1. Wikipedia interprets this quote by saying that in order for Descartes to appropriately gain more knowledge, he must diverge from the "old foundations of his youth" which he had built upon "trust". Then on fresh foundations he must look elsewhere to gain success in finding out more knowledge. I believe the correct interpretation of this quote is isntead of trying to find success elsewhere, what Descartes was doing was reexamining every aspect of knowledge and perspective he has attained in his life from the ground up. Everything he has been taught and had been taken for truth must be descarted -i mean discarded, haha, in other words the old foundations must be put to the wayside and then reexaminted in order for new foundations to come.
2. The four precepts are as follows, first was to never accept anything as true, doubt everything you have ever learned or conceived before. The second was the divide the knowledge being put up under scrutiny into as many aspects as possible in order to prepare for the througough examination that is the follow. Third, then from these divided parts start on the most simplest of forms, the most basest of knowledge and then go up in small increminting orders. The fourth part in the througough examination is to review every aspect to make sure the new knowledge attained is through and complete, kind of like proof reading your work.
3. Shorto seems to be saying that religion was the way people gained knowledge in substitution for the scientific method. In the days when the scientific method was not discovered religion was used in order to explain the natural world in lack there of.
4. According to Shorto the great controversy that continues to the present day is the case of science versus religion, terrorism faith against logic and reason.
Questions regarding the Book Lady's Blog.
5. What was threatened by Descartes' method, and how was it threatened?
The Church was threatened because Descartes work presented the case of Faith Versus Reason. In those days reason threatened everything that was taken based on faith alone.
6. The Book Lady talks about a conflict between modernity and traditionalism. As best you can come up explain what you think she means by "modernity." If your idea of modernity is different from hers, explain your idea as well.
I believe what the Book Lady means by modernity or "modern" is the "modern" usage of reason, reason was new, the use of reason was something that has never really or throughly been done before. I agree that what was modern then was the use of reason, and reason is still in use today. I do not know as of yet what could be more modern then that.
7. What does Shorto think is the proposal contained in "The Discourse on the Method for Rightly Conducting the Reason?"
He believed the proposal was the find knowledge based on reason.
8. The social effect of writing the Discourse in a non traditional scholarly language would be a loud statement in its ownself. People would be surprised and confused at first at knowing that one of the greatest schoalrly works was written in french. Then they would question the motive behind it, which would lead towards all kinds of assumptions.
Questions regarding the video.
9.To question religion and christianity. At that time everything was based on faith. Descartes was extreme in that he questioned the foundatinos of society itself.
10.I think it is limited. Descartes new way of reexamining the world isn't only limited towards the perspective of a christian view, but his new way of reexamining the world is much more then going against biblical teachings, his new way of examination starts from the five senses.
Monday, July 8, 2024
Scholasticism
1. Scholastic Method -
From reading the material and my understanding scholasticism was an academic method of the medieval philosophers that sought to reach agreement of all authoritative christian doctrine material. The scholastics would first find all points of contradiction in the various texts and then discuss how seemingly contradictory words would actually be in agreement of each other in works called sentiente?. When aristotelean works were put under scrutiny one notable scholastic Thomas Aquinas provided works that showed how Aristotle and his philosophical views did not contradict christian doctrine but was actually in agreement with it as well. Or he showed how christine doctrine can coincide Aristotlean philosophy.
2. Sententiae
This would be their "manual" or "notebook" or "work" where the scholastics would write down quotations from authorititative sources in order to have an easy accesible go - to to see where all the points of contention lie.
3.
The aim of the scholastic method was to show that all parts of christianity was universal whole and true. That there were no points of contradiction and that all stated statements of the religion were in agreement with each other.
4.
Philology is the study of human language and mechanics. The scholastics used it to delve into the meanings and nuances of seemingly contradicting words to find agreement. They would either argue for alternative meanings ambiguousness?
5.
Logical analysis was used to show that logically christine doctrine held no contradictions.
6.
Bonaventure believed that reason supported the doctrine of creation, because he believed first and foremost that true reason can only be found by religious faith. Once this is placed, naturally reasoning afterwards wouldl only support the doctrine of creation.
7.
He believed creation and us were "footprints" of God. God was the source of creation of which everything "emanantes".
8.
Aquinas believed that the relation reason should have with faith is that reason, true reason would bring someone into faith. And that faith and reason, while faith is justified by itself, faith with reason is all the more greater.
9.
He would state that the application of reason wasn't "careful" enough?
10.
The problem of universals is if universals really existed or not.
11.
Realism is the philosophical view that there existed entities for characteristics of things in reality such as red or blue or cocky or cool. Realist believed there existed beings of Redness, Bluenessm, Cockiness, and coolness apart from the actual source.
12.
Nominalism is the philosophical view that physical characteristics, and beingness of things did not actually exist. The only that that was real is the thing which you actually looked at. There was only red, and if you saw red in another place it was only the similarity, There was no red being.
From reading the material and my understanding scholasticism was an academic method of the medieval philosophers that sought to reach agreement of all authoritative christian doctrine material. The scholastics would first find all points of contradiction in the various texts and then discuss how seemingly contradictory words would actually be in agreement of each other in works called sentiente?. When aristotelean works were put under scrutiny one notable scholastic Thomas Aquinas provided works that showed how Aristotle and his philosophical views did not contradict christian doctrine but was actually in agreement with it as well. Or he showed how christine doctrine can coincide Aristotlean philosophy.
2. Sententiae
This would be their "manual" or "notebook" or "work" where the scholastics would write down quotations from authorititative sources in order to have an easy accesible go - to to see where all the points of contention lie.
3.
The aim of the scholastic method was to show that all parts of christianity was universal whole and true. That there were no points of contradiction and that all stated statements of the religion were in agreement with each other.
4.
Philology is the study of human language and mechanics. The scholastics used it to delve into the meanings and nuances of seemingly contradicting words to find agreement. They would either argue for alternative meanings ambiguousness?
5.
Logical analysis was used to show that logically christine doctrine held no contradictions.
6.
Bonaventure believed that reason supported the doctrine of creation, because he believed first and foremost that true reason can only be found by religious faith. Once this is placed, naturally reasoning afterwards wouldl only support the doctrine of creation.
7.
He believed creation and us were "footprints" of God. God was the source of creation of which everything "emanantes".
8.
Aquinas believed that the relation reason should have with faith is that reason, true reason would bring someone into faith. And that faith and reason, while faith is justified by itself, faith with reason is all the more greater.
9.
He would state that the application of reason wasn't "careful" enough?
10.
The problem of universals is if universals really existed or not.
11.
Realism is the philosophical view that there existed entities for characteristics of things in reality such as red or blue or cocky or cool. Realist believed there existed beings of Redness, Bluenessm, Cockiness, and coolness apart from the actual source.
12.
Nominalism is the philosophical view that physical characteristics, and beingness of things did not actually exist. The only that that was real is the thing which you actually looked at. There was only red, and if you saw red in another place it was only the similarity, There was no red being.
Galileo and Ockham
1. Ockham was described as a nominalist because he believed that experiences which people had that brought them to conclusions that there exist the colors of red, or coolness, or honor, were only in their minds and redness or coolness or honor did not exist outside of their minds.
2. Ockham's razor is the term used to how people should approach philosophical views. Ockham viewed that if there were extraneous explanations to how things worked that went beyond that of the subject material as is then it is unwarranted and uneeded. Ockhams razor was used to simplify the extraenous explanations of such and such and coincided with his nominalistic views. That there only is and whatever else isnt
3. When the razor is applied to the problem of universals, The part that is left is the actual thing itself that exists on the physical plane, anything apart from that is cut off and does not exist.
4. mere belief is "based on sensory information and therefore prone to error, is nevertheless adequate for our usual needs"
5. Ockham's notion of the importance of mere belief being substantial would be important in british philosophy for years to come.
6. "Nicholas of Autrecourt stated that efforts to apply philosophical reasoning to christine doctrine have failed and should be abandoned."
7. They applied rational methods in order to come up with paradoxical results. Why it was important? I cannot find the answer.
8. Cusa stated since there are so many contradictins in philosophy it does not matter for God is able to unite even the contradictions. It did not work because it didn't make any sense.
9. Galileo rejected the method of inquiry by first going to authortitative texts such as Aristottles works, and then seeing it from their eyes.
10. Galileos preferred method was going to the materials under scrunity directly and firstly.
11. Galileo had so many enemies for his works underminded the views and authority of the western Christendom.
12. Galileo is mainly remembered for his astronomical works that proved that the sun was the center of the universe andd how the planets orbited, and that earth wasn't a sole planet, and there weren't any "celestial spheres"
13. The telescope.
14. By ridiculing them. he not only proved them wrong, but he founded them ,ridiculed them and put them at a loss for words.
15. Their reactions showed that premodern mentality was very closed minded, arrogant, and defensive. Modern thinking would invite all new ideas with applause and if found to be true, would welcome it.
16. He erroneously believed that they were atmospheric phenomena like meteorites.
17. ?
18. He believed the rotation of the earth's axis was responsible.
19. It was actually the "occult" power of the moon.
20. It was a radical departure from scholastic thinking becuase it did not involve "God"?
2. Ockham's razor is the term used to how people should approach philosophical views. Ockham viewed that if there were extraneous explanations to how things worked that went beyond that of the subject material as is then it is unwarranted and uneeded. Ockhams razor was used to simplify the extraenous explanations of such and such and coincided with his nominalistic views. That there only is and whatever else isnt
3. When the razor is applied to the problem of universals, The part that is left is the actual thing itself that exists on the physical plane, anything apart from that is cut off and does not exist.
4. mere belief is "based on sensory information and therefore prone to error, is nevertheless adequate for our usual needs"
5. Ockham's notion of the importance of mere belief being substantial would be important in british philosophy for years to come.
6. "Nicholas of Autrecourt stated that efforts to apply philosophical reasoning to christine doctrine have failed and should be abandoned."
7. They applied rational methods in order to come up with paradoxical results. Why it was important? I cannot find the answer.
8. Cusa stated since there are so many contradictins in philosophy it does not matter for God is able to unite even the contradictions. It did not work because it didn't make any sense.
9. Galileo rejected the method of inquiry by first going to authortitative texts such as Aristottles works, and then seeing it from their eyes.
10. Galileos preferred method was going to the materials under scrunity directly and firstly.
11. Galileo had so many enemies for his works underminded the views and authority of the western Christendom.
12. Galileo is mainly remembered for his astronomical works that proved that the sun was the center of the universe andd how the planets orbited, and that earth wasn't a sole planet, and there weren't any "celestial spheres"
13. The telescope.
14. By ridiculing them. he not only proved them wrong, but he founded them ,ridiculed them and put them at a loss for words.
15. Their reactions showed that premodern mentality was very closed minded, arrogant, and defensive. Modern thinking would invite all new ideas with applause and if found to be true, would welcome it.
16. He erroneously believed that they were atmospheric phenomena like meteorites.
17. ?
18. He believed the rotation of the earth's axis was responsible.
19. It was actually the "occult" power of the moon.
20. It was a radical departure from scholastic thinking becuase it did not involve "God"?
Descartes Rise
11. Explain Descartes's philosophical method and his justification for that method.
Descartes produces a new philosophical method because he believed the old philosophical method had created a structure of knowledge that one cannot be completely sure of. One cannot be completely sure of the old knowledge for it is based on the senses, senses which can be easily deceived, by dreams and etc. Since there is uncertainty to begin with from the ground up on the old structure of knowledge, Descartes believed all of it could not be believed in without doubt. So Descartes attempted to build a foundation of knowledge built upon whatever he could find that could be known with absolute certainty. This led him to coin the phrase "I think, therefore I am" The only thing which he can know for certain is that he is a thinking thing, and since he can think thoughts, he exists. From this absolute certain foundation he deduces further axioms to prove that the external world exists and that God exists as well.
12. Explain Descartes's arguments why the senses cannot be the foundation of knowledge.
Descartes basic philosophical method is to find axioms, rules, laws that one can be absolutely certain of and to produce further knowledge derived from those axioms. The commonsense picture of the world based on the senses does not meet this standard for Descartes argues that knowledge based solely on the senses cannot be known for certain. He explains this through the concept of dreams. For dreams can be so real at times that the dreamer doesn't know if what he is experiencing is all in his mind or a reality, thus proving senses are unreliable.
13. Explain exactly why Descartes, a rationalist, cannot use mathematics as a foundation for knowledge.
mathematics as his foundation?
Knowledge is mathematics based on the senses but sensory experience that can be tested repeatedly and found to be true at all times. It is sensory knowledge for one must perceive sensory data in order to count/calculate objects. The truth of mathematical statements depends on a world where rules, laws, and logic hold together at all times. If logic, rules, and laws were not constant and did not hold together at all times, there will be times when logical statements such as mathematical statements would break down, they would be true one moment and false at the next. Mathematical truths are determined through repeated testing of observational facts in countless number of situations, if at all situations the observation proves the mathematical statement then the mathematical statement is true. Mathematical facts seem to hold more certainty then observational facts for they are easily tested. Descartes still can't use mathematics as his foundation for there can be an Evil Genius which deceives our senses at all times, where one may think 1 plus one equals two, but the evil genius could step in and actually deceive the thinker into thinking logically that one plus one equals two in our dimension but in the real dimension 1 plus 1 equals moraidktenao! WTF? soooo simple! and then transport the thinkers mind into the fake dimension to think 1 plus 1 equals moraidktenao which makes absolutely no sense at all. Thus Descartes cannot even be sure of the mathematical soundness of math itself.
14. Explain Descartes's famous "Cogito ergo sum" argument.
Descartes postulates about the Evil Genius in making his argument that the only thing he can be sure of is his own existence because he thinks. He postulates this being for he creates a possible scenario that would make one doubt every single thing he senses through his five senses. Every belief, every conceivable thing, every line of logical statements are twisted and turned upside down, exploded, imploded and flushed down a toilet if the Evil Genius exists. Descartes proves that if everything through the senses can be doubted, the only thing that cannot be doubted is his own existence because he thinks. He proved this through the saying I can doubt that I even doubt. This is not logically possible or saying I doubt that I even exist. For someone to be able to doubt or for someone to be able to even create a thought must exist. Existence precedes thought, much like energy precedes lightning. I would prove the same thing I believe, if everything I sense or I see hear taste touch before is a lie or a dream, at least I know that it all revolves around me as the central point, not someone else. I don't really know how to explain that one.
15. Explain how Descartes uses wax to establish the existence of an innate idea.
Innate ideas are ideas which cannot be derived from our senses but have been with us in our mind presenses. The other ideas Descartes believes in are perfection. The innate idea generated by the wax example is the idea of sameness. Descartes argues that sameness cannot be derived from the senses by showing that once the wax is melted, all sensory characteristics of it are changed. It holds no physical properties that the wax is the same wax, therefore proving that sameness the idea of sameness is apart from the physical world and that it is an innate idea.(which is wrong)
16. Explain Descartes's "concept of perfection" argument against the existence of the evil genius.
Descartes believes perfection is every negative flaw he perceives in a person to be nonexistent in whatever he believes to be perfect. Descartes categorizes himself as imperfect for he acknowledges there are characteristics about him which he is not proud of or looks at undesirably. He whiches he didn't doubt, had no sin, had more power, more knowledge, all of which are imperfections. Descartes believes that the special concept he think he has is the concept of perfection. He believes he holds this concept for he can imagine what a perfect being would be like. Descartes believes he couldn't have gotten this concept from himself or from any imperfect thing for perfection does not exist in the imperfect. So he believes that the concept of perfection must have come from a perfect being thus proving the existence of God. One cannot derive a characteristic in something that doesn't have that certain characteristic so he believes.
17. Explain Descartes's argument for the existence of the physical world.
Descartes finally concludes that that existence of a physical world must exist. He starts from the doubting of everything he hears sees touches and smells for he proves that any information derived from the senses can be flawed or unreal. Then he proves out one axiom which is that he exists because he is a thinking thing. Then he "proves" that there are some ideas which are innate, apart from the external world, such as sameness and perfection. He then further argues that since he has the innate concept of perfection, this concept must have come from a perfect being for perfection cannot come out of the imperfect. Like how red cannot come out of something that is colored blue. And since he has the concept of perfection there must exist a God who is perfect, for only God is perfect. Then he deduces that a perfect God would not tell lies but would only hold the truth unlike the evil genius thus the external world is not a lie, but the truth which stands before him for it is created by a perfect being.
Descartes produces a new philosophical method because he believed the old philosophical method had created a structure of knowledge that one cannot be completely sure of. One cannot be completely sure of the old knowledge for it is based on the senses, senses which can be easily deceived, by dreams and etc. Since there is uncertainty to begin with from the ground up on the old structure of knowledge, Descartes believed all of it could not be believed in without doubt. So Descartes attempted to build a foundation of knowledge built upon whatever he could find that could be known with absolute certainty. This led him to coin the phrase "I think, therefore I am" The only thing which he can know for certain is that he is a thinking thing, and since he can think thoughts, he exists. From this absolute certain foundation he deduces further axioms to prove that the external world exists and that God exists as well.
12. Explain Descartes's arguments why the senses cannot be the foundation of knowledge.
Descartes basic philosophical method is to find axioms, rules, laws that one can be absolutely certain of and to produce further knowledge derived from those axioms. The commonsense picture of the world based on the senses does not meet this standard for Descartes argues that knowledge based solely on the senses cannot be known for certain. He explains this through the concept of dreams. For dreams can be so real at times that the dreamer doesn't know if what he is experiencing is all in his mind or a reality, thus proving senses are unreliable.
13. Explain exactly why Descartes, a rationalist, cannot use mathematics as a foundation for knowledge.
mathematics as his foundation?
Knowledge is mathematics based on the senses but sensory experience that can be tested repeatedly and found to be true at all times. It is sensory knowledge for one must perceive sensory data in order to count/calculate objects. The truth of mathematical statements depends on a world where rules, laws, and logic hold together at all times. If logic, rules, and laws were not constant and did not hold together at all times, there will be times when logical statements such as mathematical statements would break down, they would be true one moment and false at the next. Mathematical truths are determined through repeated testing of observational facts in countless number of situations, if at all situations the observation proves the mathematical statement then the mathematical statement is true. Mathematical facts seem to hold more certainty then observational facts for they are easily tested. Descartes still can't use mathematics as his foundation for there can be an Evil Genius which deceives our senses at all times, where one may think 1 plus one equals two, but the evil genius could step in and actually deceive the thinker into thinking logically that one plus one equals two in our dimension but in the real dimension 1 plus 1 equals moraidktenao! WTF? soooo simple! and then transport the thinkers mind into the fake dimension to think 1 plus 1 equals moraidktenao which makes absolutely no sense at all. Thus Descartes cannot even be sure of the mathematical soundness of math itself.
14. Explain Descartes's famous "Cogito ergo sum" argument.
Descartes postulates about the Evil Genius in making his argument that the only thing he can be sure of is his own existence because he thinks. He postulates this being for he creates a possible scenario that would make one doubt every single thing he senses through his five senses. Every belief, every conceivable thing, every line of logical statements are twisted and turned upside down, exploded, imploded and flushed down a toilet if the Evil Genius exists. Descartes proves that if everything through the senses can be doubted, the only thing that cannot be doubted is his own existence because he thinks. He proved this through the saying I can doubt that I even doubt. This is not logically possible or saying I doubt that I even exist. For someone to be able to doubt or for someone to be able to even create a thought must exist. Existence precedes thought, much like energy precedes lightning. I would prove the same thing I believe, if everything I sense or I see hear taste touch before is a lie or a dream, at least I know that it all revolves around me as the central point, not someone else. I don't really know how to explain that one.
15. Explain how Descartes uses wax to establish the existence of an innate idea.
Innate ideas are ideas which cannot be derived from our senses but have been with us in our mind presenses. The other ideas Descartes believes in are perfection. The innate idea generated by the wax example is the idea of sameness. Descartes argues that sameness cannot be derived from the senses by showing that once the wax is melted, all sensory characteristics of it are changed. It holds no physical properties that the wax is the same wax, therefore proving that sameness the idea of sameness is apart from the physical world and that it is an innate idea.(which is wrong)
16. Explain Descartes's "concept of perfection" argument against the existence of the evil genius.
Descartes believes perfection is every negative flaw he perceives in a person to be nonexistent in whatever he believes to be perfect. Descartes categorizes himself as imperfect for he acknowledges there are characteristics about him which he is not proud of or looks at undesirably. He whiches he didn't doubt, had no sin, had more power, more knowledge, all of which are imperfections. Descartes believes that the special concept he think he has is the concept of perfection. He believes he holds this concept for he can imagine what a perfect being would be like. Descartes believes he couldn't have gotten this concept from himself or from any imperfect thing for perfection does not exist in the imperfect. So he believes that the concept of perfection must have come from a perfect being thus proving the existence of God. One cannot derive a characteristic in something that doesn't have that certain characteristic so he believes.
17. Explain Descartes's argument for the existence of the physical world.
Descartes finally concludes that that existence of a physical world must exist. He starts from the doubting of everything he hears sees touches and smells for he proves that any information derived from the senses can be flawed or unreal. Then he proves out one axiom which is that he exists because he is a thinking thing. Then he "proves" that there are some ideas which are innate, apart from the external world, such as sameness and perfection. He then further argues that since he has the innate concept of perfection, this concept must have come from a perfect being for perfection cannot come out of the imperfect. Like how red cannot come out of something that is colored blue. And since he has the concept of perfection there must exist a God who is perfect, for only God is perfect. Then he deduces that a perfect God would not tell lies but would only hold the truth unlike the evil genius thus the external world is not a lie, but the truth which stands before him for it is created by a perfect being.
Berkeley & God
1. What did Berkeley think about perception and being?
Berkeley believed that humans are incapable of knowing what an object really is, or whose actually state is separate from a person's perception of an object. The object only looks feels smells tastes a certain way due to the persons own subjective perception, the being of the object is filtered through the mode of the senses and finally beholden within the persons mind. This means that what is actually sensed may not actually be what is. Or what is, is only that which is sensed.
2. What did he think about attempts to refer to "real" or "material" objects?
I believe Berkeley would think attempts to refer to real or material objects would be futile. One can't really know whats REAL because we are limited to five senses and individual perception. Whats real is futile.
3. What is his argument for the existence of other people?
One can sense and know that what one understands and perceives is similar or exactly the same as other people, so one can assume there exists other people for other people have shown to operate on the same level of senses and first person perception. One can say...well I think/see it this way, he/or she thinks it that way may it be the same or different I can totally see how he/she would think that, we can think alike, but this being is separate from I, so the he/she must exist.
4. What is his argument that other people's perceptions are similar to his own?
When the person learns that people see the world along the same sensual experiences and lines of logic as himself/herself. I see green....you see green...we both see green....do you know what love is? I know what loves is, we both laugh, we both smile, we both love, we both talk.
5. What is Berkeley's view of God? How do his views require God to exist?
(...from my take of wiggipedia...)
For Berkeley for something to "exist" it must be perceived by a mind. If it is not perceived by a mind, it does not exist. Or it may exist, but its existence is irrelevant if there is no mind to conceive of it. At least for the human race. There is no difference/significance if it exists or not if no one can see it. Berkeley's view of God is the all seeing mind. God's mind is the mind that see's every single particle of existence (in its totality?). Since God perceives everything, if someone were to look away, if every people, mind, creature of the cosmos looks away, God is the mind that upholds its existence/significance by being a vigilant observer of the cosmos.
Ignore the stuff about Hume and the limericks.
k
6. How did Dr. Johnson try to refute Berkeley, and why did Dr. Johnson fail to refute Berkeley?
I think Dr. Johnson kicked a rock and said something along the lines of I PROVED YOU WRONG! HAH ow!
He failed because he saw what appeared to be a stone, he felt what appeared to be a stone. Berkeley would say, sorry kid, your sensors don't prove anything, try adjusting your antenna frequencies, i mean your foot, maybe that might help. I think Berkeley might agree with the statement of getting over our human selves, that our sensors do not detect the final say of the state of existence of all of the cosmos.. We may not be the glasses of God. Or maybe we are. *SHRUG* Or maybe we are but with really dumb brains.
7. What was Locke's view of primary and secondary qualities?
Primary quality was a quality that is inseparable from the object, secondary is a quality which can be separated from the object, like heat emanating from water, water doesn't need heat to be water. but water does need to be liquid to be water.
8. How did Locke argue for this view?
He said to stick two hands into two buckets of water, one hot one cold, both were water, both had the qualities of heat, but since the qualities of heat were different from both, or could change without changing the object, then that quality was a secondary quality.
9. How did Berkeley extend Locke's argument to primary qualities?
Berkeley said primary qualities don't exist either or are also the same as secondary qualities, meaning there is no quality that is inseparable from the object that would change state of existence of the object if it were tried to be changed, like the perception of size, or color for these can also change with distance, and atmospheric lighting?
Finally, I want you to think about the following questions on your own.
10. If things only exist when they are perceived, and no-one perceives God, can god exist?
From Berkeley's perspective things only exist when they are perceived by the mind. Berkeley seems to be hinting that the human minds perception of objects, is not the final say on the actual state of the existence of an object, but he also seems to be saying the only things which makes an object exist is the presence of it within a mind. I just think this is absolutely absurd now, because if everyone was just shot in the back of the head right at this moment, and every bug stomped, every fly swatted, basically if earth blinked out of space. and no mind that we as a human race know of is there to conceive of the universe, I have a strange hunch that the stars will continue to shine, and the galaxies will continue to spread, even though we'd all be dead. To answer the question, if things can ONLY exist when they are perceived, and no one perceives what they think God would be like is not to be found, then probably that type of God they are looking for doesn't exist. But a different God can exist I believe, going back to Berkeleys concept of perception especially human perception is not the final say, I believe human senses are quite limited, last I checked we had 5, a bit too limited to conclude that since certain detection of a God hasn't been met with 5 senses adapted specifically for just one planet, amongst a galaxy amongst billions amongst billions I am unable to rule out the possibility of a God. But if i really am just an advanced nintendo game on a big screen somewhere out there, or my life is just an echo of a thought from a timeless being, or a pale sketch of a masterpiece that is yet to come, I hope if there is a God out there, I hope he cares for me, I hope he watches over me, and I hope he seeks only good things for me and that goodwill would travel across space and time.
11. If there is no external, "real" world, and no God to hold it all together, how could it possibly happen that all these disconnected minds all perceive all the same things?
Because there is no necessity of a mind to hold it all together. Perception has its importance, but Berkeley is too extreme. Perception is being made into like a battery for the universe. The universe does not need a battery to run I think not. And if we believe that the universe or parts of it does not exist because no mind is perceiving it of the moment then we should call that Ignorception. an Ignorant denial of existence due to the lack of perception. If God had a huge body like a human and the universe was in his stomach, I don't think his stomach would disappear if he fell asleep.
Berkeley believed that humans are incapable of knowing what an object really is, or whose actually state is separate from a person's perception of an object. The object only looks feels smells tastes a certain way due to the persons own subjective perception, the being of the object is filtered through the mode of the senses and finally beholden within the persons mind. This means that what is actually sensed may not actually be what is. Or what is, is only that which is sensed.
2. What did he think about attempts to refer to "real" or "material" objects?
I believe Berkeley would think attempts to refer to real or material objects would be futile. One can't really know whats REAL because we are limited to five senses and individual perception. Whats real is futile.
3. What is his argument for the existence of other people?
One can sense and know that what one understands and perceives is similar or exactly the same as other people, so one can assume there exists other people for other people have shown to operate on the same level of senses and first person perception. One can say...well I think/see it this way, he/or she thinks it that way may it be the same or different I can totally see how he/she would think that, we can think alike, but this being is separate from I, so the he/she must exist.
4. What is his argument that other people's perceptions are similar to his own?
When the person learns that people see the world along the same sensual experiences and lines of logic as himself/herself. I see green....you see green...we both see green....do you know what love is? I know what loves is, we both laugh, we both smile, we both love, we both talk.
5. What is Berkeley's view of God? How do his views require God to exist?
(...from my take of wiggipedia...)
For Berkeley for something to "exist" it must be perceived by a mind. If it is not perceived by a mind, it does not exist. Or it may exist, but its existence is irrelevant if there is no mind to conceive of it. At least for the human race. There is no difference/significance if it exists or not if no one can see it. Berkeley's view of God is the all seeing mind. God's mind is the mind that see's every single particle of existence (in its totality?). Since God perceives everything, if someone were to look away, if every people, mind, creature of the cosmos looks away, God is the mind that upholds its existence/significance by being a vigilant observer of the cosmos.
Ignore the stuff about Hume and the limericks.
k
6. How did Dr. Johnson try to refute Berkeley, and why did Dr. Johnson fail to refute Berkeley?
I think Dr. Johnson kicked a rock and said something along the lines of I PROVED YOU WRONG! HAH ow!
He failed because he saw what appeared to be a stone, he felt what appeared to be a stone. Berkeley would say, sorry kid, your sensors don't prove anything, try adjusting your antenna frequencies, i mean your foot, maybe that might help. I think Berkeley might agree with the statement of getting over our human selves, that our sensors do not detect the final say of the state of existence of all of the cosmos.. We may not be the glasses of God. Or maybe we are. *SHRUG* Or maybe we are but with really dumb brains.
7. What was Locke's view of primary and secondary qualities?
Primary quality was a quality that is inseparable from the object, secondary is a quality which can be separated from the object, like heat emanating from water, water doesn't need heat to be water. but water does need to be liquid to be water.
8. How did Locke argue for this view?
He said to stick two hands into two buckets of water, one hot one cold, both were water, both had the qualities of heat, but since the qualities of heat were different from both, or could change without changing the object, then that quality was a secondary quality.
9. How did Berkeley extend Locke's argument to primary qualities?
Berkeley said primary qualities don't exist either or are also the same as secondary qualities, meaning there is no quality that is inseparable from the object that would change state of existence of the object if it were tried to be changed, like the perception of size, or color for these can also change with distance, and atmospheric lighting?
Finally, I want you to think about the following questions on your own.
10. If things only exist when they are perceived, and no-one perceives God, can god exist?
From Berkeley's perspective things only exist when they are perceived by the mind. Berkeley seems to be hinting that the human minds perception of objects, is not the final say on the actual state of the existence of an object, but he also seems to be saying the only things which makes an object exist is the presence of it within a mind. I just think this is absolutely absurd now, because if everyone was just shot in the back of the head right at this moment, and every bug stomped, every fly swatted, basically if earth blinked out of space. and no mind that we as a human race know of is there to conceive of the universe, I have a strange hunch that the stars will continue to shine, and the galaxies will continue to spread, even though we'd all be dead. To answer the question, if things can ONLY exist when they are perceived, and no one perceives what they think God would be like is not to be found, then probably that type of God they are looking for doesn't exist. But a different God can exist I believe, going back to Berkeleys concept of perception especially human perception is not the final say, I believe human senses are quite limited, last I checked we had 5, a bit too limited to conclude that since certain detection of a God hasn't been met with 5 senses adapted specifically for just one planet, amongst a galaxy amongst billions amongst billions I am unable to rule out the possibility of a God. But if i really am just an advanced nintendo game on a big screen somewhere out there, or my life is just an echo of a thought from a timeless being, or a pale sketch of a masterpiece that is yet to come, I hope if there is a God out there, I hope he cares for me, I hope he watches over me, and I hope he seeks only good things for me and that goodwill would travel across space and time.
11. If there is no external, "real" world, and no God to hold it all together, how could it possibly happen that all these disconnected minds all perceive all the same things?
Because there is no necessity of a mind to hold it all together. Perception has its importance, but Berkeley is too extreme. Perception is being made into like a battery for the universe. The universe does not need a battery to run I think not. And if we believe that the universe or parts of it does not exist because no mind is perceiving it of the moment then we should call that Ignorception. an Ignorant denial of existence due to the lack of perception. If God had a huge body like a human and the universe was in his stomach, I don't think his stomach would disappear if he fell asleep.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Reality
1.Russell Shorto said that Descartes works went against the church and came to the conclusion that Descartes contribution to modern philosophy was to vouch for Reason against Faith. Something which was unique at the time. I believe this severely limits to what Descartes truly accomplished. Descartes works do not just stop at faith versus reason. Descartes works go well beyond creating an argument against the faith of the church. Rather, Descartes works do not just doubt faith, but doubts every single thing known to man, and experienced by the individual.
2.The main points of Descartes cogito ergo sum argument are as follows. 1) Everything can be doubted except cogito ergo sum. Since all knowledge can be doubted since they come from deceiving sensory experiences, if there are any thoughts or ideas that are not from the sensory experiences then they must be true. This leads him to 2) innate ideas. Which leads to the innate ideas of sameness and perfection. He uses the wax example to explain how he believes sameness and perfection are innate. 3) This leads to the belief that since he can conceive of an innate idea that is perfection then there must exist a perfect being, such as God. 4) With this he concludes that since God is perfect, then he does not deceive, and the reality that he beholds is the truth, as God has shown him.
3.Cartesian Dualism deals with the state of two existences in reality, one that deals with the mind/body/soul and everything that comes from it, and the other from the body, which are the tactile things of the world. The argument for it can be presented by a clone scenario, where an exact copy of you can be made of you, that even fires the same neurons of you, but not be you, not in the mysterious inside kind of way. The mind body problem is how can an immaterial but real existence of the mind affect the material body? Descartes solution was the pinpointing of the sacred temple point of the human body that connects the ethereal to the body, the pineal gland. It does not work for how can a gland a physical matter convert spiritual information into atomic firing neurons. A bit like throwing a brick into a pool of water and hoping it will dissolve, or a wave crashing into a pool, and naked fairies appearing out of thin air.
4.Berkeley views that existence apart from the filter of our senses is impossible to perceive. He explains that when we talk about certain things such as matter, and objects concretely we do not really know what we are talking about for all matter is filtered through our fives senses of vision, taste, touch, smell, and hearing. Just because one may sense an object to be this way in his mind, does not mean that that is actually the case in perception reality. He uses optics and the argument of perception to back up his arguments such as seeing an object from close and far away. Our perception is a slave towards our own subjectivity. Since he argues that only what we perceive exists to our experience of reality, he concludes that nothing can exist if it is not being perceived by the mind. This brings him towards another predicament which is how does the universe exist if it were not being actively perceived by the human mind. Or how does a room exist if there is no living thing to perceive it. We can’t prove or disprove if the room disappears from existence the moment we walk out and re appears once someone walks in. So Berkeley proposes that God is the mind that perceives reality when no one is looking so that everything stays in existence. I think that what Berkeley is saying makes perfect sense, in that our touch with reality only exists in our minds. If we did not perceive then the universe or reality is as good as dead. The continual state of a reality is lost, and we are in no position to say that there exists a reality apart from our minds for what is in our minds is all that we know. The only reality we will ever know is in us, even if a reality apart from that or separated from “existed” to us, that would not even be a reality. Well at least not ours anyway. Then I believe Berkeley goes off on a tangent and answers the question, then how can empty houses and the most distant quasars on the far side of an obscure universe exist if and when there is no mind to perceive of it? To which he provides the answer of [God]. [God] is the mind that perceives all. Since he see’s all, all things stay within the plane of existence at all times so one not need to worry if his Ferrari slips into limbo the moment the door closes behind him. My critique of this tangent is that first it is unneeded and a bit contradictory towards his whole stance of a reality existing outside of the perceiving mind does not exist or even if it did, it may as well not exist. For even if [God] kept everything in his mind for us to keep things real we never perceive of it, so following the rule of his stance, it may not even exist, and it is definitely not our reality, for it is not in our own perception. So in a way Ockham may want to sever this part of the argument and throw it into a trash bin and send it to Quasar M807. But back to Berkeley’s original insight that reality exists solely in our minds, and by our perception we hold reality together, I just think its kind of ignorant to dismiss the possibilities just because you can’t know or can’t perceive, and egotistical to label the true state of reality as to how humans experience it. What about the ants on the sandy trail, or the bird flying in the sky? Through their own perception they have created their own realities unto themselves, but neither of them can ever conceive what a tennis shoe is. To an ant, he may perceive it to be a supernatural random disaster, or just as warning…warning…WARNING, but never what it actually is. So what is reality and whose reality is the true reality. Only human minds can perceive what a tennis shoe is in reality for we created it for our own purpose, so logically a humans perception of the tennis shoe is the ultimatum, but when we apply perception and the state of reality through the eyes of beings who had not created their own beings, how can we say our take on reality is the final say, or even the true one at best if our hands did not play a part in its creation or bangationexplodation? I can’t wait until I can see a million more colors, or a feeling more consuming then love if somehow my atoms can get there, but if there was a higher being, and only my highest senses could come towards relation towards ambiguous, I’d say love, love which empowers all of my senses and mind and life in a supernatural way, which I can explain my best and still make absolutely no sense, I believe ambiguous would understand that mystery better than I.
2.The main points of Descartes cogito ergo sum argument are as follows. 1) Everything can be doubted except cogito ergo sum. Since all knowledge can be doubted since they come from deceiving sensory experiences, if there are any thoughts or ideas that are not from the sensory experiences then they must be true. This leads him to 2) innate ideas. Which leads to the innate ideas of sameness and perfection. He uses the wax example to explain how he believes sameness and perfection are innate. 3) This leads to the belief that since he can conceive of an innate idea that is perfection then there must exist a perfect being, such as God. 4) With this he concludes that since God is perfect, then he does not deceive, and the reality that he beholds is the truth, as God has shown him.
3.Cartesian Dualism deals with the state of two existences in reality, one that deals with the mind/body/soul and everything that comes from it, and the other from the body, which are the tactile things of the world. The argument for it can be presented by a clone scenario, where an exact copy of you can be made of you, that even fires the same neurons of you, but not be you, not in the mysterious inside kind of way. The mind body problem is how can an immaterial but real existence of the mind affect the material body? Descartes solution was the pinpointing of the sacred temple point of the human body that connects the ethereal to the body, the pineal gland. It does not work for how can a gland a physical matter convert spiritual information into atomic firing neurons. A bit like throwing a brick into a pool of water and hoping it will dissolve, or a wave crashing into a pool, and naked fairies appearing out of thin air.
4.Berkeley views that existence apart from the filter of our senses is impossible to perceive. He explains that when we talk about certain things such as matter, and objects concretely we do not really know what we are talking about for all matter is filtered through our fives senses of vision, taste, touch, smell, and hearing. Just because one may sense an object to be this way in his mind, does not mean that that is actually the case in perception reality. He uses optics and the argument of perception to back up his arguments such as seeing an object from close and far away. Our perception is a slave towards our own subjectivity. Since he argues that only what we perceive exists to our experience of reality, he concludes that nothing can exist if it is not being perceived by the mind. This brings him towards another predicament which is how does the universe exist if it were not being actively perceived by the human mind. Or how does a room exist if there is no living thing to perceive it. We can’t prove or disprove if the room disappears from existence the moment we walk out and re appears once someone walks in. So Berkeley proposes that God is the mind that perceives reality when no one is looking so that everything stays in existence. I think that what Berkeley is saying makes perfect sense, in that our touch with reality only exists in our minds. If we did not perceive then the universe or reality is as good as dead. The continual state of a reality is lost, and we are in no position to say that there exists a reality apart from our minds for what is in our minds is all that we know. The only reality we will ever know is in us, even if a reality apart from that or separated from “existed” to us, that would not even be a reality. Well at least not ours anyway. Then I believe Berkeley goes off on a tangent and answers the question, then how can empty houses and the most distant quasars on the far side of an obscure universe exist if and when there is no mind to perceive of it? To which he provides the answer of [God]. [God] is the mind that perceives all. Since he see’s all, all things stay within the plane of existence at all times so one not need to worry if his Ferrari slips into limbo the moment the door closes behind him. My critique of this tangent is that first it is unneeded and a bit contradictory towards his whole stance of a reality existing outside of the perceiving mind does not exist or even if it did, it may as well not exist. For even if [God] kept everything in his mind for us to keep things real we never perceive of it, so following the rule of his stance, it may not even exist, and it is definitely not our reality, for it is not in our own perception. So in a way Ockham may want to sever this part of the argument and throw it into a trash bin and send it to Quasar M807. But back to Berkeley’s original insight that reality exists solely in our minds, and by our perception we hold reality together, I just think its kind of ignorant to dismiss the possibilities just because you can’t know or can’t perceive, and egotistical to label the true state of reality as to how humans experience it. What about the ants on the sandy trail, or the bird flying in the sky? Through their own perception they have created their own realities unto themselves, but neither of them can ever conceive what a tennis shoe is. To an ant, he may perceive it to be a supernatural random disaster, or just as warning…warning…WARNING, but never what it actually is. So what is reality and whose reality is the true reality. Only human minds can perceive what a tennis shoe is in reality for we created it for our own purpose, so logically a humans perception of the tennis shoe is the ultimatum, but when we apply perception and the state of reality through the eyes of beings who had not created their own beings, how can we say our take on reality is the final say, or even the true one at best if our hands did not play a part in its creation or bangationexplodation? I can’t wait until I can see a million more colors, or a feeling more consuming then love if somehow my atoms can get there, but if there was a higher being, and only my highest senses could come towards relation towards ambiguous, I’d say love, love which empowers all of my senses and mind and life in a supernatural way, which I can explain my best and still make absolutely no sense, I believe ambiguous would understand that mystery better than I.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Midterm
Scholastic Section
1. Scholastics were the religious thinkers during the turn of the dark ages. They emerged with the purpose to unify christian doctines unto its ownselves and towards the reemerging Aristotelian greek philosophy. At the time everything categorized under "christian doctrine" seemed to conflict with each other, and definetly at first glance Aristotealian philosophy seemed to be incompatible with christianity until the Scholastics started to meet and discuss all the points of contention amongst themselves. They developed the scholastic method, which were discussions where the scholastics would gather and find where all the points of contention lie. These points were identified and written down in works called "sententiae". Once this was done, they would use "logical analysis" by probing and manipulating meanings of words in order to "logically" agree that there were no points of conflict under the religious views of christianity. Once their works were finished, their product was a religion that did not conflict with its ownself, for God does not contradict his ownself. Afterwards a few scholastics looked to cohesively apply Aristotealian philosophy to Christian doctrine to show that they are also in agreement with each other and support each other. The most notable scholastic that achieved this feat was Aquinas who saved Aristotealian philosophy from the flames that would have burned it as heresy. The scholastic method is different from modern thinking in that it is utterly biased. It first makes the assumption that what they are trying to prove is already true, the assumption that God does not contradict itself. Then they go off and try to prove this at all costs using "logical analysis". It is ironic that they try to use the best of their logic analytically based on an unproven assumption they hold up as law, which is totally illogical to begin with. A thorough logical analyisis of modern times would not start off an assumption, but logically analyze from the ground up. No assumptions would be made, and each step would be tested. If the most basic components were not established as law or even a theory, then whatever comes after would be recognized only to be a hypothesis at best, or just make believe. The scholastic method of old would gravitate to the latter then the former.
Ockhamic Section
4. Ockham’s Razor mainly is a method to simplify philosophical views in hopes of coming closer to the truth, or the righter answer. If it were to be used in a metaphor imagine a baby boy is given a gift at Christmas time. The gift is wrapped in a huge box with pretty decorations adorning the covering and wrapping paper strewn all across its sides. All the little boy wants to know is what is inside of the box. He does not care for the adornments, the fancy wrapping, the box, or even the letter on top of the box with his name on it. He just wants to know what is on the inside. The little boy takes out his favorite razor branded O C K H A M and starts tearing away, and in no time he beholds his gift, a small puppy, happy to be out his box and cuddling with his new young master. Naturally since the boy is a proud user of an Ockham’s razor, he is a nominalist as well and he only loves and cares for the puppy that he sees in front of him. If he were not a nominalist, or not had use the razor, he may have concerned himself with all the decorations of the present, admiring the wrappings, and pointless pieces of paper, and unintelligible lettering and slowly come to open the present and see the poor puppy that is held inside. Then once seeing the puppy the little boy would have set the puppy down and would have pondered about such things as if puppiness existed on the nonmaterial plane, or if he could find the being of cuddliness in an alternate dimension, far beyond the cosmos of his living room. But luckily he wasn’t, and he saved his puppy with his O-razor before the puppy ran out of air and suffocated into a ball of poopoo fur. Hurrah! For the problem of universals the answer that adds extra explanations apart from what is actually there would be cut away. In this case, realist notions of separate beings of existence (universals) apart from the actual being beholden would be cut off, for it is unneeded, and why should someone concern themselves with extra mumbo jumbo inside of their head when they don’t have to. The only thing that would remain to a razored subject material is the material itself in reality, in the eye of the beholder. -Just this, this only, nothing else about it, no where else. period.
Galliean Section
7. Galileo was a firm believer that to know something for sure, one most go out himself, make his own observations, run his own tests of his own hypothesis, make his own conclusions, and then critically and analytically compare, contrast, and contest, your findings to that of the conclusions that have already been made in the modern age. He rejected the time old method that in order to know something, you must first go to the expert of the subject material, learn from them, and then go to the subject material and see it all from their eyes. He also rejected Aristotles method of just casually observing nature in order to make your own conclusions about it. Rather he would run tests, use/manipulate variables to come to his conclusions about the outcomes. Galileo annoyed the Aristotelians by showing how Aristotle the great was wrong about some widely accepted “facts” such as the theory of falling bodies. Their angry reaction illustrate how premodern thinkers were arrogant, self defensive, and insecure. They created a society that was held together, and ruled by faulty logic, whenever new ideas and findings challenged the established rule of order, the premoderns were infuritated. Now in the modern age, where rule isn’t established by faulty logic, not so much, new ideas and findings are met with gratitude, wonderment, and surprise. Although alarming at times to the conservatives.
Baconian Section
11. Bacon uses four “Idols” to describe faulty thinking humans may fall into whenever trying to find out the truth about a subject material. He uses the word idol appropriately for the term Idol is something that is manmade, and have historically led men astray from the right path. In this case Bacon identifies four “Idols” in which humans must be aware of and avoid in order to stay on the right track. The first being idols of the tribe, which he meant by the human flaw to always presuppose things, relate things, and identify things to what they think they already know right away. In this case I suppose Bacon is cautioning people to avoid being caught in the human error to make quick judgments’ on subject material based on instinct, feeling, or the senses. He identifies this idol, and cautions against it so that we may be careful and aware that our senses and first thoughts can easily betray us. The second Idol bacon cautions us against are the Idols of the Cave. With this idol he identifies another human flaw that can stumble us in finding the right answers, and that is already having a prejudice of the mind of favoring an answer above others before a true verdict can be reached. He describes this idol as idols of the cave for in the cave, we only see what we want to see, or we only see with what little “light” or knowledge that we have and are unable to see the fullness of truth in its entirety. Bacon warns against this idol so that people will abandon prejudice wants of a certain answer, but try to find answers outside of the cave, where there is full light, and full knowledge where everything is clearly seen in its entirety. The third idol Bacon warns against are the Idols of the marketplace. He describes this idol at the marketplace for the marketplace is where all different types of people with different ways of expressing themselves come together and communicate with each other. Often times people from different groups misunderstand each other because of language barriers. Bacon warns against this idol so that when trying to find the right answers, one does not get caught up or confused by the certain language or words that other people may use that may throw that individual in search off of the right track. I guess Bacon warns against this idol for he felt that people need to know, people will often use different language that will have a different effect on different people, but he is forewarning them so that language does not get in the way in the pursuit of the heart of the matter. His lesson would be to find a way to get past the language barrier and not be subject towards different idioms. The last idol which bacon warns against and very appropriate coming from his time is the idol of the theater. Bacon describes this idol as the idol leads people off the right track in order to follow the crowd, and to be popular. Bacon knew that often times new findings and discoveries were going to go against the crowd rather then with the crowd, and once the new thinker comes to new conclusions, he warns the new come modern to not buckle under the possible scrutiny and uproar he may receive from a premodern world, for this would only take an individual away from the true path. Bacon's promotion of the four idols helped bring on the transition to modern thinking for he helped thinkers to realize the bias's that naturally occur within the human psyche. Once these bias's are identified and dealt with, a thinker can think more clearly, more critically, more objectively, and ultimately more advanced then the crowds of his or her time.
1. Scholastics were the religious thinkers during the turn of the dark ages. They emerged with the purpose to unify christian doctines unto its ownselves and towards the reemerging Aristotelian greek philosophy. At the time everything categorized under "christian doctrine" seemed to conflict with each other, and definetly at first glance Aristotealian philosophy seemed to be incompatible with christianity until the Scholastics started to meet and discuss all the points of contention amongst themselves. They developed the scholastic method, which were discussions where the scholastics would gather and find where all the points of contention lie. These points were identified and written down in works called "sententiae". Once this was done, they would use "logical analysis" by probing and manipulating meanings of words in order to "logically" agree that there were no points of conflict under the religious views of christianity. Once their works were finished, their product was a religion that did not conflict with its ownself, for God does not contradict his ownself. Afterwards a few scholastics looked to cohesively apply Aristotealian philosophy to Christian doctrine to show that they are also in agreement with each other and support each other. The most notable scholastic that achieved this feat was Aquinas who saved Aristotealian philosophy from the flames that would have burned it as heresy. The scholastic method is different from modern thinking in that it is utterly biased. It first makes the assumption that what they are trying to prove is already true, the assumption that God does not contradict itself. Then they go off and try to prove this at all costs using "logical analysis". It is ironic that they try to use the best of their logic analytically based on an unproven assumption they hold up as law, which is totally illogical to begin with. A thorough logical analyisis of modern times would not start off an assumption, but logically analyze from the ground up. No assumptions would be made, and each step would be tested. If the most basic components were not established as law or even a theory, then whatever comes after would be recognized only to be a hypothesis at best, or just make believe. The scholastic method of old would gravitate to the latter then the former.
Ockhamic Section
4. Ockham’s Razor mainly is a method to simplify philosophical views in hopes of coming closer to the truth, or the righter answer. If it were to be used in a metaphor imagine a baby boy is given a gift at Christmas time. The gift is wrapped in a huge box with pretty decorations adorning the covering and wrapping paper strewn all across its sides. All the little boy wants to know is what is inside of the box. He does not care for the adornments, the fancy wrapping, the box, or even the letter on top of the box with his name on it. He just wants to know what is on the inside. The little boy takes out his favorite razor branded O C K H A M and starts tearing away, and in no time he beholds his gift, a small puppy, happy to be out his box and cuddling with his new young master. Naturally since the boy is a proud user of an Ockham’s razor, he is a nominalist as well and he only loves and cares for the puppy that he sees in front of him. If he were not a nominalist, or not had use the razor, he may have concerned himself with all the decorations of the present, admiring the wrappings, and pointless pieces of paper, and unintelligible lettering and slowly come to open the present and see the poor puppy that is held inside. Then once seeing the puppy the little boy would have set the puppy down and would have pondered about such things as if puppiness existed on the nonmaterial plane, or if he could find the being of cuddliness in an alternate dimension, far beyond the cosmos of his living room. But luckily he wasn’t, and he saved his puppy with his O-razor before the puppy ran out of air and suffocated into a ball of poopoo fur. Hurrah! For the problem of universals the answer that adds extra explanations apart from what is actually there would be cut away. In this case, realist notions of separate beings of existence (universals) apart from the actual being beholden would be cut off, for it is unneeded, and why should someone concern themselves with extra mumbo jumbo inside of their head when they don’t have to. The only thing that would remain to a razored subject material is the material itself in reality, in the eye of the beholder. -Just this, this only, nothing else about it, no where else. period.
Galliean Section
7. Galileo was a firm believer that to know something for sure, one most go out himself, make his own observations, run his own tests of his own hypothesis, make his own conclusions, and then critically and analytically compare, contrast, and contest, your findings to that of the conclusions that have already been made in the modern age. He rejected the time old method that in order to know something, you must first go to the expert of the subject material, learn from them, and then go to the subject material and see it all from their eyes. He also rejected Aristotles method of just casually observing nature in order to make your own conclusions about it. Rather he would run tests, use/manipulate variables to come to his conclusions about the outcomes. Galileo annoyed the Aristotelians by showing how Aristotle the great was wrong about some widely accepted “facts” such as the theory of falling bodies. Their angry reaction illustrate how premodern thinkers were arrogant, self defensive, and insecure. They created a society that was held together, and ruled by faulty logic, whenever new ideas and findings challenged the established rule of order, the premoderns were infuritated. Now in the modern age, where rule isn’t established by faulty logic, not so much, new ideas and findings are met with gratitude, wonderment, and surprise. Although alarming at times to the conservatives.
Baconian Section
11. Bacon uses four “Idols” to describe faulty thinking humans may fall into whenever trying to find out the truth about a subject material. He uses the word idol appropriately for the term Idol is something that is manmade, and have historically led men astray from the right path. In this case Bacon identifies four “Idols” in which humans must be aware of and avoid in order to stay on the right track. The first being idols of the tribe, which he meant by the human flaw to always presuppose things, relate things, and identify things to what they think they already know right away. In this case I suppose Bacon is cautioning people to avoid being caught in the human error to make quick judgments’ on subject material based on instinct, feeling, or the senses. He identifies this idol, and cautions against it so that we may be careful and aware that our senses and first thoughts can easily betray us. The second Idol bacon cautions us against are the Idols of the Cave. With this idol he identifies another human flaw that can stumble us in finding the right answers, and that is already having a prejudice of the mind of favoring an answer above others before a true verdict can be reached. He describes this idol as idols of the cave for in the cave, we only see what we want to see, or we only see with what little “light” or knowledge that we have and are unable to see the fullness of truth in its entirety. Bacon warns against this idol so that people will abandon prejudice wants of a certain answer, but try to find answers outside of the cave, where there is full light, and full knowledge where everything is clearly seen in its entirety. The third idol Bacon warns against are the Idols of the marketplace. He describes this idol at the marketplace for the marketplace is where all different types of people with different ways of expressing themselves come together and communicate with each other. Often times people from different groups misunderstand each other because of language barriers. Bacon warns against this idol so that when trying to find the right answers, one does not get caught up or confused by the certain language or words that other people may use that may throw that individual in search off of the right track. I guess Bacon warns against this idol for he felt that people need to know, people will often use different language that will have a different effect on different people, but he is forewarning them so that language does not get in the way in the pursuit of the heart of the matter. His lesson would be to find a way to get past the language barrier and not be subject towards different idioms. The last idol which bacon warns against and very appropriate coming from his time is the idol of the theater. Bacon describes this idol as the idol leads people off the right track in order to follow the crowd, and to be popular. Bacon knew that often times new findings and discoveries were going to go against the crowd rather then with the crowd, and once the new thinker comes to new conclusions, he warns the new come modern to not buckle under the possible scrutiny and uproar he may receive from a premodern world, for this would only take an individual away from the true path. Bacon's promotion of the four idols helped bring on the transition to modern thinking for he helped thinkers to realize the bias's that naturally occur within the human psyche. Once these bias's are identified and dealt with, a thinker can think more clearly, more critically, more objectively, and ultimately more advanced then the crowds of his or her time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)