---
"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.
3 comments:
On the beginning of this blog, I will agree with you that it is an interesting way of generalizing thoughts, but somehow i can't say that i would completely consider it to be ambiguous. Although his idea holds doubt, IF he were to see for certain that "nothing is certain" his "general" way of thinking and being actually becomes quite clear and final.
As for the second part (regarding paragraph 27, pg. 65), disregard for a moment your opening (As D continues to discuss the relative natures of the body and soul to validate his existence he delves into the concept of thought proving existence. Because you are the creator, and sole owner and participant in that thought you must be real by way of that capability.). I agree entirely with those words. But suppose we were only to read that second half.
(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 repetitive thoughts are individual, each and every item thought of it entirely in the "now".)
Yes, each and every thought is entirely in the now, but i cannot say that these thoughts vanish after being spoken. For with every thought every human has, some kind of action is brought out that is inspired by that thought and with every action comes a reaction, and another and so on and so forth. What i am trying to say is that these ideas become "tangible items" and are constant through actions.
Now, I'm not trying to put you down on what you are saying, because i feel your analysis holds much truth, I am just seeing if there is/are other ways to look at this entry.
The ambiguity of the first statement comes through its wording and its transience. I agree with you that within determining that it is impossible to conclude you have reached your own conclusion- perhaps my wording was misleading, but D's dedication to the understanding of truths though his own methods (regardless of the conclusion) allow him satisfaction & full acceptance of whatever had been questioned.
In response to your remarks on "thought"; I think that even through action the idea itself is not a tangible item (in the true sense) because it must be mulled over, and finally transcribed in some way (be it through speech, writing, action, etc.) and proposed to the public to turn it into something "real". The same concept can be created by any like minded individuals, experiencing the same situations- through out the ages; but the person credited with the understanding & discovery of that concept will be the man who promoted this information to the masses.
In all literature, and in the study of all things, except for exact Sciences should be subject to personal interpretation. As I derive this thought from my reading of Emerson, and the Transcendentalists, it exemplifies the validity of both of our conclusions as well as the arguments of many philosophers and academics before us.
I appreciate your new persepective on my interpretation-
How very Descartes of you!!!!
"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
I think this was a great line to put in here. I feel that he is saying that a body alone is nothing but understanding the person makes the body. Again this can sort of relate to God, because basically I feel he is refering to a sole. So like I wrote in the blog, you can relate so much to God.
Post a Comment