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.
Monday, May 18, 2009
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)