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.