Kant page 86

"Bounds always presuppose a space existing outside a certain definite place and inclosing it; limits do not require this, but are mere negations which affect a quantity so far as it is not absolutely complete."


I understand what Kant is trying to say here. I feel that what he meens is that the only way that bounds are able to occur is if there is some space or object that can create the bounds. When something has a limit it meens that there does not have to be space or an object to limit that objects possibility.

Kant page 66

"In the Critique of Pure Reason it was always my greatest care to endeavor, not only carefully to distinguish the several kinds of cognition, but to derive concepts belonging to each one of them from their common source."

I think that you cannot get concepts of something without fully understanding it. You cannot just go to the common source of something and come up with a concept for that thing, you must look deeper into it and get a better understanding of it.

Kant Page 40

"Quite another judgement therefore is required before perception can become experience."

I agree with what Kant is trying to say. I think that when meeting someone or at least trying to have some sort of experience with someone you must judge at some point. It is as if it is almost required/known to everyone that they are being judged almost every minute of there lives weather they like it or not. It is just something that must be accepted.

Kant Page 31

"When an appearance is given us, we are still quite free as to how we should judge the matter. The appearance depends upon the senses, but the judgment upon the understanding; and the only question is whether in the determination of the object there is truth or not."

I think what is being said here is that you can see something but cannot fully understand the matter at hand. All you can do is view an appearance and make a judgement, but by doing that there really is no understanding of the matter. You will not know if the whole situation is based on truth or not.

Kant Page 27

"If two things are quite equal in all respects as much as can be ascertained by all means possible, quantitatively and qualitatively, it must follow that the one can in all cases and under all circumstances replace the other, and this substitution would not occasion the least recognizable difference."

I do not agree that if two things are alike in all aspects that they have to replace each other and become one. I think that no substitutions should be made. Even if you think that two things are exactly the same there is always that one little flaw that makes the two things different. Therefore nothing can be exactly the same and substitute.

Kant Page 20

"It may be said that the entire transcendental philosophy, which necessarily precedes all metaphysics, is nothing but the complete solution of the problem here propounded, in systematic order and completeness, and that we have hitherto never had any transcendental philosophy."

I think that Kant is trying to say that philosophy is the answer to all questions. He is trying to say that all questions can be questioned until they no longer have any meaning and that if we keep doing this there will never be a complete solution to any problem.

Hume in general

Throughout the Hume book I feel that there was a large mix of subjects. God, politics, mind & body, and personal feelings. I feel that Hume related God & politics alot. I feel that he might had felt that religion and politics were almost the same. He also related to alot of personal feelings and experiences which made the book slightly easier to read, but I do not agree with his mixing of religion and political parties.

Hume Pg 86

"The wise lend a very academic faith to every report which favours the passion of the reporter; whether it magnifies his country, his family, or himself, or in any other way strikes in with his natural inclinations and propensities. But what better temptation than to appear a missionary, a prophet, an ambassador from heaven?"

I feel that Hume starts off talking about a literal thing, like a reporter and how he basically enlarges the picture on things happening in life. Then Hume goes to talking about God and heaven again. I think what he is saying is that people should focus more on reporting and learning about God than focusing more on the world we live in now.

Hume

While reading Hume's book I notice that as the story goes on he starts to contradict things. It seems as if nothing in the book is constant. As a writer Hume seems to be quite jumpy, and focus' on more of a down to earth life aspect. There isn't much that I feel relates to God or a spiritual side. With so many different aspects on the mind it makes it hard to follow where he is going.

Hume Page 41

"It seems a proposition, which will not admit of much dispute, that all our ideas are nothing but copies of our impressions, or, in other words, that it is impossible for us to think of any thing, which we have not antecedently felt, either by our external or internal senses."

From what it seems to me is that Hume is starting to contradict himself here. Earlier in the book he was talking about how we can excel past the limits of our own minds, and here it seems that he is trying to tell us that we are all pre-programmed. I am interpreting it as if he wants us to think it is impossible for us to think farther than our external and internal senses.

Hume Page 16

"All reasonings concerning matter of fact seem to be founded on the relation of Cause and Effect. By means of that relation alone we can go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses."


I agree with Hume 100% here. I feel that we can go way beyond what is in our minds. There is so much that a person can physically and mentally do without being able to explain it. I do not think that we always have to have a cause and effect, I think we can easily have an effect with no cause for doing that effect.

Hume Page 7

"Nor can there remain any suspicion, that this science is uncertain and chimerical; unless we should entertain such a scepticism as is entirely subversive of all speculation, and even action."

I feel what Hume is trying to say is that it is very blunt that the loves we live are VERY uncertain, and the only way we can make our lives less uncertain is if we speculate. But if we speculate our lives are still slightly uncertain due to the fact that speculation can be wrong. Not everything you have thought up in life has come true of has worked out the way you want it to be.

Contemplation

Page 97. Par 1


"The next faculty of the mind, whereby it makes a farther progress towards knowledge, is that which I call retention or the keeping of those simple ideas which from sensation or reflection it hath received. This is done two ways. First, by keeping the idea which is brought into it for some time actually in view, which is called contemplation."

I agree with locke when he says retention has to do with the progression of knowledge, but I don't feel that is is just a reflection or image that is stuck in your head. I feel it is more than that and that he is not giving credit to the human mind for remembering and learning new facts and ideas.

Locke and God

After reading the first two books of Locke, I feel that he bases alot of things on God. I feel that he is not as clear as Descartes. Througout the books I would pick up on key lines such as "I must therefore beg a little truce with prejudice and forbearance of censure till I have been heard out in the sequel of this discourse, being very willing to submit to better judgements."

In the beginning of the quote I feel he is talking about life on Earth and how there are problems and that no one is truely clean of sin. When he moves on and says "the sequel of this discourse" I feel that he is talking about Heaven or an after live (the second part of this life). And at the end I feel when he says he is very willing to submit to better judgements I feel that the better judgements will come from God, or better judgements is the actual God.

Conscience no proof of any innate moral rule

Page 30, Par. 8

"To which I answer, that I doubt not but, without being written on their hearts, many men may, by the same way that they come to the knowledge of other things, come to assent to several moral rules, and be convinced of their obligation. Others also may come to be of the same mind, from their education, company, and customs of their country; which persuasion, however got, will serve to set conscience on work, which is nothing else but our own opinion or judgement of the moral rectitude or pravity of our own actions. And if conscience be a proof of innate principals, contraries may be innate principals; since some men, with the same bent of conscience prosecute what others avoid."


I feel this is talking about how we make our own decisions in life. I feel that it is describing that we as people can asorb information from other people, and can be convinced, but we always act on our own opinion or hunch. I also think he is saying of our conscience is working off of information takin from others we have a bent sole. I feel that the entire passage is basically stating that we make decisions at our own free will.

How Primary Qualities Produce Their Ideas

Page 86 Par. 11

"The next thing to be considered is, how bodies produce ideas in us; and that is manifestly by impulse, the only way which we can conceive bodies operate in."

I feel that when we talk about the mind and body this phrase is very specific to that. He is talking about how he feels that bodies operate on their own, and do not use the mind. He talks about how they operate by impulse, but I feel he is completly wrong. The mind is clearly used in the operation of the body, and I also feel that he contradicts himself because he talks about and refers to God throughout the two books. Any person that is going to refer to God must know that the mind and the body operate as one.

Pleasure and Pain

PAGE 82. Par. 6

"Thought what I have here said may not perhaps make the ideas of pleasure and pain clearer to us than our own experience does, which is the only way we are capable of having the; yet the consideration of the reason why they are anexed to so many other ideas, serving to give us due sentiments of the wisdom and goodness of the Sovereign Disposer of all things..."

I feel that Locke is trying to make a refrence to God. He is saying that we can not truely experience pleasure and pain until we meet our creator. I feel that when he is talking about the Sovereign Disposer he is referring to God. He is talking about how we are givin wisdom and goodness and can not experance anything different until a later pont in time, when God wants us to experence pleasure and pain.

Locke Book I (Chapter's I-IV)

Book I  JOHN LOCKE “Of Human Understanding” – From An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

  In the Introduction of Book I, as it seems to be a trend with Philosophers: 

Locke begins his Essay with his own Philosophical rules. Just as D had detailed, there are certain steps each person must take to reach a higher plane of thinking. Locke’s rules differ slightly, as they are more like personal Goals that he hopes to accomplish through his own evaluation & systematic procedure of reasoning.

“1. An inquiry into the understanding, pleasant & useful… Since it is the understanding that sets man above the rest of sensible beings, and gives him all the advantage …”

2. Design… whether those ideas do, in their formation, any or all of them depend on matter or no.”  

3. Method … I shall endeavor to show what knowledge…certainty…evidence & the extent of it. I shall make some inquiry into the nature & grounds of faith or opinion.

4. Useful to know the extent of our comprehension's  

5. Our capacity suited to our state & concerns… 

6. Knowledge of our capacity a cure of skepticism & idleness… 

7. Occasion Of this Essay…

8. What “idea” stands for…”    Excerpts From [Book I (Ch I) pg 1-4] 

Much like D, Locke emphasizes the human’s ability toward reasoning & critical thinking to help establish the validity of general human truths as well as the learned & acquired information we obtain. But Locke’s method will include locating the origin of ideas, why we have them, and how they affect us. He also inquires into the actual representation of an idea – just as D discussed the tangibility of a thought, Locke is not questioning the properties of “ideas”.

    Chapter II – “No Innate Principles in The Mind”

“The Way shown how we come by an knowledge, sufficient to prove it not innate... There is nothing more commonly taken for granted, than that there are certain principles, both speculative & practical, universally agreed upon by all mankind.”  [Book I (Ch II) pg 12]

Just as Plato & Descartes had discussed before him, Locke takes this opportunity to discuss the innate human programming each person is outfitted with from birth. Although, rather than accepting the workings of the mind and body Locke argues a different perspective than most of his predecessors.

In the fact that these random bits of knowledge & information seem to be ingrained in each person from birth it can be assumed that these would therefore be universally understood truths. In the sheer description of the behavior/belief being universally understood we negate the fact that any information could somehow be innate. It suggests that all behaviors, information, values, etc. must be learned in development instead of being fundamental to our existence. Locke takes time to emphasize the difference between innate knowledge, learned knowledge & personal evaluation; each of which are required in the completion of such reasoning.

As another common theme, Locke emphasizes the importance of personal interpretation & information gathering in the evaluation of any piece of information. In contrast to the first portion of his argument, information/knowledge that is not learned must be recognized within the individual through systematic reasoning before it can be accepted as fact. I find it surprising, yet “an innate human truth” that people must question these possibilities. (This is exemplified in Chap’s III & IV )

LOCKE- Chapter 2 end of par. 1

"But because a man is not permitted without censure to follow his own thoughts in the search of truth, when they lead him ever so little out of the common road, I shall set down the reasons that made me doubt of the truth of that opinion as an excuse for my mistake, if I be in one; which I leave to be considered by those who, with me, dispose themselves to embrace truth wherever they find it".


I think what this means is that the information and truth is in your head sitting there, but when it actually comes out and you realize that you have had this information stored you feel that it must be a mistake, but in the end you have to realize and embrace the fact that you do hold truth, knowledge, and wisdom within your mind.

Meditations II- Wax Example

I've chosen to discuss Descartes' Famous Wax Example in a separate entry because I felt it is one of the most compelling arguments within this portion of Meditations. Although it has been discussed in several other blogs; I would like to discuss it in relation to modern day life & personal expectations. 

Summary Of Example: Overall, D wants his readers to understand that our belief and understanding of all things comes from our own perceived judgments of those things at our time of observation. Our cultures have associated descriptive meanings to those items in the form of their names; but to be recognized as such they must feature certain distinguishable traits that contribute to the same conclusion. All human senses contribute to the attainment of such information & the construction of this type of judgment. But depending on our personal evaluation of this information, each person may comprehend a different definition of the same article or item. 

D uses the wax because all people understand that wax is the product of a melted candle, so therefore the mind decides that prior to its melted state, the item being observed must clearly be wax/a candle. Regardless of the fact that the initial shape of the candle is no longer intact, we are able to judge that indeed the recognized puddle of wax was was some point an untarnished, unmodified Candle of Wax- as it was expected to be. 

Class Notes (Feb 11,2008) Regarding "The Wax Example"

-Properties that are first observed may change, but how do you know it's the same piece of wax?

-It can't be judged by the senses because everything has changed, but you know it's wax because you judge it to be so. 

*A subtle, but IMPORTANT distinction: despite the senses of observation report the item as being altered, the mind judges the information & determines its meaning (in contrast with seeing it in the same form)

-Knowledge is gathered by stripping away information you cannot believe and slowly adding to your own discovery of which information is true.

-------------------------------------------------

I thought that this entire concept could be applicable in the sense of interpersonal reaction & expectations. Each person, depending on their background & experience, will expect different things from any new relationship they create. Judgment is passed on new friends, and new opportunities based on what we observe from these situations, in addition to the preconceived concepts we hold to be true regarding such things. 

Depending on the judgments we make, this allows us to generate certain expectations as to the result of that behavior and closely associate the two in the future. 

Personally, I feel this idea is exemplified when "dating someone new"- Upon meeting someone it is human nature to determine your initial attraction or interest in that person depending on their physical nature, style of dress & outward demeanor, etc. Within the first few minutes (if not seconds) immediate decisions are made regarding the quality of this new friend or boy/girlfriend, because of the things we can sense. As you progress into a serious relationship with this prospect, you will continue to make decisions & based reactions generated through your own observations, and altered through your own previous experience. Specifically, if you have been mistreated in a relationship in the past, you will constantly question your partners ability to avoid making the same mistake. If you had trust issues, or commitment issues in a previous relationship those experiences will likely influence relationships in the future because of your predetermined judgments regarding similar items/actions.

-------------------------------------------------

Although we shouldn't let our minds control our ability for reason and reconsideration the basis of human understanding is derived from the things we see, smell, hear, taste & touch. Senses allow establishment of definitive information in all states, because of the basic fundamental meaning of each item/article.

Class Notes on Med II (Feb 11, 2008)

Meditations II- 

-cogito, ergo sum

-res cogitans (thinking thing- mind)

-res extensa (extended thinking thing- body) 

res cogitans vs. res extensa

The concept of thought & mind have no tangible properties. There is no size, or duration of thought it simply occurs.

Thoughts can only appear in the now- Tangible objects (like the black glove example cited in c lass) are occurring at a constant. Thoughts, regardless of their repetitive nature, occur only in the immediate present; and in turn thoughts cannot be categorized by length because they are as long as "now".

This portion can be related to Discourse V, and the discussion of the body as a mechanical object. It is classified as such because of the "physical & time dimensions it must endure".

Res cogitans vs. res extensa- (dualism) D is a supporter of the mind & body working in tandem rather than as 2 separate forces.

"extended" (physical??) things vs. thinking (conceptual??) things

Extended Thinking cannot be verified, because the senses may be lying. Our knowledge of things is vested in our judgement (TBD in separate entry regarding the wax example as featured) 

If our observations deceive us and we see something to be in its assumed state rather than than in its reality then we have fallen victim to the error of our own abilities. 

The Knowledge of God is discussed on pg 54 (paragraphs 12-13) and is summarized in the Synopsis. D discusses modernity & the free mind.

The Heart of D's entire argument is to promote a free mind, able to conclude its own facts & research its own queries. 

(Notes Taken by Michaela Douglas)

Discourse between 13 & 14

"It is true that we never see anyone pulling down all the houses in a city for the sole purpose of rebuilding them in a different style and of making the streets more attractive; but one does see very well that many people tear down their own houses in order to rebuild them, and that in some cases they are even forced to do so when their houses are in danger of collapsing and when the foundations are not very secure."

I think this is referring to people getting older. Its almost like cosmetic surgery, people get old and they start to need repairs, new knees, face lifts, etc. And its usually only a few people that do this so you would never see the Whole Street (all the old people) getting freshened up. And some people when they are in danger of dying they need repair to keep them going for that little bit longer. I feel that the similarities between the old buildings and old people is uncanny.

God

Throughout the entire book I feel that he really seems to be jumpy on the whole "God" subject. He starts out very hesitant about the subject and then gets more opinionated. At the end of the book I feel that "God" becomes a touchy subject again. I feel that most of the book revolves around God and/or an afterlife. I feel that almost every blog I see can relate to God. I can be completely wrong but that is my opinion.

MED. 2

"I will stay on this course until I know something certain, or, if nothing else, until I at least know for certain that nothing is certain." -pg 63, paragraph 24

What I feel is being said in the quote that I saw in Michaela's blog, is that he is going along with what life is giving him. I feel that this quote can be relating back to God. By saying that he will stay on this course until he knows something certain....that something certain can be an afterlife. And when he says or until I at least know nothing is certain, can be that he finds out their is no afterlife.

Meditation 2 : Wax

"Let us take, for instance, this piece of wax. It has been taken quite recently from the honeycomb... For whatever came under the senses of taste, smell, sight, touch or hearing has now changed; and yet the wax remains...
Perhaps the wax was what I now think it is...was a body that a short time ago manifested itself to me in these ways, and now does so in other ways."


Descartes speaks of the wax as if it were him or any individual. The notion that at one point there were certain characteristics in which pertain to his way of thinking and living and that although he/we may perceive himself/ourselves as differing from a past time, through his/our senses, he is/we are still himself/ourselves. This shows truth to his "I think, therefore I am" argument; That although we may change the way we think, change our opinions, change our physical features, change the way in which we act and react, change our personalities etc., we are still, by definition, Wax.

Meditation II

Concerning the Nature of the Human Mind: That Is better Known Than the Body

---

"I will stay on this course until I know something certain, or, if nothing else, until I at least know for certain that nothing is certain." -pg 63, paragraph 24

-

The sheer phrasing of this line is ambiguous but astoundingly interesting, as it is a proclamation of his dedication to independent conclusions. He will verify whatever possible to the fullest extent, even if that means proving it is entirely inconclusive. 

---

As D continues to discuss the relative natures of the body and soul to validate his existance he delves into the concept of thought proving existance. Because you are the creator, and sole owner and participant in that thought you must be real by way of that capability. As we discussed in class, this is the point at which D considered the length of a thought: thoughts only occur in the immediate present, while tangible items are at a constant regardless of our own personal state. Even repetative thoughts are individual, each and every item thought of it entirely in the "now". (RE: pg 65, paragraph 27)

---

"Thus what I had thought I had seen with my eyes, I actually grasped solely with the faculty of judgement, which is in my mind." pg 68, paragraph 32

-

The concept of judgement leading perceptions is an incredible truth! It is human nature, and perhaps all animals nature to take clues and determine what we are observing. Although each of these signals come from a sense, this basis is generated from the minds understanding of what said item should entail. All of our preconceptions and expectations come from our judgments. 

---

"For since I now know that even bodies are not, properly speaking, perceived by the senses or by the faculty of the imagination, but by the intellect alone, and that they are not perceived through their being touched or seen, but only though their being understood..." pg 69, paragraph 34

-

As previously stated, our judgements and senses are inaccurate in unquestionably determining anything we believe to observe, as we are constantly clouded by what we are expecting to see. But from these senses, we are able to build concrete versions of what we understand certain things to be, giving validity to its existence through our full and definite observation and contemplation of it. By fully experiencing and understanding something, you are able to gain full insight into it, allowing you personal recognition of its tangible aspects. 

---

"But what then am I? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and that also imagines and senses." pg 66

**I just wanted to add this particular quote because I enjoyed it. I'll leave it up to others for interpretation.

Meditation 2

Between 24 & 25

"Therefore I suppose that everything I see is false. I believe that none of what my deceitful memory represents ever existed. I have no senses whatever. Body, shape, extension, movement, and place are all chimeras. What then will be true? Perhaps just the single fact that nothing is certain."

I think what is being said is that nothing you hear is entirely true. There is always something in the statement that can be contradicted. He also talks about body and shape. Here he could meen that we all eventually die, and are no more. Its almost as if after many years gone, we become false and no longer exist in the world.

Discourse Part II (Entry #2)

"But I had learned in my college days that one cannot image anything so strange or so little beliveable that it had not been said by one of the philosophers, and since then, I had recognized in my travels that all those who have sentiments quite contrary to our own are not for that reason barbarians or savages, but many of them use their reason as much or more than we do." pg 9, paragraph 16

-This statement took several tries before I was able to fully comprehend its meaning. D understands and blatantly states that the musing of philosophers are often called into question because people aren't open to these newly proposed concepts. The latter half of the statement goes to prove its validity, as he states that if we have "sentimental" differences, which are of course our cultural and societal customs, we lose respect for these people; regarding them as barbarians or savages. Without thinking about how it is a fundamental human characteristic to follow the lessons, beliefs and traditions of your own culture.

-On pg 11, D discusses his rules which he strictly adheres to, to ensure he's pursuit for the truth in his own life. 

"...never to accept anything as true that I did not plainly know to be such... avoid hasty judgment and prejudice... I would examine into as many parts as possible, and as was required in order to better resolve them... by supposing an order even among those things that do not naturally precede one another.... to make enumerations so complete and reviews so general that I was assured of having omitted nothing..." (excerpts) pg 11, paragraph 19

All of these things he lists above are important traits all people should try to possess. This method of critical thinking, within any aspect of life would allow someone to make careful and well thought out decisions. By doing this, D seeks to better his own life, but in turn gives a good example of the fundamental things that must be taken into account in order to do so. Even though, previously, he has said he does not wish to push his beliefs or systems onto anyone, these personal rules he outlines for himself are a good basis for any persons life. 

"...provided only that one abstain from accepting any of them as true that is not true, and that one always adheres to the oder one must follow in deducing the ones from the others, there cannot be any that are so remote that they eventually reached nor so hidden that they are not discovered." pg 11, paragraph 20

Simply put, I think that D, again is stating that through these methods of deduction and reasoning any solution is a possibility. All problems can be fixed by determining the method of deduction necessary and applying it to the problem. Through your own understanding and research you, and all involved persons seek to benefit from this knowledge.

D continues on to discuss how he uses mathematical rationalizations to solve the issues he encounters. The scientific, logical and exact reasoning used can be applied to resolve specific issues, through prescribed methods:

"I thought that in order to better consider them in particular, I ought to suppose them to be relations between lines, since I found nothing more simple, or nothing that I could represent more distinctly to my imagination and to my sense; but that, in order to keep them in my mind or to grasp many of them together, I would have to explicate them by means I would be borrowing all that is best in geometical analysis and algebra, and correcting all the defects of the one by means of the other" pg 12, paragraph 20

-I found the last sentence of this quote to be particularly interesting because it seemed strikingly broad, I thought it was an excellent representation of what would be necessary to improve society.  By fixing certain problems, in turn we would change other situations, allowing everyone better opportunities.

Also, I felt that there was one particular quote within D's discussion of math and analysis that stood apart and rang true for life in general, "... even though their objects differed, these sciences did not cease to be all in accord with one anotehr in considering nothing but the various relations or proportions which are found in their objects..." pg 11, paragraph 20. I felt that this meant that all things in the world are inter-related and have a bearing upon the other, whether or not we recognize the connection. When one thing is altered, in turn all other things are altered, and eventually a balance must be reached in accord with all the various elements that are being affected.

Discourse: Part 2 "An entire day shut by myself..."

"Thus one sees that buildings undertaken and completed by a single architect are usually more attractive and better ordered than those by which many architects have tried to patch up by using old walls that had been built for other purposes...it is chance rather than the will of some men using reason that has arranged them thus."

If I may, I'd like to use the manner in which we as a class have been instructed to complete our Blogging assignments as an explanation towards what I believe Descartes is trying to explain. Let us suppose for a moment that the blog in which I am posting is the building being constructed. Now I, the architect, am able to piece together these words and ideas in a more understandable fashion. I have taken the writings of Descartes and single handedly put together what I believe he is speaking of. Now suppose this piece was to be discussed amongst the fellow members of my group and we were to come up with only one blog of explanation. It is in my belief that the ideas in which we would each come up with would create a jumble of words that would hold little insight to what we were attempting to interpret. Differing ideas, disagreements on interpretation and the lack of the ability to focus on an equal goal would leave our "committee" with a work that is "crooked and uneven" (I believe that if Sparta was at one time very flourishing..having been devised by a single individual, they all tended towards the same end).

Now being that it is by "chance" that we are to individually post the ideas out of the sections that we were assigned, we can use our "reason" on Descartes' work and come up with our own interpretations more clearly, from lessons in which we raised upon and that make us individuals ("And thus, too, i thought that, because we were all children before being men and women, and because it was necessary for us to be governed by our appetites and teachers..it is nearly impossible for our judgments to be as pure or as solid as they would have been if we had full use of our reason from the moment of our birth and if we had always been guided by it alone") What we are learning through Descartes work is also creating us as independently thinking persons.

"I would succeed in conducting my life much better than if I were to build only upon old foundations"

When he says this I feel that he is trying to say that starting over and being on a clean slate is better than trying to fix things that have been hurt, abused, and used in the past.

buildings & conflict

I agree with this part "-The buildings represent the conflict in society when there is no unity, a single creative mind can accomplish more than individuals trying to repair the old rather than creating something new. " I think that the buildings represent people without unity due to the fact that som buildings are tall, while others are short. Some are red and some are white, etc.

Discourse- Part II (Post #1)

The following are my reactions to the content of Part II in Discourse:

 "... buildings undertaken and completed by a single architect are usually more attractive and better ordered than those which many architects have tried to patch up by using old walls that had been built for other purposes." pg 7, paragraph 12

-The buildings represent the conflict in society when there is no unity, a single creative mind can accomplish more than individuals trying to repair the old rather than creating something new. 

"I would succeed in conducting my life much better than if I were to build only upon old foundations and if I were to rely on the principles of which I had allowed myself to be persuaded in my youth, without ever having examined whether they were true." pg 8, paragraph 14

-Descartes suggests building your own foundations rather than devoting yourself to the concepts you're taught. By generating your own understanding of these ideas and seeking the truth rather than accepting what you're told, you stand to improve your life. By building your morals and character on "unstable foundations" it is impossible to reach the pinnacle of your success. But, it is possible to rebuild foundations through doubt, and eventual truth.

Descartes describes how there are two types of people that are wholly unsuited for reasoning such as his: There are people who "believing themselves more capable than they are, are unable to avoid being hasty in their judgments or to have enough patience to conduct all their thoughts in an orderly manner." pg 9, paragraph 15

There are also "those who have enough reason or modesty to judge that they are less capable of distinguishing the true from the false than certain others by whom they can be instructed; they should content themselves more with following the opinions of these than with looking for better ones themselves." pg 9, paragraph 15

-This portion of the text was particularly striking because regardless of the length of time that has passed since this piece was written, these types of people still exist (and dominate) the world. People who think they are capable of anything think that they are infallible, and therefore, all of their beliefs and ideas must in turn be the truth. Because they are so blinded by their own self centered truth, they rarely question the things they have been taught because they are ultimately convinced anything they know must be correct.

-On the other side of the spectrum, there are people that refuse to question what they've been taught because they lack the ability to have confidence in their own conclusions. So therefore, these people are forever content to simply take what they have been told as the absolute truth without any hint of doubt. 

Although I have more information regarding the remainder of Part II, I will save the additional notes and ideas I have for another post at a later date.

Thanks!!!!

GO GIANTS!!!!! 

Wow I finally figured out this blog thing!

Descartes- "Discourse on Method" Diagram (Part 1 & 2)

As discussed in class today, here is the information the class gathered for Part I & Part II of "Discourse":

Part I

-Fables/histories, doubt*, travels & reading, math & morals* 

Group 11: Experiences (for himself) [7] 

Group 6: Good sense [2], concrete knowledge [3 & 4]

-Descartes obsesses over doubt, it is his way of understanding things.

-Discussing history as a fable alludes that they are "fairytales" rather than truth.

Part II

-Thinking & architecture, foundations, logic & minds, knowledge & rules.

Group 10: Rules for organizing thoughts, for not forgetting, for backing it up, refused to believe anything that he hadn't proved. 

Group 8: Social commentary, buildings, ? understanding, ? find truth (for oneself), question foundations.

NOTES POSTED BY MICHAELA DOUGLAS