These past couple of days I've been feeling bad, because I feel that I've been living in this bubble where everything is perfect. For the past couple of months I have met some really amazing and interesting people, who have had really impacting stories. I always thought every mom and dad must be like mine, every friend I have must be like everyone else's. I was so wrong though. This past weekend I realized what people have to go through to get to where they want. As much as I would love to share this person's story, I can't. I just know that the person went through a lot to be successful, but at the same is scared for life. It was so hard listening to this person's story, because I had no way of relating to the person. Like Mr.Summer's said, "In this society it's a custom to think about what we don't have, but we don't realize what we do have." I have never agreed with something so much like I do with this statement.
We sometimes get mad at our parents because they yelled at us or grounded us, but we appreciate the fact that we have parents there to put us back on the right path. Some people don't have parents at all or if they do they treat their kids really badly. There's some kids that didn't live in nice homes didn't have a TV or a bed to lie in. What would it feel like to seventeen and be on your own? Paying rent, going to school, and having two jobs just to be able to make it through the week? I wasn't able to understand this before, but the more I hear from people the more I understand that people that are hurting others are hurting themselves. There's no justification for what these people do, but I don't they realize they will be alone for the rest of their lives. The people they hurt and pushed away won't be there when they realize what they have wrong.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Alienation of Man
What does it mean to be alienated? How Hegel understood alienation was "the failure of the will of the individual to identify with the larger will of the society." I take it as the opposite of Hegel's idea of mutual recognition. One alienated himself or herself from society when he or she rejects or thinks the ideas of society are meaningless to him or her. I've felt like that before, not necessarily that the ideas were meaningless but that they weren't part of who I am. Kind of like they don't apply to me, because I don't believe in the idea. Hegel views the unifying of society as a necessary condition for happiness, and alienation is necessary condition for unhappiness. Even though, some feel that we are bounded by society we aren't really. If you follows society's rules and morals is capable of becoming happy, because there are people that recognize you and that look up to you for what you do.
In class we mentioned the quote, "what bounds you gives you freedom." If one conforms and does what society expects of him or her they are rewarded with the freedom to assert themselves in the society. We are giving opportunities that others that alienate themselves from society aren't given. Here is where the whole idea with mutual recognition comes in. If you alienate yourself you destroy the purpose of mutual recognition and you destroy the possibility of it happening. You are not able to recognize yourself and in turn you don't exists in the minds of others, as Hegel's philosophy of mutual recognition goes. Why would anyone try to alienate themselves from society when unifying with society brings about one's own happiness and recognition?
In class we mentioned the quote, "what bounds you gives you freedom." If one conforms and does what society expects of him or her they are rewarded with the freedom to assert themselves in the society. We are giving opportunities that others that alienate themselves from society aren't given. Here is where the whole idea with mutual recognition comes in. If you alienate yourself you destroy the purpose of mutual recognition and you destroy the possibility of it happening. You are not able to recognize yourself and in turn you don't exists in the minds of others, as Hegel's philosophy of mutual recognition goes. Why would anyone try to alienate themselves from society when unifying with society brings about one's own happiness and recognition?
Mutual Recognition-Hegel
Talking about Hegel in class has helped better understand his philosophy. The ideas of self-consciousness and the consciousness are more clearer. One needs to be recognized by another person to recognize himself or herself. When I recognize another person and that person recognizes me we have mutual recognition. Mutual recognition can be seen in the world wide web, and like some say Hegel was definitely a man ahead of his time. The internet permits us all to recognize other human beings and their thoughts and vice versa. Before we started talking in depth about Hegel, I just didn't understand why we needed another person to recognize us when we had ourselves to recognize us. However, that's not true because we have family and friends that we have developed relationships with and that recognize us. Family especially is a mutual recognition that inherently exists, because every recognizes each other in the same household. Friendships, like Mr.Summer's said greatly representative of Hegel's "mutual recognition." Better understanding Hegel helps to see his impact and his thought in our present world.
What is Death?
What is the meaning of death? I wasn't really sure until a couple of days ago. I have no lost both of my grandparents from my dad's side and it never hit me what that really meant. I have always thought when people die their souls move on to whatever after life exists, and that the only things that one has left of that person are the memories. Talking about Hegel in class helped me realize that the memories we keep of loved ones that have passed away means that they still exist. Their thought still exists and we can sometimes mirror ourselves in their thought. For example, if there was a saying that that person always said and one can connect to it one is mirroring him or her into that person.
I hadn't seen my grandparents in almost eleven years, and it hurt so much to know that I will never get the chance to develop a better relationship with them. All that remains on of them are pictures and memories, even as weird as it sounds mean that they are still alive. The fact that they are on my mind 24/7 now mean that they are still alive in a spiritual sense. My grandfather wasn't ready to die, but I think in the end he welcomed it because it meant he would be rejoined with my grandmother. It has greatly affected my father, of course, but I think that part of trying to move on is for family and friends to also accept death and what it means. Death is meant to be peaceful and it's supposed to mean that your soul will move on to be in God's kingdom. But how do you accept the death of a father, grandfather and brother, which is what he was? When I found out my grandfather had died the first thing I thought was "why?" Why did he have to leave and not give us the chance to see him for the last time? It's hard accepting death when one feels that it came to early. I don't think I'll be able to accept the idea of death for a long time, because I think of my parents and how I would find someone or something to blame if anything ever happened to them. I know death is a natural process of life, but what does that really mean?
I hadn't seen my grandparents in almost eleven years, and it hurt so much to know that I will never get the chance to develop a better relationship with them. All that remains on of them are pictures and memories, even as weird as it sounds mean that they are still alive. The fact that they are on my mind 24/7 now mean that they are still alive in a spiritual sense. My grandfather wasn't ready to die, but I think in the end he welcomed it because it meant he would be rejoined with my grandmother. It has greatly affected my father, of course, but I think that part of trying to move on is for family and friends to also accept death and what it means. Death is meant to be peaceful and it's supposed to mean that your soul will move on to be in God's kingdom. But how do you accept the death of a father, grandfather and brother, which is what he was? When I found out my grandfather had died the first thing I thought was "why?" Why did he have to leave and not give us the chance to see him for the last time? It's hard accepting death when one feels that it came to early. I don't think I'll be able to accept the idea of death for a long time, because I think of my parents and how I would find someone or something to blame if anything ever happened to them. I know death is a natural process of life, but what does that really mean?
Monday, October 31, 2011
White Paper
So how does a blank, 8 by 11 1/2 piece of paper represent all of humanity?.....So when Mr.Summers first presented this in class I was little confused and not all clear on the assignment. Then I actually started thinking about the question he pose and it all fit. All of humanity, regarless of religion, race, sex, etc., we all conform to our society. We all follow certain rules, believe in certain things, and act a certain way because we all want to fit it. We kind of do it subconsciously sometimes, but at the same time we are quite aware why we do it. The sharp edges and the four sides of the paper represent humanity's conformity to the established rules of societies, and how they can't be changed which are the sharp edges. The blankess of it represents the idea that we can paint and draw all kinds of people from all over the world, but in the end we end up drawing the same person because we all manage to somehow connect even though we live in different extremes of the world. Even if the paper is torn to pieces, riped in half, made into a ball it doesn't change what it stands for.There are many interpretations of how the white piece of paper represents humanity, but in the end it represents humanity as a whole with one specific personality.
"The Web of Intentions"- Matthew T. Grant
In this blog, Matthew T. Grant states that the world wide web is Hegel's Phenomenology of the Spirit in its true essence. Hegel's whole philosophy was about recognizing others around us and them recognizing us, and in turn it would allow us to realize that we are existent and are separate entities from one another. Facebook, Twitter, Tumbler, Blogger and many other websites is our self-consciousness and consciousness being realized because we each recognize the thoughts and actions of one another, because we post them up for everyone to see. The social networks mentioned above are what their name states "social networks" we are all able to communicate and realize our own existence through the realization of another that we are present. It's sort of hard notion to grasp and the more I learn about it the easier it is for me to understand what Hegel meant by it.
One of the most interesting parts of the blog was the idea that the Web doesn't file what we search everyday on Google or Bing, but actually files "what we do." It shows to others what we are thinking, what we are doing, and what we are feeling. It's kind of weird that we are able to show so much of ourselves through the screen of a computer, but shockingly we do so.
Source: http://www.matthewtgrant.com/2010/06/09/the-web-of-intentions/
One of the most interesting parts of the blog was the idea that the Web doesn't file what we search everyday on Google or Bing, but actually files "what we do." It shows to others what we are thinking, what we are doing, and what we are feeling. It's kind of weird that we are able to show so much of ourselves through the screen of a computer, but shockingly we do so.
Source: http://www.matthewtgrant.com/2010/06/09/the-web-of-intentions/
Video "Relationships"
In class we watched a video called "Relationships." It was pretty much an informative/documentary on how our world is evolving more and more towards technology. People play video games all the time and more connected to the virtual world rather than the real world. That is is really scary! I'm aware that we are only on Facebook, Twitter, Tumbler, and many other social networks hours and hours, but it's scary to know that we are on these websites 24/7. Because really we are on them 24/7 with our iPhones we are on them all the time because we have the apps for them. During class people are "tweeting" or on Facebook. Once we get on the computer or start playing a video game our minds are fully immersed in the activity and tend to block everything else out. People that are video games and playing with other people from around the world start to consider those people their "friends," even though they have not actually met them in person. There's no physical interaction, so how can that be considered a relationship at all?
The video went on to talk about "Second Life," a virtual world where people create virtual person of themselves and interact with people from all over the world. The film said, "...technology has separated us over the last fifty years and it's just bringing us back together." How is that true? I don't think it's bringing us back together, but rather separating us even more. How can we develop communicational skills when we don't actually communicate physically with one another? We spend more time in a virtual world than in our own realities. The company IBM, uses the program "Second Life" and state that they would save millions of dollars in using the program than flying out to a different country or state for a meeting. There's economic incentive in using the program for companies, but at the same time don't people realize that the actual world and the virtual world are starting to become one world. If our brains tell us something is real then it's real. We are deceived by our surroundings and our brains are starting to not distinguish between the real world and the virtual world.
The video went on to talk about "Second Life," a virtual world where people create virtual person of themselves and interact with people from all over the world. The film said, "...technology has separated us over the last fifty years and it's just bringing us back together." How is that true? I don't think it's bringing us back together, but rather separating us even more. How can we develop communicational skills when we don't actually communicate physically with one another? We spend more time in a virtual world than in our own realities. The company IBM, uses the program "Second Life" and state that they would save millions of dollars in using the program than flying out to a different country or state for a meeting. There's economic incentive in using the program for companies, but at the same time don't people realize that the actual world and the virtual world are starting to become one world. If our brains tell us something is real then it's real. We are deceived by our surroundings and our brains are starting to not distinguish between the real world and the virtual world.
Hegel's "Phenomenology of the Spirit"
When I first read the article about the Phenomenology of the Spirit, I was so confused because I couldn't really understand what Hegel was saying. The first three chapters are about distinct "shapes of consciousness." It is defined at "jointly epistemologiccal and ontological attitudes articulated by criteria which are, regarded from one direction, criteria for certain knowledge, and from the other criteria for indepedent objecthood. What is meant by independent objecthood?
I took the different shapes of consciousness to mean each person's own view on a certain person or topic. Our conscious is shaped in different ways according to what we have been taught and told to believe. Our consciousness takes shape when we recognize the subject or object and decide what our reaction to it will be.
Another aspect of Hegel's philosophy that was hard to understand was his notion of self-consciousness. One must recognize another person to be able to recognize himself or herself. However, why do we need to recognize that there are other people around us to self-recognize our own beings? That is just something that I was really confused on and it was a hard idea to grasp. What if I'm always the girl in the back who doesn't talk, does that mean that I'm not actually there because no one recognizes me? How is that possible? I know that I am real and I know that I am sitting in that class with all my other classmates, even if we do not directly communicate. Pretty much all of Hegel's philosophy surrounds the ideas of "consciousness" and "self-consciousness."
We discussed the two in class and I got a better understand of it, but it's hard to fully understand because it makes one doubt of one's existence to an extent. I don't think that I need someone else to recognize my existence to first know that I exist and second, that that person exists as well. Hegel's philosophy is a very interesting one, and it definitely has helped me open up to new things.
I took the different shapes of consciousness to mean each person's own view on a certain person or topic. Our conscious is shaped in different ways according to what we have been taught and told to believe. Our consciousness takes shape when we recognize the subject or object and decide what our reaction to it will be.
Another aspect of Hegel's philosophy that was hard to understand was his notion of self-consciousness. One must recognize another person to be able to recognize himself or herself. However, why do we need to recognize that there are other people around us to self-recognize our own beings? That is just something that I was really confused on and it was a hard idea to grasp. What if I'm always the girl in the back who doesn't talk, does that mean that I'm not actually there because no one recognizes me? How is that possible? I know that I am real and I know that I am sitting in that class with all my other classmates, even if we do not directly communicate. Pretty much all of Hegel's philosophy surrounds the ideas of "consciousness" and "self-consciousness."
We discussed the two in class and I got a better understand of it, but it's hard to fully understand because it makes one doubt of one's existence to an extent. I don't think that I need someone else to recognize my existence to first know that I exist and second, that that person exists as well. Hegel's philosophy is a very interesting one, and it definitely has helped me open up to new things.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Comments
To Jordan's post:
I completely agree that Kierkegaard and Nietzsche aren't exact opposites of each other, but one thing that I think is different between them is the notion of death. In that manner they are different, because Nietzsche doesn't want to let go of Earthly living and clutches to it thinking that will slow down the process of imminent death. Kierkegaard on the hand is about accepting death and not necessarily welcoming it but accepting that it will one day come and that you will be ready for it since you have placed all your faith in God and his promise. One you do that you can fully enjoy life and be a morally happier person, because you understand that death will happen and it's not something you are dreading. However, for Nietzsche people push the topic of death to the side and focus on only gaining power and not following God's moral law. Because of this they kind of self-destruct their own power and eventually reach the religious stage.
Emma's post:
I completely agree that Kierkegaard and Nietzsche aren't exact opposites of each other, but one thing that I think is different between them is the notion of death. In that manner they are different, because Nietzsche doesn't want to let go of Earthly living and clutches to it thinking that will slow down the process of imminent death. Kierkegaard on the hand is about accepting death and not necessarily welcoming it but accepting that it will one day come and that you will be ready for it since you have placed all your faith in God and his promise. One you do that you can fully enjoy life and be a morally happier person, because you understand that death will happen and it's not something you are dreading. However, for Nietzsche people push the topic of death to the side and focus on only gaining power and not following God's moral law. Because of this they kind of self-destruct their own power and eventually reach the religious stage.
Emma's post:
I agree and disagree because I feel that I can relate to both. Kierkegaard is all about faith in God and accepting death, but Nietzsche is all about the fear of it and rejecting faith. Nietzsche I think was obviously going through that "fear and trembling" feeling all through his life. He thought that seeking position and power, and in other putting oneself above God would somehow make the idea of death disappear or create some kind of certainty for people. Then we have Kierkegaard who is all about his three stages of life, mainly the religious one. I think about death, but never about my own which it weird to think about sometimes. I always think about other's deaths and that effec that would have on me. The more we talked about his in class and the fact that at some point we are going to die and have to accept it, makes me realize that I don't know when I will die it could happen tomorrow or in like fifty years. The fact is that if I accept it I can start to enjoy my life, and reach the ultimate stage which the religious one.
Alex ("Clutter"):
Alex ("Clutter"):
Wow! I don't even know how to start on this comment. You have completely evolved our meaning of clutter and what that means for our lives. We humans focus so much on the material aspect of our lives and if we have iPhones or not, that we lose that sense of simplicity. When everything is short and simple it can be understood easily and can be passed down from person to person easier. I think that at some point of another we all will reach the stage that you are in which I don't even know the name of. Once we realize that we don't need all these extra things in our lives everything will become easier and calmer. I think we all create our own Utopias, but to be able to accept that we don't need all these mateials things that society establishes as needs will definitely take some time. Humans don't want to accept the many things that you accepted and at such a young age too :). It's society that impedes us from creating our own Utopias because society establishes the rules and creates the pressure to conform. We definitely have a problem on our hands and it's time we start working towards a solution.
Soren Kierkegaard
At some or another in our lives we have experienced that uncertainty of what will happen to us after we die, and it scares us even think about it. I know that it hasn't actually hit me yet that death is not planned, and no one really knows when they will die. It could be in the next minute or it could happen in the next fifty years. That uncertainty worries us and causes us to doubt.
The philosopher Soren Kierkegaard was known for his creation of the three stages of the way of life. The first stage was the aesthetic stage that is based on sensory pleasures, both intellectual and physical. The only way someone could get out of the aesthetic stage and into the ethical stage was if they understood that the aesthetic stage leads to angst and evetually to despair. The ethical stage is based on moral codes, the infinite, and the eternal. To get out of the ethical stage one has to take a leap of faith, which causes a person to move onto the last stage which is the religious stage. The religious stage is when someone that put all their faith in God and wishes to live a morally happier life and to actually enjoy it.
In the case of Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov tried to a "superhuman" and act like he is above moral law and that power is the way out. In the end he confesses his crime to the murder of Alyona and his confession is what allows him to be saved and reach the religious stage. No one person can be extraordinary and above God's moral law. There is only so much power and position that someone can obtain, because humans are not capable of having that much power. Another example for people that reach the religious stage is when one accepts death as it is, and that sometimes happens with old people. Some old people understand and accept death, they have enjoyed life and gotten as much out of it as they can they welcome death whenever it decides to come. Those people that gone into the religious stage they have let go of that "Fear and Trembling" of imminent death, and learned to accept it and not be scared of it. Only a few people are able to reach that stage at a young age because we all want to survive and keep gaining position for ourselves. We don't want to accept death, because of two reasons we don't quite understand it ourselves and because of the belief that death should occur at an older age. However, if we enter into the religious stage at an earlier age wouldn't that allows us to fully and completely enjoy our lives without that constant dread of death in the back of our minds?
The philosopher Soren Kierkegaard was known for his creation of the three stages of the way of life. The first stage was the aesthetic stage that is based on sensory pleasures, both intellectual and physical. The only way someone could get out of the aesthetic stage and into the ethical stage was if they understood that the aesthetic stage leads to angst and evetually to despair. The ethical stage is based on moral codes, the infinite, and the eternal. To get out of the ethical stage one has to take a leap of faith, which causes a person to move onto the last stage which is the religious stage. The religious stage is when someone that put all their faith in God and wishes to live a morally happier life and to actually enjoy it.
In the case of Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov tried to a "superhuman" and act like he is above moral law and that power is the way out. In the end he confesses his crime to the murder of Alyona and his confession is what allows him to be saved and reach the religious stage. No one person can be extraordinary and above God's moral law. There is only so much power and position that someone can obtain, because humans are not capable of having that much power. Another example for people that reach the religious stage is when one accepts death as it is, and that sometimes happens with old people. Some old people understand and accept death, they have enjoyed life and gotten as much out of it as they can they welcome death whenever it decides to come. Those people that gone into the religious stage they have let go of that "Fear and Trembling" of imminent death, and learned to accept it and not be scared of it. Only a few people are able to reach that stage at a young age because we all want to survive and keep gaining position for ourselves. We don't want to accept death, because of two reasons we don't quite understand it ourselves and because of the belief that death should occur at an older age. However, if we enter into the religious stage at an earlier age wouldn't that allows us to fully and completely enjoy our lives without that constant dread of death in the back of our minds?
Friedrich Nietzsche
One of Nietzsche quotes that is very shocking is his quote about God's death.
"The last Christian died on the cross."
With God's death morality and truth no longer existed, as Nietzsche states. However, how can that be true when God's moral law (ten commandments) is followed by everyone. Not everyone follows all the ten commandments but we all adhere our values to conform to the ten commandments. We all have morals because that is what society has established as a rule. Our morals reflect our anxiety and need for certainty that after we die we will go to heaven that God has promised us. Nietzsche wasn't necessarily an atheist, but he thought that the elite called themselves "Christians" to give them a reason for the greediness that characterized them. So pretty much they used the word in name only, but did not actually act like morally just Christians.
How can truth no longer exist if God died? Truth is what obtained from God's death. He established truth, and even the philosopher went to God to ask him truth. Truth is defined as actuality or actual existence. How can that be disputed if all know we exist. If we didn't exist death would not happen and there would be nothing to look forward after death. It is the faith in God that keeps truth and morality existent. Faith goes beyond anything that we know, it's unexplainable. It can't be disputed so how can Nietzsche reject it?
"The last Christian died on the cross."
With God's death morality and truth no longer existed, as Nietzsche states. However, how can that be true when God's moral law (ten commandments) is followed by everyone. Not everyone follows all the ten commandments but we all adhere our values to conform to the ten commandments. We all have morals because that is what society has established as a rule. Our morals reflect our anxiety and need for certainty that after we die we will go to heaven that God has promised us. Nietzsche wasn't necessarily an atheist, but he thought that the elite called themselves "Christians" to give them a reason for the greediness that characterized them. So pretty much they used the word in name only, but did not actually act like morally just Christians.
How can truth no longer exist if God died? Truth is what obtained from God's death. He established truth, and even the philosopher went to God to ask him truth. Truth is defined as actuality or actual existence. How can that be disputed if all know we exist. If we didn't exist death would not happen and there would be nothing to look forward after death. It is the faith in God that keeps truth and morality existent. Faith goes beyond anything that we know, it's unexplainable. It can't be disputed so how can Nietzsche reject it?
Kierkegaard vs. Nietzsche
Question #2: Explain your understanding of the relationship between human values, morality, and God.
Human values origniate from one's own experiences and choices, but at the same time are greatly influenced by what society has established as good values for us to have. All humans share similar values for example, "people should all be treated with respect," "killing is wrong," and "equal rights for everyone." Human values influence our every day actions and determine if they are right or wrong.
Morality is defned as the conformity to the rules of what is considered right or just. Human values reflect a person's sense of right or wrong, in other words if the action is moral or not. Human values and morality are intertwined since morality influences what we consider good values or bad values to have. Now, the question is how does God influence human values and our decisions to act morally?
The values each one of us has at some or another has been influence by our faith in God. We base our values on moral law, which in turn is what God has set as rigth and wrong for us. Even though, some of us do not believe in God we all share values that thousands of years ago were established when God handed Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. We establish these values and make sure they follow moral law, in the belief that in the end God will award us and keep his promise to achieving salvation after we die. We want to make sure that we don everything right and act like good Christians to reach that stage after death. In the end, however, we all have our own distinct values because it is those that we live by and shape the kind of people we are, but those values always follow moral law; and if we act like morally just people God will reward with us with heaven.
Nietzsche states the morality hinders our ability to elevate our status as individual human beings, but if we didn't all follow a moral law how would the world be? It would filled with greedy people and the elite would completely control the masses. We can't ignore the fact that we all live by God's moral law so that in the end we have certainty of achieving heaven. Even if some of don't belive in heaven we follow society's moral law in hopes that where ever we end up after death will be a safe and joyful place.
Human values origniate from one's own experiences and choices, but at the same time are greatly influenced by what society has established as good values for us to have. All humans share similar values for example, "people should all be treated with respect," "killing is wrong," and "equal rights for everyone." Human values influence our every day actions and determine if they are right or wrong.
Morality is defned as the conformity to the rules of what is considered right or just. Human values reflect a person's sense of right or wrong, in other words if the action is moral or not. Human values and morality are intertwined since morality influences what we consider good values or bad values to have. Now, the question is how does God influence human values and our decisions to act morally?
The values each one of us has at some or another has been influence by our faith in God. We base our values on moral law, which in turn is what God has set as rigth and wrong for us. Even though, some of us do not believe in God we all share values that thousands of years ago were established when God handed Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. We establish these values and make sure they follow moral law, in the belief that in the end God will award us and keep his promise to achieving salvation after we die. We want to make sure that we don everything right and act like good Christians to reach that stage after death. In the end, however, we all have our own distinct values because it is those that we live by and shape the kind of people we are, but those values always follow moral law; and if we act like morally just people God will reward with us with heaven.
Nietzsche states the morality hinders our ability to elevate our status as individual human beings, but if we didn't all follow a moral law how would the world be? It would filled with greedy people and the elite would completely control the masses. We can't ignore the fact that we all live by God's moral law so that in the end we have certainty of achieving heaven. Even if some of don't belive in heaven we follow society's moral law in hopes that where ever we end up after death will be a safe and joyful place.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Hume vs. Descartes Debate
Descartes coined the phrase "I think, therefore I am." He rejected anything that was doubted and reaffirmes those ideas to establish the true knowledge. Hume states that we perceive everything through our senses and that even though, he does not reject reason it comes secondary to our senses. How can we trust our senses to tell what is true or not true, if our senses are prone to deceiving us? Our senses perceive things differently that other people's, there is no way that we trust our senses to tell us the exact truth about anything. One of Descartes best examples is the "Wax Argument." Descartes takes a piece of was and observes its characteristics: texture, shape, size, color, and smell. Then he brings the piece of wax towards a flame, the wax's characteristics change. Even though its characteristics change it is still the same piece of wax. His senses are the ones that tell him that its characteristics are different. To really understand the piece of wax, he needs to consider the nature of the wax, and for that he must put aside his senses and use his mind.
Hume states that reason is the slave of passions, passions being impressions (pain, joy, happiness). How is that possible? Humans use reason in every aspect of the world, in how they see things and in the manner in which they behave. Humans have the ability to supress the "passions" and use reason to evaluate and perceive their environment. Hume also states that we have knowledge of things that we directly experience. If that were true then what about all the knowledge that we gain from others and our past? All the knowledge that we gain from outside ourselves is gained by those people that have acquired it through their own experience. So if they have knowledge about that certain experience then why can't we believe that it is true as well? Our senses deceive us daily, but our ability to reason is what overshadows that flaw because our mind uses reason to be able to see through the deception.
Hume states that reason is the slave of passions, passions being impressions (pain, joy, happiness). How is that possible? Humans use reason in every aspect of the world, in how they see things and in the manner in which they behave. Humans have the ability to supress the "passions" and use reason to evaluate and perceive their environment. Hume also states that we have knowledge of things that we directly experience. If that were true then what about all the knowledge that we gain from others and our past? All the knowledge that we gain from outside ourselves is gained by those people that have acquired it through their own experience. So if they have knowledge about that certain experience then why can't we believe that it is true as well? Our senses deceive us daily, but our ability to reason is what overshadows that flaw because our mind uses reason to be able to see through the deception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)