Up@dawn 2.0 (blogger)

Delight Springs

Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Questions Sep 22/23

 Spinoza, Locke, & Reid... LISTEN ('19)  

1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______.

2. If god is _____, there cannot be anything that is not god; if _____, god is indifferent to human beings.

3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion.

4. According to John Locke, all our knowledge comes from _____; hence, the mind of a newborn is a ______.


5. Locke said _____ continuity establishes personal identity (bodily, psychological); Thomas Reid said identity relies on ______ memories, not total recall.

6. Locke's articulation of what natural rights influenced the U.S. Constitution?

7. What happened after the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) adopted its founding document in 1962?

8. Who were our first gun rights absolutists?

9. When did Kurt Andersen realize fantasy would now rule pop culture?

10. What pharmacological development, "available everywhere by 1965," made sex less "real"?

11. Cosmetic surgery is linked to the start of what new "national fantasy?"

12. What did Sci-fi writer Phil Dick say that "fake realities will create?"


DQ:

  • COMMENT: "The greater our knowledge of natural phenomena, the more perfect is our knowledge of the essence of God." (Spinoza)
  • COMMENT: "The word of God is faulty, mutilated, tampered with, and inconsistent" because it has been relayed to us via mere human beings." What's your view of Spinoza's alternative, basically a geometrically-inspired deduction of divine necessity based on a redefinition of God's "word" as mathematical?
  • Do you agree with Spinoza that it's a mistake "to suppose that God wants people to behave in one way rather than another, that He makes promises, or that He distributes gifts"? DE 93
  • Do you agree with Spinoza that "it would argue great imperfection in God if anything happened against His will"? 94
  • Do you agree with Spinoza on the purpose of the miraculous stories in the Bible? 97, 99
  • Is any aspect of nature deserving of worship? 104
  • What do you think of Spinoza's definition of "salvation"? 107
  • Was Einstein "probably just being diplomatic" when he said he believed in Spinoza's God? 111
  • Can we freely choose to renounce free will? Or freely choose to affirm it? Or seek new desires? (Schopenhauer: "We can do what we want, but not want what we want.")
  • Can a rationalist pantheist endorse delusional sources of happiness? Or cheer meaningfully for the home team? (See my dawn post...)
  • Was Einstein being disingenous or misleading, when he affirmed "Spinoza's God"?
  • Comment: "There isn't an inch of earth where God is not."
  • Do you agree with Campbell (PB podcast) that the function of brains is to help us navigate the world that lies beyond our own consciousness? Or is it without any intrinsic connection to an external world?
  • If the inner world of a newborn is a "blooming buzzing confusion," as William James said, does that show Locke to be right about the contentlessness of the natal mind? Does the mind really start from scratch, an empty vessel? Or might people like the linguist Noam Chomsky and psychologist Steven Pinker be right, to say that the human mind comes equipped with specific, evolved structures for learning language and other things?
  • What's your earliest stored memory? How do you know you're the same person you were before your first recorded memory? Would this be an especially frightening question if you had Alzheimer's? If you ever experience significant or total memory loss, will that be the end of you?
  • Do you notice a difference in the quality of your various experiences. such that some feel immediate and direct (a sunset, an interpersonal encounter, an "epiphany" etc.) while others are more remote, filtered, or "mediated" (a televised sunset, an online chat, a familiar thought)? Is that feeling of immediacy real? What do you think you are encountering, when you have an immediate experience: sensations, perceptions, concepts, ideas... or the world that causes them?
  • How would you fill out the phrase Esse est ____, To be is to be _____?
  • Do you support separation of chuch and state? Do you value and practice "toleration"? Or is even that too mild an acceptance of others' freedom? Would you want to live in a society whose rules were imposed by Imams, Ayatollahs, or the pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church?
  • What do you think of Morpheus' speech in The Matrix, when he says if you think of things you can touch, feel, hear, see etc. as "real," then reality is just electrical signals in the brain? Agree? Does that make you a skeptic? 
  • Can you draw the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, as Locke did, without becoming either a skeptic or a metaphysical idealist like Berkelely? If you did agree with Berkeley, how would that change your daily life and experience? Is this ultimately a distinction (Primary & Secondary Qualities) without a difference, hence irrelevant from a pragmatic POV?
Dream of Enlightenment (Gottlieb)-



Why Spinoza still matters
At a time of religious zealotry, Spinoza’s fearless defence of intellectual freedom is more timely than ever

In July 1656, the 23-year-old Bento de Spinoza was excommunicated from the Portuguese-Jewish congregation of Amsterdam. It was the harshest punishment of herem (ban) ever issued by that community. The extant document, a lengthy and vitriolic diatribe, refers to the young man’s ‘abominable heresies’ and ‘monstrous deeds’. The leaders of the community, having consulted with the rabbis and using Spinoza’s Hebrew name, proclaim that they hereby ‘expel, excommunicate, curse, and damn Baruch de Spinoza’. He is to be ‘cast out from all the tribes of Israel’ and his name is to be ‘blotted out from under heaven’.

Over the centuries, there have been periodic calls for the herem against Spinoza to be lifted. Even David Ben-Gurion, when he was prime minister of Israel, issued a public plea for ‘amending the injustice’ done to Spinoza by the Amsterdam Portuguese community. It was not until early 2012, however, that the Amsterdam congregation, at the insistence of one of its members, formally took up the question of whether it was time to rehabilitate Spinoza and welcome him back into the congregation that had expelled him with such prejudice. There was, though, one thing that they needed to know: should we still regard Spinoza as a heretic?

Unfortunately, the herem document fails to mention specifically what Spinoza’s offences were – at the time he had not yet written anything – and so there is a mystery surrounding this seminal event in the future philosopher’s life. And yet, for anyone who is familiar with Spinoza’s mature philosophical ideas, which he began putting in writing a few years after the excommunication, there really is no such mystery. By the standards of early modern rabbinic Judaism – and especially among the Sephardic Jews of Amsterdam, many of whom were descendants of converso refugees from the Iberian Inquisitions and who were still struggling to build a proper Jewish community on the banks of the Amstel River – Spinoza was a heretic, and a dangerous one at that... (continues)



Betraying Spinoza (Goldstein, Damasio on Open Source radio)... Spinoza's Mind (Goldstein at Stanford)... 



==
In January of 1936, a school girl named Phyllis wrote to Einstein to ask whether you could believe in science and religion. He was quick to reply.
My dear Dr. Einstein,

We have brought up the question: 'Do scientists pray?' in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men, to try and have our own question answered.

We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?

We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis's class.

Respectfully yours,

Phyllis
He replied a few days later:
Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,
your A. Einstein

In his reply to Phyllis, Einstein hints at his pantheism; the idea that “God is everything". Several times he expressed this view explicitly, telling the Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, “I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." He went further in telling an interviewer that he was, “fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism." This pantheism would form the basis of his worldview, and even influence his ideas in physics.
Ok, but what is pantheism exactly?
Pantheism can be defined as a few similar ideas. In the simplest form, it is the belief that everything is identical to God. Holders of this view will often say that God is the universe, nature, the cosmos, or that everything is “one" with God. However, some holders of the view argue that it can also mean that the essence of the divine is in everything without everything “being part" of God... (continues)
==
A handwritten missive by Albert Einstein known as the “God letter” fetched almost $3m at auction on Tuesday.

Christie’s auction house in New York stated on Tuesday afternoon that the letter, including the buyer’s premium, fetched $2.89m under the hammer. That was almost twice the expected amount.

The one-and-a-half-page letter, written in 1954 in German and addressed to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, contains reflections on God, the Bible and Judaism.

Einstein says: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” (continues)
==
Pantheism and Spinoza's God
Einstein had explored the idea that humans could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in George Sylvester Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great (1930), Einstein responded to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist. He explained:
Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.[22]
Einstein stated, "My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."[23]
On 24 April 1929, Einstein cabled Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in German: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[24] He expanded on this in answers he gave to the Japanese magazine Kaizō in 1923:
Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. [...] This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).[25]
Wiki 
==

Religion and Science

By Albert Einstein

(The following article by Albert Einstein appeared in the New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4. It has been reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc. 1954, pp 36 - 40. It also appears in Einstein's book The World as I See It, Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28.)

Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one tries to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.

The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even or life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.

The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.

It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms." (Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)

26 comments:

  1. Do you agree with Spinoza that it's a mistake "to suppose that God wants people to behave in one way rather than another, that He makes promises, or that He distributes gifts"? DE 93

    I disagree with Spinoza because I feel like God in a sense does want people to behave in a certain way so that people can align their morals and lifestyles with him and his understanding. And to me from the bible’s standpoint I do think God puts out certain promises to those who truly follow him.
    Do you agree with Spinoza that "it would argue great imperfection in God if anything happened against His will"? 94

    I disagree. Though imperfections can be found in many things like people for example I don’t think there’s this connection between things or those who are imperfect and God because people are meant to have some form of imperfections but not God.

    Can we freely choose to renounce free will? Or freely choose to affirm it? Or seek new desires? (Schopenhauer: "We can do what we want, but not want what we want.")

    Though I feel people have the option to choose their free will there are limits set in place for how someone can go about choosing their own form of liberty.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would like to add that though we have the ability to choose our actions we have little control over our desires and feelings. I think the point Schopenhauer was trying to get across was that we can control what we do, but not whether or not we want to do it. For example, I can choose to run a 10k marathon, but that doesn't mean I will like it.

      Delete
  2. (H03)"The greater our knowledge of natural phenomena, the more perfect is our knowledge of the essence of God." 
    I think Spinoza’s idea that God and nature are the same thing is probably the idea of God I most agree with out of all the ones I’ve heard in my life. God/nature keeps the order of the world. Thus if you understand the way nature operates you are understanding how God operates.
    “Is any aspect of nature deserving of worship?”
    If anything is to be worshipped, it should be nature. Without it we don’t exist and I would say that is grounds for worship. The cycle of life in particular keeps life going in such a perfect balance that it must deserve some praise. I think we all worship nature in our own way. Spending time outdoors and appreciating the natural environment while hiking or even simply sitting is, to me at least, a form of worship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone does worship in their own way! If everyone worshiped in the same exact way religion would not be so diverse.

      Delete
  3. What's your earliest stored memory? How do you know you're the same person you were before your first recorded memory? Would this be an especially frightening question if you had Alzheimer's? If you ever experience significant or total memory loss, will that be the end of you?

    The earliest memory I can think back to is my dad and I playing with my old dog Bailey. Before this, however, I suppose the only way I know who I was as a baby are the pictures my parents have and the stories they tell. That's the assurance I have, and that's really the only assurance I need. However, the idea of Alzheimer's is terrifying. The thought of losing all the memories I've ever had in a slow burn is beyond frightening. Of course, that person would still be me, but it'd almost be like a hollowed out husk. The brain and the memories and thoughts we hold are what really defines us as humans and the characters we build, so to lose all of that is essentially like losing what makes you, you.

    Comment: "There isn't an inch of earth where God is not."

    In my own opinion, to say this in of itself is a flaw to God. There's so much on Earth that is twisted and evil, so many places where starvation and poverty are all too real. If God were to be nature himself and in that sense, the Earth, then that would make him imperfect. Of course, many of the sufferings humans undergo are caused by other humans, but this would surely imply that God doesn't have control over our will, unless that is what he wants to take place. We have the will to make our own decisions.


    Study Questions:
    1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______.
    Pantheism

    2. If god is _____, there cannot be anything that is not god; if _____, god is indifferent to human beings.
    Infinite,

    3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion.
    Free will

    4. According to John Locke, all our knowledge comes from _____; hence, the mind of a newborn is a ______.
    Memories, blank slate

    5. Locke said _____ continuity establishes personal identity (bodily, psychological); Thomas Reid said identity relies on ______ memories, not total recall.
    Memory, overlapping

    6. Locke's articulation of what natural rights influenced the U.S. Constitution?
    Unalienable: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. H03- Personally, I took an alternate approach to the comment, there isn’t an inch on earth where God is not.
      If God is everywhere, the suffering and hurt included. What I am here to say is that perspective is everything and our free will exists in our own thoughts and perspective on how we choose to feel or think.

      My main point is that if God created everything, and is everything, I do not think that in the larger scope that we have free will. However, I believe imperfect is a subjective term. I’m looking more into this, I will keep up with my response later.

      Delete
    2. I don't necessarily think that the quote is a flaw to God because of how earth has evil and bad things. Unfortunately, bad things happen spontaneously and I don't think God could have prevented that from everyone. Granted, I am not a very religious person, but I do think that everything happens for a reason.

      Delete
  4. Do you support separation of church and state? Do you value and practice "toleration"? Or is even that too mild an acceptance of others' freedom?

    I very much support the separation of church and state. A government should serve a system the protects people. Being allied with one religion over another would make the system biased and overlook other religions and people. It is important to respect and search for understanding with those of all religions and beliefs which proceeds the expectation of “toleration.” Toleration often means to “put up” with an idea which does not mean respect and understanding.

    Is any aspect of nature deserving of worship?

    I would argue that nature is one of the only things that is deserving of worship. Nature is constantly serving and providing for us and we lack gratitude or any effort to preserve it. Nature is powerful and beautiful. It is capable of incredible things. Personally, nature is what keeps me grounded. The cycle of seasons and how nature is consistent is one of the few dependable constants in my life. If the flowers didn't bloom in spring, the leaves don't turn green in summer, the leaves didn't change to vibrant colors in autumn, or don't fall to the ground in winter I would lose my mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that nature is powerful and beautiful, but I believe it is deserving of our respect rather than our worship. We could bow to it and praise it, make music about it, etc. but without actively preserving it and reversing the errors made in the past, it will continue to die and crumble. Without action, worship is worthless.

      Delete
  5. "The greater our knowledge of natural phenomena, the more perfect is our knowledge of the essence of God." (Spinoza)
    I really like this quote and I agree with it as well. Being able to comprehend natural phenomena is something that I hold to my heart. There are some things that people don't understand about this world and don't make sense to them (such as the moon and sun being seen at the same time during the day), but make perfect sense to me. I feel like when you can better understand natural phenomena, it does increase our knowledge of the presence or essence of God.

    Do you agree with Spinoza that it's a mistake "to suppose that God wants people to behave in one way rather than another, that He makes promises, or that He distributes gifts"?
    I disagree with him on every level with this. From what I understand as a Christain, God wants what's best for us, so no matter what lifestyle we choose live, he wants us to be happy. Of course He wants us to pursue a lifestyle that evokes a personal relationship with Jesus and Him, but He doesn't force us to. The choice is ours. In addition, I don't think it's a mistake to believe that He makes promises. God's made promises before that have never been broken. Even if you asked Him for a promise today, He'd still come through. That's where patience and optimism come into play, but most people expect it to happen immediately.

    Do you support separation of church and state?
    I do support separation of church and state. Every input matters, no matter the religious background or beliefs, so to have one specific religion reign over a country is too biased. There's so many different religions and even different sub categories of religions that it would be too difficult to run a country in retrospect to a religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RE: Do you support separation of church and state?

      I agree with the separation of church and state. However, as a foreigner, it is interesting to see others (especially Americans) define what true separation means? Does it mean the complete removal of the divine/or a deity like entity from symbology and governing documents? For example, the United States has a motto "In God We Trust". Does it mean that the state isn't just ran by a specific religion?

      Delete
  6. H3
    If the inner world of a newborn is a "blooming buzzing confusion" as William James said, does that show Locke to be right about the contentlessness of the natal mind?
    This reminds me of the psychological argument of nature vs nurture. On one side, a person's biological background makes up who they are, and on the other, it is a person's environment that develops a person to who they become. I think Locke is right that the mind is an empty slate.

    Do you notice a difference in the quality of your various experiences?
    Yes I do, some events feel immediate, as if they happened to me, and some events feel like I'm just watching from the outside.

    What's your earliest stored memory? How do you know you're the same person you were before your first recorded memory? Would this be an especially frightening question if you had Alzheimer's?
    When I was four I was plugging in my DS charger and shocked myself on the outlet. I think as you grow and experience things throughout life you do change as a person. Yes this question would be because you wouldn't be able to remember.

    ReplyDelete
  7. H03
    1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______.
    Pantheism
    2. If god is _____, there cannot be anything that is not god; if _____, god is indifferent to human beings.
    Infinite, real
    3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion.
    Free will

    ReplyDelete
  8. [H2] HANNAH LITVJAK :

    "What's your earliest stored memory? How do you know you're the same person you were before your first recorded memory? Would this be an especially frightening question if you had Alzheimer's? If you ever experience significant or total memory loss, will that be the end of you?"

    The earliest memory I have, at least at the moment, is building a purple bird house with my father; it was second or third grade, and it was for Mother's Day - we built a bright purple bird house in a massive parking lot full of other fathers and daughters. I am definitely not the same. My father and I, because we are so similar, frequently butt heads and are often on the rocks. We still have a good bond; I just know that the little girl I was is not the person I am now. If I ever was diagnosed with Alzheimers, I feel like it would be more of a saddening memory rather than a frightening one. I would be devastated if I had total memory loss. Losing every aspect that made me who I am, even the traumatic memories, would make me back to a directionless, anxiety-ridden human being.



    "Do you notice a difference in the quality of your various experiences. such that some feel immediate and direct (a sunset, an interpersonal encounter, an "epiphany" etc.) while others are more remote, filtered, or "mediated" (a televised sunset, an online chat, a familiar thought)? Is that feeling of immediacy real? What do you think you are encountering, when you have an immediate experience: sensations, perceptions, concepts, ideas... or the world that causes them?"

    I do. As I have gotten older, I have learned to enjoy the smaller things in life much more than previously. I feel like this is a universal experience as we grow into ourselves and become accustomed to a life that will never stop changing. In turn, we begin to savor certain parts of life we otherwise don't pay much mind to, both immediate and remote. I simply believe it is us realizing how quick life passes, so we try to slow it down by becoming more aware of, as aforementioned, unnoticed things, and it is very much real. In my opinion, it is a sensation.



    "Do you support separation of chuch and state? Do you value and practice "toleration"? Or is even that too mild an acceptance of others' freedom? Would you want to live in a society whose rules were imposed by Imams, Ayatollahs, or the pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church?"

    I value toleration, but the separation of church and state is a much better way to operate; the issue is that not everyone follows the same religion, and to use a singular viewpoint when making important decisions, no matter the "good" or "bad" intentions, is unfair and authoritative to those who don't share it. As people, there are plenty of societal rules we all share, but the significance of tolerance allows us to live freely by being okay with being exposed to different societal rules without feeling imposed to follow them. I would not like to live in a society with only one acceptable set of rules.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The greater our knowledge of natural phenomena, the more perfect is our knowledge of the essence of God." (Spinoza)

    The first thought that comes to mind is the large amount of 'ground' religious people/leaders have given up over the last few centuries as we have increased our scientific capacity and learnt more about the natural systems that govern our planet. Part of the reason this is interesting is because we have come far from the times of people believing that every action/happening is a direct result of the will or direction of a supernatural being. So in this way, it has 'perfected' our knowledge of 'God', because today's believers (of all forms) gravitate towards only attributing the things that can not be scientifically explained/readily justified as the 'essence of God'. (i.e. for those that believe in such entities)

    ReplyDelete
  10. (H03) Do you agree with Spinoza that it's a mistake "to suppose that God wants people to behave in one way rather than another, that He makes promises, or that He distributes gifts"?

    I dont know much on God, I guess none of us really do, but I think a big aspect of humans being here is that we're here on our own, with our own decisions and paths. I think of course god would want us to make the best of our lives, but I believe that it is not his role to guide and repair us.

    "The greater our knowledge of natural phenomena, the more perfect is our knowledge of the essence of God." (Spinoza)

    I believe that the more we understand natural phenomena, the more we can understand ourselves, and the breakdown of the human condition, thought, and emotion. With that, I do believe that god can be better understood through this knowledge, but it is depending on the person. I don't think I will learn from god if I'm not looking for knowledge in that sense.

    Do you support separation of church and state?

    Absolutely, most of the smartest individuals on earth would not align religiously, and that's okay. The state, society, the standards of living should be settled under the minds of the people.

    ReplyDelete
  11. (H03)

    Is any aspect of nature deserving of worship? 104

    Nature itself is not a deity in my belief, so I do not think that it should be worshipped, at least in the traditional notion of how worshipping works. I think that nature, though not particularly holy or divine, should be treated with respect and reverence as it is what creates and supports our livelihood and makes the world beautiful.


    Do you support separation of church and state? Do you value and practice "toleration"? Or is even that too mild an acceptance of others' freedom?

    I think that the church or any other religious influence has no reason to be important in governmental affairs that would not effect it significantly. The wording, church and state, also signifies which religious lean they the government already would have. Giving the government up to the influence of religious installations may end up with extreme or alienating laws. Religion intersecting government generally has negative results, from war to persecution. I personally think that I practice toleration in my life and in what policies I support (depending on subject)


    Comment: "There isn't an inch of earth where God is not."

    This generally stems from a very religious standpoint, specifically religion following an omnipotent and all-seeing god. To many, this sort of presence can bring comfort and meaning to life and why things happen. Using this concept can also draw fear for obedience or be used against others, but is quite often positive (or seen as such).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like how you put your answer of nature deserving worship. I agree that although it may not be holy, it deservers respect because of it's value to the world.

      Delete
  12. h2
    Is any aspect of nature deserving of worship?

    Nature itself deserves worshipping, or at least appreciation, because human beings and other living organisms would cease to exist without it. Trees and other greenery are the primary contributors to humans receiving oxygen. Furthermore, the absence of nature would cause multiple of the environmental cycles to function insufficiently, negatively impacting Earth’s ability to sustain life.

    What's your earliest stored memory? How do you know you're the same person you were before your first recorded memory? Would this be an especially frightening question if you had Alzheimer's? If you ever experience significant or total memory loss, will that be the end of you?

    My earliest stored memory involves a sleepover I had with several of my childhood friends. We played outside for the majority of the day and then told stories before bed. Although I may be in the same body, I do not feel I am the same person I was during my childhood. Over the years, I developed into a more mature individual with an entirely different personality. If I am ever diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, the idea of losing my memories is an extremely frightening concept. Each of my defining memories and characteristics vanishing would make me feel like the shell of the person I used to be.

    Do you agree with Spinoza that it's a mistake "to suppose that God wants people to behave in one way rather than another, that He makes promises, or that He distributes gifts"?

    I do not necessarily agree with Spinoza’s statement. I do believe God wants His followers to align their beliefs with His teachings and value their relationship with Him. However, God granted human beings with the ability of free will. Therefore, He gave His followers the opportunity to make their own decisions and not necessarily act the way He desires.

    ReplyDelete
  13. H01
    Can we freely choose to renounce free will? Or freely choose to affirm it? Or seek new desires?
    I think you can renounce it, but if it still exists, your opinion about it doesn't matter.

    Do you notice a difference in the quality of your various experiences. such that some feel immediate and direct (a sunset, an interpersonal encounter, an "epiphany" etc.) while others are more remote, filtered, or "mediated" (a televised sunset, an online chat, a familiar thought)? Is that feeling of immediacy real? What do you think you are encountering, when you have an immediate experience: sensations, perceptions, concepts, ideas... or the world that causes them?
    Yes, experiences such as a real encounter or an experience out in nature is much more soothing to my mind. It can even be therapeutic, I find when I’m cooped up inside for to long, I am not happy, but going outside and having experiences with nature and conversations in person, It makes me feel great.

    What do you think of Morpheus' speech in The Matrix, when he says if you think of things you can touch, feel, hear, see etc. as "real," then reality is just electrical signals in the brain? Agree? Does that make you a skeptic?
    I think that’s true, but all I know and do, is really based on how I react to different “experiences”, whether they’re “real” or just an illusion. I like to think that what I see, is my reality.

    Comment: "There isn't an inch of earth where God is not."
    I like to think that God isn't just a person controlling everything and whatnot, but God is everything, and every event, and the source of all creation. I think even non religious people could refer to God as the embodiment of everything; time, space, and matter.

    ReplyDelete
  14. H01
    1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same things, is called pantheism.

    2. If god is infinite, there cannot be anything that is not god; if not, god is indifferent to human beings.

    3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that free will is an illusion.

    4. According to John Locke, all our knowledge comes from experience; hence, the mind of a newborn is a blank slate.
    5. Locke said psychological continuity establishes personal identity (bodily, psychological); Thomas Reid said identity relies on all memories, not total recall.

    6. Locke's articulation of what natural rights influenced the U.S. Constitution?
    -Life, freedom, and happiness

    7. What happened after the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) adopted its founding document in 1962?
    -led to a political awakening and first amendments protests on college campuses.
    Do you support separation of chuch and state? Do you value and practice "toleration"? Or is even that too mild an acceptance of others' freedom? Would you want to live in a society whose rules were imposed by Imams, Ayatollahs, or the pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church?
    -I do agree with the seperation of church and state because people should be able to make their own opinions on religion rather than being forced to live by the opinions of the church. I tolerate the church and those who try to include me in their religious activities, but I would rather they leave me be. Living in a society ruled by the church would be extremely stressful and constricting, so I would definitely like to not live under the church’s rule.

    ReplyDelete
  15. H1
    1. Spinoza thought God and nature were the same.
    3.He thought free will was an illusion.

    If something were to happen against Gods will, I think it would show some imperfections. God is thought to be all knowing and powerful, and if something happened without him, it would dismantle that idea. It is believed by many religions that God is perfect, so everything that happens is because it was meant to.
    I agree that church and state should be separated.Many people follow the same religion, but others dont. To have one religion govern a country would be going against those that dont believe in the same religion, or religion in general.

    ReplyDelete
  16. H1
    1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______.
    Pantheism-- the belief that God is everything.

    2. If god is _____, there cannot be anything that is not god; if _____, god is indifferent to human beings.
    If God is infinite, there cannot be anything that is not God; if God was completely impersonal and did not care about anything or anyone...dont expect any love back in return. God is indifferent to human beings.

    3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion.
    Free will is an illusion because there is no spontaneous free action at all.
    1. According to John Locke, all our knowledge comes from _____; hence, the mind of a newborn is a ______.
    All of our knowledge comes from experience in life. The mind of a newborn is a blank slate (tabula rasa).
    2. Locke said _____ continuity establishes personal identity (bodily, psychological); Thomas Reid said identity relies on ______ memories, not total recall.
    Psychological continuity establishes personal identity. Reid said identity relies on overlapping memories, not total recall of them.

    ReplyDelete