cognition among all other a priori cognitions is that it cannot at all proceed from concepts, but only by means of the construction of concepts." So mathematical equations are synthetic meaning we "create them" and build meaning by putting context behind them where then we can analyze them based upon the meaning behind those figures. 

Kant page 11

Hume really begins to state the obvious truth in the beginning of his book and although it may be obvious after reading it was also surprising a few minutes after thinking about what he was saying. He says that all "judgments of experience are synthetic" meaning that they can not be "analyzed" or measured and we sort of have to take them as they occur. Then on the other hand he says that  all mathematical judgments are synthetic which is true considering that we derive these figures through understanding, but what gets me is that unlike those "judgements of experience" math can be predicted accurately and we can also expect certain things to occur, unlike those "experiences" where we can not accurately analyze an outcome or that reaction to that action.

Of a Particular Providence and of a Future State

"But what must a philosopher think of those vain reasoners, who, instead of regarding the present scene of things as the sole object of their contemplation, so far reverse the whole course of nature, as to render this life merely a passage to something farther; a porch, which leads to a greater, and vastly different building; a prologue, which serves only to introduce the piece, and give it more grace and propriety? Whence, do you think, can such philosophers derive their idea of the gods? From their own conceit and imagination surely." Hume p. 97

I suppose an example of what Hume is saying is that when something good or bad happens someone, perhaps a "vain reasoner", will say something along the lines of everything happens for a reason. For example, when someone passes away God has a greater plan for them. But I say if life on earth right now is just a stepping stone to something better and greater what is the point? Why live righteously now if you are just going to go somewhere else? What is the point in this world at all?

Of Miracles

"Though experience be our only guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact; it must be acknowledged, that this guide is not altogether infallible, but in some cases is apt to lead us into errors." Hume p. 73

I think what Hume is trying to say here is that just because a person may have experience in one situation they do not know everything. Situations can pan out differently every time depending on all of the factors. If one factor is different than the others then the outcome could be very different than what was previously experienced. Hume says experience is good but does not always help.

Of Liberty and Necessity

"For as the faculties of the mind are supposed to be naturally alike in every individual; otherwise nothing could be more fruitless than to reason or dispute together; it were impossible, if men affix the same ideas to their terms, that they could so long form different opinions of the same ideas to their terms, that they could so long form different opinions of the same subject; especially when they communicate their views, and each party turn themselves on all sides, in search of arguments, which may give them the victory over their antagonists." Hume p.53

I am pretty sure that what Hume is trying to say in this part is that in a perfect world people would not argue about anything because they would be like minded. But in this world that is not the case. People are not like minded and argue about everything. Most of the time you can find people who think they are like minded but you can always find at least one subject that they do not agree on.

Of Probability

"Though there be no such thing as Chance in the world; our ignorance of the real cause of any event has the same influence on the understanding and begets a like species of belief or opinion." Hume p. 37

Chance is something that people associate with things that happen that are not expected. When something that has happened before happens again but with a different result people say it happened by chance. Hume says that when this happens philosophers do not look at it as an irregularity of nature but as something that has a secret cause to the effect. I think that things can just happen because of an irregularity of nature. I believe that life is a mystery and somethings just happen and are not meant to be figured out.

Association of Ideas

"Though it be too obvious to escape observation, that different ideas are connected together; I do not find, that any philosopher has attempted to enumerate or class all the principles of association; a subject, however, that seems worthy of curiosity. To me, there appear to be only three principles of connexion among ideas, namely, Resemblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cause or Effect." Hume p. 14

Hume brings up a good point when he says that philosophers have not touched on the principles of association. The last two philosophers that we have covered, Descartes and Locke, did not discuss that particular subject. I agree with Hume that it is quite strange that out of all the subjects in the world to be discussed and that have been discussed, association has not been one of those subjects. It seems like it should be talked about because it is a basic human function.

The Origin of Ideas

"Nothing, at first view, may seem more unbounded than the thought of man, which not only escapes all human power and authority, but is not even restrained within the limits of nature and reality. To form monsters, and join incongruous shapes and appearances, cost the imagination no more trouble than to conceive the most natural and familiar objects." Hume p. 11

This particular quote jumped out at me on the page because it is so true! People have such a wide range of ideas to play with in the mind. If a person is inspired enough he or she can think of anything whether it exists in the world or not. The mind can be an extremely abstract thing. I feel that for the most part the only time that the mind is really unbound, as Hume says, is when an individual is a child. As an adult the mind tends not to wonder with the imagination instead it turns to more practical every day thoughts and the imagination of childhood is lost.

Hume page 74

"A hundred instances or experiments on one side, and fifty on another, afford a doubtful expectation of any event; though a hundred uniform experiments, with only one that is contradictory, reasonably beget a pretty strong degree of assurance."

Hume obviously relys on probability and that the cause and effect theory can only be justified if the probability of the effect happening in part of the cause, are high. 

HUME ON THE REASONING OF ANIMALS SECTION IX PGS. 69-72

" It seems evident, that animals, as well as men learn many things from experience, and inferm that the same events will always follow from the same causes.

I think that this is true and that learning things from experience is one of the many things that humans and animals have in common. People say that they have nothing in common with animals but this not true. I think that people do not give animals enough credit because they are actually just as smart as people. They think and communicate with eachother the same way as people. I think Hume's idea is true because an animal learns new things as well as people do. I think that animals have to teach themselves how to survive, interact with one another and how to react to certain things. Animals need to be able to be in touch with their surroundings and know how to adapt to their environment at any time. Animals learn things the same way as humans and perceive things different from one another the same way people do.

HUME ON THE ORIGIN OF IDEAS PGS. 9-14

Hume says that a person perceives an object in a variety of ways. Sometimes people look at something very quickly and think it to be one thing but when they take a second glance they think it is something else. The mind is a very difficult thing to understand because it uses the 5 senses to bring forth a new and old memory. A person remember what it is to be cold or hot from a past experience and this memory may trigger the thought of another idea. People get ideas from various places and see certain things a certain way but this does not mean that these new ideas were never thought of by another person. So how can something be thought of as a new idea if someone else has already thought of it and if this is true how do we know that some new ideas are actually new just because no one has said them aloud?

Hume, An Enquiry page 19

Hume says on page 19 that "Nor is geometry, when taken into the assistance of natural philosophy, ever able to remedy this defect, or lead us into the knowledge of ultimate causes..." which is sort of funny to me. I study math for business and its filled with formulas and theory's having to do with predicting the future outcome of some figure if the underlying business does X amount in sales and it seems to me that Hume is contradicting all these years of mathematical development. I mean he is probably right considering the outcome of these formulas are never really exact, but then whats the use of going to the trouble of getting complicated when we can just wing it through the use of cause and effect?

David Hume, An Enquiry page 18

"The mind can never possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, by the most accurate scrutiny and examination. For the effect is totally different from the cause, and consequently can never be discovered in it."

It seems as though no matter what you do or how hard you think you can never really know whats going to happen next. Experience and time seem to be the only elements to finding out what is going to happen and there is no way of knowing what is going to happen before it happens. Its a little twist for anyone who thinks to much. The more you think the more you can plan, but you wont necessarily know what will happen until it does. 

Sensation or Reflection

"All ideas come from sensation or reflection.- Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas; how comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store, which the busy and boundless fancy of man has painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, From experience: in that all our knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives itself." John Locke p. 59

Locke is saying that knowledge does not appear out of nowhere. It has to come from somewhere and Locke says that somewhere is from experience. I think that this passage could be used as an argument against things that are innate.

Signs of Ideas

"When a man speaks to another, it is that he may be understood; and the end of speech is, that those sounds, as marks, may make known his ideas to the hearer. That, then, which words are the marks of are the ideas of the speaker: nor can any one apply them, as marks, immediately to any thing else but the ideas that he himself hath. For, this would be to make them signs of his own conceptions, and yet apply them to other ideas; which would be to make them signs and not signs of his ideas at the same time; and so, in effect to have no signification at all. Words being voluntary signs, they cannot be voluntary signs imposed by him on things he know not." John Locke p. 323

This passage seems to be saying that you cannot just go by what another person thinks. Locke seems to be saying that you have to experience things are your own instead of taking another person's word as truth. I think this can be applied to things like religion and individualism.

CHAPTER 1 BOOK 1 HUMAN UNDERSTANDING PG. 1

On the first page of Locke's essay, he talks about how understanding is what sets man apart from other animals and species. He talks about how humans are dominant because they are born to understand certain things and aspects of life. Humans have a way of communicating with others and using their brains to solve compliated problems. No other animal or species can do this or anything close to it. Humans are dominant because they are the only species that can think logically, speak intelligently for the most part, and have religion which make up a society. I agree with Locke when he says that it is an advantage to be human because we have certain privileges that other species do not.

I found it very interesting that he says that the eye makes it possible to perceive things and see them but it can not see itelf. I never thought about that. The eye can be used for many things and is very sensitive when touch or something gets in it but it can not see itself only its reflection. People see themselves only in the way they want to so maybe when people look in the mirror and see there reflection that is the person they are and the person everyone else sees is the real them.

ideal vs. reality

"Judgment may reach farther, but that is not knowledge.- We are not therefore to wonder if certainty be to be found in very few general propositions made concerning substances; our knowledge of their qualities and properties go very seldom farther than our senses reach and inform us. Possibly inquisitive and observing men may, by strength of judgment, penetrate farther; and on probabilities taken from wary observations, and hints well laid together, often guess right at what experience has not yet discovered to them." John Locke p.503

This excerpt can be applied to people's ideals versus the reality of a situation. When I say situation, I mean situations that question people's morals like abortion or premarital sex. I blogged earlier when we were reading about Descartes on how he basically says that what people say and the actions that people carry out are two separate things. This passage reaffirms what Descartes was saying. Until you actually experience something you can not predict what you would do in that particular situation. Just because you might think you have all the information on a situation you can not predict what you would do in a hypothetical situation.

Truth

"On this faculty of distinguishing one thing from another, depends the evidence and certainty of several even very general propositions, which have passed for innate truths; because men, overlooking the true cause why those propositions find universal assent, impute it wholly to native uniform impressions: whereas it in truth depends upon this clear discerning faculty of the mind, whereby it perceives two ideas to be the same or different." John Locke p. 101

I found this passage interesting because it talks about how men not god seem to decide whether or not something is an innate truth. He also seems to blame this fact on "native uniform impressions." By saying native uniform impressions Locke seems to be implying conformity to ideas. Instead of seeking out the truth man just accepts what was formerly seen as truth.

Body vs. Matter

"How many intricate disputes have there been about matter, as if there were some such thing really in nature distinct from body; as it is evident the word, 'matter' stands for an idea distinct from the idea of body!" John Locke p.403

John Locke says that matter and body are not one in the same. These two words are not interchangeable. John Locke is talking about how people often confuse things that seem somewhat similar but if you look closely at them they are not the same thing! People's attention to detail when it comes to the use of words is lacking. I think this can easily be linked to what people say and what their actions are. There are many misconceptions when it comes to people. Perception has a lot to do with it. One person may say they are going to do something and do it but the person that they talked to may think that their actions were completely different. I do not know if this is relevant but that is what I thought of when reading this passage.

Human Understanding (Locke) page 92 (8)

"This is certain, that whatever alterations are made in the body, if they reach not the mind; whatever impressions are made on the outward parts, if they are not taken notice of within; there is no perception." I believe this is a good point Locke makes about the distinction between the mind and the body. The two have to be linked in order to feel. The mind and the body are not so much two different identity's as much as they are actually good friends working together. In order for the body to recognize and perceive any feeling; it has to be registered in the mind in order for the body to understand what is going on and what is happening. 

Human Understanding (Locke) page 92 (2)

"Whoever reflects on what passes in his own mind, can not miss it; and if he does not reflect, all the words in the world cannot make him have any notion of it." 

Very true. We cannot not think about what we see. What does it mean to ignore? When we ignore, I'm assuming, we perceive but we don't think about it? 

LOCKE ON POWER/MIND AND BODY PG. 163-167 BOOK 2

"The mind being every day informed, by the senses, of the alteration of those simple ideas it observes in things without, and take notice how one comes to an end and ceases to be, and another begins to exist which was not before"

In this paragraph Locke talks about how the mind has the power to take in new information without knowing it. the mind is so powerful that it creates new ideas from a variety of things that it sees and perceives to be important on a regular basis. He says that everyday your senses are working together as one to create and recreate simple and new ideas. But what is this power called and how does it work? this question is unclear to me. If there is a "power" that helps us to manage, create, and change our ideas then where is the proof that it actually exist? I think this power is just our brain at work doing what it was made to do. I think our mind is suppose to help us manage and understand human interaction and the thoughts that surround life. This power that Locke talks about to me is nothing but a mere cry for help to draw attention to the fact that this power has consumed his mind and he does not know how to maintain his thoughts in a orderly fashion.

Locke goes on to say that there are two powers, will and understanding. he believes that the power that we are born with or that we begin with is will. But if we are born with this power dont we have the power also to refuse this will and/or these powers? People have the ability to chose what they want to do and what they do not want to do and what they want to think and not to think. If that is the case then people have the power to disagree with the thoughts and ideas that they are born with. I think that a person is born with certain ideas based on how they perceive the things around them not because they are born to believe them. The second power which is understanding is said to be how a person perceives the ideas in the mind, the significance of signs, and the connexion or repugancy, agreement or disagreement, that there is between any of our ideas. Everyone has their own way of perceiving certain things. People are going to have certain opinions about things regardless of how another looks at it. The mind helps people to look at things a specific way and everyones mind does not work the same way. I do not think that people will ever perceive the same thing the exact same way. people will always have the power to chose what the want to believe. In my opinion I think
that the mind has a lot of room to ponder life's many aspects and that the mind does have power but it is unknown to what extent the power is taken depending upon the person.

John Locke on Ideas

"Light being that which discovers to us visible objects, we give the name of 'obscure' to that which is not placed in a light sufficient to discover minutely to us the figure and colours which are observable in it, and which in a better light would be discernible." -John Locke, p. 289 Ch. XXIX

John Locke tells us that ideas can be separated into clear and obscure. Clear ideas are like simple ideas. When the mind sees a simple idea it is imprinted in the mind and can be easily reproduced to the mind later on exactly the way it was originally stored. Obscure ideas are just like complex ideas. Complex ideas are made up a number of small simple ideas. Sometimes these imprinted ideas are lost in the mind. This happens sometimes because the original idea was not significant enough for the mind to remember them or sometimes because the mind is too weak to be able to reproduce the memory.

Human Understanding (Locke) page 86 (12)

Locke touches on the significance between the mind and the body when he says "If, then, external objects be not united to our minds when they produce ideas in it, and yet we perceive these original qualities in such of them as singly fall under our senses, it is evident that some motion must be thence continued by our nerves or animal spirits, by some parts of our bodies, to the brain or the seat of sensation, there to produce in our minds the particular ideas we have of them." What I'm getting is that although everything outside of our minds is in no way connected we build an understanding in our minds by using our "senses" which are an extension of our bodies. 

Human Understanding (Locke) page 86 (11)

When Locke explains that we perceive things such as colors and ideas through our impulses leads me to think that we all have the same impulses. I cant quite figure out what he means considering that he doesn't elaborate. 

Human Understanding (Locke) page 87 (15)

Locke sounds a lot like Descartes in this paragraph where he states "...the ideas of primary qualities of bodies are resemblances of them, and their patterns do really exist in the bodies themselves...They are, in the bodies we denominate from them, only a power to produce those sensations in us..." Descartes also said something along those lines where he stated that what we assume we are learning we actually know and in fact are deriving these new experiences from our forgotten knowledge. This has something to do with the mind and body where our bodies already know what types of sensations we will feel given the circumstances and our minds only have to remind us of something we have forgotten. Its all very confusing but that's kind of where I stand with this paragraph. Any suggestions?

Thoughts

"What I believe must be considered above all here is the fact that I find within me countless ideas of certain things, that, even if perhaps they do not exist anywhere outside me, still cannot be said to be nothing." Descartes- Meditations 5 p. 88

Descartes is basically saying that you should not dismiss ideas or thoughts that do not seem to have any proof in the real world. They should not be dismissed as nothing. I believe that if you feel strong enough about something but there isn't any proof you should pursue the thought regardless of how hard it might be to find out the truth.

The Mind's Hidden Thoughts

"Their truth is so open and so much in accord with my nature that, when I first discover them, it seems I am not so much learning something new as recalling something I knew beforehand. " Descartes- Meditations 5 p. 87

Descartes says his newfound thoughts seem so much like a part of him that he feels like he knew them all along. His mental gaze just never focused on them. I think it could also be that maybe his thoughts were confusing so he unknowingly dismissed them but found them again later when something triggered the thought.

Descartes on Doubt

"Yet, before inquiring whether any such things exist outside me, I surely ought to consider the ideas of these things, insofar as they exist in my thought, and see which ones are distinct and which ones are confused." Descartes-Meditation 5- p. 87

Descartes seems pretty adamant about freeing himself from doubt. He feels as if he should weed out all of the thoughts that are not concrete. One should examine whether or not certain thoughts in the mind are distinct or confused and also which ones stand out the most. I think can be applied to most people's lives. One should find out what they know for sure and then go from there.

On the first page of Locke's essay, he talks about how understanding is what sets man apart from other animals and species. He talks about how humans are dominant because they are born to understand certain things and aspects of life. Humans have a way of communicating with others and using their brains to solve compliated problems. No other animal or species can do this or anything close to it. Humans are dominant because they are the only species that can think logically, speak intelligently for the most part, and have religion which make up a society. I agree with Locke when he says that it is an advantage to be human because we have certain privileges that other species do not.


I found it very interesting that he says that the eye makes it possible to perceive things and see them but it can not see itelf. I never thought about that. The eye can be used for many things and is very sensitive when touch or something gets in it but it can not see itself only its reflection. People see themselves only in the way they want to so maybe when people look in the mirror and see there reflection that is the person they are and the person everyone else sees is the real them.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

I also noticed that Descartes mentions geometrical shapes and triangles alot in Part 5 of Meditations. He talks about how the angles fit together to make the triangle which is the same way the Trinity is created in 3 parts. God the father, Jesus the son, and the holy ghost. They all join together to create a holy, perfect, and almighty supreme being.


In Meditations Part 5 Descartes talks about the existence and the essence of God. I totally agree with him in this argument. He says that he believes that God does exist because he feels that there has to be a presence of a perfect and supreme being. He can't even imagine his life without God and without his existence. Many scientist say that God does not existence because you can not physically see him or touch him but alot of people can certain feel his presence. But you can not see or touch air either so isn't it fair to say that air does not existence for the same reasons that scientist say that God does not existence?

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

The third maxim expresses the idea that people dont really have control over anything but their thoughts. I think that this is true only to a certain extent. People dont have control over things like natural disasters and a couple of other things but for the most part people control what they choose to control. There are many things in the world that can be controlled but most people choose not until its too late. For example, global warming, low oil, and most traffic accidents. Descartes says "after we have done our best regarding things external to us, everything that is lacking for us to succeed is, from our point of view, absolutely impossible". This has some truth in it because some things are just out of our control and have to be left in God's hands. I believe that all things happen for a reason and sometimes things like wealth are not meant for everybody. Some people are content with just the necessities and to them just having what they absolutely need is being successful. In the third maxim he talks alot about having only they things he needed and that is what mad him happy. He didnt need a bunch of valuable material things like cars, eating at fancy resturants every night, or big expensive houses to make him happy. I totally agree with him when he says that, but it would be nice to have all those things. I think that people just have to work hard for what they want until they get it. Just because they dont have it when they want it does not mean they will never get it. People just have to wait until it is there time to get the things they that want.

Friday, February 1, 2008

The first maxim of Descartes book in part 3 talks about how it was important to him to obey the laws of his country and the importance of religion. Growing up with his family at a young age he was instilled with certain values and guidelines to insure that he would try to better himself. To me this means that as a child most people are raised with certain rules that they are suppose to follow. People are brought up to follow religion and certain customs of their families. Descartes values played a huge part in becoming the man he wanted to be and he made sure that he lived up to the expectations of himself and his family.

Cellphone Blogging!

Hello. By the way I found out that there is an option on Blogger's home page where you can blog from your cellphone that is of course if you have a cell that can send MMS messages. If you have this option this would make it alot easier for us to post on the fly as far as class is concerned there by giving us some room to breath so that no matter where we are, as long as we have our books with us, we can post our comments and create new threads. If you have any questions just email me. kolic33@aol.com

Human Understanding (Locke) page 64 (12)

"We have here, then, the bodies of two men with only one soul between them, which we will suppose to sleep and wake by turns; and the soul still thinking in the waking man, whereof the sleeping man is never conscious, has never the least perception.... Just by the same reason they make the soul and the man two persons, who make the soul think apart what the man is not conscious of." 

What Im getting between my last blog post and this one is that the soul and the man are two beings and that the soul travels between two men in turns of the conscious man. How can the soul be its own being if the conscious man is reflecting on his surroundings and these reflections taking a part of his mind and body? Where does the soul get its character in a sense or how can it have its own identity?

Human Understanding (Locke) page 63 (11)

"Or if it be possible that the soul can, whilst the body is sleeping, have its thinking, enjoyments, and concerns, its pleasure or pain, apart, which the man is not conscious of, nor partakes in, it is certain that Socrates asleep, and Socrates awake, is not the same person." 

What he goes on to say is that the mind and the soul are two different beings and they both have their own set of thoughts. Although the body when awake is thinking as the person should through whatever experiences he was brought up on; the soul never stops thinking and only goes on to think and feel while the body is asleep. Its like being two people at the same time or going back to metaphysics and asking whether or not you can exist and not exist at the same time. There is a lot more to it including something about two diff rent individuals, and what I'm assuming considering the reading is a bit challenging, sharing one soul. While one sleeps the other is awake with the sleeping mans soul. Its weird, but I may be interpreting it the wrong way. Any suggestions welcome. 

Discourse Part 3 page 16-17 paragraph 29

"... as for the rest of my opinions, I could freely undertake to rid myself of them. And inasmuch as I hoped to be able to reach my goal better by conversing with men than by staying shut up any longer in the stove-heated room where I had had all these thoughts...I meanwhile rooted out from my mind all the errors that had previously been able to slip into it.

Descartes keeps his autonomy while also interacting with a diverse amount of people in order to build his thoughts. While secluded he clears his mind of anything and everything and in order to build new thoughts or mind sets he goes out into the world and begins recollecting information and forming new ideas about old things. This is kinda crazy.

"And just as in tearing down an old house, one usually saves the wreckage for use in building a new one, similarly, in destroying all those opinions of mine that I judged to be poorly founded, I made various observations and acquired many experiences that have since served me in establishing more certain opinions." 

This is the one thing that could stop a lot of the crime and hate that goes on today. If people stop and clear their minds only to leave themselves vulnerable to absorbing a new and more accurate opinion they could begin to really use their minds instead of their impulses or their first impressions. Its almost like a second date. The first time you build these ideas and conclusions in your mind good, bad, or both, but the second time around is what really reassures you of what you came to understand the first time around. 

Discourse Part 3 page 16 paragraph 28

"For, given that our will tends not to pursue or flee anything unless our understanding represents it to the will as either good or bad, it suffices to judge well in order to do well, and to judge as best one can, in order also to do ones very best, that is to say, to acquire all the virtues and in general all the other goods that one could acquire, and, when one is certain that this is the case, one could not fail to be contented."

What Im getting is that in order to be happy we must judge what we encounter as best as we can in order to determine the best solution as possible, but in order to judge our best we must be aware of everything around us or in other words be very experienced and well rounded in order to make a sound judgement. 

Unless we make the right moves we wont be able to "acquire" material goods nor achieve personal accomplishments. Im assuming that those two criteria are what keep people "contented" considering that Descartes is a driven man with an ethical and disciplined background, there really aren't many other alternatives to being contented than what you can look back on or what you can hold in your hand. 

Discourse Part 3 page 18

"... and where, in the midst of the crowd of a great and very busy people who are more concerned with their own affairs than they are curious about those of others, I have been able, without lacking any of the amenities to be found in the most bustling cities, to live as solitary and as withdrawn a life as I could in the remotest deserts."

Life is about being concerned with your own affairs. If we didn't have any priorities and responsibilities than what kind of a life should we lead. To live in solitary is to exclude yourself from civilization and to also cut yourself off from the ever changing world. How can Descarte just shut himself out of the world and conclude the existence of God and the disciplines that we should undertake without first seeing how other people are living and thinking. Surely Descarte wasn't the most disciplined and intelligent human being and Im sure there were others who thought allot of the same ideas that he did.

Meditations Part 5 page 88

"But if, from the mere fact that I can bring forth from my thought the idea of something, it follows that all that I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, then cannot this too be a basis for an argument proving the existence of God?"

So if we inherently understand everything and only having to remind ourselves about something we perceive to be foreign to us and that all of us are in fact born with an idea or image that does not exist in the real world, but at our discretion can in fact exist then Descartes has proved the existence of God. Right?

Meditations Part 5 page 88

"What I believe must be considered above all here is the fact that I find within me countless ideas of certain things, that, even if perhaps they do not exist anywhere outside me, still cannot be said to be nothing. And although, in a sense, I think them at will, nevertheless they are not something I have fabricated; rather they have their own true and immutable natures."

Its true if you think about it how else could we have created some of the worlds most beautiful or technical buildings, parks, paintings, etc without first perceiving there images inside of us. What Im thinking is that everyone of us is carrying some image of what is to be of what isent currently, if you can follow that. 

Meditations Part 5 page 87-88

'Their truth is so open and so much in accord with my nature that, when I first discover them, it seems I am not so much learning something new as recalling something I knew beforehand. In other words, it seems as though I am noticing things for the first time that were in fact in me for a long while, although I had not previously directed a mental gaze upon them." 

Is he saying that everything we encounter for the first time is inherently understood and known inside of us and when we assume we are learning something new we are actually reminding ourselves of what we had forgot? Thats kinda crazy and I think I like it. What Im getting out of the excerpt above is just that. When we assume we are learning we are actually reminding or in other words extracting a pre-observed understanding of what we are dealing with or what we assume we are seeing and feeling for the first time. 

I guess this means that we are all rusty experts. What do you think?

Story of Descartes-AK

Does it bother anyone else that Descartes never really mentions events of when he was growing up? I know he talks about the various different schools he went to but he never talks about his home life. Who raised him? What kind of views did they have? Obviously these views must have had some sort of affect on his life. He says things such as "I was assured..." (p. 13) But by who? Under what circumstances?

Thoughts vs. Actions-AK

"I ought to pay attention to what they did rather than to what they said, not only because in the corruption of our morals there are few people who are willing to say everything they believe, but also because many do not know what they believe..." Rene Descartes Discourse on Method p. 13

I found it interesting how Rene Descartes talks about people's thoughts versus their actions. When faced with a hypothetical question of lets say morals, one does not always know the correct answer but when in that particular situation one has to chose. For example, dare I say the issue of abortion. There are many different views on this matter such as a black-and-white yes-or-no answer or an in-between-depends-on-the-situation answer. Until that person is actually faced with that moral dilemma they may not know what they would do. So in short it is better to observe the way a person handles a situations versus taking their word as verbatim.

Discourse Part 3 page 14

In Descartes Method Part 3 it seems that Descarte was mainly talking about his life and the idea that living to make a fortune or living to learn something in order to better establish your financial position, was not a life worth living for him. He says on page 14 section (22) "My third maxim was always to try to conquer myself than fortune, and to change my desires rather than the order of the world, and generally to accustom myself to believing that there is nothing that is completely within our power except our thoughts, so that, after we have done our best regarding things external to us, everything that is lacking for us to succeed is, from our point of view, absolutely impossible."  The section that I bolded above really stands out in terms of what he is saying, not just because I bolded it, I believe what he is saying is that we can only do so much in our lifetime and spending it on expanding any fortune is a waist of time depending on our positions. We must concentrait on bettering ourselves and others around us while in the meanwhile expanding our knowledge of life so we do not become ignorant of the things more important than money and material things. After a certain point in our lives where we can literally see that there isen't any further we can go we must stop because as he says it is "absolutely impossible".