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?