Kant 6

Kant talks about form of sensibility, that space and time does not things in themselves but can be found in the world. They are considered innate and shape our preceptions. He then goes on to talk about how math is apriori. as I talked about before, i'm not sure I can agree. space and time, the concepts can exist seperately by themselves.

Kant

He also says that since we are capable of synthetic a priori it suggests that pure reason is able to find the important truths. He also suggests that a lot of what we think to be reality is formed by the perceiving mind. Kant thinks that the doesnt passively receive information thats given from the senses. He says that it shapes and makes sense of that information in order to understand it.

Kant

Kant talks about how the possibilty of analytic propositions can be concieved easily because it is grounded solely on the principle of contradiction. He explains that propositions that are drawn from experience also are easy and don't need special explanations. This is because experience itself is nothing other than a continual joining together of perceptions. Also he said that you cannot start by looking for how propositions are possibles because there is many of them given with undisputed certainty. He said that you need to start with that synthetic but pure rational cognition is actual. I think i understood this part a little more than his other sections but i still can't completly understand his meanings and explanations.

Kant

After Kant talks about pure mathematics and pure intution he goes into metaphysics and how it relies on the faculty of reason and how is doesn't shape our experience in the way that sensibility and understanding does. However, he says that it does help us reason independent of experience.

Kant

Also, in one of his notes he says that geometry has objective reality as prescribing the form of all sensible intutions. He also says that geometry would be fiction if the senses represented to us things in themselves. And earlier he also says that mathematics must exhibit its concepts in intution. Throughout my reading Kant tried to explain how pure mathematics is possible but i never really seemed to find the answer. I thought Kant was very confusing to me.

Kant

Kant says that time and space are pure intutions. And he also says that the objection that the ideality of space and time turns the world of senses into illusions in vain. He says that not to the appearance of senses but judgement by the understanding. He uses an example but it wasn't clear to me. He also said that whether space is appearance or thing in itself has no bearing on this but the doctrine that space is appearance secures the objective validity of geometry. I did not really understand that section either.

Kant

Kant thinks that the mutual requirement of intution and concept applies not only in the
empirical concepts and empirical intutions but also in the non-impirical/pure intutions and the pure concepts. He also says the space and time aren't even capable of yielding cognition of objects. And then he said that the merging of empirical intutions and concepts brings about the cognition of objects as expressed in empirical judgements. He used the example "This rose is red" He goes on about this and how yes and no this is the result in joining pure concepts and intutions but i don't understand it. I found this part confusing because I couldn't seem to catch what he was talking about.

Hume

Hume also talks about cause and effect. He says that it is sometimes okay to assume effects from a cause that someone has concluded from observing effects. He also says that reasoned assumptions are made from observing species of causes and species of effect. I think this is accurate and agree with it because you can definitely assume an effect from the cause. Even though our assumptions aren't always right I still think you can make the assumption from the cause.

Hume

Also Hume mentions how he thinks that all complex ideas are formed from simple ideas. Then the simple ideas result to simple impressions. He also says that our imagination can only come from impressions we have had or experienced, so therefore our imagination is limited and we cannot imagine things that we never seen or heard, ect. However, he says that he can imagine a something he hasn't seen before but only because of previous impressions. For example, you can imagine a color you have never seen before but you have seen other shades of the color so you can form an idea and imagine what that certain color might be.

Hume

Hume kind of gives you the impression that nature guided us to believe the things we do and that it didnt have to do with reason. And instead of giving us reasons why this is so he kind of just explains what we believe in and why we should believe this. He doesn't really prove his points he just explains what he thinks.

Kant

"the objects which are given to us by experience are in many respects inconceivable, and many questions to which the law of nature leads us when carried beyond a certain point admit of on answer as for example the question ad to why material objects attract one another?" the problem must be solved because of course reason mus give a full account to its own procedure but it can be given in experience and the question is answered.
Things work with experience and they make us see how they work and why. The world works on experience.

Kant

IN must of the book Kant is saying that everything is connected by experience and that with out things connecting to each other then the world would not work. He said that with out one step the math could not be solved without experience we would not know. I all fits together and fall into a pattern. without one thing it would not work and without that we would not know.

I think that he is right that everything has to do with each other and that it takes it all to make the world go around. Everything fits in it place. Everyone has a judgment or idea that they believe and there is a reason that they believe it. That experience helps us to know what we believe and what we don't, I think that without experience we don't understand things because we haven't seen them, touch them or been able to understand them with having an experience of them.

Kant

Kant said :" for certain rational principles are expounded which determine a priori the order of nature or rather understanding which seeks nature's laws through experience." In Kant's work everything has to do with the experience, truly believes in this.
I think that he could be right I mean if you don't know something you don't have experience. Most people don't like to do new things or make change and that's because they are conformable with what they have experienced. I think that people tend to depend on their experience to make them choose if they want to do something or not. If some one had a bad experience with something tend to stay away from it and not do it again. If a person had fun or like the experience that they had they tend to keep doing and not want to stop.
I think that it is in our nature to do what we are conformable with because it is easy and we like it. Plus Human's are caterers of habit. Once a human likes something they tend to keep going back to it.

Kant 5

Kant talks about 3 different types of ideas of reasoning. They are called psychological ideas, cosmological ideas, and the theological ideas. The tying factor among all of them is metaphysics according to Kant. He talks about cosmilogical ideas as 4 different antinomies, in other words they are 4 contradicting statements. I'm really not sure what his purpose is by doing this because he basically gives some ideas that disprove what he is trying to prove. a little confused by all this...

Kant

Empirical Judgment is one of the things that Kant discusses in his writing. Empirical Judgement is the understanding of what is happening around us and what we think of it. We use empirical judgment for everything all the time every day and we may not even realize it. We make judgements of things we see when we walk into a room, we make judgements of people we meet, we make judgements on everything.
Kant said that we use are senses and experinces to make and understand judgments. This I think is true. Because if you meet some one for the first time and you get a bad feeling about that person you are using your senses to tell you that you do not like something for one reason or another. Or you could have used your experinces to make a judgment because you have know a person like this before and you don't like them or you do that can reflect your judgment. I agree with Kant that we use our senses and experinces to make judgments.

Kant

He talks about math a lot in this work.
How is pure mathematics possible? He asked. He said that it because it is a branch of knowledge encompassing and wonderfully large domain and promising. He said that if an intuition that is empirical but pure without this math can not take a single step.
So he is saying that in order for everything to work it has to have steps that all go together and they must all fit. IF they don't then the problem doesn't get solved. This can be related to life as well. That if everything doesn't fit then things don't work and we are left trying to put the pieces back together.
Its like a puzzle everything has it spot and it must fit there.

Kant

Kant as what he calls a general problem How is cognition from pure Reason possible? He said that it is being entirely founded on the principle of contradiction. It is the judgment that we gathered from experience and no special expiation. and that they must depend on other principles than that of contrasting.
So Kant is saying what Hume and Locke said that are reasoning for things come from are experience. That because of the reaction or effect that we had in the past is going to effect what we do in the future.
For if A equals B and B is not something that you want A to equal then you many choose not to do A. But if A equals be and B is the effect you want then you will keep doing A.
Kant thinks the same as all the others we read he just uses different words to describe what he is saying.

Kant 4

"I shall confine my assertion to pure mathematics, they very concept of which implies that it contains pure a priori and not empirical cognition."

Kant I think is saying that Math is apriori. I find that hard to beleive based on the fact that we pretty much go through at least 12 years to learn the concepts of math. Math just doesnt make sense. Its not just something we know, we have to be taught it. We must practice it in order to understand.

Kant 3

In class we talked about the possibility of perception happening due to an event. I really think that this is the case. It just seems to make sense. We precieve things in a certain way because of an event or how would we even know about it. Preceptions can be different for everyone but yet everyone will have some sort of preception one way or another. For instance if the power goes out, did you really think before it happened that its light or dark? It only happens after the fact that we precieve that it went from light to dark. I dont think many can disagree with this, at least I cant

Kant 2

Its interesting how Kant is okay with saying that we do not and will not know everything. its interesting becuase Decartes and Locke I felt had something to prove in showing they had an answer for everything. As you know they ran into problems trying to tie up all the loose ends. I dont really know too much about other philosophers but I think Kant is taking the smart way on this. I know that people like to understand everything but sometimes there are things that cannot be nailed down until it happens.

Kant 1

Kant beleives that everything is nature is synthetic and apriori. To an extend i do beleive this is true. In nature, events take place due to many condtions that come together. An example is weather, the condtions must be just right for rain to fall or for a hot sunny day to occur. Now these things take place unvoluntarily. For us to really understand this, we need to observe and go over the facts that are presented so I don't really think nature can be apriori. We need observation to understand even nature

Hume 6

"Though there be no such thing as Chance in the world; our ignorance of the real cause of any event has the same influence on the understanding and begets a like species of belief or opinion."

This statement just reinforces what he was saying with inductive reasoning. Many events can take place but with different factors, diffrent results may arise. We must look at all the factors, including the irregularities of life. Life can throw some curve balls out but at least one person in the stadium will have predicted that it would happen.

Hume 5

Induction to Hume was a very unstable idea. He thinks the only way induction will work is if you can definately determine what the relavant data are. But how many times do we see that there are a multitude of factors. And thats not to mention that not all of the factors may arise all the time. So I think Hume was right on the money with these ideas. Its more likely that if one starts out with the general principle and then narrow down to the particular case. Deductive reasoning just seems to prove more stable in logical reasoning then inductive reasoning does.

Kant

I feel that Kant's book is much different than Hume, Locke, and Descartes however it has the same kinda ideas he has a different way of going about it. His book is set up in parts and they relate to each other more than Hume Locke and Descartes books did. Every new Chapters said the "Blank " part of the main transcendental question. Were the other three had there books broken into sections and parts.

Hume 6

Page 70 animals and men learn from experience. Learning that the same event will always have the same causes. BY having an experience a man or animal learns that they are effected by what they do. For example if you touch fire you will get brunt. Because you got brunt you will not touch fire ever again. Your mother or father may have said DON'T PLAY WITH FIRE! ITS HOT! YOU WILL GET BURNT! But a child will not listen and when their parent is not looking they touch the fire and of course they get brunt.
Experience helps people and animals to learn and realize that the same event will have the same cause. Another good example of experience and effect is an electric dog fence. the dog must stay in the yard if he doesn't then he gets zapped. He will try to get out a few times but after he realized that he will get zapped when he cross the yard and he will no longer cross the yard.
I think that Hume's view on experience and effect ties into Locke and Descartes and there cause and effect. Because they are all basically saying the same idea that people and animals learn by doing and by what happens when its done.

Hume

In this section Hume asked what made man kind acknowledge words and have propensity in all ages to profess the contrary opinion?
Hume thinks that it is the production of effects from the causes. He said that our fatalities can never carry us farther in knowledge of this relation, that particular objects are constantly conjoined together.
I though I feel that this is true that we cant carry things in knowledge farther then we know, and particular objects are also conjoined together and that effects and cause will always be in the same place. I cant help but wonder why this would be why must a effect always have a cause? Why must everything go together? I know no the answer I can only think that it is because all things go with each other.

Hume 4

Hume talks about association of ideas. Its interesting that he brings up this point. Many philosophers really have not talked about the association of ideas. It really hasnt been discussed too much but I think would be quite helpful if they were trying to figure out how people think. The association of ideas can connect the causes and effects and continuity of time and place which is essential to understnading why things happen and how people understand why it happened.

Hume 3

In section VIII Hume goes into necessity verses liberty. He says that there are necessary forces, causes and effects that all coinside one another. for instance A must cause B and this will happen all the time. But if you think about this one can tell that depending on the factors, which can change, a different outcome may occur. He later talks about human nature. Here i think he is more on the money. He talks about hidden motives that people may have that can alter the expected outcome and we may nto realize it due to the fact that they have not been put out in hte open. this happens quite frequently I think. I beleive that sometimes things can be unpredictable due to all the possible factors that may change the outcome. I mean I know everyone wants a definate answer but there are just so many possibilities that can change the outcome. Now if you can nail down all the factors then you have a good shot of getting the effect right but without that then anything can happen.

Hume 2

Hume talks about miracles in section X. He believes that we should treat miracles as less reliable due to the fact that they are second handedly told to us. If evidence in presented then may we could put more stock into the information. But here is a question... could this just be a coincidence or really a miracle? first we have to examine what supposedly happened? I mean i know in those days, medicine was not the best but I mean if someone is sick and they get better couldnt it just have been your body fighting it off? Yes miracles are considered to be events that are against the laws of nature but who is to say that with the certian conditions and curcumstances that it could not actualyl have happened, it many not be frequently but it does happen from time to time. I dont know I am pretty skeptical about this whoel miracle thing in general.

Hume

What is miracle? How do we know when a miracle happens?
I think that only the person know the miracle whenit happens to them. For example if I believe that a miracle happened to me but you did not see it you may not believe it. But inorder for me to believe you dont need to believe it. I can feel that some else was a miracle that I do not believe to be.

"What we have said of miracles may be applied without any variation, to prophicies; and indeed, all propheices are real miracles and as such only, can be, asmitted as proofs of any revelation."
I think that Hume is saying that it is hard to give proof of a miracle and that we can not proof tht it happened or that it didnt happen.

Hume

Page 57 Hume states "Are the manners of men different in different ages and countries? We learn thence the great force of custom and education, which mould the Haman mind from infancy, and conduct of the one sex very unlike that of the other?" And he also said "Are actions some person much diversified in the different periods of his life, from infancy to old age?"

I think that human manners are different in different man and different countries. I think that depends on the family you were raised in the education that you had that gives you the manners that you have. Manners are a learned behavior.Other countries have different manners because they have different culture.
For example in some cultures it is not uncommon to when talking to some one to stand very close and to touch the person's arm when taking to them. In our culture if some one did this that we did not know we must likely would not like it. we would back away because in our culture we are taught to keep our personial space.

Hume

I forgot to add in my last blog that if Hume thinks we should not believe in miracles because we are only hearing about it from other peoples experience than does that mean he does not believe in God? Because if he did believe in God it would be hypocritical of him because the belief of God and the belief of Miracles are almost the same thing.

Hume

I think my previous blog on Hume can relate to Descartes, religion, and God because if we cannot prove the testimony of the person who witnessed the miracle than we have to decide to believe in them or not. Just like how you cannot really prove if God exists. Descartes was not really giving us hard core evidence but he was telling us that God does exist. You cannot see him but you have people telling you he does exist but they cannot prove it. Therefore, you are listening to someone else's testimony just like someone who had witnessed a miracle. I think miracles are a belief, just like the belief of God and religion. I think they are similar in a way.

Hume

In this book Hume says that we do not really have any reason why we should believe in miracles and that our evidence for the truth of the Christian religion is less than the evidence for the truth of our senses. He also says that we cannot be confident on others testimony because it is hearsay from that person's experiences. So therefore our knowledge of miracles only comes from the ones who claim to have witnessed miracles. I believe some of what he is saying because how can we really believe what someone tells us? How can we believe that it was a true miracle? However, for the people who really did witness one how can they prove it? So does that mean that you can only see it or experience it in order to believe it because if you haven't than there is too much doubt?

Hume1

Locke concerns himself with ideas about colors and smells. He states that "Whatever reality we by mistake attribute to them, are in truth nothing in the objects themselves, but powers to produce various sensations in us, and depend on those primary qualities, viz., bulk, figure, texture, and motions of parts"In class there was an example given about paint swatches and the shades of colors. It is true that in our mind that if we saw lets say color 19 and color 21, that we would pretty much imagine what would be in between. Its also interesting that Locke almost backs away from this because he really wasn't able to give any explanation except the fact that we shouldn't worry about this because its insignificant. I find that amusing due to the fact that as a philosopher, he should want to get to the bottom of this question. interesting......

Hume

Of the Origin of Ideas
"Every one will readily allow, that there is a considerable difference between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the pain of excessive heat, or pleasure of moderate warmth, and when he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation,or anticipates it by his imagination. These faculties may mimic is copy the perception if the senses; but they never can entirely reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment."(page 9)
In this I believe that Hume is saying that when something happens we can always recall it however the memory or thought is not equal to the day it happened. For example I can recall the when I was four years old I fell at my friends house and broke my arm in two places, I can recall how I fell and I remember screaming and crying as a sit on the table and my mom and her friend around me trying to comforter me. However after 14 years I can not remember the pain I don't recall how it hurt. But I know it was horrible pain I can remember everything else but not the pain.
Hume is saying here that things happen and we can always recall them and remember them but the memory will never have the effect that the real event had on the person. As time goes by the memory fades a little bit all though you can always recall it. Because it is a copy of what happened and over time the copy has become faded and old that we can no longer see or remember all the details.

Hume

Sceptical Doubts

"All reasoning concerning matter of fact seem to be founded on the relation of Cause and effect. By means of that ration alone can go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses." I believe this is true, Hume also that by finding some thing where no one is it will make you think that some one was once there. Finding something is the cause and knowing that some one was once there is the effect of it.
I think that all things have a cause and an effect. Without cause and effect people would be different then they do and they would act in matters that they would normally not. If the cause of doing something had no effect people would do things that were wrong all the time. Would the know that they were wrong? Because people know that something has a effect they know it is wrong and they will not do it.
Whatever happens in your day there are all kinds of cause and effects.

Loke
"Our idea of space boundless."

"This, I think is the way whether the mind gets the idea of infinite space. It is a quite different consideration to examine whether the mind has the idea of such a boundless space actually existing, since our ideas are of the existence of things; but yet, since this comes here in our way, I Suppose I may say that we are apt to think that space or expansion of itself naturally leads us."
I agree with this I have a boundless space that I keep. I don't like when people get to close to me. For example when some one is talking to me I like them to be about 8ins way or more. I don't like when people get in my face and I can feel them breathing when the talk or smell their breath. Back up! I think that this is just respect for the person you are talking to and yourself.
I know that is an individual thing that makes me feel this way and that in some cultures it is normal to be right in someone face and to be close and touch. That's not my style I want some one to keep their distance form me and not to touch me.

Locke is right this is a mind set of an individual and it is up to the person how they feel about bounties with other people. However I think that all people show respect the boundaries of other and keep a distance form people when they talk.

my 5th Locke blog.

Sorry guys my bad! I blogged on Hume instead of Locke. I got confused between the 2! So here is the blog to repalce it......

Locke talks about true and false. I think hes basically saying is that when we judge without some facts to support it we make our own truth. This however maybe a problem due to the fact that someone else may not agree with your "truth". Locke then goes on to say that if we have ideas they cannot be false. This we know now that people form false opinions all the time and thats what they are opnions, something that you think but someone else may not and without the correct facts, one may be lead to think falsely.

Locke

When Locke talks about the imperfection of words i got confused because i didnt really understand it. He says that words are used for recording and communicating our thoughts. He also says that it is easy to percieve what imperfection there is in language and how the very nature of words makes it almost unavoidable for many of them to be doubtful and uncertain in their significations. Locke belives that any words will serve for recording. He also believes that sounds are voluntary and indifferent signs of any ideas. I dont agree with that though. I believe that sounds can be both voluntary and involuntary.

Locke

Locke and Descartes both talk about God, its basically the only idea that they both except and don't even think about challenging. To me this is almost funny because today God is probably one of the most controversial issues to some. Locke pretty much says that if any idea is innate this is it but isn't his whole stance about how ideas cannot be innate? Why would he back track?

Locke

Locke concerns himself with ideas about colors and smells. He states that "Whatever reality we by mistake attribute to them, are in truth nothing in the objects themselves, but powers to produce various sensations in us, and depend on those primary qualities, viz., bulk, figure, texture, and motions of parts"

In class there was an example given about paint swatches and the shades of colors. It is true that in our mind that if we saw lets say color 19 and color 21, that we would pretty much imagine what would be in between. Its also interesting that Locke almost backs away from this because he really wasn't able to give any explanation except the fact that we shouldn't worry about this because its insignificant. I find that amusing due to the fact that as a philosopher, he should want to get to the bottom of this question. interesting......

Locke

Locke talks a lot about dreams the first thing that he talks about is that dreams may not be reliable. We remember things in a way that we want to or how we precieve it, that may not be the case for others. They may remember things totally different then you did. People can creat false memories or memories over time may become distorted. As we talked about this in class physchologists have done test that have proved that people over time, if they are asked the same question may tell the person what they want to hear, or even start to believe false memories. I really think that based on this memories are not reliable sources of information. Too many things could be altered or wrong when a person is trying to recall memories.

Locke

Locke poses a question... "how frequently do we in a day cover our eyes with our eye-lids, without perceiving that we are all in the dark?" This is pretty straight forward yet interesting that he would think about something like that. He goes on to talk about how the mind changes our sensations and making judgement to whether it should be noticed or not.

Locke

Locke talks about how whole nations reject moral rules. he believes that rules are broken maybe because they are not known or maybe that men "transgress" but do not disown a law due to the fact of their fear of shame and punishment. Then he goes and says that it is merely impossible for a whole nation to reject all laws because it is not imprinted in their minds. men may own a law even though the do not believe it inside.This is interesting thing to think about.

He also goes on to talk about another rule that might be the closest to innate as it gets. He says that parents should preserve and cherish their children. I don;t really know where he was going with this but its a strange thing to think about.

Locke

In the book Locke talks about how the mind is capable of understanding an idea, but will be totally unaware of it until it is mentioned. He goes on to justify how it is not innate. he state that just because a person knows one thing that another does not, that does not mean that the idea is innate but the person is only familiarized with other ideas necessary for the understanding of a more general complex or maxim. however this is the question. If he is saying that more complex things are based on previous ideas then where did the first idea ever come from?

Locke
When i was looking at other peoples blogs I can across on that interested me. It was about how are identity is reflected by the our life experiences. And how that ties into the innate of men.
I went back and reread the the chapter on Identity and diversity and this is what I think about it.
" actions of finite beings, motion and thought, both which consist in a continued train of succession, concerning their diversity there can be no question..."
I think that by this Locke means that when we are children we find ways that we can live by and what we need to do be successful in the life we want. And this "train" keeps going as we grow into adults.
For example if a child struggles in school she or he will find ways to get them by in school. Things like pushing themselves to work harder spending extra time on their work and breaking things down into smaller parts and learning one thing at a time. A child who does well in school may not have the same success train as a child who struggles.
I think that the experiences of our life shape us into who we are
Like my niece is only four years old and she is an her own and she can be (to a point) My brother and sister in law work alot and she has learned that she must do things on her own she fends for herself and takes care of her sister. She knows what she has to do in order to survive and she does it. I think that life shapes our identity by what we must do and and the experiences that we have.
This ties in the innate of man because it brings in the question of are we born with the things we know or do we learn them?

Locke

When i was reading i came across an interesting part. Locke says for every particular thing to have a name is impossible. He says that it is necessary to name things but is it beyond the power of human capacity to frame distinct ideas of all the particular things we meet with? He says like it you were have to name every sheep, crow, plant, tree, etc. you see it would be impossible. He also says that it is useless. He also said "Men in vain would heap up names of particular things, that would not serve them to communicate their thoughts. Men learn names and use them in talk with others..." I kind of agreed with him on this one because its not neccessary to name every particular thing. I think it would make things a little more confusing and pointless.

Locke

In addition to my last blog Locke believes that principles are not innate unless their ideas be innate. So if ideas that seem to represent the truth are not made up of ideas that were originally innate then it is impossible that the ideas are innate and born with us. He also says that if our mind was without innate principles than there can be no knowledge, no assent, and no mental or verbal meaning about them. I don't really see how he proves that certain ideas are innate or not.

Locke

In Locke's book he agrues against the belief of innate principles and universal consent. He agrued that there are no universally accepted ideas. He also believes that we have little reason to think that new born infants bring many ideas into the world and that there is no evidence of any settled ideas in them. Like he says they don't show ideas of answering conditions which make up some universal propositions that value innate ideas, therefore they are not innate because their ideas are not innate.

Loke

Locke talks about how our memory works. How the mind can recall a memory and not mean to. The mind is able to recall events that happen years ago and that the mind can remember it very clearly. I believe that this is true that are mind has the ability to recall things from the past even if we are not trying to and when we are trying to. The mind can recall an event and remember the smell, the sound and the sight.
However I also think that the mind can remember things the way we want to remember them and my us think that things happened in a way they did not. For example I can remember being five years old jumping on my bed with my cousin and she accidentally punch me in the nose and getting a bloody nose. She remembers me falling on to the bed post and getting a bloody nose. How is right? Did she really punch me or do I remember it this way? Is she remembering something the way it happened or the way she wants to remember it?

Locke

Loke states that the way were learn is not innate. People can barely get by with natural fuculities. We are bron with knowlege but we learn new knowlege as we live are lives. For expample when we are born we are not able to math or talk. But as we grow our mind grows as well and we are able to talk and do math. Due to the fact that we were bron with the ablity to learn new things.

Over all I think that Descates is saying that we are all humans and we all make errors. Than we must live with the errors we have made and change the ones we can and better are self when doing so. I also think that he is saying that all things should be questioned, I mean that you can just look at something once and know everything about it. Sometimes you have to look deeper at things. And most of all I think he is saying that if there is no God than how does everything exist? How can things work and do as they do?

Meditations Part 4

In continuous to my other post, Descartes says that as often as he restrains his will when he makes judgments, it will mean he can't err. He says that every clear and distinct perception is definitely something , therefore, it can't be nothing. In contrast, he thinks that it must have God as its author, who is perfect and true. I think he is saying that everything that we believe all started from God himself and nowhere else. Also, he mentions that not only must he never make a mistake, at the same time he must do to so he reaches truth. He says that he will only reach the truth if he perferctly understands it and seperates that from the rest.

meditations 4 - humanity's defect

What caught my interest was Descartes explanation of error.

Basically all humans are defective, which I talked about in the last post. However he then he makes an eye- opener of a statement. He basically says that our errors are created by a defect, that defect being a lack of knowledge of something which allow us to make mistakes.

Isn't he really just going around in circles? I mean he says that we gain our knowledge from God, the perfect being, and that God will not decieve us but then why would we have a lack of knowledge which can lead to mistakes if God gives us knowledge and wouldnt trick us?.... that really gets me thinking.

His next big statement was this:
"the nature of God is immense, incomprehensible, and infinate, this is sufficient for me..."

It sounds to me from that he is just settling and choosing to except this idea but doesn't that really go against everything he said in the discourse?? Maybe he gave up because he may just have given doubt to God actually existing.... hmmm...... CRAZY!

Meditations Part 4

As I read on Descartes talks about himself and he said if he can't refrain from making mistakes, with the rule i mentioned in the post before, he said there is another way to aviod it. He said that it would mainly depend on him remembering to refrain from making judgments whenever the truth is unclear, even though he can't remain constantly focused on the same thought of knowledge. This would cause often repeated meditations and therefore, eventually make a habit of not erring. I do not really understand how this can cause no mistakes. He does not really explain how repeated meditations will not cause mistakes.

Meditations Part 4

In Meditations Part Four Descartes talks a lot about judgment, being free, and having finite knowledge. Descartes says that this can be accomplished by his own intellect with a clear and distinct perception on everything. He also talk a lot about the rule of the clear and distinct understanding of things. He says that you should never judge anything that you do not clearly and distinctly understand. And if you follows this rule than you would be more perfect than you are now, but only because God made it that way. However, when I read this I remembered before he said that God is only perfect, so it made me question his theory.

meditations 4 paragraphs 53-56

In this section descartes talks about how God is the only being that is independent because he is the one that dictates what is right and wrong. Therefore we, all of humanity are dependent on God in order to dictate. This makes us incomplete. He goes on to explain that our existence completely depends on him. We depend on him so muc in fact that we must believe that he will never decieve or trick us.

He goes on to come to the first problem of the 4th meditation. He thinks that if all that he gets from God is true and right then in turn he could never make a mistake. But then again we all know that everyone makes mistakes. This puzzles Descartes. He states that once he reflects on himself, he realizes he has made many mistakes. Could he just have stumbled over the fact that this may prove that God's existence may not be so??

After the whole question of error he says that we must have a defect and that in turn only God is perfect.

Descartes Discourse on Methods Part 4

In part four Descartes mentions that the we should not judge that the sun is as large as we see it. I think that he brings up this example to make a point about perception and our beliefs because of perception. Like just because the sun looks a certain size does not mean it is the size we perceive it as. I think this can be related to God because although we can not see him at all does not mean that he does not exist. In my opinion, this has to do with perception because perception is how we see things and since we can not see God at all, some might percieve him as not being existent. Therefore, Descartes is telling us to not judge things mainly on perception because God does exist.

Part 4 Meditations

Part 4 Mediiations 57-59

• In this part he is saying that he can not complian about what God has given him. He states that nothing in him is as perfect or God but he can still understand that they can still be perfect and great. we have a understanding of memory and imagination this is what makes us understand and believe that God is real.
• Then he goes on th say that his power of understaning is not the cause of his errors. Errors are futher than inellect with in the boundaries into things he can not understand.

The matters turn away from true and good and in this way he is deceived and sinned.

• Here he is staying that if i were not for God he would not be able to understand, think and question the wonders of the world. He is staying that he is unable to complian becasue God has given him so much to think of and wonder about. With out memory and imagination we would not be able to understand the world we live in or God.

Meditations Part 4 paragraph 70-76

In the ending of part four, he gives a lot of reasons why he should not complain that God has not given him a greater power of understanding or a greater light of nature because it is of the essence of a finite intellect not to understand many things. I think he meant that you're not supposed to understand everything, only God has that power. He said that instead of thinking that God has withheld or deprived him of things, he should be thankful because God never owed him anything. He said that he shoud thank God. I think he is saying that everyone should be thankful for the knowledge they have and not complain about the things we do not understand.

Part 4 Meditations

PART 4 MEDITATIONS/ 57-59

In paragraph 57 he states "I focus more closely on myself and inquire into the natures of my errors. (Just as Rechel had said he is now focusing more). He goes on to say that he believes that things only are indicative of some imperfection in a person. Here he is saying that when you look closely at yourself you can see that the errors you have are only because of your own imperfection.

• There are two causes: "the faculty of knowing that is in me and faculty of choosing, this is, the free choice of the will, in other words, simultaneously on the intellect and will." so he is saying that knowing that there are errors in you that you have the choice of how they effect you. You can choose how to deal with the errors and how to fix them. Iam I right?

• He speaks of proving and not proving that God exist. He saids that if it was not for God that he would not have the choice of knowing and not knowing. He is greatful for what God has given to him and can not complain. Here I think he is saying that God has given him and all others the choice to do as they please and be who they want to be. But if there is no God then this choice would not exist to man. Again I think he is saying that if there is no God then nothing would be.

I have much more to say about this section and I will have to post it later....

mediations part 4 paragraphs 53-56

Ok, is it me or is he going in reverse here?
"Lately i have become accustomed to withdrawing my mind from the senses, and I have carefully taken note of the fact that vrey few things are truely perceieved regarding coporeal things, although a great many more things are known regrading human mind, and still many more things refering god."

I mean to me the first statement of mediations part 4 says it all. I really think now in this book from the discourse he will be focusing on more concrete things and that we shouldnt put as much stock in the mind. Am I wrong?

He then goes on to say it is so much easier to focus on the concrete things then things that are absract. Well duh! concrete things really don't need much brain power to know they exsist, unlike God.

I have a lot more on my section but I will have to continue later....

Discourse on Method Part 4

After rereading my section I come across something I thought was imporant but I do not understand what he means by it.
He talks about geometers and that geometers are the body or a space indfinitly extended in lenght breadth and hieght or depth.?He goes on to talk about a triangle. How it forms and how he is certain that "God who is this perfect being, is or exits, as demonstration in gemety could be. Is he saying that without God these things could not be? That what I got out of it however I am not sure.

Descartes Discourse on Methods Part 4/ Paragraphs 39-40

In the ending of part four I get confused when Descartes says that ideas that contain falsity is because we are not perfect. However, he said that God is all perfect and all truthful. In this section he also says that once we are certain about God and the Soul it is very easy to know that the dreams we have while asleep in no way make us doubt the truth we have while awake. I think he is saying that once you believe in the existence of God, you should not doubt your dreams, you should put them into consideration. Being asleep should not prevent its being true. He also said that we should never allow ourselves to be presuaded except by the evidence of our reason, which also confused me. I do not really understand what he meant.

Descartes Discourse on Methods Part 4/ Paragraphs 38-39

He also goes into dreams in this section and i think it gets a little confusing. He says that even though someone might have moral assurance about these things, he explains that it is unreasonable for anyone to deny that when you are sleeping you can imagine or see those things differently. I think he is saying that when you dream you might not see things the same way you see them when are you awake, but I'm not sure. He also says how do we not know that our thoughts when we dream are anymore false than our other thoughts when we are awake. I find this interesting because it seems true. I think we really can not tell if our dreams are false or not.

Descartes Discourse on Methods Part 4/ Paragraphs 38-39

In this part Descartes says that if you still do not believe in God after everything he has said then other things you believe in are not as certain like the body, stars, earth, etc. I think he is saying that God has created everything so you can not believe in those things unless you believe in the existence of God. He also says that even if people were to study this he does not believe that they can give any sufficent reason to remove the doubt unless they believed in the existence of God. I found this confusing because it seems like he is making it impossible to even prove that there is no God. I seems like he is not giving people a chance to prove it because if you were to try it would lead to believing in God. And he does not really explain why it would lead to the belief of God. He also says that anything we believe as being true is assured by the reason that God exists. Therefore, anything that is true is because of God and if you try to prove otherwise you would not be able to. It seems like he is giving you no other choice but to believe him and in God.

Descartes Discourse on Methods Part 4/4-6

In parts 4-6 he said how he thinks that there is something more perfect then him. Such as "the heavens, the earth, light, heat, and a thousand others," . He is saying that he is not perfect and that things are much more perfect in the world, so we should look around us and see what is around us. That God is perfect and created all the wonderful things for us to enjoy.

Later he takes about dreaming(this goes along with what Reachel said) that the things we dream are not also true and that we must recongize what is true and flase.

He also dealt with gemeters the depth and hight. believing that the triangle makes the world go around.

Descartes discourse on methods part 4/ 1-3

So in the fourth section in paragraphs 1-3 I believe decartes was really trying to talk about the opposite to be objective. I think he as trying to say that everyone makes mistakes so you cant beleive everything people say. He used geometry as an example and said there are alot of room for errors so basically be careful.

The next point I think he moved to was sometimes what you think isnt always true. He used a dream to explain. He goes on to say that I dream can sometimes give you an accurate account of what is going to happen next but more often its just imaginary, what your mind creates, and in that case it would not be true.

Then the "I think therefore I am" comes into play. He said he considers this the 1st principle of sociology because it is "unshakeable", or in other words no one really has been able to dispprove it yet.