1. Perception of an object was the only way of knowing anything about it, one couldn’t really know anything about it’s actual existence or its being. One couldn’t know anything outside their perception.
2. When referring to any real or material object one was really only referring to the one object they themselves perceived first-hand.
3. A person experiences another person by what is communicated to them, which is an act independent of oneself, then one could conclude in the existence of others.
4. If one person’s perception is consistent with another persons perception then one can conclude the existence of a similar reality.
5. That all experiences are actively caused by God and God’s mind is within
his own, and that God also exists outside his mind as an infinite mind. The existence og God is necessary because there needs to be an ultimate perceiver in order for anything to exist at all.
6. Johnson refuted Berkeley by kicking a stone and saying “ I refute it thus” in an attempt to prove the reality of it’s existence but he failed because an argument could be pit forth of his perception of that stone only existeing in his mind.
7. Primary qualities are properties of a thing that exist independent of any observer –objective and secondary qualities are properties dependent on an observer - subjective.
8. By putting one hand in cold water and one in hot water then both in lukewarm water to show that heat what not a primary quality but a secondary quality.
9. He extends it by showing size and shape are not primary qualities either.
10. Maybe, if God is the ultimate perceiver than he can perceive himself.
11. I would suppose they couldn’t. There would need to be an objective reality … whatever that is and whomever holding it together.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Mind - Body
1. Cartesian dualism is meant to explain that the isn’t one kind of thing that exists in the world (physicalism) but rather two kinds of things ( physical & non-physical). This would prove that “the mind” exists and it is separate from the body. His argument distinguishes the essence of each – the mind: thoughts and the body: extension. Then he also differentiated the properties of each and concluded that the contrasting properties had nothing in common so the two entities: mind / body exist separately and independent of one another. This lead to the mid-body problem because Descartes at first describes the mind/body as being connected to one another such and one can affect the other but they are totally separate, this seemed to be a direct contradiction because interaction would typically require the existence of similar properties and Descartes argument relies on mutually exclusive properties. The problem is how something non-physical could affect physical and vis – versa, the claim is Descartes hasn’t proved this is possible.
2. Descartes solution was to claim he had found the specific place where the mind and the body communicated which was the pineal gland. As if there was some sort of mediator for the two separate entities to interact. I think this response wasn’t that successful because it seems to be a long shot.
3. Materialism is the concept that only matter existed, when science evolved into discovering energy and other non-material things that concept transformed into physicalism. Physicalism would describe anything that exists that follows somesort of law. In the provided reading I could not find a clear argument for physicalism or materialism. From what I gathered each had just made the claim that only _____ existed based on whatever scientific evidence was available. So because there is no clear guidelines to explaining reality or what can possibly exist this argument will continue to evolve as science evolves to discover and prove new things – it will then make room for whatever else. To me this is as weak as a no – nothing little brother agreeing with everything his big brother says; puffing up and making assertions when really he knows nothing but is just repeating what he here’s his brother saying. Basically there is no independent foundation to these claims it’s leaning on science and relying on science to prove reality which seems legit but I would say there are some things science has yet to explain. So there doesn’t seem to be an argument formed for physicalism to prove without a doubt only one type of stuff exists.
On the other hand dualism makes the claim that there is some other type of stuff we don’t know about yet. This does seem way for out and everyone is pounding they’re desks screaming “ There’s no proof your stuff exists– We have proof our stuff exists!” Basically dualism compares some non-physical / physical properties and essences to show there are two contrasting kinds of stuff. This argument can’t be convincing because there is no science to back it up.
Personally I don’t think either argument makes a compelling case for either “one kind” or “two kinds.” The one kind argument is seemingly stronger because it has science on its side as the big brother who is going to beat everybody up. But in my mind I want to look at from the point of view that does not rely on science. Science is a useful tool to discover the world around us but it did not create the laws, we found them; same with math and logic. So if these concepts or whatever they are existed before us discovering them, then in my opinion there must be something else out there non-physical. Concepts such as scientific laws/ numbers/ mathematical theories/ language/ thoughts/ emotions /logic/ ……all of these things can become embodied within something physical or applied to something physical but they don’t seem to have any physical properties themselves. Color? Weight? Nothing sensory. My own experience would tell me that these things are in a different category of “stuff” compared and contrasted with the physical realm. Although science can’t explain this yet that doesn’t mean that itself is a reason for its non-existence. There were a lot of things that existed despite whether or not science had found out about it yet, ie. when matter was thought to be the only thing they didn’t know energy existed at that time. It would have been credible to say “only matter exists” at that time with the information at hand but that couldn’t have made it true. We might be at that point in time where science hasn’t evolved enough, it might be able to eventually show or prove there is another kind of stuff. Point is, we don’t know yet neither side has convinced me yet.
* sorry this is so long- I got a lil more into it than I expected to : /
2. Descartes solution was to claim he had found the specific place where the mind and the body communicated which was the pineal gland. As if there was some sort of mediator for the two separate entities to interact. I think this response wasn’t that successful because it seems to be a long shot.
3. Materialism is the concept that only matter existed, when science evolved into discovering energy and other non-material things that concept transformed into physicalism. Physicalism would describe anything that exists that follows somesort of law. In the provided reading I could not find a clear argument for physicalism or materialism. From what I gathered each had just made the claim that only _____ existed based on whatever scientific evidence was available. So because there is no clear guidelines to explaining reality or what can possibly exist this argument will continue to evolve as science evolves to discover and prove new things – it will then make room for whatever else. To me this is as weak as a no – nothing little brother agreeing with everything his big brother says; puffing up and making assertions when really he knows nothing but is just repeating what he here’s his brother saying. Basically there is no independent foundation to these claims it’s leaning on science and relying on science to prove reality which seems legit but I would say there are some things science has yet to explain. So there doesn’t seem to be an argument formed for physicalism to prove without a doubt only one type of stuff exists.
On the other hand dualism makes the claim that there is some other type of stuff we don’t know about yet. This does seem way for out and everyone is pounding they’re desks screaming “ There’s no proof your stuff exists– We have proof our stuff exists!” Basically dualism compares some non-physical / physical properties and essences to show there are two contrasting kinds of stuff. This argument can’t be convincing because there is no science to back it up.
Personally I don’t think either argument makes a compelling case for either “one kind” or “two kinds.” The one kind argument is seemingly stronger because it has science on its side as the big brother who is going to beat everybody up. But in my mind I want to look at from the point of view that does not rely on science. Science is a useful tool to discover the world around us but it did not create the laws, we found them; same with math and logic. So if these concepts or whatever they are existed before us discovering them, then in my opinion there must be something else out there non-physical. Concepts such as scientific laws/ numbers/ mathematical theories/ language/ thoughts/ emotions /logic/ ……all of these things can become embodied within something physical or applied to something physical but they don’t seem to have any physical properties themselves. Color? Weight? Nothing sensory. My own experience would tell me that these things are in a different category of “stuff” compared and contrasted with the physical realm. Although science can’t explain this yet that doesn’t mean that itself is a reason for its non-existence. There were a lot of things that existed despite whether or not science had found out about it yet, ie. when matter was thought to be the only thing they didn’t know energy existed at that time. It would have been credible to say “only matter exists” at that time with the information at hand but that couldn’t have made it true. We might be at that point in time where science hasn’t evolved enough, it might be able to eventually show or prove there is another kind of stuff. Point is, we don’t know yet neither side has convinced me yet.
* sorry this is so long- I got a lil more into it than I expected to : /
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Descartes P2
11. Basically Descartes method is to doubt everything until he finds an absolute truth, his justification for this method is that few things can be absolutely known to be positively true or a reliable source for knowledge. One can’t depend on senses, what if you’re dreaming, what if there’s an evil genius tricking us? etc. He couldn’t depend on the knowledge that came before him because he didn’t think it was credible or had a strong foundation for knowledge. He used math as a model to guide him because it’s structure of reasoning was credible enough but not quite to the level of his satisfaction because most things were assumed, then proven. But he did use the same basic form which was step by step reasoning and deduction. He wanted to find an absolute truth that everything else could then stem from forming some foundational structure of knowledge. I don’t think Descartes believes in some things being so obviously true and to not worry about them because he doesn’t take anything for granted and he questions everything. In order for Descartes to produce what he would consider real knowledge he would have to find the most basic and simplest truth that cannot be doubted and base everything else on that.
12. For Descartes our senses were unreliable sources of information because there are times we can misinterpret information through our senses and in a way be tricked by them. Like when you look at a straw in a glass of water it looks crooked or cut in half when in reality it’s straight. If his method is to doubt everything until something cannot be doubted then the senses would fall under the category of things doubtable which means it cannot be used as a source for knowledge.
13. Mathematics derives knowledge based on first principles that can be used to deduce new formulas. This form of knowledge is based on logic and reasoning. But in some forms of mathematics such as geometry the first principles or propositions everything else is based on are just assumed, they haven’t actually been proven. I do not think the truth or falsity of mathematics depends on a particular kind of world because these ideas can still be conceived of within the mind if nothing else existed externally. There are many mathematical formulas with huge numbers that would be impossible to observe all at once through the senses and adequately decipher them first hand but we can intellectually conceive of them without our senses, so in my opinion mathematics is based on logic and can be used to explain the world around and help us understand it. I do not think logic can be doubted in the same degree that senses can be doubted, it is more dependable but Descarte still couldn’t use math as his foundation because there was still room for doubt. He wanted something one couldn’t doubt.
14. His “Cogito ergo sum” came about by Descartes first doubting everything and assuming that he knew nothing. To go even further he presented a hypothetical situation where some evil being was deceiving him in every possible way so because of this he had to question the truth / validity of everything he knew, he took nothing for granted. After examining everything he came across he finally concluded that there was one known fact that could not be a deception and so he could not possibly doubt – that his very thoughts existed and he himself was a thinking thing: “I think therefore I am. “
15. Descartes attempts to show that innate ideas exist. Innate ideas are formed based on internal knowing as the source rather that anything external from sensory information. He explains how this type of knowledge could come about by describing a piece of solid wax through sensory information, then as the wax melts in heat its form changes. Now he can no longer rely on sensory information to know that it is in fact the same piece of wax. It seems the only way to know this without depending on sensory information would be if it was an intrinsic source or innate idea.
16. Descartes “concept of perfection” comes from realizing that there exists some notion of perfection and wonders where it comes from. He rules out the senses as a source because he considers nothing in the world to be perfect. He rules out himself because he doesn’t consider himself perfect due to the fact that he has doubts or in other words he doesn’t know everything. He comes to the conclusion that the concept of perfection must have come from the existence of some perfect being i.e. God with all the perfect God-like qualities. He then uses the existence of God to rule out any such evil deceptive being that could twist our perceptions.
17. Descartes argument for the existence of the external / physical world is based on the previous propositions. If there is an all perfect being then he would not create people with unreliable senses, so our senses our reliable because God is not a deceiver. If the external world did not exist then that would mean our senses were unreliable, and so there could not exist an all perfect being, and so forth the tower falls. So he goes back to the first point of his concept of perfection, if this can be known for certain then everything else should logically follow leading to the existence of the external world based on the reliability of our senses.
This whole thing was very interesting and I did a little extra research on the side to get a better more well rounded understanding of Descartes argument and I think the most interesting thing was his process and how he approached each thing before analyzing it. The wax argument was a little confusing so I attempted to ponder another example of a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. The cocoon would be a safe way to ensure any trickery or deception unless the cocoon was tampered with. Even though the creature has completely changed we are quite certain it is the same entity, and it doesn’t seem to be based on sensory information. Hmm even if it was I still can’t help but wonder if Descartes was right about innate knowledge because of how processes such as logic / reasoning exist at all in the first place as dependable sources for knowledge in math, science, etc. Logic is a tool many people have used in philosophy and there are rules and forms that enable us to reason and discover truth/knowledge. It does not seem to depend on the external world because you could have a very logical argument about unicorns when they don’t even exist, but the form is valid. So what does reason or logic depend on or what is it based on? Does logic itself show there must be some objective truth or innate knowings? If logic does not gain knowledge through the senses than how do we know logic?
12. For Descartes our senses were unreliable sources of information because there are times we can misinterpret information through our senses and in a way be tricked by them. Like when you look at a straw in a glass of water it looks crooked or cut in half when in reality it’s straight. If his method is to doubt everything until something cannot be doubted then the senses would fall under the category of things doubtable which means it cannot be used as a source for knowledge.
13. Mathematics derives knowledge based on first principles that can be used to deduce new formulas. This form of knowledge is based on logic and reasoning. But in some forms of mathematics such as geometry the first principles or propositions everything else is based on are just assumed, they haven’t actually been proven. I do not think the truth or falsity of mathematics depends on a particular kind of world because these ideas can still be conceived of within the mind if nothing else existed externally. There are many mathematical formulas with huge numbers that would be impossible to observe all at once through the senses and adequately decipher them first hand but we can intellectually conceive of them without our senses, so in my opinion mathematics is based on logic and can be used to explain the world around and help us understand it. I do not think logic can be doubted in the same degree that senses can be doubted, it is more dependable but Descarte still couldn’t use math as his foundation because there was still room for doubt. He wanted something one couldn’t doubt.
14. His “Cogito ergo sum” came about by Descartes first doubting everything and assuming that he knew nothing. To go even further he presented a hypothetical situation where some evil being was deceiving him in every possible way so because of this he had to question the truth / validity of everything he knew, he took nothing for granted. After examining everything he came across he finally concluded that there was one known fact that could not be a deception and so he could not possibly doubt – that his very thoughts existed and he himself was a thinking thing: “I think therefore I am. “
15. Descartes attempts to show that innate ideas exist. Innate ideas are formed based on internal knowing as the source rather that anything external from sensory information. He explains how this type of knowledge could come about by describing a piece of solid wax through sensory information, then as the wax melts in heat its form changes. Now he can no longer rely on sensory information to know that it is in fact the same piece of wax. It seems the only way to know this without depending on sensory information would be if it was an intrinsic source or innate idea.
16. Descartes “concept of perfection” comes from realizing that there exists some notion of perfection and wonders where it comes from. He rules out the senses as a source because he considers nothing in the world to be perfect. He rules out himself because he doesn’t consider himself perfect due to the fact that he has doubts or in other words he doesn’t know everything. He comes to the conclusion that the concept of perfection must have come from the existence of some perfect being i.e. God with all the perfect God-like qualities. He then uses the existence of God to rule out any such evil deceptive being that could twist our perceptions.
17. Descartes argument for the existence of the external / physical world is based on the previous propositions. If there is an all perfect being then he would not create people with unreliable senses, so our senses our reliable because God is not a deceiver. If the external world did not exist then that would mean our senses were unreliable, and so there could not exist an all perfect being, and so forth the tower falls. So he goes back to the first point of his concept of perfection, if this can be known for certain then everything else should logically follow leading to the existence of the external world based on the reliability of our senses.
This whole thing was very interesting and I did a little extra research on the side to get a better more well rounded understanding of Descartes argument and I think the most interesting thing was his process and how he approached each thing before analyzing it. The wax argument was a little confusing so I attempted to ponder another example of a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. The cocoon would be a safe way to ensure any trickery or deception unless the cocoon was tampered with. Even though the creature has completely changed we are quite certain it is the same entity, and it doesn’t seem to be based on sensory information. Hmm even if it was I still can’t help but wonder if Descartes was right about innate knowledge because of how processes such as logic / reasoning exist at all in the first place as dependable sources for knowledge in math, science, etc. Logic is a tool many people have used in philosophy and there are rules and forms that enable us to reason and discover truth/knowledge. It does not seem to depend on the external world because you could have a very logical argument about unicorns when they don’t even exist, but the form is valid. So what does reason or logic depend on or what is it based on? Does logic itself show there must be some objective truth or innate knowings? If logic does not gain knowledge through the senses than how do we know logic?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Descartes
1. I think this quote is saying that Descartes newfound way of doings things is better because he’s not just relying on what he had known thus far, either old method s/ old ways of thinking, or previous conceived ideas from his youth that he probably just assumed were true. It sounds like now he is looking to discover truth in a different manor rather than believe everything he had previously known or heard and assumed to be true. Wikipedia’s interpretation of this quote says that he’s not necessarily ruling out what he has previously known but just open to discovering new truths, which may or may not be the case. If he is switching his method does he throw the baby out with the bath water? If he is no longer using a method that relies on or builds upon previous thoughts /ideas/ knowledge does this mean he no longer thinks those thoughts / ideas are true? I’m not sure. He either is going to throw everything he had previously known out the window and start over fresh and true knowledge can only come by this new method OR he is looking at the process and method of gaining knowledge and not the knowledge itself and throwing out the old method of depending on past notions which is weak or unreliable and choosing this other method that is more efficient in gaining knowledge.
2. His method of science he uses to gain knowledge has four precepts. The first is to only accept what he can be absolutely sure of and if there is any doubt- throw it out, also to avoid prejudice or biased notions. The second is to break things down as much as possible to dissect and examine each part of whatever it is he’s examining.
The third is to do things in order from the simplest to the more complicated. And the fourth is to make diagrams, charts, lists etc to organize data clearly.
3. I wasn’t sure exactly where in this article Shorto stated a direct relationship between religion and the scientific method. By best guess would be that he thought the two were mutually opposed and in conflict with one another.
4. The great controversy that continues today is religion vs. science / faith vs. reason. People who believe in culture based unquestionable faith and people who use science to prove atheism.
5. The Descartes method threatened traditional ways of thinking that were centered on religion. It did this by introducing new ways of thought that were based more on reason and science.
6. I think she used the word modernity to explain that these days are more focused on reasoning and scientific methods as opposed to traditionalism when people based thoughts on faith and religion.
7. Shorto thinks the proposal of “The Discourse on the Method for Rightly Conducting the Reason” is to introduce a method that based knowledge on human reason rather than biblical principles.
8. Writing the discourse in French rather than Latin most likely had a major social effect during that time. It sent a powerful message to the community inviting them to be involved in such discourse and to stop blindly relying on and trusting the authority of the church.
9. Shorto’s thoughts on Descartes importance in forming the modern world is that he single handedly introduced a new way of thinking that opposed traditional ways of thinking based in religion. Descartes own personal inquiries of life, his path of discovery and enlightenment became the basis for modern thought and the scientific method. Shorto said, “he was creating a way of understanding the world that didn’t need faith”
10. I’m not sure if Shorto is fully correct in his interpretation, he is mostly correct in Descartes influence on our modern world but I think it’s misleading for Shorto or anyone else to sort of pit Descartes and religion itself against one another and that’s what people have done. Of course reason and faith are on two totally different spectrums but I think it’s wrong to say one would cancel out the other. From what I read it seems Descarte was not totally overthrowing the idea that there was or there could exist a God but he was more focused on the process or method of gaining knowledge. His new process of inquiry is something I think most adolescence deal with when questioning what they were taught about life, religion etc. It’s an important step into adulthood to question authority in order to gain your own perspective; even in religion it’s important to not believe something to be true just because someone told you it was so. You have to discover truth yourself. Anyways…… I think Descartes was very influential in introducing the scientific method but I do not agree that this rules out the possible existence of God or that reason destroys faith. When it comes to understanding the world around us science is efficient for gaining knowledge but there are other aspects in life that is out of science’s reach and that’s where faith comes in.
2. His method of science he uses to gain knowledge has four precepts. The first is to only accept what he can be absolutely sure of and if there is any doubt- throw it out, also to avoid prejudice or biased notions. The second is to break things down as much as possible to dissect and examine each part of whatever it is he’s examining.
The third is to do things in order from the simplest to the more complicated. And the fourth is to make diagrams, charts, lists etc to organize data clearly.
3. I wasn’t sure exactly where in this article Shorto stated a direct relationship between religion and the scientific method. By best guess would be that he thought the two were mutually opposed and in conflict with one another.
4. The great controversy that continues today is religion vs. science / faith vs. reason. People who believe in culture based unquestionable faith and people who use science to prove atheism.
5. The Descartes method threatened traditional ways of thinking that were centered on religion. It did this by introducing new ways of thought that were based more on reason and science.
6. I think she used the word modernity to explain that these days are more focused on reasoning and scientific methods as opposed to traditionalism when people based thoughts on faith and religion.
7. Shorto thinks the proposal of “The Discourse on the Method for Rightly Conducting the Reason” is to introduce a method that based knowledge on human reason rather than biblical principles.
8. Writing the discourse in French rather than Latin most likely had a major social effect during that time. It sent a powerful message to the community inviting them to be involved in such discourse and to stop blindly relying on and trusting the authority of the church.
9. Shorto’s thoughts on Descartes importance in forming the modern world is that he single handedly introduced a new way of thinking that opposed traditional ways of thinking based in religion. Descartes own personal inquiries of life, his path of discovery and enlightenment became the basis for modern thought and the scientific method. Shorto said, “he was creating a way of understanding the world that didn’t need faith”
10. I’m not sure if Shorto is fully correct in his interpretation, he is mostly correct in Descartes influence on our modern world but I think it’s misleading for Shorto or anyone else to sort of pit Descartes and religion itself against one another and that’s what people have done. Of course reason and faith are on two totally different spectrums but I think it’s wrong to say one would cancel out the other. From what I read it seems Descarte was not totally overthrowing the idea that there was or there could exist a God but he was more focused on the process or method of gaining knowledge. His new process of inquiry is something I think most adolescence deal with when questioning what they were taught about life, religion etc. It’s an important step into adulthood to question authority in order to gain your own perspective; even in religion it’s important to not believe something to be true just because someone told you it was so. You have to discover truth yourself. Anyways…… I think Descartes was very influential in introducing the scientific method but I do not agree that this rules out the possible existence of God or that reason destroys faith. When it comes to understanding the world around us science is efficient for gaining knowledge but there are other aspects in life that is out of science’s reach and that’s where faith comes in.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
HOBBES
61. Hobbes view of human nature is basically survivor mode. Every decision made is based off of physical sensations from external factors that we choose to avoid because it brings pain or permit because it brings pleasure. Human nature is the human tendency to preserve and promote our own well being. His model of a Human being seems to be more like a robot, an intelligent mechanical being but nothing more than a physical object – mortal. Unregulated human being of this nature would behave in a way that is very selfish and vulnerable to anything that threatens it, living in constant conflict with other opposing “natures”.
62. Human nature, like animal nature, is motivated by the desire to survive. The behavior that stems from this inclination is to protect and promote oneself while disregarding the intentions of those around us who are perceived as competitors unless they are seen to benefit our well-being. This leads to a state of nature that Hobbes calls a state of war, offense/defense mentality. If there is no sovereign authority regulating our actions there would be constant conflict and chaos. People would be fighting and competing in their self promoting efforts.
63. The justification for people finding it good to establish a commonwealth is that people will nevertheless come to the conclusion that a constant state of war would not be the best environment for their survival and inevitably seek peace for their own good. People would be giving up some of their will in having to control their desires to conform to the sovereign rule but they will gain peace which is an environment in which they can be safe, protected, and prosperous. The overriding reason to give up absolute power to a sovereign authority is it’s for the good of oneself and ones best interest.
64. The people who come into contracts with one another are the equal parties below the sovereign rule. It is not a contract between the people with the sovereign authority because then it would leave out some certain sect of people who didn’t agree to conform. So everyone on the same level, an equal plain, should be on the same page and agree with one another to have sovereign authority for their own good. Otherwise it wouldn’t work because even if there were sovereign authority there would still be rebellion.
65. According to Hobbes political authority is only legitimate if it is successful in protecting the people who agreed to submit to this authority. If it can no longer protect its people from threats whether internal or external then it is no longer legitimate. There is no justification for rebelling against a legitimate political authority. I think Hobbes reasoning might have overlooked what a society would want protection from. If an authority successfully protected a society from outside invasions and kept order within but did this by cruel dictatorship that overpowered peoples will in an oppressive manner taking away peoples rights that they never intended on giving up, then I wouldn’t consider this a legitimate political authority because of its course of action and how they went about things.
66. Hobbes thinks power should not be divided in a commonwealth. Power divided opens the door for internal corruption. Divided power leads to division of interests and conflict which will lead to the governments collapse. Hobbes thinks this would be very bad, so the authority should have absolute and complete power in order to effectively protect society from internal corruption.
67. Hobbes also thinks Authoritative power should not be limited because if it was it would be unable to successfully carry out it’s duty. Also, who would be the one to say the power has crossed the line? It would mean there is an authority above the authority, and if there was it would cause disagreements and conflict between these authorities. According to Hobbes this would be detrimental which is why he believes in absolute authority.
62. Human nature, like animal nature, is motivated by the desire to survive. The behavior that stems from this inclination is to protect and promote oneself while disregarding the intentions of those around us who are perceived as competitors unless they are seen to benefit our well-being. This leads to a state of nature that Hobbes calls a state of war, offense/defense mentality. If there is no sovereign authority regulating our actions there would be constant conflict and chaos. People would be fighting and competing in their self promoting efforts.
63. The justification for people finding it good to establish a commonwealth is that people will nevertheless come to the conclusion that a constant state of war would not be the best environment for their survival and inevitably seek peace for their own good. People would be giving up some of their will in having to control their desires to conform to the sovereign rule but they will gain peace which is an environment in which they can be safe, protected, and prosperous. The overriding reason to give up absolute power to a sovereign authority is it’s for the good of oneself and ones best interest.
64. The people who come into contracts with one another are the equal parties below the sovereign rule. It is not a contract between the people with the sovereign authority because then it would leave out some certain sect of people who didn’t agree to conform. So everyone on the same level, an equal plain, should be on the same page and agree with one another to have sovereign authority for their own good. Otherwise it wouldn’t work because even if there were sovereign authority there would still be rebellion.
65. According to Hobbes political authority is only legitimate if it is successful in protecting the people who agreed to submit to this authority. If it can no longer protect its people from threats whether internal or external then it is no longer legitimate. There is no justification for rebelling against a legitimate political authority. I think Hobbes reasoning might have overlooked what a society would want protection from. If an authority successfully protected a society from outside invasions and kept order within but did this by cruel dictatorship that overpowered peoples will in an oppressive manner taking away peoples rights that they never intended on giving up, then I wouldn’t consider this a legitimate political authority because of its course of action and how they went about things.
66. Hobbes thinks power should not be divided in a commonwealth. Power divided opens the door for internal corruption. Divided power leads to division of interests and conflict which will lead to the governments collapse. Hobbes thinks this would be very bad, so the authority should have absolute and complete power in order to effectively protect society from internal corruption.
67. Hobbes also thinks Authoritative power should not be limited because if it was it would be unable to successfully carry out it’s duty. Also, who would be the one to say the power has crossed the line? It would mean there is an authority above the authority, and if there was it would cause disagreements and conflict between these authorities. According to Hobbes this would be detrimental which is why he believes in absolute authority.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Bacon
1. Natural phenomena: Anything that has to do with the physical objects that make up our world; what you can observe by sight, touch, hearing and other senses.
2.
These would be the laws that sustain the physical world around us. The word “forms” is used most of the time to describe the things we cannot physically see but know they exist.
3.
One of the four “Idols of the Mind” that get in the way of true scientific reasoning
This one has to do with how humans generally expect there to be order and regularity in systems more so than what actually exists. This usually occurs because humans tend to presuppose things. Our minds tend to want to organize, link and categorize things together which could lead to trouble if we don’t restrain from doing this because we might miss seeing the object under observation in it’s true state.
4.
This “Idol of the Mind” has to do with subjectivity getting in the way of science; When people want to see a particular outcome or something. This is when personal preference or certain characteristics of the person get in the way or distract someone from conducting true scientific reasoning.
5.
This “Idol of the Mind” has to do with language and communication barriers that lead to misunderstandings.
6.
This “Idol of the Mind” has to do with basing ones ideas or research in science on some philosophical thought that has not been proven or shown to be a legitimate way to conduct science. It’s assuming an idea from the past or a popular one at that time to be true and using it as a foundation for science when it will most likely lead to faulty findings.
7.
One of the three tables he uses to explain his method of science as a constructive process… this one lists all the known objects where a particular occurrence is present.
8.
this one lists all the known objects where a particular occurrence is not present.
9.
this one measures the degree to which the occurrence differs when comparing the different objects in which that instance occurs.
10.
His method is largely based on the physical world and what you can physically experience through your senses. and learning through observations, experimentaion and mathematical procedures.
11.
he thought aristotle lacked an overall theory of science as a whole that tied all the pieces together into one big rule that could be used in any area of discovery.
12. Its inductive
2.
These would be the laws that sustain the physical world around us. The word “forms” is used most of the time to describe the things we cannot physically see but know they exist.
3.
One of the four “Idols of the Mind” that get in the way of true scientific reasoning
This one has to do with how humans generally expect there to be order and regularity in systems more so than what actually exists. This usually occurs because humans tend to presuppose things. Our minds tend to want to organize, link and categorize things together which could lead to trouble if we don’t restrain from doing this because we might miss seeing the object under observation in it’s true state.
4.
This “Idol of the Mind” has to do with subjectivity getting in the way of science; When people want to see a particular outcome or something. This is when personal preference or certain characteristics of the person get in the way or distract someone from conducting true scientific reasoning.
5.
This “Idol of the Mind” has to do with language and communication barriers that lead to misunderstandings.
6.
This “Idol of the Mind” has to do with basing ones ideas or research in science on some philosophical thought that has not been proven or shown to be a legitimate way to conduct science. It’s assuming an idea from the past or a popular one at that time to be true and using it as a foundation for science when it will most likely lead to faulty findings.
7.
One of the three tables he uses to explain his method of science as a constructive process… this one lists all the known objects where a particular occurrence is present.
8.
this one lists all the known objects where a particular occurrence is not present.
9.
this one measures the degree to which the occurrence differs when comparing the different objects in which that instance occurs.
10.
His method is largely based on the physical world and what you can physically experience through your senses. and learning through observations, experimentaion and mathematical procedures.
11.
he thought aristotle lacked an overall theory of science as a whole that tied all the pieces together into one big rule that could be used in any area of discovery.
12. Its inductive
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Galileo
1. In this context nominalism has to do with the concept of the non-existence of universals.
Things are like one another because the human mind attributes names them or percieves
similarities and relations not because of any essential quality of a thing . Only that particular
thing exists and whatever makes it "IT" - there is nothing outside of that object that is in every
other like object at the same time.
2. I think Ockhams Razor means that when it is not necessary to attribute plurals or more than one of something - don't do it.
Don't just automatically group things together and categorize things based on similarities. He thinks the more seperated
and individualistic things are the better.
3. I don't understand the question. What "answers"?
4. Okham thought that "mere belief" is enough for us because we have finite knowledge anyways and can never really know anything 100%.
5. British philosophy was strongly influenced by Ockhams ideas on limited knowledge.
6.Nicholas said that Philosophical reasoning / logic should not be applied to Christian Doctrine anymore because it failed. This was important
for the transition into modernism because people were starting to think that philosophy and theology should be two seperate schools of thought
and they should not be blended into one cohesive way of thinking.
7. Hasdai Crescas and Meister Eckhart applied rational methods only to raise problems to show how God's intervention was necessary for people to gain true insight and knowledge. This aided in the transition because they were limiting their use of rational thought and it wasn't what they depended on. Religion became more based in faith not logical reasoning so religion and philosophy seperated even more.
8. Nicolas of Cusa attempted to save scholasticism by trying to show how all the different ways of thinking can be brought together based on the understanding that contradictions were normal and should be accepted/tolerated. I think it didn't work because contradictions cannot be overlooked.
9. The method of inquiry that Galileo rejected was going to authoritative references to learn about nature, such as Aristotle.
10. Galileo’s preferred method was to learn by observing nature first hand. His process of inquiry was more mathematical with experimenting and calculating.
11. Galileo had so many enemies because he challenged really smart and well known people. He was not afraid of coming against popular thought and he wasn’t so respectful and gentle when doing so.
12. Galileo is mainly remembered as an astronomer.
13. mechanics and dynamics
14. by his discovery of the rate at which something falls is directly proportional to it’s weight.
15. Their reaction shows that pre-modern thinking did not accept new ways of thinking they stuck to tradition and didn’t like change despite the facts. Modern thinking – these days we have to acknowledge the facts and adjust to them instead of sticking to the same old ideas. Old ideas should only stick if they’re right.
16. He thought comets were like meteors.
17. I don’t know.
18. He attempted to prove that tides happened because of the rotation of the earth on it’s axis.
19. It was wrong because that would mean there would only be one tide. And later it was proven that tides had to do with the moon’s gravitational pull.
20. even though it was wrong it was a new thought or idea that was different from traditional thinking he did not refer to some great law or thinker of the past he was observing the world around him and forming hypothesis like we do today.
Things are like one another because the human mind attributes names them or percieves
similarities and relations not because of any essential quality of a thing . Only that particular
thing exists and whatever makes it "IT" - there is nothing outside of that object that is in every
other like object at the same time.
2. I think Ockhams Razor means that when it is not necessary to attribute plurals or more than one of something - don't do it.
Don't just automatically group things together and categorize things based on similarities. He thinks the more seperated
and individualistic things are the better.
3. I don't understand the question. What "answers"?
4. Okham thought that "mere belief" is enough for us because we have finite knowledge anyways and can never really know anything 100%.
5. British philosophy was strongly influenced by Ockhams ideas on limited knowledge.
6.Nicholas said that Philosophical reasoning / logic should not be applied to Christian Doctrine anymore because it failed. This was important
for the transition into modernism because people were starting to think that philosophy and theology should be two seperate schools of thought
and they should not be blended into one cohesive way of thinking.
7. Hasdai Crescas and Meister Eckhart applied rational methods only to raise problems to show how God's intervention was necessary for people to gain true insight and knowledge. This aided in the transition because they were limiting their use of rational thought and it wasn't what they depended on. Religion became more based in faith not logical reasoning so religion and philosophy seperated even more.
8. Nicolas of Cusa attempted to save scholasticism by trying to show how all the different ways of thinking can be brought together based on the understanding that contradictions were normal and should be accepted/tolerated. I think it didn't work because contradictions cannot be overlooked.
9. The method of inquiry that Galileo rejected was going to authoritative references to learn about nature, such as Aristotle.
10. Galileo’s preferred method was to learn by observing nature first hand. His process of inquiry was more mathematical with experimenting and calculating.
11. Galileo had so many enemies because he challenged really smart and well known people. He was not afraid of coming against popular thought and he wasn’t so respectful and gentle when doing so.
12. Galileo is mainly remembered as an astronomer.
13. mechanics and dynamics
14. by his discovery of the rate at which something falls is directly proportional to it’s weight.
15. Their reaction shows that pre-modern thinking did not accept new ways of thinking they stuck to tradition and didn’t like change despite the facts. Modern thinking – these days we have to acknowledge the facts and adjust to them instead of sticking to the same old ideas. Old ideas should only stick if they’re right.
16. He thought comets were like meteors.
17. I don’t know.
18. He attempted to prove that tides happened because of the rotation of the earth on it’s axis.
19. It was wrong because that would mean there would only be one tide. And later it was proven that tides had to do with the moon’s gravitational pull.
20. even though it was wrong it was a new thought or idea that was different from traditional thinking he did not refer to some great law or thinker of the past he was observing the world around him and forming hypothesis like we do today.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Scholasticism
Questions from e-mail:
1. The scholastic method was used during the late middle ages to examine philosophical and theological ideas. They chose different texts and would ponder what they meant and compare and contrast their ideas. The scholastic method was based on deductive reasoning while modern thinking and reasoning is mostly inductive.
2. Sententiae were the sentences written down from the different sources or texts they were examaning that contradicted one another. They did this so they can review the points and analyze it to find any logical errors or ambiguous statements. They wanted to reconcile the two to make them both or all true, they did not want to discredit them.
3. The aim of the scholastic method was to bridge the two main ways of thinking at that time, christian theology and Aristotle philosophy, to find common ground. To bring the two together rather than making them contradict one another.
4. I thinks philology is when they analyze the meaning of a word to see if it has multiple meanings and then try to find which meaning the author intended to use. This was important in deciphering what a text meant because the reader could take it to mean something different. This si a little shady though because they could misinterpret a word to mean something the author never intended it to mean.
5. I think the purpose of logical analysis was to show that condradictions actually did not exist between the sources they were analyzing. This is very different from how we use logical analysis these days. Now it's mostly used to discredit an argument and rip each other apart. It just shows that these kinds of methods can easily be misused to be a means to our own end instead of an objective way to discover truth which is what they should be. They are not meant to be used to manipulate one another.
6. Well the site says that Bon believed reason supported the doctrine of creation because "Bonaventure held that the notion of an eternal material order is contradictory." But i don't understand how those two go together. What is the "eternal material order"? I think it might have to do with the material world being eternal. but what does that have to do with reason supporting creationism? I'm confusled.
7. I think Bon believed our relationship with God was that we are God's creation and we are made in his likeness/image. I'm not to sure though.
8. Aquinas on the relationship between faith and reason:
They are both necessary but different. They are two different routes to the same end.
9. I don't know
10. The problem of universals is a problem of whether or not universals exist in reality, outside the mind and within that certain object. Or if they only exist in our minds, perceptions, and interpretations of things. universals are like categories that things fall into based on their features /attributes and comminalities..
11. Realism is the belief that universals do exist and they exst despite our perception of them. there is a form or quality that exists independant of an object but that objects can share.
12. Nominalism is the belief that universals are nothing more than a name and it is a mere coincidence that we named attributes and features the same thing to categorize them.
1. The scholastic method was used during the late middle ages to examine philosophical and theological ideas. They chose different texts and would ponder what they meant and compare and contrast their ideas. The scholastic method was based on deductive reasoning while modern thinking and reasoning is mostly inductive.
2. Sententiae were the sentences written down from the different sources or texts they were examaning that contradicted one another. They did this so they can review the points and analyze it to find any logical errors or ambiguous statements. They wanted to reconcile the two to make them both or all true, they did not want to discredit them.
3. The aim of the scholastic method was to bridge the two main ways of thinking at that time, christian theology and Aristotle philosophy, to find common ground. To bring the two together rather than making them contradict one another.
4. I thinks philology is when they analyze the meaning of a word to see if it has multiple meanings and then try to find which meaning the author intended to use. This was important in deciphering what a text meant because the reader could take it to mean something different. This si a little shady though because they could misinterpret a word to mean something the author never intended it to mean.
5. I think the purpose of logical analysis was to show that condradictions actually did not exist between the sources they were analyzing. This is very different from how we use logical analysis these days. Now it's mostly used to discredit an argument and rip each other apart. It just shows that these kinds of methods can easily be misused to be a means to our own end instead of an objective way to discover truth which is what they should be. They are not meant to be used to manipulate one another.
6. Well the site says that Bon believed reason supported the doctrine of creation because "Bonaventure held that the notion of an eternal material order is contradictory." But i don't understand how those two go together. What is the "eternal material order"? I think it might have to do with the material world being eternal. but what does that have to do with reason supporting creationism? I'm confusled.
7. I think Bon believed our relationship with God was that we are God's creation and we are made in his likeness/image. I'm not to sure though.
8. Aquinas on the relationship between faith and reason:
They are both necessary but different. They are two different routes to the same end.
9. I don't know
10. The problem of universals is a problem of whether or not universals exist in reality, outside the mind and within that certain object. Or if they only exist in our minds, perceptions, and interpretations of things. universals are like categories that things fall into based on their features /attributes and comminalities..
11. Realism is the belief that universals do exist and they exst despite our perception of them. there is a form or quality that exists independant of an object but that objects can share.
12. Nominalism is the belief that universals are nothing more than a name and it is a mere coincidence that we named attributes and features the same thing to categorize them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)