Berkeley, Leibniz & Voltaire, Hume, & Rousseau-LH 15-18. FL 17-18, HWT 18-19
Midterm report presentations: #6 Grant-Berkeley, Nathan P-Leibniz & Voltaire, Cole P-Hume, Ellaleigh-Rousseau; #7 Lindsay-Berkeley, Giovanni-Rousseau, Darren-Hume; #10-Danny-Leibniz & Voltaire
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?
Section 6
ReplyDeleteI consider myself an empiricist but I think Berkeley went too far when he says what cannot be perceived cannot exist. For example, most scientists believed that there were planets outside the solar system before they were discovered. Our having no proof of that did not mean they did not exist.
Section 6
ReplyDeleteMy favorite Voltaire quote is "Judge a man my the questions he asked, not by the answers he gives". A lot of people ask questions in a way to come up with a conclusion they already have.
Nicholas Schionning
ReplyDeleteLH2: He believed that all that exists are ideas, and that nothing physical truly exists. I'm neither, because it feels almost farsical to put up the point of nothing truly physically existing.
LH4: The slogan was 'Esse est percepti' - to be is to be percieved. I don't think existence depends on being percieved, because things change even when they aren't being percieved. Dust settles, but no one notices the dust settling until it's there. Things grow regardless of someone looking at it.
Section 6
ReplyDeleteI have never liked Rousseau as a philosopher. His theory of the General Will seems to me to be an invitation to totalitarian.
Maybe. But a moderate interpretation might just be that we all have a shared and common interest in funding a public sector—in paying taxes—even though we’d rather hang onto all our wages. Somebody’s got to pay for a common defense, public schools, garbage removal et Al.
DeleteLH 2
ReplyDeletesection 6
He thought that nothing existed that matter wasn't a thing with out being perceived
Section #6
ReplyDeleteLPH
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)?
everywhere we are in chains, aka the General will. I think that serving not only yourself but also the others that live in the society in which you live, is a way to feel free. This is not only the case because being forced to serve others and a cause that you do not believe in is a removal of liberty.
LH 2
ReplyDeleteHe 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. I am neither of these things. I believe both exist.
LH 4
ReplyDeleteThe latin slogan is “Esse est percipi’ – to be (or exist) is to be perceived. This goes along with Berkeley’s idealism because he believes all things are ideas (including physical objects). I don’t think existence depends on being perceived. For one, I continue to exist even when I am not being perceived by others - yet I am still being perceived by myself so maybe he has a point. In addition, we can’t escape perception, so how are we to know that we wouldn’t exist without it.
Angeline Siefring Section 7
Delete12. 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)?
ReplyDeleteChains; General Will. Acting not only for ourselves but for the good of the community is a good thing. Yes, I think it is freeing. But I don’t know if I would you’re not free if you don’t help the community.
007 Jordan Martin
ReplyDelete8. 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?
- The Lisbon Earthquake was the disaster that influenced Voltaire's philosophy a great deal. Personally, I don't think natural disasters "care" in a sense when, who, or how they happen and hurt humans. I think the Earth is in a continuous state of change especially with how humans have treated it, and it is adjusting as best it can. I don't think natural catastrophes have anything to do with God, and if they do I would argue that he doesn't have everyones best interest at heart.
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)?
Hume was very skeptical of miracles. He believed there was always a more plausible explanation of what was going on. Hume disagreed with the idea that we should believe others' reports of having eye witnessed a miracle. Personally I wouldn't believe someone if they told me they had seen someone walk on water. In order for me to believe in miracles I am going to have to witness one myself, otherwise I agree with Hume.
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)?
- Chains
-General Will
Personally I think we are all more free when we act for the good of the whole community. If everyone only ever watched out for themselves the world would be a scary place. I think humans looking out for others they don't know is an exceptionally mature behavior to have.
LH
ReplyDelete7. What French champion of free speech and religious toleration wrote a satirical novel/play ridiculing the idea that everything is right (for the best)? Voltaire wrote 'Candide' to undermine the optimism the Pope and Leibniz had towards humanity and the world. He did not believe that the evil he saw in the world should make someone optimistic.
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? The Lisbon earthquake and following tsunami in 1755 influenced Voltaire's philosophy, it shook his belief in God. My perspective on natural catastrophes is that they happen by chance so there is no reason to try and make rational or moral sense of them.
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? Hume did not believe that the intricacy of the human eye was powerful evidence of intelligent design. He argued that just because it appeared to be designed didn't mean it actually was and if it was designed, how can we know that God was the designer? Hume believed it could be possible that an omnipotent designer designed a flawed organ, but it was also possible it was done by a team of gods, or an old god, or a young and inexperienced god, he believed we could only draw limited conclusions.
FL Q.1 Coney Island was set to have the first roller coaster in America. Orgnally it was three amusement parks; Dreamland, Steeplechase, and Luna Park. Then it shut down mid-1960s because of the great depression and WWII. Often is said that the first hot dog was invented at Coney, hence "Coney dog, or Coney". There's alot of great history with Coney and is considered a Brooklyn treasure.
ReplyDeleteSection 007
ReplyDeleteLHP Q1 → Johnson kicked a rock and declared “I refute it thus”. I believe he did succeed, because you can't “perseve” physical pain or feeling, that is something that is only in the physical realm.
LHP Q2. → 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 would say I’m neither.
LHP Q3. →Unlike Locke, he thought that we perceive the world directly, because the world consists of nothing but ideas. I guess in the context of the two he is more consistent, however there are still many inconsistencies in his philosophies.
LHP, Q4. → his Latin slogan was “esse est percipi” which means to be is to be perceived. I don’t believe existence is based on perception, but through our existence and being we are able to perceive other things.