Up@dawn 2.0 (blogger)

Delight Springs

Tuesday, September 20, 2022

Questions SEP 22

 Berkeley, Leibniz, Hume, & Rousseau-LH 15-18. FL 17-18, HWT 18-19

LH

1. How did Samuel Johnson "refute" Berkeley's theory? Did he succeed? Why or why not?

2. What made Berkeley an idealist, and an immaterialist? Are you one, the other, both, neither?

3. In what way did Berkeley claim to be more consistent than Locke? DId Berkeley have a point about that?

4. What was Berkeley's Latin slogan? Do you think existence depends upon being perceived?

5. What obvious difficulty does Berkeley's theory face? Is it possible to have ideas that are consistent (non-contradictory) but still about non-realities?

6. What English poet declared that "whatever is, is right," and what German philosopher (with his "Principle of Sufficient Reason") agreed with the poet? Does this imply that nothing is ever wrong or bad? Is it really possible or reasonable to believe this?

7. What French champion of free speech and religious toleration wrote a satirical novel/play ridiculing the idea that everything is right (for the best)? 

8. What 1755 catastrophe deeply influenced Voltaire's philosophy? Do you have a philosophical perspective on natural catastrophes that makes rational and moral sense of them?

9. What did Voltaire mean by "cultivating our garden"? Do you agree with hin?

10. Did Hume think the human eye is so flawless in its patterned intricacy that, like Paley's watch, it constitutes powerful evidence of intelligent design? Why would an omnipotent designer design a flawed organ?

11. What was Hume's definition of "miracle"? Did he think we should usually believe others' reports of having witnessed a miracle? Where would you draw the line between events that are highly improbable and events that are impossible (according to known laws)?

12. Rousseau said we're born free but everywhere are in ____, but can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community, aka the _______. Are we all more free when we act not only for ourselves but for the good of the whole community (world, species)?

HWT

1. In what way was the idea of a separable soul a "corruption"? What French philosopher of the 17th century defended it? What Scottish skeptic of the 18th century disputed it?

2. What do Owen Flanagan's findings suggest, that contrasts with Aristotle's view of human nature?

3. If you ask an American and a Japanese about their occupation, how might they respond differently?


FL
1. What amazing theme park was erected in Brooklyn at the turn of the 20th century?

2. Who was Robert Love Taylor?

3. What was Birth of a Nation?

4. What did H.L. Mencken say about southerners?

5. What did The New Theology say about the supernatural?

6. How did Modernists reconcile science and religion?

7. What famous trial was held in Tennessee in 1925, and what did Clarence Darrow say about it, and what was its cultural impact?



 

14 comments:

  1. Aaron Petty #7
    LH
    1. Johnson kicked a rock in his attempt to refute Berkeley's thoery. No, Johnson didn't succeed because Berkeley explained that the feel of kicking a rock can only prove the idea not that it actually happened.
    2. Berkeley was an idealist because he believed everything that exists is an idea. And he was a immaterialist because he believed physical objects didn't exist. I'm a materialist so I don't believe any object is an idea and that everything does truly exist.
    3. Berkeley claimed to be more consistent becuase we do percieve the world directly. Anything thought of in our minds is being percieved directly, so Berkeley claimed. I do agree that anything in our minds is always percieved directly, but we can percieve directly and indirectly about the world around us.
    4. Berkeley's latin slogan was Esse est percipi. Existence in the sense of our awareness does change depending on perception, but as we share perceptions with other people, there must be an overarching existence to everything in our world.
    5. Berkeley's theory faces the difficulty of explaining how we ever can be mistaked about anything. No, it's not possible to have consistent ideas about non-realities. If everything is an idea, how does the world exist? It's either one or the other, anything in between contradicts itself.
    6. The English poet was Alexander Pope, and the German philosopher that agreed with him was Gottfried Leibniz. No, it does imply that there is bad. The main arguement is that the bad is the best version to achieve the most realistic world. No, it is not reasonable to believe this as people of this mindset seem to forget bad ever actually happens when it does.
    7. Voltaire was the French champion for free speech and religious toleration.
    8. The Lisbon earthquake influenced Voltaire's philosophy. No, I beleive things just happened with no overarching plan. Otherwise, why would someone let these things happen.
    9. Cultivating our garden means to put aside individual philosophies and instead come together to better humanity. Yes, I do agree that the community is more important than personal beliefs. How else would anything be accomplished that affects everyone for the better.
    10. Yes, Hume did beleive the design of the eye explained that someone must have made it this way. An omnipotent designer wouldn't make a flawed organ. If they are perfect then the product must also be perfect. If not, then the designer isn't.
    11. Hume defined a miracle as breaking the known laws of the universe. No, he thought we shouldn't believe something someone else told us of a miracle. I agree with Hume, that things such as coming back from complete death, and walking on water are impossible.
    12. Chains, world. Acting freely to help others with the overall freedom does make us more free, but individual freedom is still a type of freedom. Societal freedom and personal freedom are completely different.

    ReplyDelete
  2. LH 7. Voltaire wrote the novel Candide.

    HTW 3. An American is likely to mention the specific job that they occupy, e.g., a lawyer. This answer is starkly different from a Japanese response which would entail his participation in a collective project, e.g., an employee at H&P Law Firm.

    FL 4. A person from the South, "'...turns away from reality to a gaudy world of his own making.'" (Anderson 121)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Chloe Rush #7

    LH:
    1. Samuel Johnson refuted Berkeleys' theory by kicking a rock in the street. He felt the hard rock against his toe and using this he refuted Berkley by saying that material things actually exist and they aren't just thoughts and ideas.
    2. Berkeley has been described as an idealist as well as an immaterialist. He was an idealist because he believed that everything that exists are ideas. He was an immaterialist because he did not believe that material things actually exist. I would say I am neither. I believe physical things actually exist.
    3. Berkeley believed that we actually perceive the world directly. While I do not agree with Berkeley in the case that the world is nothing but ideas, I do think he has a point in the way we see the world. I do believe that we see the world directly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. mona ikbariah #7
    2- He was an idealist because he believed that all that exist are ideas; he was an immaterialist because he denied that material things – physical objects – exist
    6- It was said by poet the English poet alexander pope. The German philosopher who agreed with him was Gottfried Leibniz.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you agree with Alexander Pope and Gottfried Leibniz? Do you think that nothing is truly ever wrong or bad?

      Delete
  5. Berkeley’s Latin quote was ‘to exist is to be perceived.’ I think this is true, no matter what we do we’re always being perceived by other people whether we are aware of it or not. Laney #11

    ReplyDelete
  6. HWT 3. If you ask an American and a Japanese their occupation, the American is more likely to specify their role at their job while the Japanese is probably going to say where they work and not specify their role. This is because Japanese value intimacy over integrity in their relationships. Laney #11.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think it is more important to value intimacy over integrity? Do you agree more with the Japanese or American view?

      Delete
  7. M Hodges #7
    Johnson said "I refute it thus" and proceeded to kick a rock in the street. He believed that because he can feel the pain and hardness of the rock, that it has to be 100% real. But Berkeley's belief was that it was hard and hurt when he kicked it because Johnson thought and had the idea that the rock was hard and would hurt.

    Berkeley was an idealist and immaterialist. This meant that everything we see is just the idea of what we think we see and that nothing truly exists. He also said "to be (exist) is to be perceived". Therefore, we only exist because we are perceived to exist.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Berkeley focused on the idea that we are just merely here without a clear purpose. he says, "to be is to be perceived." our existence can only be proven if there are people around you to agree that you exist. i agree with him, because being surrounded by people is a key theory in psychology as well, that humans are social creatures. sophia section7

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1. How did Samuel Johnson "refute" Berkeley's theory? Did he succeed? Why or why not?
    He refuted by claiming that material things do exist and are not just composed of ideas. He kicked a stone and said that he could feel the hard stone against his toe, so it must exist. This did not succeed because Berkeley claimed that feeling the stone did not prove the existence of the stone, bust instead proved the existence of the idea of a hard stone.
    2. What made Berkeley an idealist, and an immaterialist? Are you one, the other, both, neither?
    He was an idealist because he believed that all that exists are ideas. He was an immaterialist because he denied that material things exist. I am neither.
    3. In what way did Berkeley claim to be more consistent than Locke? DId Berkeley have a point about that?
    He claimed to be more consistent because he thought we do perceive the world directly.
    4. What was Berkeley's Latin slogan? Do you think existence depends upon being perceived?
    His Latin slogan was ‘Esse est percipi.’ This means to be is to be perceived. I think there is some truth behind it.
    5. What obvious difficulty does Berkeley's theory face? Is it possible to have ideas that are consistent (non-contradictory) but still about non-realities?
    His obvious difficulty was explaining how we can ever be mistaken about anything. I think that it is very difficult to have ideas that are consistent but still about non-realities.

    ReplyDelete
  10. rumi arif wein #11
    1. How did Samuel Johnson "refute" Berkeley's theory? Did he succeed? Why or why not?
    Samuel Johnson tried to refute Berkeley's theory by choosing to understand it at its very surface level. He kicked a stone and because he could feel it, refuted that the material things couldn't exist. This is not an accurate debunk of Berkeley's theory, as it states the world is your experiences, nothing material exists. Kicking the stone does not prove that it exists, but that you had an experience of feeling the stone when you hit it.
    2. What made Berkeley an idealist, and an immaterialist? Are you one, the other, both, neither?
    Berkeley was an Idealist because he believed that reality was made of ideas, and what made him an immaterialist was his belief that nothing material exists. I am too young to have a stable opinion of this. However, I lean toward the notion that nothing material exists, there is an objective reality (that some try to percieve) that can only be experienced; it is that which we play in and attach meaning to. I can also see why our reality may be made of ideas- it is adjacent to immaterialism. To me, it is rational.
    6. What English poet declared that "whatever is, is right," and what German philosopher (with his "Principle of Sufficient Reason") agreed with the poet? Does this imply that nothing is ever wrong or bad? Is it really possible or reasonable to believe this?
    Alexander Pope declared that everything in the world was the way it was for a reason. The German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz came to the same conclusion with the "Principle of Sufficient Reason".
    I do not think that this implies nothing is good or bad, but rather that our perceptions are very linear or limited. It is reasonable to believe this because we cannot see the future, and many things can be perceived as "evil" without context. If we could broaden our perception, we could see that all things directly or indirectly work toward something larger that we are yet to experience.

    ReplyDelete
  11. John Wright #12

    LH

    1: By kicking a hard stone and saying that he refutes Berkely’s idea. He felt how hard the stone was and was certain that material things do exist. He did not succeed because Berkley insisted that he was still right because feeling the hard stone only proved thought the stone was an idea.

    2: He was an idealist because he thought that all things that exist are ideas, and he was an immaterialist because he denied that material things existed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kayla Pulling #7
    HWT
    3. Japan values intimacy over integrity meaning if they were asked where they work they would reply with the name of their workplace. While Americans would specify where they work and what they do at their work.
    LH
    7. Voltaire

    ReplyDelete