Kant "so confused"

After reading parts of the book, I still really do not know what its about. I just found it very confusing to read and by far the hardest material yet. I enjoyed reading about the math section on how pure math is possible. You can tell by just this book that he is all about the sciences. I dont think that when it comes down to the science section that there could be any right or wrong answer, with how he is trying to prove metaphysics.

Kant "Theological"

Kant does seem to believe in a higher power. He creates this third transcendental idea called the Theological idea, which he finds the most important idea. He believes that with "pure reason" you can believe in a perfect being. He said that this definitely did not start by experience. He believes that it starts with an idea. I would have to agree. There is not particular way to know if God really exists, because we cannot just ask him (obviously). Anyways he thinks you start off with making an hypothesis. I know that I believe in God because I was brought up to believe in him, but I wouldn't dare to ask questions or experiment. I actually find it comforting believing that there is a higher, more perfect power to look up to and pray to.

Kant "Psychological"

"If space and the appearances in it are something existing outside us, then all the criteria of experience outside our perception can never prove the actuality of these objects outside us," said Kant on page 73. This quote is saying that that if something really exists that we can not prove it to be true if it is outside of our bodies. We cannot perceive something outside of our surroundings. They Psychological idea that Kant speaks about is done by experience or experimenting. Kant is conscious of his body, appearance, and his soul. He said that space could be absolutely nothing but a for of his sensibility.

Kant- Critique page 75-82

Kant says, "....If we, as is commonly done, represent to ourselves the appearance of the sensible world as things in themselve, if we assume the principles of their combination as principles universally valid of things in themselves and not merely of experience, as is usually, nay, without our critique, unavoidably done, there arises an unexpected conflict which never can be removed in the common dogmatic way; because the thesis as well as the antithesis can be shown by equally clear, evident, and irresistable proofs-for I pledge myself as to the correctioness of all these proofs- and reason therefore perceives that it is divided against itself, a state at which the skeptic rejoices, but which must make the critical philosopher pause and feel ill at ease." When I read this paragraph, I thought of it as a great way to end my series of posting. He goes on to say how when philosohpers write they must make sure not to sound like they are lying or contradicting. After reading 4 philosophers and they all contradict it is hard to say who is to beleive. What he talks about for a great deal of his book later and in the conclusion is about critique. In today's world we are critiqued as well. As college students, we get critiqued by our way of writing of papers, or comments etc. Philosphers must have also been critiqued which adds a whole new dynamic of what must have influenced then to write what they wrote based on what they were feeling.

kant- space and time

Kant says, "When I speak of objects in time and in space, it is not og things in themselves, of which I know nothing, but of things in appearance, i.e. of experience, as a particular way of cognizing objects which is only afforded to man." He then says, "Objects of the sense therfore exist only in experience, whereas to give them a self-subsisting existence apart from experience or prior to it is merely to represent to ourselves that experience actually exists apart from experience or prior to it." This section made me think of a few things. First of all time. People say like from the beginning of time, so what is the beginning of time? The first time we used a watch or calendar?, the first time of humans? the first time of earth? Either way, these are limits. If there is a beginning to something that means there is a limit. The opposite would be if the earth was always here and then no body knows the time or how old eveyrthing is. We can guess all we want but we will never know.

Kant- the pyschological ideas- page 69-71

In this section Kant is explaining how our mind cognizes things. He says that "pure reason requires us to seek for every predicate of a thing its own subject, and for this subject which is itself necessarily nothing but predicate, its subject, and so on indefinitely (or as far as we can reach). This section made me think a lot. Have you ever thought about something and just wanted to know everything about it? What is stopping us? The fact that what we see and perceive is basically everything that we know about a subject. For us to learn more we have to go out of our way and learn it. How come our mind just can't let us know that the sky is blue for a certain reason? This section started bringing way out there ideas to my brain but that is why i decided to blog about it. Another thing I was thinking about while reading was haven't you ever wished you can experience everything. Or like hear everything that has ever been said. There is so much out there that we much go seek and unless we do it we would never learn.

Kant- how is pure natural science possible?

Kant says, nature is the existence of things, so far as it is determined according to universal laws. He says that the nature of things in themselves are neither a priori nor a posteriori. He says that things with the nature or things with experience are a priori. Things such as physics, mathematics, and substance. Kant asks this, "how can we cognize a priori that things as objects of experience necessarily conform to law?" He answers, "...whenever an event is observed, it is always referred to some antecedent, which it follows according to a universal rule; or else, everything of which experience teaches that it happens must have a cause. This section really made me think about Hume's book and his section on miracles and how they are impossible to occur.

Kant- page 31-35

Kant says, "Hence we may at once dismiss as easily foreseen but futile objection, "that by our admitting the ideality of space and time the whole sensible world would be turned into mere illusion." Kant says that the ideas of space and time can be explained as illusios to our mind. He says that space can be regarded as phantasms to our brain. It is true how does our brain see 3-dimentional? We do not set our brain to a setting to do so, it does it all by itself. The other part of this is time. We tell time, count time, plan time etc. What is time? It is merely a setting. It is just an agreement as is language and math. I guess we can then say that time is a priori. Time is something that everyone knows and we learn how to tell time at a very young age. Imagine if time was unknow and there were no such thing as clocks and calendars, I think the world would be very much chaotic, don't you?

Kant- how is pure mathematics possible?

In Kant's book, in the section of how is pure mathematics possible, Kant explains how mathematics is a priori. He says that it can be based on tuition. Kant does well with proving his point. In ways I agree ith Kant. It is intuitive to say 2+2=4. It is a very basic form of math, that we learned in kindergarten. If you are asked 2+2=?, after 15 years of knowing the correct answer, one will be able to intuitively answer this correctly. Kant says this is true for a few things. Mathmatics, Geometry and also some laws in nature which have not yet been disproven. Things like gravity. We do not wake up every morning and hope that our feet will stick on the ground. It is intuitive that while getting out of bed, putting our feet on the ground, and standing up, we will stick to the floor and be able to walk and ocntinue to walk and do as we please. It is intuitive that we will not float. These re some ideas that Kant describes as a priori.

Kant "Cosmological"

Wow! So to me, i find Kant so difficult to read. I have no idea what he is trying to say half of the time. But as far as cosmological ideas go, correct me if im wrong, this is what i understood from it. Cosmogical ideas are the ideas about the world and universe. It is one of the arguments Kant uses against metaphysics. He says that every thesis has an antithesis ( kinda confused about this). Kant says that when the thesis is false, that means the same for the antithesis. In this book, he brings up four ideas/ thesis and along with them an antithesis. Whatever is held within space and time, is also held generally by the anti thesis. I just dont' understand this guy. AHHHH!!!!

Kant "Natural Science"

Kant believes that we can only find natural science possible if we look at nature as objective natural laws. These laws help us understand our surroundings through space and time. Kant says that every effect has some type of cause. I must agree with Kant that natural science is synthetic. You must experience the cause and effect.

Kant "math"

So in the beginning of the book, Kant talks about analytic and synthetic. Since I am a math major, I found the part on math the most interesting. Kant goes on and describes math a synthetic a priori. I am actually kinda confused by this. To me you can observe math but to really understand it I think you need to have hands on experience. Yes you can believe someone when they say that 1+3=4, but truely, without explaining it, one would not understand why. By showing someone on a numberline (as demonstrated in class) you can say that if you start at 1 and move three more numbers to the positive side, then you will end up at four. Someone could simply remember this equation, but by memorizing it they would not be able to see that 4 - 1=3 or that 4 -3=1. So I am not really sure if i agree with Kant that math is just observed.

kant-every creatureeee

“….which is to find out the natural ends intended by this disposition to transcendent concepts in our reason, because everything that lies in nature must be originally intended for some useful purpose (Pg. 95).” I really like this ending quote. It is amazing to think that there must be a reason for every single thing that exists in nature. Think about all of the things that exists! Every single one must have some distinct purpose in life, and it could be a mystery to us forever as to what it is. Every rock, every leaf, every bug, every type of animal must all have their very own part to play in this world. And we as humans run the world, not thinking twice about killing these things that make the world go round, when I’m sure it has never been thought about how much good they do our Earth, and how every life is vital. Lol, ok I sound like a nature freak, but it’s really cool how everything in existence has its own unique purpose, because I mean it must have a purpose, otherwise it wouldn’t have been created. But I mean some things I just think about, and I’m like what could really be the point of having this in our world, such as like, oh I don’t know a skunk? Ha hA, but seriously I don’t know of a single good purpose they serve us rather than smelling up our world, but I’m sure there is some crucial purpose of a skunk. Like the movie the Butterfly effect, without one little missing detail in our world, things could be so different…Who knows, without skunks and other random animals, maybe the world wouldn’t be as we know it. ..

Kant- Cause & eFfEct is COOLLLL

“..But this determination of the cause to causal action must likewise be something that took place or happens; the cause must have begun to act, otherwise no succession between it and the effect could be thought. Otherwise the effect, as well as the causality of the cause, would have always existed…(pg.78).” This is a good thought. I have never looked at the whole cause and effect thing this way, but it makes a lot of sense. It never occurred to me that in order for something to be caused there had to be an even that caused it, and in order for an effect there had to be the event that caused the caused and then due to that event the effect then takes place according to which ever universal law of nature it follows. But here there is just so much that takes place before the actual whole things happens, it’s crazy. And if the event never occurred to make the cause take place then the effect would have never happened, which means then this whole particular process would have always existed, because then there would have been no thing, or cause, that had to start and stop at a certain point in order to begin the whole cause and effect reaction, it would just naturally take place. Wow…interesting..

Kant-originsSsS

“For how can we make out by experience whether the world is from eternity or had a beginning, whether matter is infinitely divisible or consists of simple parts? Such concepts cannot be given in any experience, however extensive, and consequently the falsehood either of the affirmative or the negative proposition cannot be discovered by this touchstone (Pg.75).” SO for once I agree with a statement of Kant’s. Our experiences began to occur since the day we were born. Since our births we have experienced different thing and those occurrences, for the most part, have remained with us throughout our lives. Any of our first memories only date back so far, even our great great great grandparents have really old memories that may have been passed down over the years.. But obviously none of those memories consist of the birth of the world. None of us have ever experienced such a huge event. We have books that tell us how we got to where we are today, and the influential people who were mainly responsible in helping us get there, but nothing about the very beginning of humans and the earth. How do we know what’s in the books is even true? How do we know that really was the beginning of civilization and religion and what not? We don’t, we just put faith into it because it’s all we have. But no experiences of any single person can tell us about the world, whether it is from eternity or it began on a specific day….I think it’s crazy how were all here on Earth together, making our lives work in a cycle, everything is so set in place, and no one has any clue as to how we got here…

Kant- PerMaNenCE

“But permanence can never be proved of the concept of a substance as a thing in itself, but only for the purposes of experience (Pg.71).” Kant is just not my favorite person. AS if his writing is not confusing enough to try and understand, he makes it contradictable and wrong, in my opinion. Permanence is perpetual or continued existence. If a substance, a thing, is experienced then it would be impossible to be anything other than permanent. How can Kant say that permanence can not be proved of it? If it was experienced then it is proved, because the object will not change over time or in the light of new eyes, it is permanent, no matter how you look at it, the concept of a substance will always remain as you have experienced it. Even if one has not experienced it, as for Kant says but only for the purposes of experience, the permanence still remains. For example, you do not need to encounter the Appalachian Mountains in order for there to be a concept of permanence in relevance to them. They are on a map, others have witnessed them, you have seen them on tv perhaps in a movie. Point blank, you know they are there and they are permanent, even though the personal experience never occurred.

Kant- experiences

“But experience teaches us what exists and how it exists, but never that it must necessarily exist so and not otherwise (Pg. 35).” During this part of the book, Kant is trying to justify his belief that nature can neither be a priori or a posteriori. I am unsure of my feelings on if nature is in fact one or the other or neither. However, this reason for why nature is not a posteriori is not sufficient enough for me. Kant says that experiences teach us how things exist, right? SO then how can he say that does not mean it necessarily exist so? Obviously, it does because if it has been experienced it must exist. Perhaps the outcome may change of nature, and the experience may be altered at another time, but if one experience had occurred one way than it is in fact so a possibility to occur, maybe even again. Kant makes no sense with this quote, it is a major contradiction. If experience teaches us, than how can he say what we experienced doesn’t necessarily exist? It must exist if it happened, and we learned from it???....

Kant-weirdddoooo

To begin with I would like to make it known how much I dislike reading Kant. This book is not as much as an easy reader as the others. I find myself lost every other line and unsure of what Kant is saying all the time. Anyway I think here Kant is speaking about our judgments and how they are affected by our senses and understanding of things. “The appearance depends upon senses, but the judgment upon the understanding; and the only question is whether in the determination of the object there is truth or not (Pg. 31).” So when perceiving an object, thoughts come into your head about the object right? Your perceive its qualities, its shape, if it has one, its odor, its durability, its color, and just thoughts you have about that object, maybe it even brings up memories. But the things that are thought about this object all stem from the beginning. First you must understand the object, then you sense it, then you make judgments based on all the understanding you have conquered throughout the years on this sole object. It’s strange how much thought goes into seeing something and then having thoughts about it…and it is unknown as to whether it is even true or not…

Hume- section IV- skeptical thoughts

In this section of skeptical thoughts, Hume is explaining the operations of the human mind's understanding. Hume says human reason can be divided into relations of ideas and matters of fact. Relations of ideas is like geometry, algebra and arithmetic. Things like 2+2=4 and 4 is half of 8. All of those ideas are relations of one another. Matters of fact is different. Matters of fact is like saying that the sun will rise everyday. When the sun rises, it gives off light and heat. Matters of fact can also be described as cause and effect. Because something happens, an effect occurs. Cause and effect is learned by experience. It is like in a game of pool. Because you hit all of the pool balls on the table with the que ball, all of the other balls that were hit scattered all over the pool table. Later on Hume says, "No object ever discovers, by the qualities which appear to the senses, either the causes which produced it, or the effects which will arise from it; nor can our reason, unassisted by experience, ever draw any inference concerning real existence and matter of fact." This is crazy how he states that nothing that we know in life can ever draw an inference concerning our real existence. I think about life all the time. Things like how we got here, why we got here, what we are supposed to be doing. It is like questions you always wanted answered, yet there are no true answers out there.

Hume-Section XII- part 1 of the academical or sceptical philosophy

A little later into this section, Hume focuses on aspects of primary and secondary qualities. He says that universally man can detect secondary qualities right off the bat. When someone is asked, is this hard or soft? Is his black or white? Is this a triangle or circle? These ideas can be known by use of the senses. The mind perceives the qualites of these objects without knowing any other information. If someone draws a triangle and says what is this?, the answer will be a triangle (unless this person has never been introduced to a triangle before). Hume says, "...if it be a principle of reason, that all sensible qualities are in the mind, not in the object". That statement is very interresting. It is like someone made up a word, let's say soft. Then they said soft things can be described as fluffy, comfortable, nice, smooth or mushy. Then they said pillows are soft or cashmere is soft and then that idea stuck and has just been passed on until the present time. Let's just say instead of the word soft meaning all those words, hard is the word that means fluffy, comfortable, nice, smooth or mushy. Everything would be opposite. Soft and hard are just names tacked onto objects because somebody decided that is what those words mean.

Hume- section VI- probability

In this section on Hume's book, he is discussing probability. He says that probability is different from chance. He says that an example of probability can be on a die. If someone drew a mark on four sides of a die( the same mark) and then drew a different mark that was on the other two sides, it is more probable that the first mark would show up as a result more than the other because there is more of them on the die. He also says that since fire has always burned wood, if you were take a piece of wood and try to light it on fire, the wood will probably catch on fire. When I was reading this section I was thinking about how he said chance is not probability and no body can predict your chances. Chances is also like luck. In today's world a lot of people beleive in luck. I know I do. Whether you say you are lucky or unlucky, you are still going against an impossible prediction. When you think about gambling and the lotto, it's crazy because you put in so much money and you are not guarenteed to win anything that night. It is a possibility that you can just lose and lose and lose and not win ever. I think it is crazy how so many people make choices based on their luck, when really when you think about it luck does not exist. Only probablity exists.

Hume "Reason of Animals"

In this chapter, Hume start off talking about how animals are similar to us because they have the circulation of blood as we do. He explains how no matter what type of animals there is some time of blood circulation. He then goes on to explain how animals learn things. I would have to agree that animals gain knowledge by experience, instinct and observation, just like humans do. They start off with instinct, just like humans. Somethings come naturally to them. For instance, a bird, which Hume describes at the end of the chapter, knows how to build a nest from natural instinct and how to eat. Birds learn how to fly observing their parents. After they observe for a while, they learn to fly by experience. This is exactly how babies learn to walk or how adolescence learn to drive a car. I think what this chapter is trying to explain to us is that animals have the same ways of learning as we do.

Hume "probability"

I was reading Hume's section on Probability and I found it interesting how it relates to everyday life. If there are 8 cards that consist of the follow: 4 -Aces, 2 -Kings, 1- Queen, and 1- Jack, the probability of you picking one of the Aces is a very good chance because there are more of that kind of card than the rest. This goes for many things in life. One example that Hume used was that in Europe all of the countries in January have frost on the ground. This is true because of the weather. But lets consider this thing called "global Warming".. one of the days may be warmer and there may be no frost. This makes the outcome for frost less probable than before but it still is more likely to occur than the no frost days. Some things in life as Hume says we can tell what the cause and effect are going to be such as a fire, it will light up and will burn, but there are other things that we can not make a call on. For example, drugs effect people differently. Some make do nothing for one person while the other person is hallucinating and breaking out in a sweat. You can never tell how something like drugs will effect someone. "We transfer the past to the future, in order to determine the effect, which will result from any cause, we transfer all the different events, in the same proportion as they have appeared in the past, and conceive one to have existed a hundred time, for instance, another ten times, and another once. As a great number of views do here concur in one event, they fortify and confirm it to the imaginations... which we call belief..."

hume- section 10- of miracles

In this section, Hume is digging into the idea of miracles. On page 78, Hume started talking about something that really got me thinking. He said, "The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events, from which it is derived." Hume says that people who can not beleive miraculous things at first, later on come to admire the people or things involved in the event. I was thinking about how he incorporated surprise and wonder into the miracles section. It is like after a miracle occurs one can be surprised by what has happened but since it has happened they beleive it. Also, after a miracle occurs one can wonder about what has happened either by asking why, how or wondering what else may happen. What I am getting at is that after someone experiences a miracle they wonder about things and wondering usually includes using their imagination and imagining oh if this were true than that would happen. After they use their imagination they start to think of ways to make their solution come true. I really feel like that is how we got science to be as far advanced as it is now. Miracles lead the imagination which makes people wonder up great ideas to create solutions for big problems.

Hume-Inner Beauty

“Beauty whether moral or natural, is felt, more properly than perceived (Pt.III Pg. 114). ” Way to go out with a Bang Hume! This quote is directly from the last page. There are more closing-type statements but the above is my favorite. It is so true too; especially if you’re a woman you can appreciate this more I think. In pertaining to modern day people, women are quite pressured, from society, to always look their best, to present themselves as sexy or smart or even just desired. However, you can look, dress, and act pretty, you can put on a front 24/7 and pretend to be someone who you think is better, but that doesn’t mean you are perceived as “beautiful” in the eyes of others, let alone yourself. It’s about what you feel of yourself, how you manage yourself and your life, not about presentation. Maybe in some cases you can get by with a nice presentation, but that won’t cut it forever. Whether you feel beautiful on the inside and ugly on the out, or feel beautiful on the outside and ugly on the inside does not matter, it is all about how you as an individual perceive yourself on the inside. You must believe that you are beautiful, and then beautiful is what you will be. No one can take that away from you, and no one can make you feel better about yourself than you. Compare the two-without paying attention to their looks, or body or whatever else you would normally immediately make judgments based on- Now look at someone who has confidence and faith in themselves and always smiling and happy, then look at someone who is intimidated and uncertain with a stand-offish and quiet way …now you tell me, who is more beautiful? Who do you want to be around? The boring gloomy one or the glowing happy one? Regardless of looks, outside perception, stereotypes, it is what is on the inside that truly counts…

Hume-I believe

“ … as it diminishes the authority of prodigies, that there is no testimony for any, even those which have not been expressly detected, that is not opposed by an infinite number of witnesses; so that not only the miracle destroys the credit of testimony, but the testimony destroys itself (pg.81).” This quote I found intriguing but definitely confusing too. Now from what I understand Hume is saying that because there are not an infinite number of witnesses, meaning everyone I suppose, then who can testify that the miracle happened, and how would you be so certain they are not lying? SO because not everyone seen the miracle, then the miracle-worker can not be credited for making a miracle and having that authority, and which then the miracle would be deemed as unknown, unless you yourself were a witness, or false, depending on your belief in miracles. I guess I can say I do, myself believe in miracles, and for Hume to say this convinces me he obviously does not. But then I ask, why would a random group of people make this statement that such a miraculous thing happened? Why would they all go along with it and want to persuade the world that that particular thing did take place, and the such is apparently possible? What motif could these people have to this? I think it is utterly ridiculous to say no miracles are possible, even though you have some that could bet their life and soul that they are, with first-hand experiencing proof. I would have no reason not to believe in something so wonderful, and out of the ordinary, but instead look to it and gain hope and strength that miracles can occur… Some tales I can say I would not place my faith into, for example some ancient Greek myths that created average humans into creatures that made miracles happen daily. But claims of good things, beautiful recoveries, I would like to say I believe that did take place, I would like to have that faith in miracles and the impossible coming true; because one day I might need a small miracle, and who knows…maybe it’s one of those things that you don’t have to see it to believe it, but you must believe it to achieve it… Do you believe?

Hume- could it be?

“Fire has always burned, and water suffocated every human creature (Pg. 38).” This is interesting to me. How is it that neither of these constants has ever changed? Or how come we have never changed around them? Hume also talks about gravity and how its is a “universal law”. I just don’t understand. Human have come so far from we were once known as. So much has happened, and were are so much more evolved, intelligent, and able. Human remain changing, and becoming more and more over time, so how come we can’t breathe under water yet? How come we can’t float off of the Earth’s surface if we wanted just by a simple jump up? Why are we not immune to fire in potentially dangerous situations? I mean, so many miracles happen and so many new things are learned and observed each day. Cures are found for diseases, people overcome what might to be an impossible situation, tragedies are overcome, even clones are possible now, right? So haven’t we come to break Earth’s natural laws? Why do these remain so structured and stable? Many things that once were thought to be impossible and could never be done, have been done. We have adapted to things along the way, and gained new abilities. So what makes this so different?...Will it ever be possible to breathe under water? Or go through fire unaffected? Could it be?...Do I sound crazy? lol Hmmm…

HUme- just imagine...

In talking about the vivid imagination of man, Hume says this: “We can, in our conception, join the head of a man to the body of a horse; but it is not in our power to believe, that such an animal has ever really existed (Pt. II, Pg.31).” OK, so I really like this quote because it just says so much to me. In our minds, we can pretty much picture anything we would like, whether it makes sense or not. Our imaginations are amazing; there are just endless things man can do with an imagination. Without imagination, there would be no art, no music, children wouldn’t be children, creativity would not exist, there would be no uniqueness among each individual, perhaps people wouldn’t even have life-long dream or goals because what’s a dream to work towards if you can’t imagine what it would be like after having it? On the other hand, no imagination could then end some violence maybe, such as serial killers who do strange creepy things to their victims or even the ones who kill in sequence or patterns…But anyway… our imaginations make us-us. Without them we would be boring and blahhhhh. Although sometimes what we imagine, doesn’t make all that much sense, we still thought of it, regardless. Like in a dream or nightmare, I get some crazy stuff sometimes. Sometimes I feel like my dreams (from my imagination) sometimes come true, and other times I think that was crazy, what ever made me imagine such a thing like that? Either way, we obviously don’t always go through with what our imagination tells us to, or put faith into something we know as impossible but draw it as a realistic picture in our minds. But what we do, or be, without imagination?

Hume "Mind/Body II"

"The transition from the cause to the effect proceeds not from reason; its derived from its origin altogether from custom and experience." I thought this is a good quote to start with before you start reading this blog. There was an example in the book about how when you throw a piece of wood into a fire does it put out the fire or help it? Well we know that it helps it. Why do we know this? Well we know from experience! First, the first and wood begins as an object and the mind makes the idea of the flame becoming more strong. Our mind uses anologies from fact and existence to come up with the idea of what is truly going to happen when the wood is thrown into the fire.

Hume "God II"

So I was reading the "of the Idea of Necessary Connexion" chapter and the example that Hume gave about the billard ball came up in this chapter. This is the example that we spoke of in class. Hume said that when the you hit the first ball into the second that since God made the laws for the world, that God is actually moving the ball and this is a violation of his own law because although "we" are moving the ball in one way.. it is really gravity and force that is moving it, and force and gravity must have been created by God since he created all the laws. I saw this as a very odd way of looking at this. Hume says on page 47, "When we voluntarily turn our thoughts to any object, and raise up its image in the fancy, it is not the will which createst that idea: It is the univeral Creator, who discovers it to the mind, and renders it present to us."

Hume "God I"

In the chapter on "Of the Origin of Ideas", Hume speaks of God in a way that makes the reader believe that he is a believer in God. He does not sound like he questions God but does not forget to mention that everyone does not believe in him. He sounds like he thinks God is not innate by how he talks about the topic. At the bottom of page 11, he talks about the ideas of God being perfect, smart, and a good being. To me, when someone says many good things about something, they sound like believers. He goes on to say that the only people who do not believe this are the people who create the ideas that this is not true. Therefore, people create these ideas and pass them on to one another. It sounds to me like Hume believes we are not born with the idea of God, because we create our beliefs and how we feel on our the subject.

Hume "Mind/Body I"

As I was reading through the chapter on "Origin of Ideas" I was very interested to see what Hume's point of view would be. He talks about the differences between thoughts and impressions. Thoughts go in and out of our minds, "What am I going to wear today?", "What is the squareroot of 100?", "What time is it?", "When is dinner?" Our minds are constantly thinking up new ideas and questions, whether we notice that we are involved or not. Impressions stay with us forever. I remember riding my bike down a hill and around a turn with my brother in law, I saw he did it so gracefully, so why couldnt I?. . Well I found out two seconds later that I couldn't, when I took the turn too fast, flipped over my handle bars, and landed on someone lawn, not too far from a huge rock. For the longest time, I would get sick going down the huge hill on Rt 23 that goes over 287. It would actually make me scared and dizzy, because it would bring back (such great) memories of that one time. When I went down rt 23 the scary feeling would arrive from my past experience. The fall would replay over and over in my head as if it was actually happening right then and there. Hume also uses an example of how if someone is angry, you know understand what they are feeling but you cannot physically feel their emotions.

hume- section 5- of animals

Hume says we all know there are a few similarities between us and animals. Such as the anatomy we know that animals have circulation of blood much like we do. Hume says animals and humans alike have the ability to learn many things from experience. In turn, learn its surroundings and know of fire, height, depths, water, etc. He says also humans and animals can be taught by a reward and punishment system. Children get a lollipop if they are good at the doctor's office. Dogs gets a bone if they perform a trick well. Both species learn if they do something good, they will be rewarded. Then hume says animals are also made with instincts, as are we. We sometimes have gut feelings about things and act upon them. If animals learn like us, infer things like us, and even have instinctual feelings like us, that makes us very similar species. Just because animals look different and don't speak (which I feel is contradictory, as seen in some of my other posts), we don't think much about then as being similar. But then again in a way, we do. We talk to pets, we care about them, give them food, and shelter. We actually do kind of treat pets as children, interresting.

HUME- From section 2- "origin of ideas"

Hume says there is a difference then when something first happens and then when one recalls that perception. I beleive we used this example in class, the finger snapping. But Hume says like if a man is in pain he perceives it in a way. Later on, when he wants to recall that pain, it is in your memory and you can almost feel it but since it is not really there, your mind just goes by it's memory.

Hume says perceptions of the mind can be divided into two classes, thoughts or ideas and impressions. He says our mind can analyze thoughts and ideas in a certain way. He uses the example of God. He says we think of God as the ideas that he is, infinitely intelligent, wise and a good being. Our mind can relate to God just by using the words goodness and wisdom because our mind breaks down ideas to even simpler ideas. Another example that makes me think of breaking down ideas is when someone says the would nurture, I think of a mother. Throughout your childhood and youth, your mother nurtured and took care of you so when the mind hears that word, it gets connected with your mother.
Hume says impressions are those more "lively" sensations, like hear, see, feel, love, hate, desire or will. He says what about the blind man who can not see or the deaf man who can not hear. They perceive those ideas in different ways then the way we who have the capability to hear and see do. My cousin is deaf and he hears sounds and reads lips. He must put two and two together to understand what it is I am saying. My friend is colorblind and he sees shades of gray and 7 times out of ten can tell me which shade is red or blue or green which i think is nuts because he sees black, white and shades of gray.

Hume- the unknown

“It is readily allowed, that other beings may possess many sense of which we can have no conception; because the ideas of them have never been introduced to us…” (Pt. II) Again Hume is explaining the boundaries of thought and sensation. When he puts it, as he has done above, I think it is easier to understand and agree with. For example, if you went over to another country, say Australia, would you know how to hunt for your food? Of course not, because here in America, we do not hunt for our own food, we simply go out to the grocery store and buy it. And so the reason we do not posses these senses, are because we have never had to endure killing our own meals, so we therefore have no knowledge about it, if at one point we did want to attempt it, or even tried. Another good example is one that Hume emphasizes. If a man be brought up with no respect and manners, then you can not expect him to behave his manners at a dinner table, they do not exist in his eyes. This man sees no wrong in say- smacking his lips, or talking with food in his mouth, or wiping his face on his shirt; he was never introduced to the ideas that this is improper and so he feels no sensation to want to change it, or fix it.

Hume- thought vs. sensation

So which is more powerful; a thought or a sensation? Well if you think about it a thought can come from just about anywhere. It can come from the sight of something that makes you think, it can come from someone else’s thought that was spoken upon, it can come from a dream. Whichever way this thought came, it was just a thought, and nothing more. There’s millions of thought that go through our heads throughout the day, but they come and go and leave no mark. Thoughts can be imaginary, impossible, short, fake, doubtable… A sensation is more intense and real. A sensation is something that produced a definite effect, a known feeling. Sensation happened and you were aware it happened, whether it be at that moment or a week after, it is still thought of. The sensation is remembered as a thought and a feeling; an experience. Whereas a regular thought comes and goes. As Hume would say: “The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation. “ (Pt. II) I like this quote. It is so true if you just put some thought into it and you can realize how much more important a sensation is than a thought. . .and it is always this way.

Locke, sensation, books 1&2

It has now five posts later and there is something that is noticable about Locke. There is not one section of Locke's text that I have read that does not include sensation. I think Locke thinks that sensation is one of the most important things that your mind is capable of. Everyone experiences different sensations but that makes sensation so crazy. What one person hears can be different to another person. Or what another person sees can be slightly different than another person. By writing my last sentence I just thought of an example. Next time you are in Bj's or Best Buy, go to the TV department (the wall that has all the TV's on at the same time). If you look closely each TV gives a slightly different color, picture, tint etc. Think about if each tv is a set of eyes of a separate individual. If everyone's eyes were set at a different color shades or whatever then everyone would see color differently. It's a hard concept to explain through text but I just think it fits with how Locke describes how we sense and perceive information from the outside world.

Locke- book 2- chapter 12- page 108-111- "complex ideas"

In Lockes chapter of complex ideas, he says that complex ideas are just simple ideas compounded together. Just like 1+1=2. Locke says complex ideas can all be divided into groups of modes, substances and relations. Locke says complex ideas of modes are dependent on the simpler idea. They are dependent on the simpler idea either from variations of the simple idea or a compound of simple ideas to make up a complex idea. Locke say complex ideas of substances are a combination of things that are of a simple idea to make a complex idea like dull , or hardness. The third he says is relations which is comparing one idea to another. Locke makes a crazy point at the end of this section stating that if we were to trace what our minds have done throughout or whole life, it is extraordinary. It combines, senses, erases, imagines, simle ideas to complex, it changes its feeling on things. The mind just does such miraculous things that I think so many people take for granted. What would you do if you couldn't make ideas or think for that matter, you would be an invalid.

Identity and Diversity, Book 2, Chapter 27, pps. 241-247

In this section of book two, Locke is describing the differences of identity and diversity. He explains that when you see something for the first time you identify it as that. When you see it at a later time, you compare it to the last time you saw it and that is the diversity. For example, say you went to college with someone so they are about 20 years old say and then 10 to 15 years pass by and you run into them. You can identify them (maybe, haha) or recognize them but chances are, they look different. Those differences are diverse ideas.

Later, Locke says that there is identity of the same man. What he means by this is that people are identified as people. Girls are identified as girls. Boys are indentified as boys. Parrots are identified as parrots and so on. You can identify each kind as its own but when you have girls, boys, parrots, insects etc. grouped together they are diverse ideas. An example is like a University. In a university, there are professors, students, girls, boys, students who come from another country etc. There is diversity. The point is that one can identify a thing as something but when everything is put together like say the world it is very diverse.

Locke- "Mind and Body III"

I was interested in reading the section on Real and Fantastical ideas. I really wanted to hear what Locke had to say about the fantastical ideas. He made a good point that we have these ideas in our head of things that really do not exist like trolls and centaurs. Its funny that these creatures only exist in fairy tales or Greek mythology, but when we hear these words we know exactly what they are. Trolls are those creatures that are hidious and live under bridges, and yet centaurs are the half human-half horse. Locke says that we don't really know if these things exist. We believe they dont, but where would someone come up with such things? Who would even think of telling people about their crazy idea of a half human-half horse, and who would continue this story? Things like that make our ideas interesting. Where did it start from? Without these "creatures" my life as a little kid probably wouldnt be so creative and fun. It's this type of thing that allows us to use our imagination. Fact or Fiction?

Locke- "Mind and Body II"

Locke talks about simple and complex ideas. By reading Book II chapter XII, I became more clear on what he was talking about. Actually on the bottom on page 104 to the top of page 105 he speaks of the word "whiteness". This is a word for example that is used to describe many things in an abstract and simple way. This describes white snow, the white piece of chalk(which as a class we are all very fimiliar with) and milk. All of these objects are similar because they have a similar characteristc (white), but yet chalk doesnt taste like milk and you cant really write with snow. So these objects are also very different. Complex ideas can be made in two ways. They can be made by putting together the same simple ideas, like a roll of quarters, each thing in the roll is a quarter, but all together they make a roll of quarters or even better ..ten dollars. Or you can have a mixture of simple ideas, such as a doctor, which is a person, who has knowledge, a degree (hopefully), gentle, caring, and patient. Many simple ideas put together create this image of a doctor.

Locke- if you dont know-dont speak

“If you do not understand the operations of your own finite mind, that thinking thing within you, do not deem it strange that you cannot comprehend the operations of that eternal, infinite Mind who made and governs all things, and whom the heavens of heavens cannot contain.” (Book V Chapter XI) This is a strong statement. Locke is pretty much putting it out there that if you do not know how to use your mind and maneuver it, I suppose like Locke does, then you have no right to point and say that particular things, specifically God, are not real or don’t make sense. If you can’t grasp something as complex and detailed as God, then perhaps you should just not make judgments on it. I agree with this-somewhat. I mean who is to say whether or not you do understand the operations of your won mind? Maybe you think you do, but yet you have no where near conquered the thoughts and complexity of it. But I do agree that if you have no expert knowledge or experience in that particular area, especially as something as controversial as God, then you shouldn’t speak about it, let alone make strong statements of one extreme or the other.

Locke- its clear

“The invisible things of God are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead” (Book V Chapter X). God has made his existence clear for us to see. It is obvious, in Locke’s opinion, that God has made an important statement, a statement of his being. In all his creation and his rule, his power and his authority is all apparent, just take a look around. How about us? How else would we all be here if not for God’s creation of this world and humans? Locke says eternal power, which to me seems a bit mysterious. I wonder what Locke thinks eternal power is? And what of it does God have to do with, to what extent?...

What is being said here...Locke

“If anyone pretends to be so skeptical as to deny his own existence (for really to doubt of it is manifestly impossible), let him, for me, enjoy this beloved happiness of being nothing, until hunger or some other pain convince him of the contrary” (Book IV Chapter X Pg.528) This quote of Locke really confuses me. So apparently he doesn’t doubt God, he knows he exists, and he lives happily and peaceful because of this. Then he says to the one who does not believe, shame one you and you will realize one day that he does exists. What is Locke implying here though? What does he mean “until some other pain convince him of the contrary”? Is he saying that the person would be punished by God for not believing and put to slow painful death? Or maybe is he implying that at his last breathe he would come to his senses and beg for the mercy of God? Why does he think that at this point in someone’s life, if a person has not believed thus far, all of the sudden that he is dying or in pain and will automatically change his feelings on God? I don’t understand this way of thinking…what is Locke really getting at here?

Locke- "Mind and Body I"

When I decided to work on the mind/body problem I wanted to first start off with the brain and the way it thinks. First, thinking occurs when the "mind turns its view inwards upon itself, and contemplates its own actions." The mind then thinks of different solutions, and then comes up with an idea by putting these solutions together. My favorite part Book II, Chapter XIX was how Locke describes how the mind works while it is dreaming. The definition of dreaming to Locke is, "having the ideas in the mind not suggested by any external objects." Alot of ideas are stimulated by your surroundings (external objects), which is why we use our senses to remember. Locke used an interesting example. He described a huge thunderstorm and how someone who is awake is feeling these senses. They see the lightning, hear the thunder and rain, and feel the house shaking. For someone who is sleeping, they still hear and feel, but they are in a incoherent state of thinking because they are dreaming.

Locke- "God III" -His existence

Locke proves to us why he believes God exists in Book IV, chapter X. The name of this chapter is "Of Our Knowledge of the Existence of God". He goes through and uses great examples to prove to us that there really is a God. In order to believe in another existence you must first believe in yourself. Locke say that if you doubt your own existence you are nothing, until something crucial in your life happens and you realize that you really do exist. He bluntly says that he exists (meaning God). First off, Locke speaks of the beginning of life, which had to be produced or created by something else. If this is so, then he who created must be very powerful. He then goes on and says to create you must be knowledgeable and knowledge had to come from somewhere therefore, God must be very knowledgeable, too. Examples he gives are helpful to explain why he believes and why other believe there exists a God. Nothing in this chapter mentions innateness, but this chapter just goes to prove that Locke is not afraid to state that he is a believer in God. On that note, I will leave you with this quote on page 535 at the bottom, Locke says, "It is not possible to deny the power of an infinite Being because we cannot comprehend its operations."

ideas of pleasure and pain, Book 2, chapter 20, pge 160

In Book two, chapter twenty, Locke is describing again, yet in more detail, of how our mind distinguishes pleasure and pain. He says that it is explained like good and evil. Pleasures which are good are those like love, desire, rejoice and hope. Pains which are evil are those like hate, fear and greive. He says that there are two passions, envy and anger, that do not come from pain or pleasure but of mixed emotions from within oneself and other things around in the environment. This makes sense. If one is envious, you envy something about another or what another has. If you are angry, some thing has made you feel that way. When you experience pleasure passions such as love, desire, and hope, they are feelings within that you have created yourself. You have created love for someone such as a boyfriend. No body created the love for you. When you experience pain like hate or fear, it is you who creates the hate or fear in whatever you are fearing or have hatred for. This is kind of a hard concept to distinguish because you can say for instance well so and so bought me flowers and cared about me which is why I love him but what I think Locke is saying is that, inside you are the one who created that love. Also, you can say well if someone fears clowns (like I do), you create that fear yourself.

Also, a good point Locke makes is that your mind remembers pain and hurt rather than it remembers or clings to love. Think about it. You may fall in love with somebody so there is the love. Then, they do something to cause you pain like lie to you or whatever, then you fall out of love with them. From this point foward, it is much easier to hate the person for what they did rather then love them again because that pain (that hurt) will always be in the back of your mind.

Book 2, CH 10 --> Ever gotten bit?

“The great business of the senses being to make us take notice of what hurts or advantages the body, it is widely ordered by nature that pain should accompany the reception of several ideas; which supplying the place of consideration and reasoning in children, and acting quicker than consideration in grown men, makes both the young and the old avoid painful objects with that haste which is necessary for their preservation, and in both settle in the memory a caution for the future (Book2, chapter 10 page 97-98)”. This connection is amazing. The mind knows that certain actions with the body will result in pain or harm, so therefore it does not complete this action and is even cautious not to get stuck in a situation that could perhaps lead to this action. One time, one of my nieces bit me. I got over it, she was little and perhaps didn’t know better…then my sister (her mom) found out her daughter bit me and told me to bite her back. I said what?!?!? I am not going to bite a child. She convinced me that it would help her learn how it feels and that once she understood the pain that resulted from a bite she would never do it again. Well it worked shockingly. I felt terrible about it, but she could now make that connection that hey- if I bite someone they feel that same pain I felt when I was bit, which is uncomfortable and unpleasant. Her mind will not stop her anytime she wants to bite someone, and now she knows better than to attempt it. This was necessary for her preservation as Locke has said. The mind and body work together in ways that astonish me. ..

Book 2, Ch. 7 --> Deep in thought...

“…and so we should neither stir our bodies or employ our minds; but let our thoughts run adrift, without any direction or design; and suffer the ideas of our minds, like unregarded shadows, to make their appearance there as it happened, without standing to them…( Book 2, chapter 7, Page 81)” The mind and body appears once again, but in a different way. Not in comparing the structures of the body and how they relate to the human mind as in Descartes; but rather just that neither should be disturbed while in thought. Our minds and bodies should be free to think and feel without emotion or our input to interfere. Both should just run their course, and we should remain silent and see what becomes of this. As Locke says, we should suffer from the ideas of our minds. Letting our thoughts linger and be without boundaries could lead to something pleasureful or yet something we end up being ashamed of for even thinking. Ever heard the saying that an idle mind is the worst kind of mind? Normally when in deep thought it is not fun for me to be disturbed, I loose track of whatever it is that I was thinking and most of the time it’s pretty interesting. However, there are those times where I think crazy things and feel I should stop myself from thinking such absurd things, so I then flee from these thoughts and the thoughts that lead me up to this point, knowing not to return to them again. But what if the were no boundaries? What if I never did stop myself from these thoughts? In a way thinking of this makes me a bit nervous…would bad things have happened if I continued out these wretched thoughts to the very last word? What would have become of these thoughts, would they have become actions?...Perhaps Locke knows what it’s like to free his mind, however, I would rather never try and keep my thoughts to a limit…who knows what could become of them..

Locke- Book 2- Chapter 10- page 97- "Retention"

In book 2, chapter 10, Locke is discussing retention. Now, this is an amazing thing for humans that we are capable of remembering (some, not all) things. Locke discusses how we have the ability to remember things from our past. Sometimes more easily or clearer than other times but we still have the ability. He calls it an ability of the mind because we do not have a literally speaking, physical filing cabinet in our brains. He says we have the ability to use our mind to remember something that once happened. Locke says that most memories that can be retreived best are those associated with pain and pleasure. He says as an example, it may be because at one time you were hurt, you do not want to be hurt again so you remember what it was that caused you pain, and you avoid it. Later on, on page 101, he talks about animals and their memory. He says, although he does not know how, he says birds must have some sort of ability to remember. He says birds can sing their songs one day and then sing the same song the next. He says that that ability is not like imitating another bird because even that would require some memory. But is Locke right? Do animals have the ability to remember (but at a lower degree) as we do?

Locke- Book 2- Chapter 9- Page 92-96 "Perception"

In Book 2, Chapter 9, Locke is describing and digging into the idea of perception. He says one knows perception better after he reflects on it. By reflecting on the perception, Locke means the way you see the perception, hear it, feel it, etc. He goes on to say how you can only perceive something if you pay mind to it. As an example from me, say you are in your room doing your homework. You have your tv on low, you are focusing on your school work either reading, writing or typing. All of a sudden you hear a clock ticking. The clock did not just start ticking. It has been ticking the whole time except at the moment you perceive the sound is when you noticed the ticking. This is what Locke is trying to say your mind does. Your mind must be activated by something and you much reflect on it (notice it's smell, feel, sound) in order to perceive it.

Later, he proposes the statement, "Children, though they have ideas in the womb, have none innate." (page 92) We would think opposite right? I mean, when children are in the womb they eat and keep warm. According to Locke, these are not of innate principles because they are simple ideas. They are just sensations and it does not take their mind to get them their food because the baby in the womb is constructed to be taken care of by the mother's body. Now, when I was reading this, I thought of another idea. What about when the baby is born and the baby takes it's first breath, is that an innate principle?

Locke- "God II"

When reading Locke and having already read Decartes, I was trying to compare the two philosophers. I like how Locke is a def. believer in God. He is not quite sure yet, up to what I have read, as to how we are believers, but this is his challange and hopefully by the end we discover this. Decartes, on the other hand, was always back and fourth about God. First, he strongly believed in him, then he was unsure and was putting down the church, but covering it up. What Locke is trying to get to the bottom of in the "God Problem" is very interesting. He is trying to figure out if we are born as believers or if we mold ourselves as we listen and grow in our surroundings.

Locke- "God"

From what I have read about Locke's opinion on God, he seems to question whether God is innate. When reading Book I chapter 3, I found that Locke made a very clear point. He said that if young children were put onto an island and "fire" was never mentioned, they would know nothing about it. He then compares this to people and religion. He does not believe that we are born with believe in a God, but that we become exposed to one and then believe that there is a higher power. He descibed God as superior, powerful, wise and invisible, which is how most people preceive God. Locke states that if we are exposed to God being a certain way, then that is the way that God will be imprinted on us. But later on in the chapter on page 48-49, Locke goes and questions that maybe God does imprint on us "with his own finger" when we are born. Then he goes back to say that he does actually believe that the imprinting is by experience and thought. He goes and names a few religions that show this. For example, Roman Catholics believe in one God and that he has done certain things for us to believe in him. We learn this through our church and then when we are old enough we make the decision on believing it or not. If God is innate, then we would not be able to make our own decisions we would already have believed in something the moment we were born.

Meditations 1, Paragraph 8

In Descartes Meditations 1, paragraph 8, Descartes is saying how there are things that we can count on as being true, such as numbers and words. Yet, there are many other things that can be made to doubt. Things such as astronomy, medicine and physics. These theories in these topics have been disproven and changed to become "true" time and time again. We go by these theories everyday. Take medicine for example, we have all taken one form of medicine at one point in time or another. Medicine is a combination of materials to cure a symptom. Some very smart people trained in medicine took many hours to make the perfect formula to make this task successful. So, we take the pill. In a few days, we feel better. Was it the pill that did it or was it your body fixing itself. Your body is an extraodinary machine. If one has ever taken a biology course they know that statment is true. Your body could do wonderous things so why wouldn't it be able to heal it's own sicknesses? What i'm getting at is Descartes is right medicine is uncertain. Just because we go by it, does not mean it is true. It could be some other phenomenon such as our incredible body curing our pain. Who knows, in 10oo years maybe a chemist may find that advil does nothing to cure advil? It's far-fetched but how do you really know???

Locke- GOD IS

“I grant the existence of God is so many ways manifest, and the obedience we owe him so congruous to the light of reason … without either knowing or admitting the true ground of morality; which can only be the will and law of a God, who sees men in the dark, has in hands rewards and punishments, and power enough to call to account the proudest offender.” (Page 29, chapter 3) Locke is apparently really gung-ho on not only the idea that God exists, but the “testimony” of it. He goes on about how obvious it is that God does exist, but morally it is up to you to accept it or not. It is known that there must be a God, according to Locke, because if you as mankind can think of any other way everything came about, then you must be incorrect. God makes sense, God is the truth, he is the only way to make things real and fit together. With this undoubtable evidence we should nonetheless give all due respect to this God who is what we are, what all creations are. God has the power to give and take to those deserving, and it is made clear that he can see everyone, he doesn’t miss a wink. Locke is so set on selling God, he does exist, no question about; now if you have morals you need to respect him-end of story. Locke to me seems like he could be God’s slave, and is under oath with his soul on the line. Locke is certain and uncompromising.

Locke vs Descartes-God's layout

From Descartes book I have interchangeably learned that he does believe in god (which is the interchangeable part because sometimes it is unclear to me if he truly does believe or not), and that he puts blame on God for all of the imperfect people he has created, including himself. Now Locke on the other hand, strongly persuades me that God does exist. Speaking of God and how he has installed this light of will power and this yearning to be each a specific person, he says this, “…it yet secures their great concernments that they have light enough to lead them to their knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties” ( Chapter 1 -page 3). Locke is more on the fact that God does exist and that he put light into each of us enough to make us able to perform the tasks necessary to survive and be to each is own. Descartes gave me a different feeling, as to he is more concerned with how God has deceived us, and set us up as imperfect but set us on our paths all the same, which work identical from day to day from person to person. It appears to me that the two ideas really challenge each other. Descartes says that God sets us up to pretty much fail and be mislead all our lives, while Locke says that God has a path for everyone of us when we are born, and this path, whether it be of success or of poverty, is the one we were meant to follow. Descartes takes the misfortunes of life and takes them to heart as if he is really offended by this, Locke does just the opposite, and he accepts what has been chosen for us by “our Maker” and is willing to cooperate.

Meditations pt.1 - "Deceit"

I am responsible for the last paragraphs of the Meditations part 1 by Descartes. Lately it really appears to me that Descartes is so bluntly challenging the idea of God. In the following statement, it could not be anymore clear as to how Descartes feels at God’s attempt of deceit upon him (and all others I suppose). “ …I will suppose not a supremely good God, but rather an evil genius, supremely powerful and clever, who has directed his entire effort at deceiving me. I will regard the heavens, the air…and all external things as nothing but bedeviling hoaxes of my dreams…I will regard myself as not having hands, or eyes…but nevertheless falsely believing that I possess all these things.” So Descartes really lets his feeling flow here. He calls God an evil genius! Wow, now that is ballsy, I mean how concerned could Descartes really have been about what the people might have said with making a statement like this? Descartes seems really offended by the way of God, and what story and makings of God should be believed in, such as our body and the earth around us. Descartes takes this personally, and seems to me like he feels hmm…betrayed by God perhaps? Descartes is not happy with the original ideas of life and being, and blames how deceived he has been on God’s power and cleverness; it’s all God’s fault. After putting some thought into it, Descartes refuses now to take hope and pride in what is- that is- because of God himself…or what we have been trained to think is all a result of God himself... This is deep.

Meditations, Part 1, Paragraph 8

In Meditations, Part 1, Paragraph 8, Descartes says now it is hard to doubt that you have a body. He says there are many things that are easy to doubt. Things like, physics, astronomy, medicine are doubtful because they are dependent on other things that must be true. You must form a hypothesis for those concepts. You must test out the hyposthesis. Those hypothesis' are considered to be true until they are proven false. So, who knows, things that we may think are true have the possibility to be determined as false. Things that you can not doubt are things like arithmetic and geometry. They have set quantities. D says that like in arithmetic 2+3=5. We know this and we do not doubt it because it is understood that 2 is 2 and 3 is 3 and when you put 2 and 3 together, it makes 5. Things that have a set meaning can not be doubted. Language is also undoubted I feel. Everyone understands that the word, table, means a structure that you can eat dinner on. Also, everyone understands that the word, chair, means a structure that you sit on.

Meditations, Part 1, Paragraphs 5&6

In meditations, part 1 in paragraphs 5&6, Descartes is talking about being asleep and being awake. He says that when you are awake, your eyes are open, your head is not heavy like when you are about to sleep, you can move you arm or finger and know that you are moving it because you can feel it. He says that when you are sleeping, these feelings are less distinct. Descartes says that the things you see in your dreams reflect the things that are real and true. D says that "...the things seen during slumber are, as it were, like painted images, which could only have been produced in the likeness of true things, and that therefore are at least these general things- eyes, head, hands, and the whole body are not imaginary things, but are true and exist." (page 61) He said that painters sometimes fuse parts together like let's just say, a human head on a horses body for instance, and we know this is false because no one in this world has ever seen that while they were awake. So, I think descartes is trying to compare dreaming to painting and art. In a painting, whatever is in the painting, came from the painter's imagination which can be anything. Painters also take the color a lot of the times from seeing things when they are awake. They paint grass green because in real life grass is green. So D thinks that in dreams you see grass as green because that is how you see it when you are awake. In dreams we see a lot of what we see when we are awake. By this reason Decartes feels and does not doubt that that is why he knows that we are awake and we do have a body and such things like time and shape do exist.

Methods PArt 1- imperfect

"But because being decieved and being mistaken appear to be a certain imperfection, the less powerful they take the author of my origin to be, the more probable it will be that I am so imperfect that I am always decieved." This strong quote by Descartes left me kind of confused. Is descartes out and out challenging the idea of God here? Is he mad at God for bestowing him imperfect and misunderstood? Or is he pointing out how imperfect God really is in his creation of human? Perhaps maybe he is just stating that what is thought of as imperfect has too much weight on the silly petty things. Everyone is decieved at some point, whether it be from someone superior or of authority, or from a sense or thought, or a pet dog??... Maybe too much thought is put into how each individual is wrong for some reason or another, maybe God wanted his creations to be slightly imperfect each in their own way? Or mayb God just has not yet mastered the makings of humans, which is why we are all at fault and imperfect...

Methods PArt 1-ANd AGiaN...

Okay so I began reading my section of the mathods part 1, and I am baflled to say that once again Descartes goes on about what is constant today, and has been this way from day 1. This time I see me and Descartes are on the same page, and it is pretty weird. I thought these things thinking that I was interpretting what his thoughts were regarding that previous part in discourse part5, and here it is a little later in the book and he says as I said he thought. "..namely that there exists a God who is able to do anything and by whom I, such as I am, have been created. ...and yet bringing it about that all these things appear to me to exist precisely as they do now?" Wow, Descartes took the words right out of my mouth. In my previous post I was just questioning this same matter. How do we know that what God created then is the same as we see now? How is it that everything is still run the same now as it was described on day 1 of creation? God has his very own sytem of running things, keeping them moving right on track.

Discourse PArt 5

As a last post on Discourse part 5, I found one last interesting part. On page twenty-five Descartes says this: "But it is certain that the action by which God preserves the world is precisely the same as that by which he created it..." This suggests that God had made everything in existence at one point, in this point that everything must be perfect and understandably functional; in this one shot this creation must all come together and last for an abundant amount of time. The world was put together like a puzzle, piece by piece. To this day, God has his same methods and ways of keeping the world going as his did on day one. Earth does not change, the constants surrounding us are not altered day to day. When we wake up in the morning, each as individuals, home is still home, your keys are right where you left them before you went to bed, the president is still the president, and the sun still rises in the same exact way with each morning. God has the whole universe running on "repeat". Minor things may change over time, but the majority of the bigger things are the same now as when God first made life.

"True or false?"...

Truth came from the senses but some senses were false. On quote from Descartes that I really liked was on page 60, “ It is a mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those who have deceive us even once.” What would make Descartes blame everything on his senses? It is because you hear what you hear and see what you see? Or is it merely because he was betrayed by them at one point?

Meditation One: Doubt

Let's say your trying to bake a cake and it calls for 2 cups of flour. You measure that out, pour it into the mixing bowl and then you stopped what you were doing to answer the phone. When you came back you can not remember how many cups you already put into the bowl so you go and pour another cup (thinking you needed it). In actuality, you now put in 3 cups. You realize this after you already started mixing it. Now you have to start over again because the cake will be very very dry. In science and math if your ending or result of a problam is wrong you have to "knock everything down" and start from the beginning (scratch) again. Whatever was built upon truth that is false will crumble right back to the beginning stage to became true, meaning, you are better off starting out a problem containing doubt then to have a confidence and watch the problem fail and have to start over again. Descartes describes the four things he needed to do in order to remain sane and not have any doubt. He said he needed to free his mind of all cares, have a period of leisurely tranquility, be secluded, and apply himself 100%. What I don't undersatnd is why Descartes has all this doubt built up.

Part 5, Paragraph 10, Discourse on Method (pg 31)

In part 5, Paragraph 10 of Discourse, Descartes is explaining the brain of living things which he implies that both humans and animals are made with. He talks about the brain and its functions. How the brain uses the senses and the brain responds to light, sound, smell, touch, and taste. Also, he says the brain lets you have internal passions to think about when you are hungry, thirsty, sleeping, awake and dreaming. Also, Descartes says the brain has the capability to reserve memories and to have an imagination. He says when we want something for example, a message goes to our brain so that we are capable of obtaining what we want. But the thing I do not understand is that in this whole paragraph Descartes is pretty much grouping animals and humans together as one group, saying that because we have brains that this makes us and animals more powerful than anything that could be made by man. "For they will regard this body as a machine which, having been made by the hands of God, is incomparably better ordered and has within itself movements far more wondrous than any of those that can be invented by men." Does he contradict himself in the next two paragrahs when he goes on and on about how because animals do not have the same language as us, that they are no where near our intelligence level? I feel like in these 3 paragraphs, Descartes contradicts himself by saying we have the same internal organs (paragraph 10) yet animals are no where near the intelligence level of humans (paragraphs 11&12).

Part 5- Discourse

So i was really thinking about part 5 of the Discourse and I don't really know why Descartes is so obsessed with the blood flowing through the body. He seems to be very interested with how our bodies are so complex unlike other things. The most important part of our body is our heart considering it gives us warmth and blood flow. How would he know so much about the body in the 1600's? I just find this very interesting espeically after taking biology classes and learning how everything works and him being on target without all of the equiptment that we have today.

"Circle of Life"

There is also a part in my section that speaks of the vena cava, which “ is like the trunk of a tree of which the other veins of the body are the branches…” I pictured a tree and was able to relate the trunk of the tree as being the family, which grows and overcomes obstacles. I was thinking that maybe the circulation of the blood is relating to the circle of life, (yes, I thought of the Lion King!) because then you grow up, go out on your own (well most of us do), get married and have a family. This pattern repeats itself from generation to generation like a circle.

Descartes speaks a lot about light and heat in Part 5 of the Discourse. One particular quote that intrigues me is this: " ..how sometimes it has only heat but light, and sometimes only light but no heat...how it can consume nearly all of them or turn them into ashes and smoke.." (page 25). This excerpt is obviously pertaining to light and heat and the powers they possess. You can have both at one time, or one and not the other at one time, and yet they might be so powerful still, and have such different effects on things. Light is what we solely depend on, as we need it from any and all sources, as with heat; it is necessary for life. You can just be in awe looking at light; you may be comforted by the sense brought by heat. All things around us depend on heat and light, and really, do we ever think about these two things? I know I never do. And how important are they? Without one or the other, we would not survive, earth would not be, living would not live. And of all the wondrous uses they possess, and complexity of them, you never think of how much is dependant on them. They are everywhere, used in the making of so many things, they give off vital productions...and is it too much, or too abstract and forward to say we take advantage of heat and light? Is this wrong?

Discourse PArt 5

On page 23, Discartes says "certain laws that God has so established in nature, and of which he has impressed in our souls such notions, that, after having reflected sufficiently on these matters, we cannot doubt that are stictly adhered to in everything that exists or occurs in the world." I think that this is a great opening to such deep concepts in which after this statement he further goes into. It amazes me how Descartes puts his words in such a way that means such a particular thing, but can still vary so much. What I believe he is really trying to prove is life, and why it is the way it is, why we do the things we do, why we know the things we know. There is no doubt to these set laws, nothing will ever change these things, nor will anyone ever attempt to. It is the way it is, and by "it" I mean life. God has set up these rules that we must play by, no if's and's or but's about it. No one would dare question them, it would be absurd. Its a natural knowledge that we, as humans are born with, and even animals, plants, our environment, all of these things that make up the world are on a set schedule of what to do and how to do it. Subtle things happen by themselves with no effort from the ones it happens to, like perhaps growing and how one grows, and what may grow and when. The clock always ticks forward and the rules remain the same with every tick. This will never be altered; the game rules are built inside us.

..."only the strong survive"

The last sentence in my section which speaks about blood on page 31, top paragraph, reads "...the weakest and least agitated must be puched aside by the strongest which by this means arrive there alone." The strongest parts move towards one of our most complex parts of our body, the brain. When I read this I feel like it is survival of the fittest and "only the strong will survive." Therefore, the weakest cannot always succeed in our society. This is another analogy on life, which is true for all humans and animals. How does one expect to achieve anything with out a little will-power?

Discourse Part 5, Paragraph 12

In Discourse part 5 in paragraph 12, Descartes puts forth a very strong opinion that he believes in God. Descartes says, "...for, after the error of those who deny the existence of God (which I think I have sufficiently refuted)...". It seems as though he really wants his readers to know that he beleives in the existence of God. He also makes it seem like you are wrong if you deny the existence of God.

Discourse Part 5, Paragraphs 10&11

In Discourse on Method, Part 5 in paragraphs 10 and 11 Descartes says how humans are different from animals. Descartes says that language and how humans declare their thoughts to others is far more intellectual than any animal is capable of. He does go on and say how some animals such as parrots and monkeys may be able to say some words but when you put those words together, humans are not able to have a conversation with them. Descartes says that humans are like machines and they are put together so perfectly and that is why they are capable of reason and intelligence. He says that our intelligence is what gives humans the idea to use their voice to produce words which leads to language and conversation. Descartes says that language is the reason why humans have intelligence and animals do not but why is language the only factor. Animals do things like humans everyday. Animals in the wild must find food, have a shelter for protection, protect their kin and fend for themselves. Just because animals do not communicate like we do, why is it that they are not intelligent?

Descartes: Discourse Part 5

During the Part 5 Discourse, there is alot being said about the human body and how we are so complex. Descartes goes into detail about the heart and all the specifics, such as blood flow and body warmth. One part that really interested me was on page 27 where he speaks about the eleven membranes which act like doors opening and closing. He said this causes the blood to move in one direction and cannot go backwards. To me this sounds like an analogy on life, as if he is saying that you can only go in one direction in life; fowards. You cannot go back in time, so you have to keep moving ahead.