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.