Kant: Metaphysics vs. Math and Science

Math and Science have limits wheras metaphysics has bounds. Math and Science are complete in themselves and there are no questions that are left unanswered with enough time, insight, and progress. Metaphysics is bounded and reason offers questions up to itself that it can't answer. Metaphysics asks questions about the nature of things themselves. In other words, metaphysics raises questions that could possibly left unanswered given alot of time and insight. However, all questions given by math and science have a final point or answer.

Kant: On cause and effect

Kant agrees with Hume in regards to the fact that we can't discover the concept of cause and effect through experience or by means of reason. However, Kant does not agree with Hume regarding that cause and effect is a result of habit. Kant feels that causation is a priori understanding applied to appearances. We can know nothing about the thing in itself but only can know about how they appear to us. Causation is a form given to experience that makes it intelligible to us. I do feel that what we know about things are in fact just what we percieve or see them as. We will never know enough about something in itself since we will always only be offered a form that is seen.

Kant: Judgements of perception vs. judgements of experience

Judgements of perception according to Kant bring together several empirical intuitions that are only subjectively valid. For example, the sun is shing broghtly and therefore I can make judegemnt that a water bottle sitting in teh sun for a while will be warm. However, such a judgement is only true for me at that particular time. Judgements of experience apply pure concepts of understanding to judgements of perception turning them into objective, universally valid laws. For example, the sun CAUSED the water to be warm. Judgements of experience are synthetic a priori laws which make natural science possible.

kant: on senses

Humans use the senses significant to them. This is definately true since we are all unique and this variety that exists between teh human race would not be possible is we did not use the senses that are in accordance with our character. Kant uses examples such as heat, color, and tastes to show that these are all ideas we have that possible will not hold ground outside our existence.

kant: on why reason exists

Kant does not feel that there is any way to know the purpose of reason's existence. However, he does offer some insight into the thought of reason's existence. He feels that reason exists to tech us that there is something beyond experience that we cannot know. Through reason, we are givena more balanced perspective on the world. I feel that Kant is correct in his hypothesis on reason's existence. Reason is what makes us test our thoughts and go beyond measures to prove them. We would question nothing in life without this reason andtehrefore many of our inventions would not have ever come about.

Kant: On math

In the beginning Kant poses four questions and on is How is pure mathematics possible? Kant then begins saying that math consists of a priori cognitions and therfore one must be able to draw connections between different concepts by means of some form of pure intuition. since math consists of synthetic a priori cognitions then some form of pure intuition is innate within us that allows these connections to happen without an prior experiences.

kant and metaphysical

kant says that metaphysical is nature experience and rational. he says that metaphysical is a concept of nature making it an experience. but kant also says that metaphysical is pure rational concepts which could never be an experience. not sure what he means by this i guess it's not one or the other i guess i can be either. kant also says that truth of falsity of the metaphysical can not be determined by experience, and kant says this is the essential part of metaphysical.

jimmy

kant a priori a problem for empiricism

kant is an empiricist however he many times refers to things like math as a priori. a priori meand knowledge independent of observation or experience. this poses a big problem for kant and empiricists however because the empiricists base their ideas on a posteriori judgments, meaning that all knowledge comes form experience. empericists believe that knowldge comes only from experience or observation. this is why a priori judgements present a problem to empiricists. it also makes me wonder why kant uses a priori examples in his writing.

jimmy

kant and math

kant says that math is a pure product of reason and thourughly synthetical. kant says math is some ground of cognition a priori. kant says that math is not empirical but it is pure and a priori. math's judgments are alway visual.

kant: metaphysical cognition

kant says that metaphysical cognition can not be empirical. metaphysical can not come from experiences, or be physical. kant says the metaphysical is pure knowledge coming from pure understanding and pure reasoning. kant says the metaphysical knowledge is a priori. meaning because it is not physical knowledge you do not need experience to learn or understand it.

jimmy

Hume: On induction

Hume argues that induction is founded on persistence of regularities and that we cannot know nature is uniform through reason since reason comes in two kinds and each is inadequate. the first reason that is not effective, deductive reasoning which Hume feels we cannot prove regularities will continue since nature's course may change. The second reason that is not effective is effectively, inductive reasoning and Hume says that founding regularity on idea that regularity has always worked in the past is arguing in a circle. Hume does not feel that just because A occurs B is soon to follow. I think Hume is correct in his thinking because just because we drowned in the pool doe snot mean we will drown everytime we go in a pool.

Hume: On miracles

Basically Hume is in accordance with what many philosophers before him and after him have felt about miracles. He believes that miracles are not true or even valid since there is no evidence showing miracles actually occurred and have went against the laws of nature. It is easy to believe in something that is set out in front of you but to a certain degree I think that faith plays the larger role in the miracle game. Faith that God gives some this power of miracles. However. these miracles should not have to be publicized to be believed as possible to occur. Hume is correct in saying that miracles cannot be true or valid to even think of actually happening. However, I feel yes there is no evidence but why would anybody lie about something as sacred as a miracle.

kant and senses

accourding to kant all of our senses and understanting helps us to make sense of our experiences. kant says we can not apprehend objects with out our senses. kant believed that newton proved that everything that happens can be governed by the laws of science, but without experience there can be no world

kant and a priori

kant felt that all knowledge is a priori meaning all knowledge comes form experience. kant says that there can be no doubt, knowledge can only be learned by experience. i dont know if i beileve him or not. there are somethings that you feel are inherent but what if it was something expirenced at such a young age you just dont conciously remember the experience even though it caused knowledge.

jimmy

Hume: Relation of ideas vs. Matter of Fact

Relation of ideas are a priori and indestructable bonds created between ideas. Statements that are logically true like 2 + 2+4 and all bachelors are unmarried are examples of relations of ideas. Matters of fact deal with experience. This is seen in things such as saying that it will rain tomorrow or that the sun was out today. they are learned or a posteriori and can be denied unlike Relation of ideas.

Hume: distinction between impressions and ideas

Impressions include immediate sense impressions of sound, sight, and touch. they are vivid mental sensations. Emotions are considered impressions for Hume. Ideas are secondary since they are merely about impressions and are memories, thoughts, or beliefs concerning our impressions. Any idea that cannot be found to reflect back on a simple impression is meaningless. Hume then dismisses the bulk of metaphysics as consisting of meaningless ideas.

Hume: missing shade of blue

in his missing shade of blue experiment, he asks us to imagine a man that has seen every shade of blue but one. He feels that this man will be able to see this missing shade of blue even thought he has never experienced it. He can see this shade of blue by looking at the two the lie to either side of it. However, here Hume contradicts his thoughts about only knowing things that we in fact can experience. I think this argument is not a strong one for Hume and is unnecessary since it contradicts evrything he says in Enquiries.

Hume on liberty and necessity

Hume opens his argument here by stating that this whole debate with free will is due to a loss of understanding for the meaning of the words. He feels that all disputes of teh subject of liberty are verbal arguments that lie in teh hands of understanding the true definition of what liberty stands for. Hume offers his own definition of liberty and his definition then relies on the what people define free as. Therefore, this whole debate seems like a neverending cycle where people need to have a definite unchanging definition of the word liberty and what free is in order for an understanding to be achieved.

hume and geometry

i think it's interesting that hume uses math and geometry to try to prove the laws of physics and nature. it is these same laws hume uses to defend every argument he makes. all of humes arguments are based on whether or not they are rational and can be proved by the laws of nature and physics. i like that instead of just telling he readers to believe something like some other philosophers did he trys to back up his proofs with more proofs.

jimmy

hume and god

hume never comes out and says there is no god but he pretty much says that christianity is based on falseness. hume says that christianity bases their teaching and beliefs in miracles and he thinks that miracles can not possible exist. hume says that if you put all the best evidence supporting a miracle on one side of a balance and true proved knowledge learned from experience on the other side, the side with the proof of miracles will come up short every time. he does not say there is no god but he does say he doesn't think miracles are possible.

jimmy

liberty and necessity

it seems that the biggest tension in the controversy of liberty and necessity in hume's point of view is the language and vocabulary. hume says that if the meaning of some word could have been agreed upon thousands of years ago than there would be less confussion when it comes to the agrument of liberty and necessity. because everyone views liberty and necessity a little different there can be no end to this argument.

jimmy

hume's missing blue

in the missing shade of blue argument hume completely contaticts him self. i don't want to go back to being mr. negativity and trying to find the flaw in every argument but how could you overlook this one. hume says that you cant know the effect of something without witnessing it, but now he is saying that if you told him there was a missing shade of blue he could get an idea of what it looked like by looking at the two shades on either side of the missing one. this also deals a little with induction i think, which he also said is not rational.

jimmy

hume and induction

when hume talks of induction, or kowing event B to follow event A he uses the example of the sun rising a lot. he says because the sun rises everyday you have no reason to believe it will not rise the next day. this is induction because there is not proof that the sun will rise again but common sense tells you because it rose to day and yesterday and the day before and the day before that, that it will indeed rise tomorrow. hume says that induction is not rational because you have no concrete way to proove it will happen even if common sense tells you it will.

jimmy

Hume on cause and effect

hume says that all matters of fact come from experience. he says that you cant know cause and effect untill you have experienced it. he says even adam, whose rational faciliteis supposed to be perfect, couldn't tell that the water would sufficate him just because it is wet. Also adam could not tell that fire would consume him just because it is bright and hot. he also says that if you are given something you have never seen before and asked to describe the effect it might have, you would have to run scenerio's through your mind on what it might do and most likely draw on past experiences that are similar.

jimmy

Kant on Math and Science

Right in the beginning of his 3rd part, Kant explains an overview of what he will discuss in this chapter when he says, "Pure mathmatics and pure natural science had no need for such a deduction (as has been made for both) for the sake of their own safety and certainty. For the former rests upon its own evidence, and the latter (though sprung from pure sources of the understanding) upon experience and its thorough confirmation." I see this as kind of what Hume was saying in his book about how math and science are solidified proof, and can't be taken for anything else because they are there in front of you, there is nothing you have to think critically about to analyze them.

Kant on Senses...

Kant tries to discuss how humans have senses that only are significant to them, he brings Locke's past philosophy as an example when he says, "Long before Locke's time, but assuredly since him, it has been generally assumed and granted without detriment to the actual existence of external things that many of their predicates may be said to belong, not to the things in themselves, but to their appearances, and to have no proper existence outside our representation." Kant gives examples of what he means by saying things like heat, color, and taste are all ideas we have, but may not hold ground outside of our existence. I did my best to try and understand what he was trying to say, and translated it best i could along with i agree that what he says is generally true on the subject at hand.

Kant vs Hume

Kant tries to argue against some of what Hume says about cause and effect. This is shown when Kant says, "Kant leveled his attack mainly against the third condition, but other people have found objections to the first two conditions as well. In the realm of colliding billiard balls, the cause does precede the effect in time." And Kant just continues to discuss other examples and what variables have brought him to question what Hume says in his book, trying to prove him wrong for what he discusses.

Kant on metaphysics

Right in the beginning of the book, Kant presents the question to all people whether a thing like metaphysics be at all possible trying to have people open their minds to what he has to say. I have trouble understanding him, but he says if a science like metaphysics is at all possible...there must be some sort of doubt surrounding the same subject, or at least that is what i gathered from what he says. Kant wants the reader to think about other various possibilities to go back and answer his original question.

Hume dealing with miracles

Like many philosophers, Hume does not believe miracles are possible because there is no concrete evidence that goes against laws of nature, that makes miracles an actual possibility. People claim to have an event like a miracle happen to them, but there is no proof of an actual miracle taking place, so in this case i have to take the side of many philosophers and say miracles are not an actual possibility. An example i can think of with people claiming miracles is someone saying they have seen God, but as we have talked about at length, human error is a normal part of everyday life, and nothing like this has ever been proven, so therefore, is not a miracle.

Hume on animals

Hume talks about how we as humans are almost exactly like animals and i tend to agree. We evolved from animals so its not surprising that we still carry many of the same traits. Some that i can think of off the top of my head are things like birth and emotionlike feelings of violence. There are many other traits between animals and us, but i think those are the ones that stand out, i also completely agree with what Hume says when comparing the two. Just too similar to not be of the same thinking.

Hume Science

Hume mentions and shows how much he enjoys math and the sciences because there is no chance at there being any fault. Math is there and the answers derived from there are what they are, there in no chance of lack of understanding because the answer is solidified and anyone can see the answer to a simple math equation without having to put any human error into it. I agree with Hume here, i don't like math, but there is no way to have error in simple math, math is taken for what it is based on equations that are performed.

Hume on Chance vs. Probability

Hume argues there is no such thing as chance in the world, but people put themselves in a superior position, or probability, that things will happen. He continues to talk about how besides chance there are causes, which many cases, happen very regular and predictable, but at other points may prove different, and i thought it funny that instead of philosophers calling it chance, they try to figure out what kept the cause from happening in its usual way, instead of just saying luck or chance.

Hume on the origin of ideas

I thought Hume's chapter on the origin of ideas was very interesting and right off the start began talking about how memory can be distorted and there is always a difference between actually physical feeling, and the memory trying to recall the feeling or sensation. One of my favorite quotes out of the book was the last sentence of his first paragraph when he says "The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation," that quote makes a lot of sense to explain how he feels about thoughts vs. sensation.

Knowledge

Locke speaks about how "rational knowledge is the perception of the certain agreement or disagreement of any two ideas by the intervention of one or more other ideas." He continues with how judgement is the taking of those ideas and then make them frequent, which i thought was interesting because these ideas that are considered judgement from which can have consequences when turned into words to other people. What I think he is trying to say or what i understand from it is that people have judgement, but those ideas don't always have to be spoken, and when they are will always have some sort of consequence.

Knowing God Exists

Locke explains that God is proven true without showing himself of any definitive form, but because we have knowledge and ideas. Even though he doesn't believe God is innate, he still believes that God is a definitive factor in our lives even though we may question it is what I got from it. He gives multiple examples of how God is obvious without us having to think about it any more then what he presents.

the truth about god

later in his argument about god locke makes the same argument that descarte made. he says there must be a god because we were created and we could not have been created by nothing. also he says anything that has a begining (ie birth) must have been created, and this goes back to the created by god idea. also he says who ever created us is all knowing and with out there would be no knowledge in the world. by this argument locke is saying, i think, if there wasn't a god then there would be no knowledge at all in the universe.

the existance of god

locke is convinced that there is a god and he is as sure about god as he is about mathmatics. locke says that you can prove god like you can prove math, but then he never really gives a proof, he just says that because we exist there must be a god. im not sure if he really believes that or not, but i find it a little much to just take. maybe i'm just a skeptic and i don't want my beliefs to aklter the way i view lockes writting.

the search for truth

Like Descartes, Locke was also intrested in finding truth. however locke is not as concerned with findin the truth in everything. locke doesn't think it's necessary to question everything, and disclame all knowledge. locke says there are some things you just don't need to know. he uses the example of the sailor. the sailor has to know about ropes of all lenths and how to tie many knots, however he can not fathom the depths of the ocean, but that doesn't mean that the ocean isn't deep. Locke says we don't need to be bothered with the things that escape out knowledge.

innate ideas

Locke is very adament about the fact that no one is born with innate ideas. unlike descartes who belived that there are many simple ideas you are born with. Lock however feels that there are no ideas imprinted on you mine before you are born. He is convinced that evertything you know no matter how simple was learned. he makes the point that some ideas that could be percieved as being innate were really just so simple that you learn them very easily. he uses the example of color recognition. it isn't hard to learn but it is learned.

Knowledge of the existence of the external world

Locke agrees with Desacrtes' arguments made about the knowledge of ourselves and God but he is unique in his argument on sensitive knowledge. Locke views sensitive's knowledge problem to be the idea that the skeptic holds: if we only have acess to our own ideas then how do we even know a world out there exists? In response to the skeptic's feelings, Locke formulates three strategies. First, he wonders if anyone can deny the existence of the external world and simply states to not take the skeptic seriously. Second, he tells those whose belief is strong in the skeptic to continue to believe since we already know enough to help us get around in the world. Third, he creates a long and detailed argument based on inference to fidn truth in the claim that an external world exists. In this argument, he uses the example of a deaf person never knowing the sound of a French horn to explain that we cannot get any ideas without the organ appropriate for them. He also says that these ideas can be recieved only in certain situations.
-Chris Rehonic

Knowledge of the existence of things

Locke believes that we know the existence of things well but regarding the nature of the things, we are not so capable of understanding. He creates a three part argument of the knowledge of the existence of things. The first part of the argument deals with our knowledge over ourselves, intution. The second part of the argument deals with our knowledge of the existence of God or demonstration. The third part deals with our knowledge of the existence of the external world, which is known through sensitive knowledge.
- Chris Rehonic

God and Language

Right at the beginning of the section Locke describes how God's greatest gift to people was the way to communicate ideas and words to one another. He says without language, people would be just like animals who can make sounds and communicate, but have no way of speaking language to each other. I thought it was interesting that Locke picked language out as the most important thing people were given, to convey the ideas they have. Locke also considers those people without an extensive vocabulary or correct use of language to be ignorant.

3 levels of Knowledge according to Locke

The first level of Knowledge that is the highest level is INTUITION. With intuition we can immediately see an agreement or disagreement the moment an idea that is presented to us is understood. Right below intuition falls DEMONSTRATION. With demonstration, a proof must be worked through in order to see a connection between ideas. Each step of the proof involves intuition and therefore all knowledge is dependent on intuition. The final and lowest level involves SENSITIVE KNOWLEDGE that is a pseudo- knowledge. Locke estabilishes these three levels of knowledge that build upon the highest level of INTUITION.
-Chris Rehonic

Knowledge: what is it? (Locke)

Locke defines knowledge as "the perception by reason of teh connection and agreement or repulsion and disagreement between any two or more ideas" (CHapter IV). Locke then presents us with four different types of disagreements or agreements that reason can percieve to produce knowledge. One type is Identity and Diversity which is A=A or a bachelor is not married. The next is Relation which means a diamond is a square laid on its side. The next is Coexistence which is that the area of a triangle is always one half the base times the height. The last deals with existence belonging to ideas themselves, which is the idea of God and of the self. A strong connection between ideas must exist in order ot be called knowledge. When discussing ideas of disagreement, teh connection is of illogical inconsistency. When talking about ides in agreement, a necessary connection needs to be made.
- Chris Rehonic

Locke vs. Descartes differences...

As we also talked about in class, was the way Locke and Descartes differs in there view of innate ideas. Locke believes that even though there may be certain instances where innate ideas can be found, there is no such thing as having an innate idea. On the other hand, Descartes feels that the examples Locke gave as not being able to be innate, Descartes believes these ideas are wrong because he tends to believe in innateness. But at the same time, I as a reader, have to question how much the idea of God in their discussions if forced out because of how harsh the punishments would be for speaking out about things out of the ordinary like the non-existence of God.

God and Innateness

Continuing along the lines of Locke's discussion about God being the closest to being innate. I feel that this is still very unclear because if it were innate there would not be a need for so much discussion about whether or not there is such a thing as God, and also people would not be fighting over beliefs to this very day. If God was such a solidified innate idea many would just know what to think and if their beliefs are indeed true, but with this point, I tend to agree with Locke that there is no such thing as innateness.

innate ideas - john locke

Locke considers innate ideas in three phases. First, he draws us to thinking of developing children. Developing children clearly come into world without any prior ideas since much of their ideas are only of things they actually experienced. Second, he brings up ideas such as "existence" and "identity." He feels these ideas are the least likely to be innate since they are confusing and unclear.Locke feels that if we were in fact born with these ideas then we would be more clear on what they meant without tryingto figure out their meaning as much as we do. Third, he discusses the idea of God. This idea is probably the most likely to be innate. However, even the idea of God is not innate since many cultures do not believe in any God.

tabula rasa- john locke

John Locke believed in the idea of tabula rasa or clean slate. He believed that we all started off with this clean slate and had no innate ideas when we are born. As we grow, our slate fills up with knowledge that is based on our prior experiences. Experience is what makes our knowledge. Our knowledge is not based on anything before our birth for Locke. Descartes, on the other hand, believed that we are born with innate ideas and our experiences expand to create a knowledge base for us. However, Locke attacks this theory that humans are born knowing certain things.

in locke's search for truth he says that we should all seek the truth. when i say truth i mean knowledge because i think that both he and descartes viewed truth and knowledge as very similar things if not the same. you can't have knowledge without truth, because if you can't prove something is so than you can't know it. i think it's interesting that locke view's it as sort of a crime against humanity to not seek out knowledge or the truth. he refers to the waiste of knowledge as childish and peevishness. he says not only should we value our knowledge but we should improve it as much as we can.

the first thing about locke that caught my attention is his stance on truth is similar to decartes. he mentions the ideas we have in our understanding and whether they depend on matter or not. i think he means whether or not they are true or real, and whether they are based on any truth. in the section, method, he says either there is no such thing as truth at all or that mankind hath no sufficient means to attain a certain knowledge of it. i think he's saying if there is no truth than there is nothing to base any knoledge on.

Meditation 3

What i found really interesting from this piece was in the last page or so, was the fact that he believes the idea of God is innate, and we have been talking about how Locke in the upcoming book shoots down the idea of innateness and says there is no such thing. It is hard to try and believe either one when they both disagree so drastically and really leaves it up to self thought and what the reader believes.

Meditation 3

     After coming up with his argument for the existence of God, the Meditator then begins to feel that he may be supremely perfect.  He feels that all his mistakes or vices are potentialities within him, and slowly he is moving towards perfection.  The idea of God can be conceived in him without outside cause if he has the potential to be perfect.  However, for three reasons this idea is rejected by the Meditator.  One, God = all actual and not all potential.  Two, since he is in a constant process with his improvement then he will never attain perfection.  Three, potential being is not being (idea of God is caused by something with infinite actual being).  Since he knows God exists he questions where did he receive this idea.  He concludes the idea must be innate and must have been created by God since he himself was created by God. God can not be deceiving him since he is perfect and in order to deceive you must be imperfect.     

--Chris Rehonic

Meditation 3: the existence of God

    As the Meditator considers God as an infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, supremely intelligent, and supremely powerful substance which created all, the Meditator realizes the idea of God is more objective rather than formal in reality.  The idea of God could not have originated in himself, therefore the Meditator concludes that God must be the cause of this idea and must then necessarily exist.  The Meditator then starts saying that doubts and desires come from an understanding that we lack something, and we would not be aware of that lack unless we were aware of a more perfect being that has those things we lack.  Doubting the existence of other things is not a problem for the Meditator but doubting the idea of God is not possible since he has a clear and distinct perception of God's existence.  The idea has infinite objective reality making it truer than any other idea.  

---Chris Rehonic

meditation 3

What I found interesting was how he talks about how he can't be God because he is not infinetely perfect as God is, and he asserts this when he talks about if he got his being from himself, he would give himself all the perfections of God, and ultimately he would make himself God! Throughout the section he tries to prove to himself and people reading this book that he is not God and everything comes from God because all things have imperfections to a certain point.

meditation 3

i've been pretty sceptical about the whole god argument, but in paragraph 41 he says nothing can not come into being out of nothing, and something perfect can not come from someting less perfect. i'm not sure if he's saying there is a god but he is deffinatly implying that there is something out there responsible for creating everything we see. Also it might be a little off topic but he compares reality to perfection. the more reality something contains the more perfect it is.

meditation 3

there's a lot going on in this meditation but i think the main point is weather or not god exists. at one point he makes a real interesting point. he says you can't see heat but you can feel it. he goes on to talk about different things you no are true and can't see. i guess he's trying to say just cause you can't see god does not mean you can't prove he is there.

jimmy

meditation 3: Theory of Ideas

According to the meditator, there are three sources for ideas. Ideas can be innate, adventitious, or invented by us. Innate are ideas that are born in us. Adventitious ideas are those coming form the outside of us like our sensory perceptions. Ideas invented by us are like ideas of mermaids and unicorns. However, he is not sure of where the ideas come from and which come from where. However, he concerns himself with adventitious ideas and why he thinks they come from the outside. His will does not have any effect on adventitious ideas. For example, he says that when it is hot he cannot prevent himself from being hot through his will. He concludes by assuming that whatever outside source transmits adventitious ideas transmits its own likeness rather than something else.
-- Chris Rehonic

Meditation 3: Clear and Distinct perceptions

The meditator in this begins to review what he already had learned. He is doubtful of the existence of bodily things but is certain that he exists and that he is a thinking thingthat doubts, understands, wills, imagines, and senses. He clearly and distinctly percieves that he is a thinking thing. He could not be certain of this fact unless all clear and distinct perceptions are certain. Therfore, he continues on by saying that whatever is percieved distinctly and clearly is true. He admits that he percieves ideas of material object, but concludes he was wrong to infer from these ideas that his perception could inform him of the things themselves. He then says that he is certain of arimetic and geometry although he cannot be absolutely certain since God may be decieving him and looks into the nature of God.
--Chris Rehonic

Meditation 3

throughout meditation 3, Descartes asks himself whether or not his thoughts can determine whether or no there is such a thing as God. In my opinion to cover his tracks on this touchy subject he states that he has trouble believing if there is such a thing as God, there is no way he could be a deciever in his eyes. But as the book progresses he even questions his own statements like in other parts of the book and wonders if there is God, maybe he could be a deciever.

Meditation 3

it seems like there's a lot more going on then it shows on the surface of this meditation. it seems like he is making a lot of different analogies this way and that way almost to distract you from what is going on. i said something about this in the class discussion and i'll restate it here, i almost think he might not be fully convinced himself and he is just saying this for fear of persecution. maybe i'm just being scepticle, i don't know...

Discourse on Method, part 4, paragraph 2

Descartes continues you to discuss the existence of God through the perfect and imperfect mind. He believes the imperfect mind creates the delusions of imperfect objects such as the earth, the sky, etc... but the perfect mind holds thoughts of God which are not delusions. He concludes that God is a perfect mind and all perfections embodied by Descartes and others are a result of God's perfection. Another proof to God is seen through the use of a geometric proof that is all too familiar. This proof is one referring to triangles having three angles and the angles must add up to equal 180 degrees. God's existence is as certain as this proof. When contemplating God, existence is as much essential to being a property of God as having three angles in a triangle adding to be 180 degrees is a property of triangles. People have difficulty with these proofs according to Descartes since they exclusively rely on them using their senses and imagination. Unlike the geometric proofs, God's existence is percieved only by reason and not by the senses and imagination.
-- Chris Rehonic

Discourse on Method, Part 4

Descartes here is laying his foundation down to build upon. He states in prior readings that you should act decisively even when uncertain but then here says the complete opposite when he states that anything you can doubt is false. As a result, he only hold onto things that are certainly true without any doubt. Descartes abandons sensory knowledge and demonstrative knowledge. He feels that sensory knowledge means nothing since our senses can decieve us. Demonstrative knowledge has its flaws since people make errors when reasoning. Descartes believes that all the information entered in his mind areno more than the illusions brought on by his dreams. This ability to doubt is what is essential to his foundation. "I think, therefore I am" is his principle in part 4. He believes that since he can dount all these things then in this doubt he is thinking and that must mean he exists. Therefore, he is a thinking substance. Truth to this foundation is found through his distinct and clear perceptions.
-- Chris Rehonic

God vs. perfection

Descartes discusses how he finds out nothing in the world in ultimate perfection. The only perfect thing in existence is God himself and anything else has a flaw or imperfection of some kind. He also goes on to describe how the examples with flaws are made by God because no matter how close to perfection it can be, nothing can be absolutely perfect or else that would mean him, or anyone else would be God.

dicourse #4 paragraph 1

I think the first big main point he is getting at is the search for truth. I find it really interesting that to find truth Descartes feels or says you need to first doubt everything, and reject everything that he could imagine any doubt. I'm not sure but i think he saying for it to be true it has to have no doubt. I think he's getting at you have to doubt everything you can imagine and everything you were ever taught, because who's to say it was true. The biggest point in this first paragraph is that the only thing he can not doubt is himself because he must be true and he must exist if he can think....

jimmy

Descartes Discourse #4

There's a good deal going on in this discourse and i'll add more later but i wanted to get started. In this discourse Descartes is meditating on existance. How do you really know if something exists? To answer this question he said you have to reject anything you've ever known. He makes the point that he must exist because he is thinking. This is the very popular "I think therefore i am." From here he says that something must have put these ideas in his mind, and they must have come from a more perfect nature than himself. He makes the point that these thoughts must have come from God. There is a lot more to discouse in this discourse and i will revisit it soon, but for now i think the biggest point he is trying to make is challenge everything. Nothing exists unless you can prove it exists. One other big point i think he is making is anything that anyone thinks or imagines while it may not be true it must have some fondation in truth, for to exist it must be true.
jimmy vanvalen