LHP
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?
1. Johnson kicked a stone heard in the streets and proclaimed, “I refute it thus”. Meaning that he could feel the stone against his foot and therefore it existed. Johnson did not succeed in convincing Berkely he was right because even if Johnson felt the rock against his foot then according to Berkley the feeling was all in his mind and there was no rock or world for that matter.
ReplyDelete2. 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. Generally I am neither because I aim to be as scientific as possible because that is how the world is fascinating to me. Although deep down I have no idea if anything is real and to be honest nobody can prove to me that they are not a figment of my imagination. Which might be another reason why I hold science so dear because I need there to be governing laws of the universe and me be able to understand them for my reality to exist.
3. Berkeley claimed to be more consistent. Unlike Locke he thought that we do perceive the world directly. That is because the world consists of nothing but ideas. The whole of experience is all that there is. In other words, the world and everything in it only exist in people’s minds.
4. Berkeley summed up this strange view in Latin as ‘Esse est percipi’ – to be (or exist) is to be perceived. I really do not have a complete answer either way if existing requires being perceived or not. I want to say no and that everything will still be there no matter what, but I cannot prove that.
5. An obvious difficulty for Berkeley, however, is explaining how we can ever be mistaken about anything. If all that we have are ideas, and there is no further world behind them, how do we tell the difference between real objects and optical illusions? His answer was that the difference between experience of what we call reality and experience of an illusion is that when we experience ‘reality’ our ideas don’t contradict each other. I am not completely positive I understand what you mean by non-reality but if I do then this is my answer. Yes, but it can get very tricky, for example there are a lot of concepts in Quantum Mechanics about things that are not exactly real but are the fundamentals of our universe. For example, Virtual Particles are a complicated phenomenon that are not entirely real but they are and allow for quantum interactions to occur.
6. English poet Alexander Pope. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Not necessarily nothing ever would not be good or bad, but on a grand scheme of things even out; sort of like yin and yang. Like a math equation 5-5=0, there is a positive part and a negative part, but each equal out in the end. Well it just depends on how small of a scale you desire to contemplate and what to focus on to be reasonable. For example say there is a little boy named Timmy and he had an abusive father that would hit his sister. Then let’s say that because of that event Timmy grew up to be a doctor to help others who get injured and helped prevent domestic violence cases through advocacy. Then what if Timmy’s dad was a nice guy, rather than a horrible person, in a separate reality then in that reality Timmy grew up to be the abuser to the family he would have in the future. So yes obviously domestic violence is a bad thing and should not happen, I am not advocating that these types of people should not be punished or that it is a good thing that they happen. My point is that there is always an equal and opposite reaction (literally Newton’s Third Law of Motion). Or what Prof. Oliver loves to criticize about stoicism “It is what it is.”
7. François-Marie Arouet (1694–1778), better known as Voltaire.
Delete8. In 1755 one of the worst natural disasters of the eighteenth century occurred: the Lisbon earthquake that killed more than 20,000 people. This Portuguese city was devastated not just by the earthquake, but also by the tsunami that followed, and then by fires that raged for days. Natural disasters are a unfortunate side effect of living on our planet and probably living on any planet. Other than knowing that knowledge it would be useful to understand meteorologically why a natural disaster happened in order to predict more, other than that I see no reason to contemplate such tragedies.
9. At a deeper level, though, cultivating our garden, for Voltaire, is a metaphor for doing something useful for humanity rather than just talking about abstract philosophical questions. Yes, because being productive is not just to better the society you live in but also to better yourself as a human being. If we do not nurse our ability to grow then we might as well not be human anymore, not even an animal, but a random assortment of atoms being blown wherever the universe pushes us (an inanimate object).
10. No he disagrees saying even if you reach the conclusion that something very powerful made the human eye, you don’t have evidence to say that it was all-powerful. The eye has some flaws. So many reason, one would be that it is bored and wants to play around with different possibilities of designing humans and what flaws they can deal with. Another would be it will be a test for them to overcome sometime in their life to develop character. Another would be it wants to make a specific story (like a movie) and the characters it writes has those flaws.
11. For something to be a miracle, Hume thought, it had to defy a law of nature. He did not trust others accounts of miracles. I do not draw a line because I believe anything is possible. As far as improbable, well it was very improbable just last year that I would be sitting here right now typing homework for college, so improbable is simply something that does not have a good likelihood of occurring thus it could still happen.
12. ‘Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains,’ The General Will is whatever is best for the whole community, the whole state. When people choose to group together for protection, it seems that they have to give up many of their freedoms. I do not think that just because you intend to act in your own idea towards benefiting others that makes you free or anyone else. It is extremely difficult to KNOW what is best for everyone, in fact when people try to use there ideas to impose on everyone else it tends to be a bad thing. For example we have more food available than ever before in history (which is acting together for the whole), yet we still have people starving next to people who are practically disabled from being so fat!
1. He kicked a stone. He technically didn't succeed because it only proved the point of the stone being hard, not proving material things exist.
ReplyDelete2. I think I am neither. In a way, I do believe in Idealism, but not to the total extent that I would identify as an Idealist. He was an idealist because he believed everything exists is an idea, and he was a immaterialist because he denied material things exist.
3. He thought we do perceive the world directly. I think he does have a point, but I think in a way Locke equally has much of a point. It's hard to say.
4. Esse est percipi. "To be perceived." I think in a way it could. You can't acknowledge something exists without substantial proof. It reminds me of the Schrodinger's Cat theory. How are you sure the cat is dead or alive in the box, and such?
5. Objects may come in and out of existent. I am not sure...
6. Alexander Pope. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. I think it does imply nothing is wrong, I think it is possible to believe this. We would not have the understanding to understand a God, or the capacity to understand every facet of the world.
7. Francois-Marie Arouet, Voltaire.
8. Libson earthquake. It made him question the suffering, and God's plan. I think natural disasters are just a part of nature. They cause devastation for the life on the planet, but I think it's just a way of nature trying to regulate itself.
9. It can be taken in a literal sense, to live a simple life and continue our work. But to also contribute to humanity.
10. He did, the function of the eye is very detailed, and seems all to good to work by chance and luck of it being that way. It is unsure, I do not think it is possible for anything to be perfect, but an eye itself is still impressive.
11. It had to defy a law of nature. He didn't think we should believe others just because they say something happen. I feel like it depends to me. People have told me things that seem ridiculous, but other times I don't believe. I do not believe people's miracles if it only benefits the person saying it, they are most likely being selfish, think their special, and that the world revolves around them.
12. We're born free but everywhere we are in chains. "The Social Contract." I think so, I do agree that giving up just a few things for community and protection can be beneficial.
- Kelly Molloy, Section #13
#10
ReplyDelete1. Samuel Johnson kicked a stone to prove George Berkeley’s theory wrong. Samuel believed that material things do exist and are not just composed of ideas. By kicking the stone he felt the stone and this was supposed to prove that Berkeley’s theory was inaccurate, but unfortunately, it only proved the existence of the idea of a stone.
2. George Berkeley was an idealist because he believed that only ideas exist and he was an immaterialist because he denied material things. I am not an idealist or immaterialist because I believe that ideas and materials both exist and I do not deny materialistic things but I think that we should live a simple lifestyle.
3. Berkeley claimed that we do perceive the world directly and that his theory is more consistent than Locke’s theory. I do not agree with Berkeley’s theory that the world only consists of ideas and that the world and everything in it only exists in minds.
4. “Esse est percipi” means to be (or exist) is to be perceived. I do not think that the existence of someone or something depends upon being perceived. I may not understand gravity, velocity, or acceleration but all of those things do still exist. Our ideas are not the only things that exist and I think science is a great example of this.
5. The difficulty that Berkeley’s theory faced is explaining how we can be mistaken about anything. Based on Berkeley’s theory that all we have are ideas, there is no way to tell what is reality and what is just an illusion. I do not think ideas can be consistent and not real. The concept of consistency and reality fall hand in hand because what is real is always real and what is an illusion will always be an illusion. We can have something real and nonexistent because of the law of Non-Contradiction.
#10
ReplyDelete6. Alexander Pope, an English poet, declared that “whatever is, is right” because everything is God’s work and God is good and all-powerful. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a German philosopher, agreed with Alexander Pope based on Leibniz’s "Principle of Sufficient Reason.” I do not agree with this philosophy, because not everything happening is God’s work, and not everything that you do is part of God’s plan. God gives us free will and the ability to act on this free will. Some people go down rough paths and experiment with drugs and alcohol, but this is not part of God’s plan. This philosophy reminds me of Epictetus’s belief that we don't have much control over anything and that we should not try to change or worry about things that we don't have control over.
7. Francois-Marie Arouet also known as Voltaire, a French champion of free speech and religious toleration, wrote a short satirical novel called “Candide” that ridiculed the idea that everything is right and for the best.
8. The Lisbon earthquake in 1755 killed more than 20,000 people in Portuguese. The city was hit by the earthquake and the earthquake caused a tsunami and fires that burned for days. This catastrophe and natural disaster influenced Voltaire’s belief in God and philosophy. He could not understand how an event like this could be part of God’s large and righteous plan. I would identify science as my philosophy when discussing natural disasters and I do not blame God for the occurrence of natural disasters.
9. The final words of Voltaire’s story “Candide” were “We must cultivate our garden.” This means that we need to do something good for humanity rather than just talking about philosophy. I do agree with Voltaire because it is more important to take care of your community than it is to only take care of yourself and I believe that is the point that Voltaire was trying to make.
10. David Hume did not believe that the eye was flawless because people can lose their eyesight over time and things can go wrong with the eyes. He did believe that something/someone designed the eye, but we should not assume that it was one all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God.
11. David Hume’s definition of a miracle was something that defies a law of nature. He thought that we should be skeptical about miracle reports because we want to believe that we have seen something unusual or we are simply mistaken. My definition of a miracle is something that was sent or caused by God. I think that anything is possible with God, but if someone told me that they walked on water then I would definitely be suspicious.
12. Jean-Jacques Rousseau stated that “Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains” but can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community, aka the General Will. The idea behind the General Will is that whatever is best for the community is best for the whole state. I don’t think that we are more free when we act in the best interest of the whole community, but I do think it makes us happier.
#11
ReplyDelete1. He kicked a stone and said "i refute it thus." he did not succeed because Berkley said that he is just feeling the idea that the stone is hard.
2. He was an idealist because he believed things are ideas. He was immaterialist because he denied physical objects exist. I'm neither.
3. He perceives the world directly. i see his point in a way but i do not completely agree.
4. "Esse est percipi– to be (or exist) is to be perceived." I do not have an opinion on this because it feels like a yes and no question.
5. "how we can ever be mistaken about anything." I believe it's possible but hard to prove.
6. English poet Alexander pope. German poet Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. It implies that nothing is ever bad because God intended our world to be like that. I believe its impossible to believe this because everyone has negative thoughts on our world in one way or another.
7. François-Marie Arouet, Voltaire
8. Lisbon earthquake. I believe that nothing is perfect and that natural disasters happen because of a malfunction in "God's plan."
9. Doing something that is virtuous for humanity rather than philosophy. I agree with him because everyone can speak, but not everyone can take action.
10. He believed that the human eye wasn't flawless and didn't conclude to intelligent design. An omnipotent designer designs a flawed organ because nothing is perfect.
11. Hume's definition of a miracle is something that defys the law of nature. He believed we should not believe people who "witnessed" a miracle because they could be lying. I believe miracles could happen, but not people who have "died and came back alive."
12. "We're born free but everywhere are in chains, but can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community, aka the General Will." No because everyone has selfish choices and biases.
Section #11
ReplyDelete1. He kicked that rock but in the end he still did not succeeded he just said what he believed and didn’t prove anything.
2. He was an idealist because he saw that simple objects were ideas. I wouldn’t say I am that kind of person
3. He was very direct but it necessarily was not the right thing.
4. His idea was that to live which doesn’t really have a wrong or right answer.
5. He questions can we really be wrong. I believe that there is not many flaws when it comes to this idea.
6. Alexander Pope he said that nothing that happens is really that bad because that is the world we live in and these things just happens
7. François Marie Arouet Voltaire
Delete8. the Lisbon earthquake is what influenced his philosophy because it reveals that nothing is truly one hundred percent pure and bad events will happen
9. Doing something good for the good of the people rather than for philosophy I agree because this is important for humanity.
10. He believed it wasn’t due to the simple idea that nothing is perfect everything has its flaws
11. His definition was that a miracle is not realistic. It defies all laws of nature basically should be very unlikely and even if they do there are limits that miracles have.
12. Chains and the General Will
#10
ReplyDelete1. Samuel Johnson kicked a rock and said, "I refute it thus." He did not succeed because the feeling of the hardness of the rock could just be your own ideas in your head.
2. Berkeley was an idealist because he believed in everything being composed of ideas. He was an immaterialist because he denied the existence of material things. I would have to say I am neither.
3. Berkeley claimed that we perceive the world directly and I think I believe in this point more than Locke.
4. His Latin slogan was ‘Esse est percipi.’ I do not think that existence depends upon being perceived because it would be the same if it was not perceived.
5. The obvious difficulty that Berkeley's theory faces are how we can ever be mistaken about anything. It is confusing if everything is made out of ideas, how do we know if that is true or not.
6. The English poet was Alexander Pope, and the German philosopher was Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. It does imply that, and I do believe it is possible to believe this, but I do not think it is reasonable.
7. Francois-Marie Arouet or Voltaire.
8. It was the 1755 Lisbon earthquake in Portugal. I do not have philosophical perspective about nature disasters. I just believe in the science behind them and that sometimes they just happen.
9. Voltaire meaning behind "cultivating our garden" is to do something useful for humanity rather than just asking philosophical questions. I do agree with him because it is important to do more actions than just questions.
10. He did not think the human eye was flawless. Hume was saying that it was not necessarily God who design the eyes, but an intelligent and skillful being.
11. Hume's definition of "miracle" was something that had to defy a law of nature. He thought we should not believe other people witnessing said miracles. I do believe in miracles in a sense because it is just something amazing that happens.
12. Rousseau said, "man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains," but we can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community, aka the general will. I do not think it makes us freer, but I feel like it does bring us fulfillment.
#11
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Samuel Johnson kicked a stone and said "I refuse it thus" . Berkley disagreed and said that it was just the feeling the idea that the stone is hard.
2. Berkley was an idealist because he believed that "all that exist are ideas" and an immaterialist because he denied physical objects.
3. He was very direct with his opinions and how he viewed the world. I am not as direct as he was.
4. His main concept was just to live. His phrase was " Esse est percipi". I think it is easier said than done to just live your life.
5. "How we can ever be mistaken about anything" which I think is difficult to explain because it is possible to have ideas that are effective but I think someone can easily prove you wrong.
6. The English poet Alexander Pope and the German poet Gottfried Wilhelm Lebiniz state that nothing is bad and everything is supposed to be the way it is. Which I disagree with.
7. Francois-Marie Arouet, Votaire.
8. The Lisbon earthquake. This just proves that nothing is perfect and not everything is good.
9. Doing something good for someone instead of doing it just for the philosphy of things which is true.
10. He thought that it was the idea that not everything is perfect and that things do have flaws.
11. Hume's idea was that for a miracle it had to defy a law of nature. He believed that we should not believe someone that has witnessed a miracle because they could be mistaking themselves. Which I think is true to an extent but I think miracles do happen.
12. "We're born free but everywhere he is in chains" but we can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community, aka General Will. The idea behind General Will is that whatever is best for the community is best for the whole state.
Section#11
ReplyDeleteLHP:
1. Sammuel Johnson kicked a stone in the street to 'refute' Berkley's theory on realities. He did not succeed according to Berkley, because he came back with his statement that the feeling of the stone against your foot wouldn't prove the existence of material objects, only the existence of the 'idea' of a hard stone.
2. Berkley was an idealist because he believed all that exist are ideas. He was an immaterialist because he denied that material things -physical objects- exist. Although I can understand his perspective, I do not categorize myself with either of these perspectives on life. I believe that ideas are the creation of everything, but the moment we take action it becomes way more than an idea. I could agree with the immaterialist POV a little bit, but things are real we can feel them, and they are there although some materials might be of no use to the universe so therefore proclaimed to be not real, those things are still real, and we can see touch and feel them.
3.Berkley claimed to be more consistent than Locke by saying that the world consists of nothing but ideas. The whole experience is all that there is.
4. 'Esse est percipi' ~ To be, or exist, is to be perceived. I do not think that existence could be determined by being perceived. Other people's opinions on me and my life have very little value in my mind, unless it is constructive criticism or coming from a place of love and empowerment, as harsh as it may sound, I do not really care what is perceived of me.
5. The obvious difficulty that Berkley's theory faced was explaining how we can never be mistaken about anything. I do not believe so.
6. Alexander Pope said, "whatever is, is right." and Gottfried Wilhem Leibniz used his principle of sufficient reason to agree. It does not necessarily mean that nothing is ever wrong or bad, but rather that all the bad things that do happen do so for the greater good in the end. I do not think this is a logical perspective to have, because it seems very pacifistic that's not a good way for anyone or any society to live.
7. Francois-Marie Arouet, also known as Voltaire.
8.The earthquakes, fires, and tsunami that hit Lisbon, Portugal in the 18th century. I believe that natural disasters are the evolution of the earth, or just another situation out of human control.
9. By cultivating our garden Voltaire meant we should focus on fixing the issues of mankind rather than sit around and discuss all the suffering and problems we face. I agree with Voltaire, although it is useful to take a step back from time to time you cannot have your heads in the clouds all the time at some point you must begin to fix what you see wrong. Otherwise, why are we discussing these things in the first place?
10. No Hume did not believe the eye was created perfectly or by someone who was perfect, if God was perfect no humans would need glasses for vision or hearing aids or have other handicaps. Not sure why people are born with flawed organs this is something I have always questioned about my eyes.
11. Humes definition of a miracle is something that defies the laws of nature. He thought it was wrong to believe someone's miraculous story. I would draw the line somewhere between someone flying and someone breaking an athletic record or an intellectual accomplishment for these later two are far more reasonable than someone flying without the use of external sources.
12. Chains, General will. I believe people are freer when they do things good for humanity and themselves included. Doing good for the community is very beneficial for mankind because if we are all going to live amongst each other in a society it will require effort from those living there to maintain and uplift said community. Helping the world can be as simple as creating something that helps you out, it can help out millions of other humans who have that same problem. Everything is a domino effect the goal should be to send down good creations and ideas down the chain-link, not to control the chain-link.
1. How did Samuel Johnson "refute" Berkeley's theory? Did he succeed? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteSamuel Johnson said, "I refute this." after kicking a rock. He did not succeed because that the feeling of the hard rock could be an idea in his head.
2. What made Berkeley an idealist, and an immaterialist? Are you one, the other, both, neither?
Berkeley was an idealist because he believed everything was an idea and an immaterialist because he said materialistic ideas weren't real.
I would say im not really either.
3. In what way did Berkeley claim to be more consistent than Locke? DId Berkeley have a point about that?
He claimed that we see the world directly, I believe he has a stronger point compared to Locke.
4. What was Berkeley's Latin slogan? Do you think existence depends upon being perceived?
"Esse est percipi" which means "to be perceived" I don't think so because there are so many people that exist that we have never perceived and might never.
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?
That how can we be mistaken about anything, which is very confusing compared to his theory since it's almost contradictory.
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?
English poet: Alexander Pope German Philosopher: Gottfried wilhem Leibniz. I don't totally agree with this because everyone has different thoughts about the world around them.
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)?
Francois-Marie Arouet (Voltaire)
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 1775 Lisbon earthquake in Portugal. I do not have any philosophical perspective on natural catastrophes, I think they happen because they happen. You can't really think that disasters happen for good or bad reasons.
9. What did Voltaire mean by "cultivating our garden"? Do you agree with hin?
What he meant by cultivating the garden is to do something good for the people and not just ask questions for philosophy. I agree with him because we should help people in the moment and not just ask questions about problems, take action.
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?
He thought the eye had lots of flaws, he also thought since we could lose our sight or something could happen to them, that they were not designed by a all powerful god.
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)?
His definition was that something had to defy the laws of nature. He said we shouldn't belie people who witnessed a miracle because they could by lying or just mistaken what they saw. I believe in them because sometimes stuff happens that isn't explainable by any normal means.
12. He said,"Were born free but everywhere are in chains, but can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community aka the general will." I think when we work not just for ourselves but for the community we are all more free. Because it's better to have one common goal everyone can help achieve then a selfish one that could change the trajectory of other people.
Section 13
ReplyDelete1. He refuted this by kicking a stone, although he was proven wrong because he proved his point that the stone was actually soild
2. Berkeley was an idealist. He held ordinary objects are only collections of ideas, which are mind dependent. He was also an immaterialist which means he held that there are no material substances. I think that I am neither I do believe that there are material substances that you can see and feel.
3. I think that Berkeley was more consistent with his ideals but they both equally had a point on what they were saying.
4. esse est percipi- to be perceived. He hold that there are no such mind- independent things. I think that our existance requires on being perceived.
5. It is unable to account for errors in perception. He thinks that we must trust the input of our senses. Ideals can be non existant but you can still percieve them if that is what you are asking..
6.Alexander Pope and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. I think that it is possible for someone to believe in this ideal, but morally it is wrong. If you commit murder that is wrong and cannot be justified.
7.Voltaire
8. The Great Lisbon Earthquake of 1755. I think that natural disasters and just that natural. I don't think that they are a good thing because if can cause so much damage to a town that was already going through hardship.
9. Our responsibitly is local and concentrated on immediate action. I do agree with this, if you see something happening and you do not take action then are just merely a bystander
LHP
ReplyDelete1. He kicked a stone hard in the street. He did not, because according to Berkeley, there was no proof it was real even if he felt a sensation.
2. he was an idealist because he believed that all that exists are ideas. He was an immaterialist, because he denied material things exist. Id say im more of an idealist by his definition, I do think that most of anything that exists once came from an idea.
3. Berkley claims we do perceive the world directly, because it is made out of ideas. I think he had a better idea going then Locke, even if it wasnt solid yet.
4. Esse est percipi - to be (or exist) is to be perceived. I do not think this is true, there are many things that still exist that I do not think of, and can discover. This is a more self centered way to look at things.
5. Explaining how we can never be mistaken about anything. I think it is hard to have contradicting theories or ideas.
6. Alexander pope. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. I think this can be iffy because everyone thinks differently.
7. Francois - Marie Arouet.
8. Lisbon Earthquake, killing more than 20,000 people. I think that natural disasters, whilst you cannot control it, can influence you and I understand it beating down on you over time
9. Doing something useful for humanity rather than just talking about philosophical questions. I do agree that it is better to take action but you should not just stop thinking.
10. No, things can be flawed, but he did think it was evidence to highly skilled crafter. I think it has some value to it if it is not perfect
11. It had to defy a law of nature. No, he thought that there was a more reasonable explanation. I don't know if i agree, i have always questioned this myself. I think maybe the best explanation is that we don't know.
12. Chains, The Social Contract. I think having a common goal is good for society, bringing everyone together to benefit everyone despite their differences.
FL
Delete1.Slavery theme park
2. Tennessee former governor and future US senator
3. A shameless 3 hr long piece of propaganda for the mythical old south and ku klux klan
4. Turn away from reality to a gaudy world of his own making.
5. "Slough off the supernatural parts"
6. They used scientific evidence, saying god created man over time
7. Scopes, Responsible for the wicked law. This ended up promoting conservative patterns
#13
ReplyDelete1. Samuel Johnson said " I refute thus" then proceeded to kick a rock ultimately being proven wrong because the stone was solid.
2. He was an idealist because he believed that everything that exists is just ideas and he was an immaterialist because he denied the existence of material things. I am neither
3. Berkley believed that we did see the world directly because it is made up of ideas, I think his thought process was a little better than Locke's although he was not even sure of it himself yet.
4. Esse est percipi. To be is to be perceived
5. The difficulty that is presented would be how could we be mistaken about anything. How would we be able to tell if everything was just an idea so it is a little confusing.
6. Alexander Pope, Leibniz. I do not agree with this because everyone can perceive the world differently
7. Voltaire
8. The Lisbon Earthquake, Something occurring that can not be controlled at all while also being very devastating could be very influential on someone's mind.
9. the meaning behind "cultivating our garden" is to do something useful for humanity rather than just thinking and talking about philosophical questions. Taking action is good in some circumstances but thinking is also really helpful
10. No, he did not see the eye as perfect because we still had the chance of losing sight or damaging them, so he also did not think that some higher power crafted it.
11. Hume's definition of Miracle was something that defied the laws of nature. I believe in them because sometimes things are just unexplainable.
12. "Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains." and we can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community. I do not believe that this would make us more free maybe just make our conscience happy.
13
ReplyDelete1. he kicked a rock and said he could feel its hardness, but berkley said that there is nothing to say it is real.
2. he said everything is an idea, making him an idealist, and he said physical things are all ideas and dont exist, making him immaterialist. I don't know which I am, but I know that the world is physically real and that I make my ideas based upon it.
3. Berkley believed that the world is taken in directly because it is made of ideas. I believe locke had a better point of view because the basis of berkley's, in my eyes, is flawed.
4. esse est percipi means that to exist is to be perceived. This is wrong because if something isn't known then it isn't perceived, even if it exists. Foundational object permanence.
5. explaining how we can ever be mistaken about anything. And contradicting theories make eachother baseless. Ideals are formed by principle, often making them complimentary.
6. alexander pope. gottfried willhelm leibniz. many things are bad, and to say they aren't is ridiculous. There is inherent value in life.
7. voltaire
8. lisbon earthquake. Catastrophes just happen. Though they are predictable, they are so powerful we cannot stop them. Its the tragedy of living on earth.
9. we need to stop questioning and start doing. I agree that this is a great way to think. Stop wondering how to take out the trash and just carry it out there.
10. no, everything is flawed. perfection is impossible.
11. had to defy a law of nature. I think miracles can happen, but I am definitely skeptical of it.
12. we're born free but everywhere are in chains. I think it is best to look out for yourself so you can then look out for others. Someone will always try and take advantage of easy living, so your success shouldn't be dependent on whether or not they decide to help out.
1.Samual Johnson refuted Berkeley’s theory that everything is an idea by kicking a rock. He argued that if he could feel the rock on his feet when he kicked it that the stone must be real and Berkeley must be wrong.
ReplyDelete2.Berkeley believed that everything that exists is an idea and he denied material things, or physical objects, existed which made him an idealist and sometimes an immaterialist. I don’t believe those aspects of his philosophy so in that way I’m neither an idealist nor immaterialist.
3.Locke being everything we saw was an interpretation, almost like a picture. This led him to conclude that we view the world indirectly. Berkeley claimed to be more consistent than Locke because he believed we saw the world directly but just as ideas. He believed the world and everything in it existed in the mind.
4.Berkeley believed that because everything existed in someone’s mind than objects stop existing once no one is perceiving it and made the latin term “Esse est percipi” to represent that idea. I don’t agree with this but sometimes it feels like that when I lose certain items.
5.Berkeley believed that God was observing and perceiving everything, so he didn’t truly believe objects came in and out of existence. I believe that is possible and it seems clear that Berkeley had that sort of idea.
6.Alexander Pope declared “whatever is, is right” and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz agreed that his idea. I don’t necessarily believe that statement implies that there's no wrong or bad. People can feel ways towards certain events, but I think Pope is seeing that it was sort of meant to happen that way
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?
ReplyDeleteAlexander Pope, gottfried wilhelm leibniz. I personally do not think it is reasonable. There is nothing good because everything is imperfect.
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)?
Francois marie aroeut, voltaire
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. I think that science explains earthquakes fairly well, i don’t really believe that something that has been perfectly explained by science requires philosophical explanation
9. What did Voltaire mean by "cultivating our garden"? Do you agree with hin?
What he meant when he said this was just strive to enjoy life while simultaneously contributing to the progression of humanity
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?
He did think so. I think that it depends at how we look at it, the eye byitself is a magnificent structure, the processes by wich we are able to see and in color is crazy. All of the rods and cones in the back of our eyes work together to produce a picture that is then sent to the brain. So really it just depends on the perspective you take in regard to the eye. Does it really matter that it is imperfect? Is it not enough just how impressive and miraculous the eye is?
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)?
A miracle has to defy a law of nature. He did not think we should believe people claiming to have seen or experienced a miracle. I would say when science and mathematics tells us definitively how this thing should go but then doesn’t. That is a miracle.
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, the social contract. Yes, by doing so, we make ourselves and the world happier.
#13
ReplyDeleteQ1: 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?
A1: It was the 1755 Lisbon earthquake. My opinion concerning natural disasters is that they are necessary for the balance of life and the ecosystem.
Q2: What was Berkeley's Latin slogan? Do you think existence depends upon being perceived?
A2: Berkeley's Latin slogan "esse est percipi" or "to be is to be perceived". I do believe that a large part of reality is the perceived reality. Without the perceived reality, reality itself would be different. However, that doesn't mean that the un-perceived reality doesn't exist it just doesn't exist to individual perceptions.
Q3: 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)?
A3: Rousseau said, "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains". but we can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community. I agree with this to an extent. You must think of others rather than yourself if society is to prosper. However, you shouldn't throw away your individualism for the sake of conformity.
Q4: What French champion of free speech and religious toleration wrote a satirical novel/play ridiculing the idea that everything is right?
A4: It was Voltaire.
Q5: What did Voltaire mean by "cultivating our garden"? Do you agree with him?
A5: That one must improve oneself to improve the world around them. I fully agree with this. Society is only as good or as evil as its citizens. Virtue is fundamental to a just society.
Q6: Who was Robert Love Taylor?
A6: Robert Love Taylor was a Tennessee representative and senator. He was also the governor of Tennessee.
1. Samuel Johnson kicked a rock and said that that disproved Berkeley’s theory, but it didn’t really because the theory still holds up, saying that Johnson only proved the existence of the idea of a rock, not the physical rock itself.
ReplyDelete2. Berkeley is an idealist because he believes that ideas are all that exist, and an immaterialist because he denied the existence of physical objects. I am neither, though I do find his philosophy thought-provoking. I can’t say that reality is all in my mind because it just doesn’t sit right with me.
3. Berkeley said that we do perceive the world directly through our ideas, and when everyone has consistent ideas reality is consistent as well. Locke believed that what we saw could be wrong and that there is a real world, but there is no way to really know if what we see is real or not. It doesn’t really make sense because how could he trust that there is a real world, but not be able to trust his senses to tell him that what he is experiencing is part of that real world or not.
4. Esse est percipi was Berkeley’s Latin slogan. Again, I think it’s a really intriguing idea, but I don’t believe in it.
5. Berkeley says that reality is composed of ideas, but if that’s true, then how can we ever be wrong about anything? It just doesn’t quite make sense, because if reality was everything we made it to be, then life would be a whole lot different. We just don’t have that kind of control over reality, regrettably. I guess what he says about perception and temporary false ideas morphing into a realization of true reality makes sense, but I’m not convinced.
6. Alexander Pope said that “whatever is, is right,” and Gottfried Leibniz agreed. They were not saying that nothing is ever wrong, but they were saying that God had a reason for allowing whatever evil is present to exist and that this world is the most perfect world possible, containing the least amount of evil out of all other options. I personally cannot believe this. I feel like some people might use this philosophy to justify not attempting to change the status quo because life is already perfect, or at least as perfect as possible, and I just don’t think that’s the right mindset to have. The most perfect reality possible is the one that we all accept, and why should we settle for this when we could have it even better? Tangent aside, I feel like this view isn’t optimistic, because optimism is being hopeful when looking towards the future, but this philosophy is just saying, “yeah it never gets better than this,” which isn’t true at all especially if you’re suffering.
7. Voltaire wrote Candide, a novel and play that ridiculed Leibniz’s philosophy, which I kinda want to read now because that's hilarious.
8. The Lisbon earthquake influenced Voltaire’s philosophy, showing up in Candide. I don’t think we can make rational or moral sense of natural catastrophes; I believe stuff just happens sometimes for reasons we will never fully understand.
9. Voltaire said that “we must cultivate our garden,” meaning that we should all do our best to serve humanity instead of just sitting around discussing the nature of reality. Philosophizing is all well and good of course, but there’s a time and a place for it. Sometimes we need to put those abstract ideas aside and get down to business, physically do things to help others. I wholeheartedly agree with this view and honestly I kinda think Voltaire is my new favorite philosopher (or at least one of them).
10. Hume thought that the argument that because the human eye is so intricate there must be an all-powerful God who created humans is deeply flawed. It doesn’t really make sense for a being with so much power to create imperfect things.
Delete11. A miracle, according to Hume, must break a law of nature. The problem with this is that these natural laws have been proven time and time again to hold true, which is why he thought that we should not believe other people when they say they have witnessed a miracle. Sometimes our senses fail us, and so we shouldn’t always trust them, especially when there is a lot of evidence out there that what we supposedly saw cannot have happened. I think he is right, but at the same time if I saw a miracle performed right in front of my eyes, how can I just not believe it?
12. Rousseau said we're born free but everywhere are in chains, but can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community, aka the General Will. I don’t really agree with his definition of freedom, but according to him we are all more free when we act for the good of the whole community. Don’t get me wrong, I totally think we should all help each other out when needed and do our best to live in harmony, but there is no freedom in being forced to serve others against your will; that’s the opposite of freedom, in fact. Totalitarianism is really awful and that’s basically what he’s advocating for…
Q1. How did Samuel Johnson "refute" Berkeley's theory? Did he succeed? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteA1. He kicked a rock. No. He only proved the idea of a rock, not the physical rock itself.
Q2. What made Berkeley an idealist, and an immaterialist? Are you one, the other, both, neither?
A2. He believed in the idea of things, not the physical things themselves. Neither, things physically exist.
Q3. In what way did Berkeley claim to be more consistent than Locke? DId Berkeley have a point about that?
A3. He claimed that we view the world directly, where as Locke claimed that we view it indirectly, but had no way to prove that consistently. Yes.
Q4. What was Berkeley's Latin slogan? Do you think existence depends upon being perceived?
A4. Esse est pericipi. No.
Q5. What obvious difficulty does Berkeley's theory face? Is it possible to have ideas that are consistent (non-contradictory) but still about non-realities?
A5. How can we be wrong about things? Yes.
Q6. 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?
A6. Alexander Pope and Gottfried Leibniz. Yes. No.
Q7. What French champion of free speech and religious toleration wrote a satirical novel/play ridiculing the idea that everything is right (for the best)?
A7. Voltaire.
Q8. 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?
A8. The Lisbon earthquake. No.
Q9. What did Voltaire mean by "cultivating our garden"? Do you agree with him?
A9. To do your best. Yes.
Q10. 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?
A10. Yes. They wouldn't.
Q11. 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)?
A11. Something that breaks the laws of nature. No. If I can see them happen, I can believe them.
Q12. Rousseau said we're born free but everywhere are in **chains**, but can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community, aka the **General Will**. Are we all more free when we act not only for ourselves but for the good of the whole community (world, species)?
A12. NO!
#11
ReplyDelete1. He tried to disprove it by kicking a rock. This failed because Berkely said that that only proved Johnson had an idea of what a rock was and the idea of pain.
2. He was an immaterialist because he thought that there was no physical matter and an idealist since he thought all there was were ideas that painted the picture of things.
3.Berkely said that we view the world directly but only see images of what we imagine or expect while Locke said we view the world indirectly and might not see things the way they actually are. I think so since Locke somewhat contradicts himself by saying there are secondary and primary features so we can never tell what a thing actually looks like, but if that so, how could he know the difference in the two, what he could and couldn't tell was real?
4. Esse est pericipi, in a way it makes sense because if something is there but never perceived by anyone, it never existed in anyone's minds, memories, or history. Just as for something to make a sound someone or thing has to hear that sound or it might have never happened and no one would be able to say differently.
5. If we imagine or have ideas about everything that exists, how could we ever be wrong about something. I think people can imagine the same things that are consistent, but if we imagined everything that we saw on a daily basis, there would be more than a few contradictory viewpoints on certain objects' appearances.
6. Alexander Pope and Gottfried Leibniz thought this way. It does not imply that there is no evil it is just trying to explain that it is the best possible world to live in with the least amount of evil. I think in a way it is. People often don't realize how could they have it until it's gone, and who is to say that if life was easier today it wouldn't have a terrible, dramatic effect in the future.
7. Voltaire
8. The Lisbon earthquake. I think it could be a multitude of reasons. I think that maybe God is punishing a certain place for evil behavior like Sodom and Gamorrah, it could be because if everything was perfect and there was no suffering then there would be no necessity for faith in God or distinction between heaven and earth, or maybe it's just because Satan wants to cause as much suffering as possible and if God intervened every time then there would be no good or evil which would take our right to choose God since he would be the only answer.
9. He meant that we need to try to make the best of whatever circumstances we might be in. I agree with that.
10. no, He originally designed us without "flaws" that we see today. The reason we have these now is because of the Fall of Man in the garden of Eden. Because of that, we are susceptible to disease, feel pain, and have deformities.
11. He said a miracle was something that defied the laws of nature. No, I would draw the line between impossible and improbable when it has been scientifically proven that something can't happen (impossible) and not proven that it could happen (improbable).
12. Chains, General will, I don't think so considering he said that sometimes to work with people, we have to be forced to be free and work with for the community which doesn't sound like freedom to me.
#11
ReplyDeleteThe burnout society youtube video
This video which you can find on the right side of the screen near the top under the overthink Podcast discusses the effects of living in an overachieving society. She says that it causes burnout, or social and mental fatigue, along with hypertension and short focus spans in part to video games and social media like TikTok. The video suggests that contemporary immersion (becoming fully engaged with one thing and not constantly changing attention) is becoming harder to achieve with the "go go go" society. The constant need for success has also caused depression and solitude exhaustion. I disagree with her though. I think staying healthily active and pushing for success is good for people as long as they aren't working themselves to death. I think as humans, we feel happier the more we accomplish which is why we try to accomplish as much as we can and the less proactive you are, the more sluggish you feel and more depressed you feel. Based off people I have known, the ones that slack around more and don't do as much or try to better themselves are the ones that feel more down in the dirt. Also I think her connection of short-term attention to capitalism and progressive society is out of context. People do have trouble paying attention the more the are on social media scrolling, but in no way does that connect to achievement I don't think since it is very counterproductive. It was an interesting video though I would love to hear y'all's thoughts on it.
1. He said he believed that things do exist after not being observed. He gave the example that you could feel the rocks under his feet and that proved that they are real.He did not succeed with his idea because Berkeley proved him wrong. He said that the rocks are just a mere sensation.
ReplyDelete2.He believed that all that exists are ideas but he also denied the material things like any physical objects that exist. I feel that I am neither of these. It just wouldn't make sense to me to question what is real and what is not. I believe objects are real because of the feeling and sensory ties to it.
3.He thought that we do perceive the world directly. His thoughts that there is no other real world. His view was that the world is all but just ideas. I think I would believe Locke's theory more because personally I feel like something has to be real.
4.His latin slogan meant to exist is to be perceived. I don't think that existence depends on being perceived. I think that existence is just made and there shouldn't be much question about it.
5. His theory faced the thought that objects can constantly come in and out of existence all the time. Think we can have consistent ideas that aren't real but I feel like there is more of a question than an idea. He also wondered where we can tell the difference between optical illusions and real objects.
6.English poet Alexander Pope declared whatever is, is right. He believed it was all good because it's God's work which means it will always be good. The German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz agreed with Pope. I don't think this means nothing ever goes wrong because that's not possible. If something goes wrong it means it's a human world. I don't really think it's reasonable to think that in my opinion.
7. Francois Marie wrote a novel called “Candide” that disagreed with the statement that everything is right.
8.The Lisbon earthquake in the 1700s influenced his philosophy. Id dont really have a view on this really. I mostly feel that natural disasters can't be stopped and they can be very bad but some good can come out of it. Use forest fires for example, after the fire is over there is a fresh start and most trees and plants grow back stronger.
9. He meant by saying we must “cultivate our garden” as people need to do something good for the world and population more than just talking about it. I do agree with this. I feel like you can get stuck in a rabbit hole when it comes to philosophy. If you come up with a conclusion it's never followed through with it
10. He didn't believe that the human eye was beautiful because people could go blind. He believed that someone/ something created the eye though.
11. Hume's definition of “miracle” was of something that defies the law of nature basically. He was a skeptic when it came to other people explaining a miracle. I think that a lot of miracles are possible. Personally, in my life there have been a lot of times where it was hard to believe something could have happened. I would definitely draw the line if someone came up to me and said they could fly or something.
12. He said we are born free but everywhere he is in chains, but can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community, aka the general will. I think this doesnt mean you're free because you're tied down to other people's opinions. But on the other hand, it makes your mind feel the feeling of freedom.
lhp
ReplyDelete1. He kicked the rock, which proved the idea of the rock being solid. This did not refute his theory.
2. He was an idealist because he believed everything in the world was an "idea". He is an immaterialist because of the same reason.
3. Berkeley believed that we experience the world directly, whereas Locke believed the experience we have could or couldn't be the real deal.
4. Esse est pericipi. No.
5. His theory faces the challenge of humans making mistakes. If we all perceive the same thing at the same time, we're bound to have different feelings about it. We're human.
6. Alexander Pope and Gottfried Leibniz. They didn't say evil didn't exist, but that the evil that did exist did so for a reason.
7. Voltaire.
8. The Lisbon Earthquake. I don't have a philosophical perspective on them. They're just sad. They kill people.
9. Try your best. I agree.
10. Yes. An omnipotent being would not design a flawed organ accidentally. If they did it would be to prevent the creature housing the organ from becoming perfect.
11. Something that defies the law of nature. He said not to believe someone if they told you they witnessed a miracle. I wouldn't, either.
12. No. I don't agree with his definition of freedom.
LHP #10
ReplyDelete1. How did Samuel Johnson "refute" Berkeley's theory? Did he succeed? Why or why not?
He kicked a rock to prove that it existed and felt them on his feet. I don’t think he succeeded as Berkeley clapped back with saying it was just a “sensation”.
2. What made Berkeley an idealist, and an immaterialist? Are you one, the other, both, neither?
He believed in ideas, he didn’t believe anything physically existed. I’m neither as I don’t find myself questioning the existence of physical objects, and it just simply doesn’t make sense to me.
3. In what way did Berkeley claim to be more consistent than Locke? DId Berkeley have a point about that?
I think Locke’s theory is better because I think real things exist.
4. What was Berkeley's Latin slogan? Do you think existence depends upon being perceived?
Esse est pericipi, and no.
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 theory is all about our ideas and how we perceive things, but everyone perceived things differently
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 and Gottfried Leibniz, and they stated that evil that exists do so for a reason. I don’t think this makes a whole lot of sense, but that may be because I’m not religious and their thought process was through god having a plan.
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)?
Voltaire
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 no I don’t think I do. They are natural and sad and kill and harm people.
9. What did Voltaire mean by "cultivating our garden"? Do you agree with hin?
He meant to try your best, which I agree with.
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?
I think that’s a fair assumption from a religious person who believes there is a creator. I think if you were created with flawed organs, it would be an attempt to level the playing field or keep you from being perfect.
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)?
Something that defies the law of nature, and he didn’t believe people when they told him they witnessed one. I probably wouldn’t either. I would draw the line where science draws the line. Some things just aren’t possible.
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)?
He said we are born free but everywhere he is in chains, but can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community, aka the general will. I don’t agree with his definition.