Meeting today (Sep 21) in the Library, go directly there.
1. What state of mind, belief, or knowledge was Descartes' Method of Doubt supposed to establish? OR, What did Descartes seek that Pyrrho spurned? Was his approach more sensible than Pyrrho's? Do you think it's possible to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought?
2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
3. What strange and mythic specter did Gilbert Ryle compare to Descartes' dualism of mind and body? ("The ____ in the ______.") Does that specter seem strange or silly to you?
4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right?
HWT
1. What familiar western distinction is not commonly drawn in Islamic thought?
2. According to Sankara, the appearance of plurality is misleading. Everything is ____.
3. The Islamic concept of unity rules out what key western Enlightenment value, and offers little prospect of adopting modern views on what?
4. What Calvinist-sounding doctrine features heavily in Islamic thought?
5. What deep philosophical assumption, expressed by what phrase, has informed western philosophy for centuries? To what concept did Harry Frankfurt apply it?
* BONUS QUESTIONS- Sarah Bakewell says Montaigne's first answer to the question "How to live?" is: "Don't worry about _____."
- What was Montaigne's "near death experience," and what did it teach him?
- Montaigne said "my mind will not budge unless _____."
- What pragmatic American philosopher was Descartes' "most practical critic"?
- (T/F) A.C. Grayling thinks that, because Descartes was so wrong about consciousness and the mind-body problem, he cannot be considered a historically-important philosopher.
- What skeptical slogan did Montaigne inscribe on the ceiling of his study?
Will machines ever say "I think, therefore I am"?
Something to consider when we talk about Descartes...
We had a serious and sober conversation in Environmental Ethics yesterday about the difference between living longer vs. living better, between a life of many years vs. a life of completion and earned satisfaction. I was encouraged by the maturity and wisdom of the young people in the room, whose acceptance of mortality stands in striking contrast to that of futurologist/transhumanist Raymond Kurzweil.
Ray's the guy who pioneered optical character recognition (OCR), text-to-speech synthesis, speech recognition technology etc., and then went to work for Google to help Larry and Sergei figure out how to conquer aging and the biological restrictions of mortal life. He's the very antithesis, in this regard, of Wendell Berry.
I first became aware of Ray when I read his The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence, which audaciously and (we should see now) prematurely, if not ludicrously, predicted that we'd have self-conscious machines "before 2030"... We'll talk about this in CoPhi soon, when we turn to Descartes.
Descartes’s famous dictum “I think, therefore I am” has often been cited as emblematic of Western rationalism. This view interprets Descartes to mean “I think, that is, I can manipulate logic and symbols, therefore I am worthwhile.” But in my view, Descartes was not intending to extol the virtues of rational thought. He was troubled by what has become known as the mind-body problem, the paradox of how mind can arise from non-mind, how thoughts and feelings can arise from the ordinary matter of the brain. Pushing rational skepticism to its limits, his statement really means “I think, that is, there is an undeniable mental phenomenon, some awareness, occurring, therefore all we know for sure is that something—let’s call it I—exists.” Viewed in this way, there is less of a gap than is commonly thought between Descartes and Buddhist notions of consciousness as the primary reality. Before 2030, we will have machines proclaiming Descartes’s dictum. And it won’t seem like a programmed response. The machines will be earnest and convincing. Should we believe them when they claim to be conscious entities with their own volition?
Ask that again when they make that claim. If they do.
At least Ray has inspired entertaining films like Her, Ex Machina, Transcendence...
But his desperate quest to "live long enough to live forever"-- see the Wired Magazine feature story on Ray,wherein it was revealed that he'd daily been popping upwards of 200 pill supplements and downing oceans of green tea every day in hopes of beating the Reaper (lately he's cut back to just 90)-- really does look sad and shallow, alongside the mature view we've explored in The World-Ending Fire and that I was gratified to hear echoed by my fellow mortals in class yesterday.
==
The World Is Waiting to Be Discovered. Take a Walk.
…Study after study after study have proved what we feel, intuitively, in our gut: Walking is good for us. Beneficial for our joints and muscles; astute at relieving tension, reducing anxiety and depression; a boon to creativity, likely; slows the aging process, maybe; excellent at prying our screens from our face, definitely. Shane O'Mara, a professor of experimental brain research in Dublin, has called walking a "superpower," claiming that walking, and only walking, unlocks specific parts of our brains, places that bequeath happiness and health.
I have no beef with any of this, but I believe we have it backward. We are asking what we can get out of a walk, rather than what a walk can get out of us. This might seem like a small distinction, a matter of semantics. But when we begin to think of walking in terms of the latter, we change the way we navigate and experience — literally and figuratively — the world around us... nyt
1. It was supposed to establish only the things that you could be absolutely sure about. Descartes was trying to find a single thing that he could be sure about to base his reality off of. Whereas Pyrrho did not believe anything could be for certain, no matter the circumstances. Descartes' approach is definitely more sensible than Pyrrho's approach. I think that it would be very hard to achieve the state of mind that Descartes is referring to because if you are so full of doubt that you are simply seeking one thing that you can be sure about, it will be very hard to find this one thing through all of your doubts.
ReplyDelete2. He claimed to know that he was existing, in some form or another. I do not really have thoughts that I am dreaming. Everything seems too specific and full of detail to be a dream.
3. He compared it to the myth of "the ghost in the machine." This does not seem strange to me because I was raised in a religious house so the idea of a soul or a "ghost" being separate from the body is nothing new.
4. His best known book is "Pensees." I am not a fan of how condescending his ideas are, that the lives we live are so insignificant in comparison to what follows our lives.
5. His argument is referred to as "Pascal's Wager." I find his argument somewhat persuasive, but it is also stupid to think that you would live your life to please a God that you don't actually believe in, but rather as a "just in case" back up plan.
6. He said that if you bet on God and lose, you lose nothing. I do not agree with this because if you spend your one life living a particular way and not giving yourself a chance at certain things because the God you believe in does not approve of them, then you have lost your chance at living a fulfilling life.
7. I totally agree with this. When reading "Pascal's Wager" he makes the situation seem too white and black. As if the God he has imagined existing and that God not existing are the only two options. This may make people feel stuck or damned if they do not believe in the version of God that he does.
#11
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Descartes’ Method of Doubt sought to establish certainty. If there was any ounce of doubt if something was real or not, he would immediately reject it. He differed from Pyrrho and other skeptics in that he wanted to show that some beliefs are immune from even the strongest forms of skepticism. I believe his approach was more sensible that Pyrrhos because he sought truth rather than dismissing everything.
2. He thought of an imaginary story that perhaps a demon is controlling us and making us think we are doing certain things when we are actually in a completely different reality. Eventually, Descartes claimed that “I think, therefore I am.” Meaning that if he is able to think about things then he must exist and must be present. This helped Descartes realize that he really existed though he knew this claim was not enough to refute skeptics. Therefore, he believed that a good God existed, and he believed that God implanted the idea of him in all our minds. He argued that we think of God, therefore one must exist. I’ve definitely pondered a lot of the questions that Descartes has, where I’ve struggled to know at times if I was still dreaming or awake.
3. The ghost in the machine. It does seem strange to me. I believe the body cannot live without the mind/soul.
4. Pensees (Thoughts) was his best known book.
5. Pascal’s Wager. I find it appealing because it raises a good point that if God exists, being wrong about God’s existence is a bad thing to be wrong about.
6. He thought if you gamble on God and lose, you lose nothing. I agree to a point. You lose nothing, but you also miss out on certain experiences but you most likely would have lived your life in a manner where you were a good person, and good to others.
7. I believe it’s right because he is asking people to place a bet on whether God exists but is only referring to Christianity which I don’t have a problem with because he was Christian. Warburton argues that Pascal should’ve included other religions and I agree, I believe if people want to believe in God then they should find the religion that works best for them.
#11
ReplyDeleteLHP:
1. Descartes was trying to establish a reality based off certainty. He believed that there were some beliefs that were immune to the strongest forms of skepticism. Whereas Pyrrho was trying to prove that nothing was real, and you should question everything.
2. He did not claim to know that he was not dreaming while writing Meditations, He was unsure.
3. The ghost in the machine. This idea is not so strange to me it reminds me of the Buddhist who believe in the mind, body, and spirit, AKA the holy trinity.
4. Pensées, (Thoughts) I like his style of writing its similar to poetry. The words are more impactful and rememberable.
5. Pascals wager, this concept is a bit strange to me. If you gamble and bet on the existence of God, then what else would you gamble on that base your life's view off of.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and you lose, you lose nothing.
7. True, if you limit Heaven to those who believe in the Christian God, then you disregard all other religious folks who believe in that same God with a different name.
FL:
1. Conspiracies try to connect real and imaginary.
2. That there is no secret at all.
3. Slave Power Conspiracy
4. They believed that God was punishing them for not outlawing slavery yet.
5. He claimed that there were no happier people in the country than on the swallow barn plantation.
#10
ReplyDelete1. Descartes' Method of Doubt is supposed to establish absolute certainty. Descartes wanted fully to believe something was reality and so if there was any doubt, he would not trust in it. I think Descartes is slightly more sensible than Pyrrho because at least he tried to see if it was true without completely dismissing it. I did not think it is possible to achieve this state of mind because everything will always have something you can doubt.
2. He did claim to know he was existing. I do think this sometimes when I am in deep thought because you can never really be too sure.
3. Ryle compared the Descartes' dualism of mind and body to the ghost in a machine. It does not seem strange to me because I believe bodies could not exist without the mind/soul.
4. Pascal's best-known book is Pensées. I do not like his aphoristic style because he is very pessimistic on human life when he is a human.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called Pascal's Wager. I find it somewhat appealing because I do like the idea that you could gain so much and even if you were wrong that there is nothing to lose.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose nothing." I somewhat agree, but you could possibly be missing out on other religions or etc.
7. I do think this is true because if you cut yourself off to only two options then you could potentially be missing out on something great. I think there are always grey areas and that there are many possibilities about what could be true.
1. Descartes' Method of Doubt was supposed to establish certainty. His approach was more sensible than Pyrrho's because he accepted that there are some things you could be sure of. I think it would be difficult to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought because I personally tend to trust my senses more than I question them so I'd be going against my very nature.
ReplyDelete2. Descartes claimed to know that he was not dreaming if he had the ability to think, hence his statement, "I think, therefore I am." I have never felt like I could be dreaming when I was actually awake, but I have experienced moments that felt dreamlike and too good to be true.
3. Gilbert Ryle compared Descartes' dualism of mind and body to the myth of the ghost in the machine. This does not seem strange to me because I was raised in a Christian household believing in the Holy Spirit and believing that your soul is separate from your body.
4. Pascal's best-known book is his Pensées, or Thoughts. I do like how his book is structured, but I would not want to read every book like that.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called Pascal's Wager. I can see how it could be appealing, but to me it shows a lack of faith. I can understand it being used as a stepping stone for someone who is unsure about the existence of God, but he or she should not base their faith on that wager.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose nothing." I disagree because if you die without believing in God, by Pascal's Wager, you would spend eternity in hell.
7. This is true. As Warburton explains, he believes that this rules out the possibility of other religions being right in their beliefs.
#11
ReplyDelete1. What state of mind, belief, or knowledge was Descartes' Method of Doubt supposed to establish? OR, What did Descartes seek that Pyrrho spurned? Was his approach more sensible than Pyrrho's? Do you think it's possible to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought?
His method was supposed to establish that he exists, and others that can think exist too. I think his philosophy made more sense and is easy to grasp.
2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
He did not claim to know that he was not dreaming but did claim to know he was alive. Sometimes I think it is possible for the whole world to be fake like in the matrix, but ultimately, what does that change? I wouldn't live my life different if I did not know what to do and if everything is fake then I wouldn't even know where to begin so I take the world for how I perceive it.
3. What strange and mythic specter did Gilbert Ryle compare to Descartes' dualism of mind and body? ("The ____ in the ______.") Does that specter seem strange or silly to you?
The ghost in the machine. I don't think it's silly because I believe if we did not have a soul, we would still be alive, but not the same person so me as I know myself currently.
4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
Pensees. I already believe in God but even if I did not, his reasoning would still make sense to me as long as I could determine God was the only deity possibly existing
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
Pascal's Wager. I think it does a good job persuading those on the fence.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
Nothing. I think this was an overstatement since there are other religions that have equivalent "Hells."
7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right? True
1. It was to establish the few things you actually can be sure of. He wanted to base his reality off of something he knew was true. I think that Pyrrho is a little more believable just because spending to much time on something and for it to be proved wrong could be a waste of time.
ReplyDelete2. He thought he was existing in another form. I do sometimes question reality but try not to go there because you could definitely go down a rabbit hole really quick.
3. He compare Descartes dualism the the mind and body to a myth about ghost and the machine. I found that this was hard to believe because my family was never really religious. We kind of made up our own ideas of the world.
4. Pascals book is “pensees’’ the structure in his book was interesting but it wouldn’t really appeal to what I like to read.
5. His belief in god was called Pascals wager. I don’t really know how I feel about his argument and I don’t really think I agree.
6. He said if you bet on god and you don’t win you don’t lose anything. I don’t really think it’s right in my opinion but I’m kind of in the middle on this one.
7. I believe this is true because he made all the situations seem bland. I feel like people feel trapped.
1. Descartes' "Method of Doubt" is to show you some belief's are immune from skepticism. Descartes' wanted to test this to prove Pyrrho was going at things wrong, wanting to disprove everything. He wanted certainty. I do think that he was more sensible, looking in a positive light to find truths rather than seek lies. I do think that trying to fulfil this state of mind can be bad for your mental health if you become too consumed with what is real or if you are real.
ReplyDelete2. "I think, therefore I am." This told him he existed, at least as a mind. I do not, but I have experienced this dream phenomenon once. I was young, maybe late middle school or early highschool, when I remember my mom shouting for me to wake up. I got up, got dressed, packed my bag, etc. Then I was sitting on my bed watching my phone until it was time to catch the bus. It felt so real.. then I hear my mom angrily shout at me to get up and get ready, and suddenly opened my eyes completely confused. I was in fact not ready, I was actually now running late!
3. The myth, "ghost in the machine." I do think we have a spirit, whilst I also think that we can more then one physical form. Whatever physical body you end up in, you can make into your, mold the style and personality into your soul, even if you can't always control genetics.
4. "Pensees." I do not, I think he was much too pessimistic and controlling of others with his views.
5. The argument is called "Pascal's Wager". He has a solid argument, but I think there are more things to question then to blindly believe with hope your soul will be save.
6. He said you risk nothing and gain much if you believe. I think closing all your doors based on low risk is not living.
7. I think this is true. The "Wager" is more like a trap, than a safe bet. You need to explore life, see all its choices, have a sense of thought then to blindly follow something.
FL
Delete1. Conspiracies are truth connected with a mucilage of exaggeration and fantasy.
2.There was no secret at all
3. Slave power conspiracy
4. God was punishing them for not yet banning slavery
5. That they could not be happier as freemen than as slaves.
An extra thought inspired from Will Machines ever say "I think, therefore I am." Honestly, with how rapid technology is growing I do think this can be possible. I know it is a scary thought for many to think about, but I think this can also be a good thing. Allow me to explain, I think that if done correctly, if treated as being with thought, even love, I do think it is possible to nourish a thinking robot into a human creature of sorts. I think that we kind of create a new being, and how we treat that creation has a giant impact of how it is. Take Nature vs Nurture for example... its nature is obviously just, robot parts and code. But if we nurture it, show it things that are good, teach it emotions, it may become as human as we are. Though, many people think this is too big a risk to take, because what if it turns bad, goes wrong? What if we put people in danger or the robots take over, like movies can illustrate. But I for one think that it is not impossible for robots to become humane. What do you think?
#10
ReplyDelete1. If there is even an inkling of a doubt you should trust your doubt. Descartes wanted to find something he could be sure about. Sure, he was more sensible than Pyrrho. I don't think it is very hard to be more sensible than Pyrrho. I think it is possible to be sure about something. I can be sure that some apples are red and that the sun rose this morning. I don't think it is possible to be sure about everything.
2. Descartes never claimed to know if he was dreaming or not. I sometimes can't differentiate between dreams and real life, myself. I have memories that other family members don't remember that are likely dreamed up. I have a few methods of knowing if I am in a dream or not. When I dream, I can't type. I have dreamed about writing text messages before and every time, I can never type what I am trying to. I remember being in dreams and knowing they were dreams because of these happenings.
3. The ghost in the machine. The idea taken literally seems kind of silly, but it's a fine metaphor, especially considering historical ideas of what a soul is.
4. Pascal's best-known book is Pensees. As someone who has spent a long time studying the Bible, I am not sure how much I like his approach.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called Pascal's Wager. It is certainly a fair point, however, from my knowledge of Christianity it is just as bad to pretend to believe in God for your own benefit as it is to not believe in God at all. If you don't believe in God and God does exist, you are in trouble either way.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose nothing." Do to the nature of the Bible, depending on which denomination you are apart of or how closely you believe we should follow the Bible, you could lose a lot of joys in life. The Bible is highly against worldly pleasures. If God doesn't exist, and you have lived your whole life like he does, you will have lost the experiences of life. Compared to an eternity in Hell, I am sure that is nothing, but there is still something to lose. Believing in God is a life style, not simply saying, "I believe in God."
7. True.
LHP #11
ReplyDelete1. Descartes' Method of Doubt was supposed to establish whether or not something was certain. If there is any doubt to the belief than we should just reject it. I think that Descartes approach was a little more sensible than Pyrrho's. I think that it would be complicated to achieve the state of mind Descartes wanted because you would go crazy doubting everything and eventually might not know what to believe.
2. Descartes did not claim to know that he was not dreaming. There has been times where there are incidents that felt so real but they were just a dream.
3. "The ghost in the machine." The ghost and the machine is supposed to correlate with the mind and body. I don't think it is strange because, in my religion, after we die our souls separate from our bodies.
4. Pascal's best-known book is Pensées which translates to 'Thoughts' . I don't really gravitate towards books like that because it is not what I usually read.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called "Pascal's Wager". I don't agree with it because you are living at risk and it is a huge risk to take because that decides where you will be spending the rest of your eternity.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose nothing." I don't agree with this because there could be other consequences we don't know about.
7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right?
True
1. Descartes’s method is quite straightforward: don’t accept anything as true if there is the slightest possibility that it isn’t. The method is supposed to establish what can be trusted, thus having a grounded state of mind to reality. That method is slightly better than pyhrro’s method since it does not discount everything. Although it still leaves a lot to be desired, such as how do you show that something is not true or what to do if you are in the process of not accepting a huge matter such as reality not being real. Descartes did approach things also with trying to prove that something is real vs pyhrro tried to show that nothing can be trusted. Of course it is possible for someone to achieve a state of mind where they believe they know what is true, even if someone is delusional and wrong they can have the state of mind that certain things are true – which makes them delusional in the first place.
ReplyDelete2. When he reaches his conclusion about god and that he must exist he believes in conclusion that means that this world does exist. Depends on exactly what is meant by dreaming, because in the sense that do I ever think my life is a creation of my own mind in a sleeping state; very rarely does that concern me; because I do not want to believe my mind would create such a world in which we live in today. On the other hand, perhaps a dream being that my reality is a creation of my mind in a dying state either in a coma or actively dying and each second of reality is compressed and I live years in this “dream” state while milliseconds pass in the real world where I am dying, that terrifies me often. Or a dream world in which all our universe is simulated in a super advanced computer for countless reasons such as we are simply entertainment to help pass time of a super advanced civilization or simply a history recreation so they could understand how possible events could have played out in their past; I think about that all the time. And the list goes on and on and on and on…
3. Ghost in the machine. I do not understand the question: do I find the concept of a ghost in general silly, do I find it silly how ryle compared it to a specter, or do I find it silly that Descartes says that we exist as a mind and body thus nudging towards the concept of a soul?
4. Pascal’s best-known book, his Pensées (‘Thoughts’), was pieced together from fragments of his writing and published in 1670 after his early death at the age of 39. It is written in a series of beautifully crafted short paragraphs. No one is completely sure how he intended the parts to fit together, but the main point of the book is clear: it is a defense of his version of Christianity. So since his writing was not complete, concise, or exact truth I do not understand how it could be described as aphoristic, unless it was meant to be pointing out that his book was none of those things to which I would not like a patch work book.
5. Pascal’s Wager. I do not find it persuading or appealing, in fact I believe I have a good argument against that.
6. Not only might you lose your chance of bliss in heaven, but you might end up in hell where you will be tortured for the whole of eternity. Not at all, in fact I find it evil if a omnipotent being would give a bunch of meat sentience and allow it to live in a shit world for .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the time of even the universe has existed currently and if it messes up some hypocritical rules that were poorly conveyed then it spends ALL OF ETERNITY being tortured!!
7. Yes and Yes
1. Descartes’ Method of Doubt sought to establish certainty. According to this method if something’s certainty can even be slightly doubted then you can not trust it. Based on this method Descartes declared that you can not trust your senses because they can fool you, therefore your senses lack certainty. I believe that Descartes’ method is more sensible than Pyrrho’s because Descartes recognized that some beliefs are immune to skepticism and that they must be accepted as certain. I believe that someone could adapt to this state of mind if they practiced it every day, but I do not believe that I would be able to achieve this state of mind.
ReplyDelete2. Descartes did not claim to know that he was not dreaming. One of the tests that Descartes performed to determine if something was certain was the “evil demon thought experiment.” In this experiment, Descartes pushes doubt to the limits and assumes that some evil demon is controlling his mind and body. I have heard other people question their reality and ask themselves “Am I even awake right now,” but I have never experienced this feeling myself and I am certain that when I am awake then I am awake and when I am asleep then I am asleep.
3. Gilbert Ryle mocked this view as the myth of the ghost in the machine. Gilbert stated that the body was the machine, and the soul the ghost inhabiting it. I think that Gilbert Ryle’s comparison is a little strange because I believe that the soul lives on after the body dies.
4. Pascal’s best-known book is called “Pensees” which translates to “Thoughts.” This book is about the defense of his version of Christianity.
5. Pascal’s argument for believing in God is called Pascal’s Wager. The idea of this is that if you live your life believing in God then you do not risk anything, but if you live your life rejecting God then you are taking a risk and may be punished in the afterlife. I do think that his argument is persuasive for someone who may be going through a religious identity crisis, but I also think that it gives people who doubt God’s existence false hope because you can not expect to get into Heaven just because you pray, go to church, and act in a Christianly way. If you do not truthfully and faithfully believe in God then you will not be granted eternal bliss.
6. Pascal thought that if you gamble on God and lose then you lose nothing and that is true. According to Pascal’s Wager if you act like you believe and worship God then you risk nothing because you will be allowed into Heaven if God does exist and nothing will happen if God does not exist but if you reject God and God is real then you risk being sent to Hell because you did not live a Christian life.
7. By limiting Pascal’s wager to a choice between Christianity and atheism Pascal excludes too many other possible bets because if a different religion proves to be true then by choosing to follow Christianity someone might cut themselves off from external bliss in Heaven just like the person who rejects all belief in God.
(Section 13)
ReplyDeleteQ1. What state of mind, belief, or knowledge was Descartes' Method of Doubt supposed to establish? OR, What did Descartes seek that Pyrrho spurned? Was his approach more sensible than Pyrrho's? Do you think it's possible to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought?
A1. The proof that something can be certain to exist. Yes! Much more. Yes! "I think, therefore I am."
Q2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
A2. No, he did not. Oh, all the time.
Q3. What strange and mythic specter did Gilbert Ryle compare to Descartes' dualism of mind and body? ("The ____ in the ______.") Does that specter seem strange or silly to you?
A3. "The ghost in the machine." No, not at all, as I believe in reincarnation.
Q4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
A4. "Thoughts". Yes, it's very practical.
Q5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
A5. Pascal’s Wager. No, not at all. There is no after life. Your soul is transferred into a new body.
Q6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
A6. Nothing. Yeah, see above.
Q7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right?
A7. True.
1. What state of mind, belief, or knowledge was Descartes' Method of Doubt supposed to establish? OR, What did Descartes seek that Pyrrho spurned? Was his approach more sensible than Pyrrho's? Do you think it's possible to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought?
ReplyDeleteDon't accept things as true if it's possible it isn't. Descartes still seeked truth, despite his skepticism, Pyrrho always was skeptical and denied his senses. I like his approach in comparison to Pyrrho's. I do think it's a realistic state of mind to achieve, it personally got me thinking about certain things myself.
2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
He questioned if you could really know if you're dreaming or not. He came to the conclusion, "I think, therefore I am." Sometimes, I wonder about that. I've awaken from dreams that were so real, I still thought they happened after I woke up.
3. What strange and mythic specter did Gilbert Ryle compare to Descartes' dualism of mind and body? ("The ____ in the ______.") Does that specter seem strange or silly to you?
A ghost in a machine. I don't think it seems strange or silly, but I do not personally understand it well myself.
4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
The book is Pensees. No, I feel like he is focusing on the wrong things and should have more of an open mind.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
He called it Pascal's Wager. I honestly do think he has a good point. It made me understand why some religious people may be so keen on following their faith,
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
He thought you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing. I do agree, but I also thinking winning and losing things is just an illusion.
7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right?
Yes, it can cut you off from happiness, it can seem to be selfish to believe in God based on his reasons as well.
- Kelly Molloy, Section #13
section 11
ReplyDelete1. Descartes method of doubt was to not believe anything if there was even a possibility of being true. I do think his approach was more sensible than Pyrrho, however, I do not think it is possible to achieve this because you would have to doubt everything in your life which could be stressful.
2. He did not claim to know that he was not dreaming. I think I am dreaming sometimes when super crazy things happen.
3. "ghost in the machine" This is stating that our body is the machine, and our soul is the ghost. This is not strange to me because I believe our souls still exist after death.
4.Pensées or "thoughts" I am not really compelled to read this as it doesn't seem interesting to me.
5. Pascals argument for believing in God is called Pascal's Wager.
6. "You lose nothing" I do not agree because there could be consequences you do not know about
7. true
#11
ReplyDelete1.- Descartes’ Method of Doubt is supposed to establish a method of don’t believe anything that is not true. I feel like his approach is a little more sensible that Pyrrho because you were a least able to answer questions you had rather than just not questioning anything. I believe that it was not possible because there’s nothing wrong with having doubts about something. It is human nature.
2. - he claimed to know everything was existing. I do sometimes, but I usually don’t believe it.
3. - He compared it to a ghost in a machine. It doesn’t seem silly to me but I believe you need the mind and body to work together just having a mind to think with no body doesn’t seem right to me.
4. - Pascal’s best known book is Pensees. It interesting, but not something I would enjoy reading.
5. - it is called Pascal’s wager. I find it appealing but I would not buy into it because it doesn’t make anymore religious, just scared of what happens after you die, if you go to heaven for “believing” or he’ll for not believing.
6. -“You lose nothing.” I believe that is false because Pascal believed that if u do not believe in God, you are going to spend the rest of eternity in hell. But I believe that there’s always something to lose ultimately.
7- True. Pascal is only making it seem like the Christian God is right and any other God people choose to worship is false.
1. Descartes believed that if there was any chance that something was not true, you shouldn’t believe it. He wanted to be able to trust in things being real, and found that you can trust in the fact that you exist, unlike Pyrrho, who thought that we couldn’t know anything for sure. I think his approach was a lot more sensible than Pyrrho’s, but I’m not sure it’s possible to achieve Descartes’ state of mind. It’s human nature to both doubt and trust things, and we can’t really help it sometimes.
ReplyDelete2. Descartes came to the conclusion that because he was able to think, he must exist. I often wonder if I’m dreaming and if what I’m experiencing is true reality.
3. Gilbert Ryle compared Descartes’ dualism of mind and body to the ghost in the machine. It doesn’t really seem silly to me; I think it’s kinda interesting to think about. I agree with Descartes that the mind and body are separate but work together.
4. Pascal's best-known book is Pensees. It doesn’t really sound all that interesting to me.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called Pascal’s Wager. I have heard of this before and I do think that it sorta makes sense logically… but I am pretty content with my nonreligious life so I’m not changing a thing. I also feel like it really should take other religions into account, because who says Christianity is the “right” religion to back so you don’t go to “hell?”
6. Pascal said that if you lose your gamble on God, "you lose nothing." I think if you are religious and you enjoy being that way, then you lose nothing. Otherwise, you just end up wasting a bunch of time if you’re only on board with the whole God thing for a free ticket to heaven.
7. Obviously there are a lot more options than Christianity or atheism, and Pascal can’t know for sure that Christianity is the “right” religion to back, so you have to take his argument with a grain of salt. Again, I do think that if the choice was only between Christianity or atheism, then his logic does make sense, but there are a whole lot of other religions out there that we can’t exclude. So I don’t know if you can extend his Wager to fit all other religions (because they’re not all like Christianity, of course). I guess what I’m trying to say is at the end of the day his Wager isn’t all that useful if you take into account that not everyone lives in the same culture and shares the same beliefs.
1. What state of mind, belief, or knowledge was Descartes' Method of Doubt supposed to establish? OR, What did Descartes seek that Pyrrho spurned? Was his approach more sensible than Pyrrho's? Do you think it's possible to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought?
ReplyDeleteDescartes method of doubt established don't accept if things if they might turn out to be false. I think he makes a little more sense then Pyrrho, since its you can chose for things to be true or false, while pyrro chose for everything to be false. I think it is possible, since many people question everything anyways.
2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
He did not since, he thought we existed in mind at least. There have been many times were I experienced waking up and getting ready like it was real, so sometimes I do think im dreaming especially when im tired.
3. What strange and mythic specter did Gilbert Ryle compare to Descartes' dualism of mind and body? ("The ____ in the ______.") Does that specter seem strange or silly to you?
The ghost in the machine, I think it doesn't seem silly because I feel like in a way its true, many peoples body fails them (the machine) but you can see their soul fighting, to live and keep going (the ghost) especially older people, wanting to live but their parts are failing so they have no choice.
4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
Pensées, I think it sounds interesting and I would give it a read.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
Its called Pascals wager, I think its true in a sense, many older people will tell crazy stories when they were young but didn't in believe in God but as they got older they wanted to have a chance at bliss so they started going to church and the whole nine yards. So it's similar in a way that people will chose God later in life or just doing the bare minimum to get accepted. It sounds very persuasive to very people who aren't able to stick to a choice.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
You lose nothing, I agree to an extent, because it's true when you die you die and if there is something there is but if there's not there's not. But if there is another God then you do lose since you only believed in one.
7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right?
True, you never know what's going to happen when you die, so there could be many other gods and not just one.
Section #11
ReplyDelete1. Descartes' Method of doubt was supposed to establish that you shouldn't accept anything as true if there is the slightest possibility that it isn't. I think that this approach is more sensible than Pyrrho's because he thought that some things could be true if 100% proven, unlike Pyrrho who believed nothing was true at all. I don't believe this state of mind to be achievable because it is programed in humans to sometimes believe things whether they be true or not, and most everyone relies on their gut instinct which may not always be true.
2. No, Descartes never claimed to know for sure if he was not dreaming. He said that plenty of people had realistic dreams all the time, so there was no way of knowing truly if reality was one big dream. I never think that I am dreaming when I am awake.
3. He compared it to the ''The Ghost in the Machine.'' This concept does seem a little strange to me that the body and mind are controlled by different things like machines and spirits. I always just thought my mind and body as one thing working together.
4. Pascal's best-known book was Pensee's. I typically wouldn't be drawn to his style although it seems interesting.
5. His argument is called Pascal's wager. It was based on gambling and calculating your best odds whether God exists or not, and then base your life accordingly. This doesn't seem all appealing to me because I believe you shouldn't decide your Faith in God based on pure odds if he exists or not. I think it is something you should decide for yourself and not rely on other outside factors.
6. He thought if you gamble on God and lose you lose nothing. I don't agree with this because even if there is no afterlife such as heaven or hell, there could be other consequences that are unknown after you die if you lose the gamble on God.
7. I believe this to be true because there are other religions and beliefs to consider not just the three Pascal limited himself to.
#11
ReplyDelete1. His method was trying to hold the belief of not believing stuff as true if there is even the slightest possibility that it could be proven otherwise. You take a belief and only accept it as true after you have examined it and determined that there's no way it can be false.
2. he did not claim to know he was dreaming. I don't think sometimes im dreaming, but when i am dreaming it sometimes actually feels like I'm awake and actually doing the thing
3. The ghost in the machine. I don't think it silly. I think our souls do possess our bodies basically and I believe when we die that our souls will take on other forms
4. Pensees. I do like his style. If you win, you win everything, but if you lose, you lose nothing. If you live your life with expectations and aim to be the best you that there is to be, and it actually pays off, then good for you, but if you do all that and get nothing out of it, at least you still lived the best possible life. Or for any situation like that.
5. Pascal's Wager. I find it appealing.
6. your chance of bliss in heaven and might end up in hell.
7. True. You could have chose the wrong religion or the wrong God for not taking into account the other bets
Makenzie keen
ReplyDeleteSection 13
1. Descartes' method of doubt was supposed to establish certainty, he believed you should question everything until it is certain, establishing the “Cartesian Doubt”. His approach was definitely more sensible compared to pyrrhos since he did acknowledge that you do have to trust some things. I believe that his state of mind is not the most achievable since if you doubt and question everything except this one grand thing you're searching for to be certain of, you're going to be very critical of everything else while searching.
2. Descartes claims to know that he exists, not if he was dreaming or not. Sometimes I do have those thoughts that I may be unconscious randomly most of the time when I'm driving for a while.
3.Gilbert ryle compares Descartes’ dualism of mind and body to the “ghost in a machine”, to me, I think it sounds a bit spirtiual, not strange or uncommon though. This comparison reminds me of how some people say that their soul will “leave their body”.
4. Pascals best known book is “pensees”, I like his writing style because he is very realistic about life.
5. Pascals argument for believing in God is “called Pascals’ wager”, he believes that there is no harm in believing in God, if you are wrong in the end, you lose nothing, I find this appealing because it's a very uncommon and optimistic ideal.
6. He believes if you gamble on god and lose, you lose nothing. I agree, there is npo harm in believing this yourself.
7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right?
This is true, I feel like with so little options and the options being just black and white, you either believe or you don’t, you don’t really have much room to explore what you truly believe and what you don’t.
#13
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Descartes Method of Doubt was supposed to establish certainty, to only accept it if you are certain that it can't be wrong. I definitely feel his approach was more sensible than Pyrrho's, since Pyrrho spent time trying to prove things to be wrong. I think trying to fulfill that state of mind can be detrimental, if you spend your life focusing on what is considered real.
2. Descartes did not claim to know if he was dreaming. Sometimes I feel like I am, depending on how surreal the events around me are feeling. I've also had the opposite happen, where a dream felt too real and I've genuinely mistook it as a memory.
3. "Ghost in the machine." I personally think it's an interesting approach, I'm not necessarily swayed in any direction. Admittedly, I'm now sitting here internally debating the concept of a soul
4. Pascal wrote "Pensees," I feel his approach was too pessimistic and "definitive" for lack of a better word
5. "Pascal's Wager." I don't personally agree, it ties into that whole "definitive" approach previously mentioned. I don't like the idea of just blindly worshipping because someone thinks I should, if that makes sense.
6. If you gamble on God and lose, "you lose nothing." I disagree harshly. As someone who isn't particularly religious, it rubs me wrong that you would compare religion to a wager, it's a lot more complex than that. Not to mention the possibility that there are other consequences that aren't yet known
7. True
HWT
1. Sacred and Secular
2.Brahman, one
3.separation of theology and philosophy, and it offers little prospect of adopting modern views on gender roles and homosexuality
4.predestination
5. Reductionism. Frankfurt applied it to the concept of 'bullshit,
FL
1. Conspiratorial explanations try to connect reality and fantasy
2. They have no secrets at all
3.Slave Power Conspiracy
4.God punishing the North for not outlawing slavery
5. They couldn't live a happier life
13
ReplyDelete1. descartes believed in cartesian doubt, which is being suspicious of everything until you know it has to be certain
2. he knew he was awake. I usually know when I am daydreaming, but sleep is different in that I feel submersed in it as if it is reality.
3. ghost in the machine is the comparison. I don't think it is odd.
4. pensees.
5. Pascal's wager. If you believe in god it doesn't matter because if you are wrong the end is still the same.
6. if you believe in god and are wrong you dont have any reprocussions, because everyone ceases in that picture anyways.
7. True. Though I don't believe in other religions, there are far more with different ideologies. The statement would probably be the same with these though, and I assume that Pascal was talking simply about theism as a whole, whether it be the christian god or not.
1. Descartes’ Method of Doubt explained that one should not accept anything as true if there is even the slightest possibility that it isn’t. His goal was to establish what facts are undeniable true.
ReplyDelete2. Descartes determined that it was impossible to know if we were dreaming or not. I don’t think I’m dreaming but I’m aware of all the theories of us living in a simulation. I do find these sorts of theories fascinating and it is something I occasionally think about, but I won’t say I believe them.
3. Gilbert Ryle mocked Descartes dualism of mind and body by comparing it to the ghost in the machine. The specter makes sense to me, but the use of ghost does make it seem quite silly.
4. Pascal has a well-known book called ‘Thoughts.’ It is quite interesting how he arranged his writing. His views of humanity are harsh though, but I'd be interested in opinions he has written about in the book.
5. Pascal’s argument that God exists is called Pascal’s Wager. He believed that if you lived like God didn’t exist and God truly does exist then you risk eternal suffering. I’ve heard this sort of argument before, and it doesn’t seem appealing. The concept of probability is brought up in defending his reason from a logical place which does make sense. However, it doesn’t really sway me because at the end of the die no one truly knows.
6. Pascal thought you would lose your chance of bliss in heaven. I like to think that hell isn’t a real place but instead everyone just goes to heaven or at least somewhere that’s not terrible. I don’t think that the way you live truly determines whether you can get bliss after you die.
7. I agree with Nigel’s statement. There’s a possibility of many different outcomes than just if God exists or not. I think as a true philosophy Pascal shouldn’t rule out that possibility.
#13
ReplyDelete1.Descartes believed in the method of doubt, that nothing is actually true until you know that it has been confirmed as true, I think his approach was more sensible then pyrrhos
2. He never claimed that, and i'm able to tell the difference between daydreaming and actually dreaming
3. The ghost in the Machine comparison, i do not see it as odd or unordinary
4.Pensees and his writing style is very intriguing
5.Pascals wager, I do not find it too appealing
6. "you lose nothing" I don't agree because if you lose your gamble you will have died with the feeling of being wrong.
7. I would say true, he tries to make it seem like the christian god is the only right one
1.He believed in certainty. You take on a belief and you have to do your research on it to make sure it is 100% true.
ReplyDelete2.He wasn't dreaming. I personally do not think that i could.
3. "The Ghost in the Machine" I think that it sounds silly but given what is going on the metaphor is good.
4.Pascals best known book is "Peneese"
5."Pascal's wager. I do not agree with this. He says that we should bet or wager on God because of what is at stake. I do not believe that is right.
6.He says if you gamble on god and you lose. you lose nothing. I agree on that fact that you would lose nothing, but i disagree that you should be gambling on God in the first place.
7.True
Racheal Clark
ReplyDeleteSection 10
1. What state of mind, belief, or knowledge was Descartes' Method of Doubt supposed to establish? OR, What did Descartes seek that Pyrrho spurned? Was his approach more sensible than Pyrrho's? Do you think it's possible to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought?
Descartes is an extremist who believes finding the actual truth. He eliminated everything in his life that may of seemed not true. Even himself, until it could have been fully proven.
2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
He did claim to know this, but personal, I'm not able to tell. Just this morning my cat was staring at me and it scared me because I thought I was still dreaming.
3. What strange and mythic specter did Gilbert Ryle compare to Descartes' dualism of mind and body? ("The ____ in the ______.") Does that specter seem strange or silly to you?
The Ghost in the Machine. Yes, very strange.
4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
Peneese and I'd like to look into it more.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
Pascal's wager, and I don't believe in god so I wouldn't find a care if bet or wagered either way unless you were superstitious.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree? You loose nothing. I agree because if god is this so called power-being, he wouldn't think such as a human would, and cannot care because there's nothing for him to gain.
7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right?
True, anything and everything is a possibility.
#13
ReplyDelete1. What state of mind, belief, or knowledge was Descartes' Method of Doubt supposed to establish? OR, What did Descartes seek that Pyrrho spurned? Was his approach more sensible than Pyrrho's? Do you think it's possible to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought?
He believed that even if someone is questioned then its most likely not the truth. He was an extremist that was full of doubt.
2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
Descartes claims he knows. I think I know the difference between day dreaming and dreaming, it all has to do with your conscious.
3. What strange and mythic specter did Gilbert Ryle compare to Descartes' dualism of mind and body? ("The ____ in the ______.") Does that specter seem strange or silly to you?
The ghost in the machine. I think this is strange and a silly thing to say.
4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
Peneese, I think there is a reason its his best known book, it seems intriguing.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
Pascal’s wager, I dont believe this is right. I believe in God and I dont think you should wage whether or not to believe in a higher power.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
"you loose nothing", I very much disagree, there is no loosing in Gods kingdom, it cannot be compared to a wager.
7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right?
True, I think Pascal needed to keep his mind more open.