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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)