Midterm report presentations begin today:
- #H1 Coven Gallers
- Something in QE Part I - What does it mean to be human? - #H2 Maheswari Ramesh; #H3 Braden Clapper
- Marcus Aurelius - #H2 Aidin Card
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?
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?
Weiner-
- Why doesn't Eric "buy" Epicurus's dismissal of death as a worry? Do you agree?
- What's the best Montaigne thinks we can do to find truth? Do you think he was trying to build a "tower of certainty"?
- How did Montaigne reverse himself on what we learn from philosophizing? But is it really a reversal?
- What was Montaigne's experience of his equestrian accident? Do you share his newfound confidence that nature will make dying comfortable and easy? Is this a form of "denial" (notwithstanding his likely disapproval of our culture's form of denial)?
- What did Horace say to persuade yourself of? Is that a good idea?
- Montaigne's philosophy boils down, says Eric, to trust, surprise, responsibility, and ___? And what other four words sum up his philosophy and way of life?
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
HWT-
ReplyDeleteQn.1
Julian Baggini explains that the familiar Western distinction between the religious and the secular is not commonly drawn in Islamic thought. In the Western context, there is often a clear separation between religious and secular spheres, with religion being seen as a private matter and secularism governing public life. However, in Islamic thought, this distinction is less pronounced. Islam traditionally pervades all aspects of life, including politics, law, and daily practices, making it difficult to separate the religious from the secular. This integrated approach reflects the holistic nature of Islamic teachings, where faith and practice are intertwined in all areas of life.
HWT-
Qn.5
Julian discusses the deep philosophical assumption that has informed Western philosophy for centuries, expressed by the phrase “the pursuit of truth.” This assumption underpins much of Western thought, emphasizing the importance of seeking objective, verifiable knowledge.
Harry Frankfurt applied this concept to his analysis of “bullshit” in his book “On Bullshit.” Frankfurt argues that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. Unlike lying, where the liar knows the truth and attempts to hide it, the bullshitter is indifferent to the truth. This indifference to truth, Frankfurt suggests, is more dangerous because it erodes the very foundation of truth itself. By not caring about the truth, bullshit undermines the pursuit of truth that has been central to Western philosophy.
Weiner-
Qn.3
Montaigne’s approach to philosophizing is indeed fascinating. In his essays, Montaigne initially emphasizes the importance of studying philosophy as a means to prepare for death, suggesting that to philosophize is to learn how to die. This perspective aligns with the classical view of philosophy as a way to confront and understand mortality.
However, Montaigne later shifts his focus towards a more introspective and personal approach to philosophy. He moves away from the contemplation of universal truths and instead emphasizes the study of oneself. This shift can be seen as a turn towards modern philosophy, where the individual and their experiences become central.
I think this shift is not reversable! Montaigne’s later focus on self-examination and personal experience represents a significant change from his earlier emphasis on preparing for death. Thus, it might be more accurate to view this shift as an evolution or expansion of his philosophical approach rather than a complete reversal.
Maheswari Ramesh (Maahi)
HWT-
ReplyDeleteQn.1
Julian Baggini explains that the familiar Western distinction between the religious and the secular is not commonly drawn in Islamic thought. In the Western context, there is often a clear separation between religious and secular spheres, with religion being seen as a private matter and secularism governing public life. However, in Islamic thought, this distinction is less pronounced. Islam traditionally pervades all aspects of life, including politics, law, and daily practices, making it difficult to separate the religious from the secular. This integrated approach reflects the holistic nature of Islamic teachings, where faith and practice are intertwined in all areas of life.
HWT-
Qn.5
Julian discusses the deep philosophical assumption that has informed Western philosophy for centuries, expressed by the phrase “the pursuit of truth.” This assumption underpins much of Western thought, emphasizing the importance of seeking objective, verifiable knowledge.
Harry Frankfurt applied this concept to his analysis of “bullshit” in his book “On Bullshit.” Frankfurt argues that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. Unlike lying, where the liar knows the truth and attempts to hide it, the bullshitter is indifferent to the truth. This indifference to truth, Frankfurt suggests, is more dangerous because it erodes the very foundation of truth itself. By not caring about the truth, bullshit undermines the pursuit of truth that has been central to Western philosophy.
Weiner-
Qn.3
Montaigne’s approach to philosophizing is indeed fascinating. In his essays, Montaigne initially emphasizes the importance of studying philosophy as a means to prepare for death, suggesting that to philosophize is to learn how to die. This perspective aligns with the classical view of philosophy as a way to confront and understand mortality.
However, Montaigne later shifts his focus towards a more introspective and personal approach to philosophy. He moves away from the contemplation of universal truths and instead emphasizes the study of oneself. This shift can be seen as a turn towards modern philosophy, where the individual and their experiences become central.
I think this shift is not reversable! Montaigne’s later focus on self-examination and personal experience represents a significant change from his earlier emphasis on preparing for death. Thus, it might be more accurate to view this shift as an evolution or expansion of his philosophical approach rather than a complete reversal.
Maheswari Ramesh (Maahi)
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1 - Descartes's Method of Doubt meant to prove that some beliefs are immune to the most extreme forms of skepticism. I believe that this approach is almost as non-sensible sensible as Pyrrho's because Descartes, while he understands that there are some things that can be trusted, he still chooses to reject his senses and ends up coming to the conclusion that he himself and God exists. I view our senses as a guide to how we organize things from the world, that they are moreso tools to help us in life rather than trying to mislead us.
3 - Gilbert Ryle views Descartes's dualism as "the Ghost in the Machine". I find this to be an almost natural way to imagine dualism if someone were to hear of the mind and body being separate, yet interacting in the brain. One would assume that the ghost "possesses" the body or "machine" and controls it from there.
4 - Pascal's best known book is Pensees or "Thoughts". I find it interesting that nobody clearly knows how he intended to structure this book, so they subdivided it into sections that he had previously bundled. As long as they held the same purpose and the short paragraphs connected to each other, I would see no issue in his aphoristic style.
5 - Pascal's Wager is the argument for believing in God. I do find this persuasive because as Pascal puts it, if you live as a christian and God does not end up existing, then you have not won anything nor lost anything either. If He does exist, then you will have won eternal bliss in heaven. Even if God does not exist, Pascal believes you will have lived an honorable and virtuous life.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Descartes Method of Doubt was supposed to be a logical approach to questioning everything, with the intent of discovering if there is anything in the universe we can know without any doubt. Ultimately Descartes came to the conclusion that the only thing we could know for sure is that in some form we exist. It did not matter if our physical world or bodies were real or not, all we could know is that in some form we have a mind which is conscious of its existence. This is in contrast with Pyrrho's philosophy which states that no one could ever know anything for certain, therefore they should disregard everything. Descartes firmly believed that moving through life without trusting anything was impossible, as he believed one should trust the probability of their senses even if one could not be fully sure they were accurate.
2. Descartes was never certain of anything other than his existence and supposedly the existence of a perfect God. He was never certain that he was not dreaming, but because of his strong belief in a good God, he was convinced that it was reasonable to trust one's senses as he does not see a reason for a good God to create a complete false reality for all human beings.
5. Pascal's grand argument for believing in God is known as "Pascal's Wager". I believe Pascals central point is kind of irrefutable, even if it is more complicated than how he described. Ultimately every human does have to make a gamble on their belief, each person has to bet on the possibility of an after life and the chance that some kind of God, heaven, and hell exist. The endless amount of religions makes this choice far more complicated than how Pascal described it, but there is a way of re-defining Pascal's terms to make the question more polarizing. Every human being must decide if they should subscribe to an Objective or Subjective moral law. If one subscribes to an objective moral law, they are betting on the existence of some deity orchestrating a law of morality which operates similarly to the law of gravity. If an objective law exists then, just as in every society, there will likely be some kind of "jail" or punishment for breaking such a law. The other option is disregarding the possibility of an objective law, and developing a subjective morality. This worldview takes the chance on no objective law existing, thus allowing one to have complete freedom to do whatever they desire, making the most of their existence on earth through seeking pleasure in all possible ways.
6. Pascal believed if you gamble on God and lose, you lose nothing. I disagree with this point especially when it comes to Christianity. What Christ essentially demands in the bible, is that his followers should "take up their cross and follow me". His point is essentially that anyone who follows Christ should be willing to let go and kill their desire for worldly pleasures for the sake of the kingdom of God. If God does not exist, there is a lot to lose due to what Christ demands of his followers. One has to be willing to sacrifice all worldly pleasures and things for the sake of Christ, which would be a terrible decision if God did not exist. If God does not exist the most logical thing to do would be to enjoy as many worldly pleasures as possible with the brief amount of time one has during their life. Giving up on the experience of pleasure for the sake of suffering for Christ if God does not exist is a huge loss. However, if God does exist, then the act of choosing to not live for him would be the greatest mistake of anyone's life, and the cost would be far more than even all the pleasures this world has to offer.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Descartes’ Method of Doubt stated that we shouldn’t accept anything as true if there is even the slightest possibility that it isn’t. While this way of living life does sound reminiscent of the philosopher, Pyrrho, Descartes did not let this method go as far. While he recognized that he sound’s accept everything as true, he also knew that taking this idea too far could ruin the meaning of living life entirely. I do think it’s possible to achieve this state of mind, but I think it can be overdone very easily.
2. Descartes claimed that there is no way of knowing if you are actually dreaming or not. He used the analogy of a demon basically using him as a puppet. However, he uses this to support his claim that no matter what, you’re still a fully conscious being, considering that you are always thinking. Therefore meaning that you have to exist in some form because you cannot think without existing. Sometimes I wonder if I’m dreaming just because of how realistic my dreams can get.
3. Gilbert Ryle compared Descartes’ dualism of the mind and the body to “The myth of the ghost in the machine.” I think it’s an interesting comparison to make to prove that the soul could just be occupying the body, as if it were just a vessel to contain it.
Roman Phillips #H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
3. Ryle compared Descartes' dualism of mind and body to the ghost in the machine. This refers to the body as the machine and the soul is the ghost. Descartes believed that the mind was able to produce effects in the body and vice versa because the two interacted at a certain point in the brain - the pineal gland. While I think it is a strange comparison, I believe it makes sense because the ghost controls the machine just like our bodies are controlled by our thoughts and soul.
4. Pascal's best known book is "Pensées," which translates to "Thoughts." Published after his death, the book is fragments of his work that defend his version of Christianity. Because he died before the book was finished, it consists of several parts that are short well-crafted paragraphs. Considered to be one of the most important works of French literature, Thoughts is a collection of philosophical fragments and aphorisms that explore the nature of faith, reason, and humanity. His insights into the human condition are relevant, blending skepticism and mysticism.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called Pascal's wager. I believe Pascal has an interesting point - believe in God so that one can experience infinite happiness, but I am not sure it genuinely conveys true ideas about personal faith?
FL
4. Many Northerners thought the Civil War went badly for them early on because they believed God was punishing them for not yet outlawing slavery. The Northerners did not take into consideration that their losses might be attributed to bad generals and bad luck.
HWT
2. According to Sankara, the appearance of plurality is misleading. Everything is Brahman. If everything is one, there is no difference between self and other, no subject and object and hence, no individual consciousness or intentionality. The world of ordinary experience is nothing more than a powerful illusion.
Bonus Questions:
Sarah Bakewell says Montaigne's first answer to the question "How to live?" is "Don't worry about death."
Montaigne's "near death experience" was when he was thrown off of his horse after colliding with another rider. After recovering from the accident, Montaigne lived another 22 years, but he says he learned from this experience that death "could have a friendly face."
Montaigne said "my mind will not budge unless my legs move it."
American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce is considered Descartes' most practical critic.
Philosophy Bites about a 13 minute podcast -False- AC Grayling explains Descartes is an important figure in philosophy - what do we know and how do we know it with clarity or certainty. His contributions in science and math are also significant. The theory of knowledge is vital in philosophy. Descartes was not a skeptic, but used skeptical arguments. "I am thinking and therefore, I am." Grayling believes it is not an argument, but more of a controversy.
To stimulate philosophical inquiry as he wrote his essays, Montaigne had fifty-four Greek and Latin maxims painted on the ceiling beams of his library/study. The quotes came from the Bible (the book of Ecclesiastes, often paraphrased in Montaigne’s own words, was a favorite) and classical authors like Lucretius, Horace, and the Greek skeptic Sextus Empiricus. Some examples of the sayings are:
"One lives but a little, shelter yourself from evil."
"The ultimate wisdom of man is to consider things as good, and for the rest to be untroubled." Ecclesiastes
"Autonomy is the only just pleasure."
"Never say that marriage brings more joys than tears."
H03
ReplyDelete(LHP, Question 2)
1. At the outset of his "Meditations," Descartes does not claim to know for sure that he is not dreaming. Instead, he takes on a view of extreme skepticism -- his method of doubt -- before coming to a kernel of truth that he believes must be true; that he, in some form, exists. Even if you doubt everything, you cannot doubt that doubting is happening. Descartes then tries to prove that he must not be dreaming by building from that single kernel, but speaking personally, he kind of loses me after that point. I do agree with Descartes' assertion that, whatever I may be, I must be a thing that thinks, but I don't think I will ever know for certain whether or not I am being deceived about reality as I know it. To me, that's okay, because this experience feels adequately real enough to warrant exploration of it and its consequences. Will those consequences turn out to be fake in the long-term? Maybe, but they are evidently impactful to me and those around me in the short-term.
(LHP, Question 5)
2. Pascal's most famous argument is known as Pascal's Wager, in which he attempts to logically compare the odds of 'betting' on God's existence or lack their of. He argues that the safest bet is to believe there is a God, since if you win you get eternal bliss in heaven, and if you lose you just wasted some time and lived with some illusions (although it wouldn't really matter, since you'd be too busy being dead to learn about your mistake). I do find Pascal's rationale appealing, his stripped down way of working through the problem. On its face, I don't necessarily disagree with anything, the logic checks out, but I think you may run into issues if trying to actually implement his philosophy in your life. As LHP brings up, for the non-believer who is 'converted' through the logic of Pascal's wager, it seems slightly disingenuous since they joined only for the selfish possibility of personal gain. Also, for me at this point in my life, it seems weird to think about and prepare for an existence beyond this one that may or may not actually be real when the life I'm living right now feels very legitimate and present.
(Weiner, Question 3)
Montaigne initially thought "That to Philosophize Is to Learn to Die" (from the title of one of his earlier essays), but later went back on that view, instead concluding that to philosophize is to learn to live. I think that, yes, it is a reversal. While there's something very philosophical to be said for the yin and yang of life and death, I think that Montaigne's first view has an overtone of pessimism to it, that it is intrinsically good to 'get ready' for dying. I prefer his later spin on it, that engaging with deep thought and philosophy is about enhancing the experience of living rather than preparing for its end.
HWT-1: The distinction between theology and philosophy is less pronounced in Islamic thought. While Western traditions often separate philosophical views from religious belief, in Islamic thought, philosophy and theology are more integrated, particularly because knowledge of the divine is a key part of Islamic philosophy.
ReplyDeleteHWT-2: According to Sankara, everything is Brahman. He argues that the apparent plurality of the world is an illusion, and that all reality is ultimately a unified whole.
HWT-3: The Islamic concept of Tawhid (the unity of God) rules out the Enlightenment value of individual autonomy and offers little prospect for adopting modern views on secularism and pluralism, as Islamic thought emphasizes the unity of religion and law.
HWT-4: The concept of predestination is a strong theme in Islamic thought, like the Calvinist idea that God has predetermined all events and outcomes in the world, including human destiny.
HWT-5: The deep assumption is the belief in the "freedom of the will." This idea has long informed Western philosophical thought, and Harry Frankfurt applied it to discussions of moral responsibility, exploring how freedom of the will is central to topics like accountability and ethics.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. Descartes’ Method of Doubt aimed to establish the belief that nothing is entirely true if there is the slightest possibility that it could not be. Unlike Pyrrho, Descartes wanted to find something that could not be doubted in any way. I think that Descartes’ approach for finding what is true versus illusion was more sound- personally, I could not go on being skeptical of everything in existence. I think people could adopt his state of mind over time. “I think, therefore I am” is a popular quote (just listen to Billie Eilish) that makes the Method of Doubt easier to chew; people could take this into account whenever they become skeptical of existence, whether it be their own or a higher being’s.
LHP 4. Pascal’s Wager, his argument that God does exist, states that everyone has the option to live with or without the belief that God and an afterlife exists. He says that those that do not devout themselves to God are still at risk of being sent to hell in the afterlife. Though I understand Pascal’s viewpoint, I do not think this provides any sound evidence that there is a God. To me, he is simply stating that people have choices, and if there is an afterlife (which is already assumed in his Wager- he did not take into account that not everyone believes in an afterlife) then there will be consequences.
Weiner 4. Montaigne grazed death when another equestrian violently knocked him off his horse. Though this situation seems like the opposite of a peaceful and planned death, he was very calm and accepting of the situation (until he started healing, then it was painful). Though I often feel that death should and will be a comforting part of my life, I still fear that I will die a painful and unexpected death. This is why Montaigne’s statement that “we must all be booted and ready to go” really stood out to me; I can fear death, but I can also live every day to the fullest because of that fear.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 2- Descartes never claimed to know that he was not dreaming. He determined through a series of experiments of doubt that one COULD never fully know, because there is no way to have definitive proof. Anything we know is told to us through our senses and they do not always tell us the truth (like refraction in a cup of water). I agree with him honestly, but I do not let it affect the way I think about and act in the world. Reality the way I perceive it is real enough to me, and I'd go mad if I let myself believe otherwise. It would cause me to either over or underthink everything, worrying too much or too little, and that's not a nice life. He did claim to fully believe in the existence of himself because of the fact that he was thinking at all. One must exist if they are thinking, which is where the phrase "cogito ergo sum" comes from, I think therefore I am.
LHP 4- Pascal's best known book is entitled "Pensées", or "Thoughts" and it is a series of short paragraphs cobbled together from the lengthy notes and journals he left behind after he died. It was a defence of his version of Christianity, but the order and structure has been designed through guesswork. I have a lot of conflicting feelings about publishing someone's work posthumously, but I will accept that he intended to publish this, but never lived long enough. His pessimism about humanity makes certain that I will never read his work. Having such a bleak view on humans as a species doesn't make sense to me; how can you enjoy your life and live it to the fullest if you constantly believe that "everyone is wretched"?
Weiner 5- The poet Horace said to "persuade yourself that each new day that dawns will be your last". He really, probably meant to live each day to the fullest because we never know how long we truly have. You cannot believe forever that you will always have another day to do something or say something because there will come a time when you will not. So in that way, I agree. But the way he worded it is harsh, misleading, and detrimental to the point we think he was making. The denotation of his phrase almost comes back around to the Stoic practice of "premeditatio malorum", of just always thinking that something bad will happen. Or maybe it refers to the Christain belief in a Doomsday that is certainly coming any day now! So, his actual words: not constructive. But the point he was making is important and we should all try to follow it so we make the most of our lives. We don't want to be dying, wishing we had done things we thought we had more time for.
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
1.Descartes Method of Cartesian Doubt was to not accept anything as true if there is even the slightest chance that it is not. Pyrrho believed that nothing could be known for certain. but Descartes wanted to find something that could not be doubted. I do not think his approach was more sensible, I think everyone has moments in their life where they are unsure but most take the leap. I think the state of mind " I think, therefore I am" has truth to it, whenever someone has trouble deciding what is reality and what isn't.
2. He did not believe that you should trust your senses but he fully believed in his own method of doubt, I think therefore I am. He never did claim that he believed he wasn't dreaming but he knew for sure he did exist because he was thinking of doubting his reality. He believed that having someone thought meant you existed. Sometimes I will have moments where I think I am dreaming or I think I am living a dream I already had. It really Tripps me out sometimes.
4. Pascals best well known book was called the " Pensées" or " Thoughts". I like that he was very straight forward about his beliefs but I do not necessarily agree with him. I do not think you should believe in any kind of religion because there is a 50/50 chance of it being true and getting a good outcome. You should believe in what you want because you know it your heart that word is true. Not because it might possibly be true.
Bobby Goodroe H03
ReplyDeleteLHP Q3: Gilbert Ryle compared Descartes' model of mind-body dualism to a "ghost in the machine". The analogy really doesn't strike me as particularly odd, because it is essentially what Descartes is getting at: an ephemeral soul that can't be seen or defined and a physical body that wouldn't be able to operate without this "ghost".
LHP Q4: Pascal's best-known book is called Pensées. I appreciate his aphoristic style, as I think philosophy is best communicated in simple terms. Nietzsche writes in a similar way in Beyond Good and Evil, and if he didn't, I think the content of that book would have been much less palatable.
LHP Q5: Pascal's argument in favor of God is called Pascal's Wager. I find it neither persuasive or appealing, as it only appeals to fear and nothing else. It doesn't even set out to logically defend the existence of God, but rather to defend why we should believe in him. I think living life in fear and making big decisions such as religion based on that fear are antithetical to the spirit of philosophy. It essentially advocates for "non-thinking".
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP4- Pascal's best known book was his "Pensees" or ('thoughts'). It included his short essays and workings of his defense of Christianity. I also do appreciate his aphoristic style because it gets straight to the point, and concisely organizes his stance.
LHP5- Pascal's main argument and philosophy was penned as Pascal's Wager. Pascal, unlike Descartes, believed the existence of God can only be proved within one's heart and that logically no one could honestly prove God. Because of this, we have to wager the options and decide where we will place our bets. I find this very persuasive. The good far out weighs the 'pleasures' of this world, and if one agrees with the Epicureans philosophy we realize that true joy does not come from indulgence in whatever we desire. Paralleling with Pascal's school of thought, this is exactly what he is advocating. He is not saying to be an emotionless monk with absolutely no enjoyment of life, but finding true love, peace, patience, joy, and kindness that comes from a relationship with God. So if one can give up 'pleasure', but in return receive everything they thought they were giving up; have they even lost anything? Even if somehow they were wrong in the end?
LHP7- Yes, I believe that is one hundred percent true. One cannot just limit the wager to Christian theism or atheism. The wager should begin with a broader spectrum of atheism or theism. If one chooses atheism there is no longer any further discussion except deciding for yourself how you should live which can lead to subjective morality. If one chooses theism ( or pantheism) the branches of religion are many and deciphering through them should be one's goal since a vast majority all contradict each other. If they each contradict each other I believe one or none can only be true.
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Descartes sought one idea that he could be completely sure was true, or real. I believe that his way of approaching skepticism is much better than how Pyrrho did, by not questioning everything and thinking that one can not be sure of anything he kept some of his sanity in my opinion as being skeptical of everything, and questioning everything would eventually drive me crazy. I think it is possible to achieve an “I think, therefore I am”, state of mind as we can really only be sure of our own existence, as we can only know that we are thinking.
2. Descartes did not claim to know that he was not dreaming in the outset of his “Meditations”. I do sometimes think that I could possibly be dreaming, as things can seem too good to be true, or too realistic sometimes. However I do not let it affect my actions, as even if I was dreaming, there is no way to be sure that I am not, everyone has those realistic dreams and when we awake we are relieved for it to have been a dream, and so if one was dreaming the actions would not have consequences really, but if we were not dreaming the actions would have consequences.
3. Gilbert Ryle compared the mythic specter of “The ghost in the Machine” to Descartes’ dualism of mind and body, where the body was the machine and the mind that inhabited the body was the ghost that had control of the machine. I do not think this is a silly specter, as it very well describes what Descartes believed, as the mind would be somewhat of a ghost, as it has no physical form, and it was just in control of the body, while the body would be a sort of machine that was commanded by the actions of the mind.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called “Pascal's wager”, in which he basically explains that you have two options, live life believing that God exists, or that God does not exist. With the first option you have a chance to win big or lose miniscule rewards, and with the other you have the chance to win miniscule rewards but lose at huge gains. This way of thinking used to be appealing to me, as I had questions about my own faith and I looked at it very shallowly and not very deep at all. Now though, it does not appeal to me as if God does exist, and only accepted those who had faith in him into heaven then could you really have full faith in him if you only had that faith for essentially selfish reasons in the first place? Now I see how this way of thinking is flawed and I no longer consider it reasonable.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. Descartes never claimed to know if he were dreaming or not, on account of the fact that human senses can not be trusted and therefore there was a chance you were actually dreaming was still possible it was uncertain to know. I sometimes think like this because it is plausible to be either dreaming or awake, so I don't think we can ever be too sure.
5: Pascals wager is interesting because it appeals to minimizing risk which is something I can get behind. You don't lose anything if God doesn't exist as a believer, but If you are not a believer and God does exist... death can't save you now! It's certainly a logical argument on the merits of choosing to believe and I quite agree that believing is the lowest risk choice. However, I wonder if anyone could truly believe in God just based off that? Would they not have doubts?
6. Pascal thought if you gambled on God you lose nothing, but I disagree, because say God is not real then depending on your piety you lose so much more time that you could have spent on worldly matters rather than wondering what is beyond. At the end of the day it is still a tradeoff even if you consider it the less risky bet.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP #2:
Descartes believed that, since God is good, he "wouldn't deceive humanity about basic matters" (Warburton 68). I think that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that I may be dreaming. I think that Descartes' initial assessment of the unreliability of our knowledge of the outside world is logical. However, since I may never truly know if I am dreaming or not, I should go ahead and assume that I am not until there is some strong enough reason for me to believe otherwise.
LHP #3:
He compared it to "the ghost in the machine." This does not seem silly to me. In fact, I see Descartes' point. There does seem to be a sense in which, even if the two are related, matter and mind are simply not the same thing. Therefore, proposing a dualistic view of the world seems like a reasonable explanation for how this can be. One thing we can be certain of, in my opinion, is that the "ghost" does indeed exist. In fact, I would agree with Descartes that it seems like we can be more certain of it than of the "machine."
LHP #5:
Pascal's wager does not seem very convincing to me. The biggest reason is that, using this type of reasoning alone, there is no way that we could know anything about the god that is referenced in the argument. As the book states, "it doesn't take into account the possibility that in following it you might have opted for the wrong religion, the wrong God" (Warburton 74).
Weiner #1:
Eric argues that being nonexistent after you have already existed before is different than simply having never existed in the first place. If indeed we are going to work with the concept that, before and after life, we are simply non-existent, then I would most likely have to disagree with Weiner. Our non-existence after our life would be the exact same state as before our life, since the state is simply non-existence. Under the Epicurean line of reasoning, I don't see why exactly the distinction between these two types of non-existences should be drawn.
Warburton, Nigel. A LITTLE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. Yale University Press, 30 Oct. 2012.
Weiner, Eric. THE SOCRATES EXPRESS: IN SEARCH OF LIFE LESSONS FROM DEAD PHILOSOPHERS. Avid Reader Press, 25 Aug. 2020.
It's interesting to see a different perspective on the concept of the ghost in the machine. For me, it seems like a silly thing to think about, but after reading your thoughts I could see how it's a concept someone could get behind.
Delete38. Why doesn't Eric "buy" Epicurus's dismissal of death as a worry? Do you agree?
ReplyDelete39.
40. He stated that a nothingness before something exists or occurs is much different than the absence of something or the nothingness after something has been and I would say I agree as you feel an absence since you have knowledge of its existence rather than simple ignorance
41.
42. What's the best Montaigne thinks we can do to find truth? Do you think he was trying to build a "tower of certainty"?
43.
44. The best thing we can do to see the truth is to change perspective and take a step back to see what is true and then play and debate with that topic to identify if it is in fact true, yes I believe he based his ideas and assertions on a collection of fluttering and wavering facts he identified or realized in his life eventually building a larger view of the world.
45.
46. How did Montaigne reverse himself on what we learn from philosophizing? But is it really a reversal?
47. He switched from the opinion that to philosophize is to learn to die to the more moderate opinion which was also held and purported by Socrates which is that true enlightenment is found through self reflection and recognizing your limitations
48. What was Montaigne's experience of his equestrian accident? Do you share his newfound confidence that nature will make dying comfortable and easy? Is this a form of "denial" (notwithstanding his likely disapproval of our culture's form of denial)?
49. The adrenaline in his system assuaged the pain and fear of his injuries and death to where he felt calm. I do feel good about the fact that you are less likely to feel more traumatic injuries but I do not like the idea of dying due to fatal injuries as there is nothing to truly assure me that it would be painless. I do not believe this is denial as he had experienced it himself and there is much evidence behind his assertion
Making a list of all questions and answers for study purposes that’s why it’s formatted so weirdly
DeleteH#2
ReplyDeleteLHP#2 - Descartes didn't claim to know whether he was dreaming or not. He came up with a list of possible scenarios that could be for why we think we might we awake but might not be. I think there are times where something so unbelievable happens and I ask myself, "Am I dreaming?", but I don't literally mean this. I don't go my day to day life questioning if I'm actually dreaming or not.
LHP#3 - Gilbert Ryle compared Descartes ideas to the myth of "The ghost in the machine" which is basically the idea that a ghost or soul was controlling a machine or body. I think it seems silly to completely dismiss Descartes ideas but the comparison isn't awful. I see the similarities and can agree with him that it seems a little strange but it's good to keep your mind open to possibilities.
LHP#5 - Pascal's argument for believing in god is known as Pascal's wager. It means that if you choose not to believe in god then you win the time that would be "wasted" by praying and going to church but if you're wrong you might end up in hell for eternity which is the ultimate loss. If you choose to believe in god you win eternal bliss or you lose time that could've been spent chasing luxury and goods. Pascal viewed the latter option to be more appealing. I agree with Pascal's views and think this is a convincing argument that people should listen to.
I think it's funny that we say "Am I Dreaming" so casually, like you said, when something crazy happens, but Descartes genuinely had the belief that it truly was possible he was just a dream character.
Delete#H02
ReplyDeleteWeiner
1 - Weiner disagrees with Epicurus's idea that we should not fear death because we will not exist after death. Instead, Weiner believes that his life will leave an impact after he is gone. As he puts it "The void of space and a hole in the earth are not the same." I have to agree with this outlook rather than Epicurus's, simply because I believe that everyone's lives can leave impacts, large or small. Your death can affect other people, the company you work for, etc. This is why I think death should be a concern for people.
2 - The best way to find truth Montaigne finds is to "play with" ideas that seem obvious such as "am I playing with a dog or is it playing with me?". This questioning of seeming simple things lead to gaining what Montaigne called Flutterings, a small nugget of information. These small nuggets are what he used to build his metaphorical "tower of certainty."
4 - Montaigne was hit by another person riding a large workhorse. This caused him and his horse to go flying, bringing Montaigne very close to death. His friends and family visited him while he was greatly wounded and he felt what he described as "infinite sweetness." He did not think that death was that bad. While I do dread the physical pain and the introspection that death brings, the act of dying does not intimidate me that much to be completely honest.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Descartes sought the undeniable truth, where Pyrrho sought to question everything no matter what the undeniable truth was. This is definitely a more sound approach to living in my opinion and is much more sensible then to question absolutely everything. I do think it is possible to achieve this state of mind, but it does require some form of discipline and absolute commitment.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. Descartes could never claim that he wasn't dreaming. His Method of Doubt, which rejected belief in all things uncertain, would not let him confidently accept his consciousness. Even the perceivable evidence of his wakefulness was not enough for him, as it, too, could be dreamt. Descartes did not, however, reject his existence, as the mere fact that he was present to experience the world around him - regardless of how trustworthy his senses were - proved to him that he was a real being. Sometimes, I feel like I'm dreaming. Usually, it's in circumstances that feel particularly unreal, as if they could never happen to me. But, even still, there are times when even mundane reality feels dream-like, and I question my lucidity or presence. It's like getting deja vu but in reverse. It's a feeling like what surrounds me shouldn't be happening because it's untrue. But, obviously, it's more than likely a result of me missing too many hours of sleep.
5. Pascal's argument for faith in God is known as Pascal's Wager. Essentially, it draws a connection between spiritual faith and gambling. To believe in one thing or another is to make a bet. You bet the state of your afterlife on the correctness of your belief. If you are an atheist, you believe in no God or religion, and therefore, you live as you please. If you are correct in living this way, then you earn the satisfaction of having lived your life absolved from the stress of a God looming over you and taken advantage of your free will without restraint. However, if your beliefs ae wrong, then you face potentially eternal damnation at the hands of whatever God you forsook. On the other hand, to believe in God and practice religion is another gamble. You devote your life to piety in hopes for an eternal reward after death. If you are correct, then you may be granted your posthumous prize, but if you are wrong, the you have no real consequence other than having spent your life on something that wound up being nothing. When examining each hypothetical, choosing to be religious seems to have the safest outcome on either end. This, Pascal argued, is why everyone should have faith. On a surface level, this reasoning is logical. Why risk eternal, torturous damnation when the alternative is a somewhat less indulgent life with the potential o eternal reward? However, I can't find myself fully persuaded by Pascal's Wager. First, to base your faith entirely off of a sense of self-preservation does not exhibit true, religious zeal. Of course, you want to protect yourself, but you don't really give a rip about the God your serving so long as he covers your tail on the anticipated day of reckoning. Many religious people will tell you that this selfish excuse for "faith" is not sufficient for their God; therefore, you cannot receive salvation for it. So, if Pascal's Wager was your only motivation to practice religion, you aren't really doing much to increase your odds of post-mortem protection. Additionally, when so many God's exist, it's hard to know which faith you should adhere to. Pascal's Wager really only applies to two mutually exclusive options: atheism or Christianity. But, if you were to devote your life to Christianity to receive salvation only to find out that you will still be eternally punished because Islam is the true religion, Pascal's Wager would have failed you.
Your opinion on Pascal's wager is interesting, I myself I agree with his argument not being persuasive. I found it interesting that the selfishness in believing in God the way Pascal's Wager mentioned would not be enough for one's God. The last sentence you wrote also was not one I had considered when thinking of my perspective on his wager. If you devote wholly to the one religion Pascal considered, but another proved the be true you would still have lost everything as you would if you did not believe in any in the end.
Delete#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Descartes was seeking to find one thing that he was sure about. He was hoping it would be enough to give him a foothold on reality. Although Descartes and Pyrrho were similar in their skeptic beliefs, Descartes was still holding on to some hope that some beliefs are immune to even the strongest forms of skepticism. Pyrrho and his followers were intent on showing that nothing could be known for certain. I think Descartes's ideology was more sensible than Pyrrho's, but still not something I could follow behind. I think it's definitely possible for someone to follow an ideology such as Descartes's if they lean more towards skepticism, but I think it is an extreme way of thinking.
2. I don't think Descartes was ever confident that he wasn't dreaming. With such a heavy form of skepticism such as Descartes's Method of Doubt cause Descartes to never truly know what was real and what was not. I could never have that mindset because I believe I can differ real from fake. I have thought before about a "what if" I'm not really what I am, but it was never a thought that dwelled seriously in my mind. It was more of just a fun conversation to have amongst friends.
3. Gilbert Ryle compared Descartes's dualism of mind and body to the myth of the ghost in the machine, being that the body was the machine, and the soul was the ghost inhabiting it. I have heard of the "out of body" idea, but it does seem strange to me. Ryle's mockery, in my opinion, makes him look "crazier" than Descartes.
1. - Cartesian doubt came about because Descartes wanted to find something he could know for certain. That he could be asbolutley sure of in a stark contrast to Pyrrho's extremist levels on skepticism. Descartes wanted to know if he existed. This method of searching for something he could be sure of led to the famous line, "Cogito ergo Sum"
ReplyDeleteThough I feel I agree with some of his critics, that if the hypothetical 'Demon' could make Descartes think 2 + 3 = 5 when it was supposed to =6 then couldn't the same logic apply to literally everything?
3. - Ryle compared Decartes concepts to "Ghost in the Machine" I like the concept of the ghost in the machine. The idea that, even in something non-living some shred or trace of the creator lives on in their creation.
5. - Pascal's wager seems like a great argument on the surface but the more I think about it the less appealing it is. I don't think, if god exists in the way the christian bible says he does, that you can reason your way to heaven.
#H1 - Zoe Kuhn
ReplyDeleteLHP - #4
Pascal’s best-known book is “Pensees” also known as “Thoughts”.
LHP - #5
Pascal’s argument for believing in God is called Pascal’s Wager. I don’t find his argument persuasive or appealing but I do see where he's coming from and how he could argue this to show his faith and convince others around him.
LHP - #6
Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, “you lose your chance of bliss in heaven” and might go to hell. I don't disagree or agree at all with Pascal’s thoughts but for someone who does align with his beliefs and finds his argument appealing then yes, his argument makes sense.
H01
ReplyDeleteQ1. At first glance Descartes method of doubt is similar if not identical to Pyrrohs skepticism, because as Descartes also questions everything, and takes nothing for face value as his senses may be deceiving him. Where they divulge is Descartes questions anything that could have a shadow of a doubt, the slightest inkling of doubt leads him to further investigation. Which is different from Pyrrho because Pyrrho thought literally nothing could be proven to be true. Descartes motivation for his questioning also differs from Pyrrho because he is seeking knowledge rather than seeking to reject the knowledge. Descartes wanted to prove that some beliefs are resistant to skepticism. I like Descartes state of mind, it’s much more logical than Pyrrhos but is still questioning your perceptions and sensations.
Q2. Descartes point was that you cannot prove that you are not currently dreaming. He believed no matter what he could prove that he was in some form, a conscious being and you could not be tricked out of that. Descartes speculated what if there was a demon that was fooling him into thinking he was awake, when in reality we was dreaming that he was awake. However he believed in an all good God, which to him meant that God wouldn’t forsake humans by distorting their perceptions, or giving them inadequate senses.
Q3. Gilbert Ryle compared Descartes theory of Dualism to “the ghost in the machine”, I will always love this phrase, and I had no idea this was its origin. I think it’s a good comparison and is correctly applied. Although I obviously don’t follow Dualism especially the early branch of psychology that Descartes sprouted as the mind and body are physically connected.
H1
ReplyDeleteWill machines every say "I think, therefore I am"
I do not believe AI will gain self-awareness anytime soon, nor do I believe AI will take over creative jobs within the next decade. I feel like this is similar to the flying car scenario. In the 80s, they thought by 2015 we would have flying cars and ovens that turn tiny foods into full size pizzas (courtesy of Back to the Future). It's 2024 now, and we still believe these things might come to reality. I think it's the same with AI. I've seen AI generated videos where anatomy doesn't match up, proportions are wrong, subjects are contorting in ways that is not possible. AI is still new, and it pulls from internet sources to generate responses, nothing more.
Take a Walk
I'm not sure about the idea of "what a walk can get out of us" because I am a very literal, black and white thinker. But I do agree with the facts of the benefits walks can have.
HO2
ReplyDeleteLHP 1- While Pyrrho didn't trust his senses because they can trick you and decided that not believing anything was the most peaceful way to live, Rene Descartes wanted to prove whether or not we should trust our senses. I think this greatly improves the idea of not trusting your senses because Pyrrho is an outlier who's skepticism would have killed him had it not been for his friends. It is simply a more practical way of looking at what the senses should be and how we should treat them.
LHP 2- At the end of Descartes meditations he states that the world is real and he knows this because he is a Christian. Because the Christian God is fully good he would not deceive his creation on such a large scale. I personally have never felt like I was dreaming while I was awake. I feel like there is a clear difference in atmosphere whenever you are dreaming such as minor details being blurry and a general lack of dense groups of people. So, whenever I'm dreaming it is fairly quick that I realize I'm dreaming.
LHP 6- Pascal's Wager states that if you go through life believing in God then you lose nothing if he doesn't exist. I think this is a great way to look at it from a completely logical prospective. If you are worried about how to live your life and you are have no sway towards either then why not choose the option with less risk. I cannot think of anything else you could lose if you were to believe in God and he not exists and as the book states if he doesn't then you don't even realize you were wrong because in most theories of God not existing there is nothing after death just non-existence.
John Owens H3
ReplyDeleteLHP
Q2: Descartes arguments around an individual's self-awareness were mostly based around his belief that we have sufficient reason to doubt our sense because they are often wrong, maybe not always and fully but it is still enough to cause some level of doubt in or our ability to perceive the world around us. With that said, he does not fully claim to know whether he is sleeping he just believes that there is reasonable enough doubt in his perception that he could be dreaming and just isn’t able to realize it. I have never thought whether I'm sleeping, I don’t really doubt my senses to the point of being completely unsure of if I'm conscious or not.
Q3: He described Descartes thinking as “the ghost in the machine.” While I do think that the saying is somewhat odd, I do think that it matches with how the thinking can be perceived. The mind, or ghost, being treated like a separate, distinguishable thing from the body which is the soul is often described in literature when speaking about the flesh, or machine.
Weiner
Q:1 Weiner disagrees with Epicurus argument that we shouldn’t fear death because we didn't exist for an eternity and death and is just a return to that state. Weiner thinks that since he has now existed going back to nonexistence will leave a different feeling. He describes it's like a void in space versus a hole made in the ground. I must agree with Weiners thinking because, something always being absent as opposed to suddenly becoming absent are very different especially when talking death and consciousness because while yes, I didn't know what existence was before I existed therefore I don’t dread the years I wasn’t here, now however, I know what existence is like and I don’t really want to go back.
#H02 Alan Hernandez
ReplyDeleteLHP
#1 - Descartes' Method of Doubt encouraged very doubtful but informed beliefs. By accepting truths only if there is absolutely no doubt that they are true, he greatly established a state of mind that would be both rational and paranoid. For example, it would be a rational method through the case of moldy apples in the book. If you want a bag full only of good apples, it is safer to throw out every apple that shows a sign of being moldy. While some good apples may be thrown out by accident, the goal of only good apples is accomplished. However, the line of reasoning can also be used on one's perception of reality. One might confuse reality for a dream, given how skeptical in nature Descartes' Method of Doubt is.
#2 - Descartes never claimed to know that he was dreaming. The only thing that he was certain of was his existence, using the idea of human thought as proof. I never think that I am dreaming because I believe it is possible to distinguish a dream from reality. While a dream does feel like reality, reality never feels like a dream. To me, reality drags on and on, filled with uncertainty and boredom. Those factors don't exist in a dream, even though one doesn't realize it until they wake up.
#4 - Pascal's best known book is "Pensees". I do like the style because it makes the book far more interesting. The style was definitely intentional, given Pascal's belief that humans are easily bored creatures.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. The Descartes Method of Doubt established the mindset and thought of completely rejecting anything if there was doubt. Thus, spurring him into the thought that if everything was that they seemed to be; triggering the yearn for assurance about being sure. In contrast, Pyrrho rejected everything he saw and didn't yearn for the assurance; he simply sat complacent. I think Descartes mind set and point of view was more sensible than Pyrrho because Descartes still had a sense of the human urge to seek out if something is correct, instead of rejecting everything.
4. Pascal's best book was his Pensees (thoughts) that were fragments of writing pieced together after his death. Many of his writings focused on probability, specifically the probability of God and the afterlife. Personally, I do not like his gambler style when it comes to religion and salvation. This dislike comes from the fact that I think salvation is a constant thing and that God must be in your heart to reach salvation in the afterlife. Pascal's writing just promoted that you should act like you like God so you are saved, and that bet would be way more beneficial than rejecting the existence of God.
7. Yes, Warburton mentions that Pascal limits his bet because there are many other religions that exist, which influence the bet. However, personally, I don't like the word bet in this sense. I think religion is personal and emotional and the fact that some people see it as a bet could be upsetting. Truly, if you are just betting on a religion for hope of your soul, then truly that is a selfish act. However, I do think the religion you have with yourself and whatever higher power is personal, and it shouldn't be a bet that you make so you can just save yourself.
Gavin Cooley H2
ReplyDelete1. The Descartes's method of doubt was meant to establish the if there is even a possibility that something is untrue, then don't accept it as absolute fact. Descartes belief was a lot more sensible than Pyrrho's because it doesn't question absolutely everything only things that have a chance of doubtfulness about them. I do not think it is possible to reach a conclusion on what is real and what is not because doubt can always be cast over what seem to be even the most certain of realities.
2. Descartes believes that he is not dreaming because there is a God, and that God is good. He states that a good God would not deceive humanity over such basic things, therefore the world is likely similar to how we perceive it. I sometimes feel like I'm dreaming, but these don't last long. In dreams, I am not limited by reality. I know I am awake when my body and my mind are once again bound by the universal laws and principles of realistic existence.
5. His argument for belief in God is called Pascal's wager. I do not find it to be the most convincing or appealing. A person shouldn't see believing in God as a way to ensure their own personal gain, in this case being entrance into heaven and eternal life. Someone should believe in God because they wholeheartedly believe in the teaching of the Bible and the existence of God.
LHP:
ReplyDelete5. Pascal’s argument for believing in God is called “Pascal’s Wager.” So, if you believe in God, you are statistically bound to avoid eternal punishment. If he’s real: Heaven. If he isn’t: nothing happens. However, what about other religious practices? What if the Nordic people had it right and I wake up in Náströnd because of my ignorance of Odin? I’m inclined to believe that we do not know the answer. So, just live your best life and hope that, if there is a god, they smile upon your life as you lived it.
6. Pascal thought that if you gamble on God and lose, “you lose nothing.” If Christianity was the sole religion, I would say that living a Christian life would most definitely be fulfilling in most regards. However, I would say that - again - we have no way of knowing for sure that the Christian belief is the “correct” belief. So, you may in fact lose a great deal by following God.
7. According to Nigel Warburton, by limiting his “wager” to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. I agree with Warburton. There’s so much beyond us that we can’t determine for sure. Until we can, I’m going to live a life that I see to be worthwhile.
H2
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. Descartes’ seeked truth that came from his senses, while Pyrrho completely rejected it. Although they both never fully trusted their own senses, Descartes left room for the things that had no room for doubt and took them as true, unlike Pyrrho who took nothing from his sense as truth. Descartes’ approach is more sensible than Pyrrhos and easier to achieve because his goal wasn’t to question everything, but it would still be a challenge trying to find what you can and cannot trust.
LHP 5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called Pascal's Wager. I find the topic persuasive because of what I believe, but I recognize that other people's beliefs may not align with Pascal's teachings.
Descartes actually rejected the evidence of his senses, and did not trust them. He was a rationalist in the tradition of Plato, believing that truth and certainty can only be found when we find an alternative source more reliable than the senses. That's why he "meditated"...
DeleteI generally try to avoid commenting in the discussion section but I do read the comments and occasionally will intercede to clarify a point. But I must caution you all: I won't be correcting every statement here. Do your own research when answering questions,.
DeleteH02 Erick Martinez
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. Descartes claim to not know that he was not dreaming. He seemed to have struggled with the idea that what if he's dreaming at all times? What made him sure he was awake? I don't think you could ever be certain on if we are asleep or if we are not. I think it's simply just a decision if you want to think that way or not? I don't think we as humans could ever prove if what we're seeing is a dream or not because any answer could simply be rebutted with thinking we are just dreaming of any situation.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called Pascal’s Wager. I do find Pascals argument very persuasive actually. Essentially, he's saying that if God isn't real and you believe in him, well it doesn't matter, you lived your life how you saw fit either way. Now if he did exist, you're in heaven. If you choose to not believe, if gods not real, well you didn't waste your time on earth. If he was real though you would miss out and be sent to hell. No one wants to go to hell, but also some people refuse to believe in God. Depending on who you are, taking your chances is up to you but what's the harm in believing just a little? None.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose nothing." I can't say I fully agree based on the fact that we don't know what the afterlife looks like. It could be we may be punished for worshipping God or we are tortured as well for worshipping the wrong god. Or what if some people believed in God only because pascals wager and not because they truly believe there's a god. At the end of the day, the afterlife is very questionable and telling people to believe in something because they have nothing to lose ruins how religions truly work and isn't fully true.
#H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Descartes was trying to find something he was sure of so that he could understand reality. Descartes and Pyrrho were similar in skeptic beliefs, however Descartes wanted to believe that some beliefs were immune to skepticism. On the flipside, Pyrrho and his people wanted others to believe that nothing would or could be set in stone. I think Descartes ideas were more practical that Pyrrho's but I still wouldn't adopt his ideology.
2. Descartes was never sure, in my opinion, that he wasn't dreaming. Descartes's Method of Doubt, which is a strong sort of skepticism, prevented him from ever being able to determine what was genuine and what wasn't. I think I can tell the difference between true and false, so I could never have such mentality. Though it was never a serious consideration, I had entertained the idea of what if I'm not who I think I am. Personally, I rather stray away from thinking this way because I have experienced derealization
6. According to Pascal's wager, if you live your life believing in God, then you will not lose anything if he doesn't exist. This, in my opinion, is a really good method to approach it from a totally rational standpoint. Why not select the choice with less danger if you are unsure about how to conduct your life and you have no influence over either decision? I can't think of anything more you might lose if you believed in God and he didn't exist. According to the book, if he doesn't exist, you won't even be aware that you were mistaken because most theories of God's nonexistence hold that there is nothing more than non-existence after death.
H03 - Quinny VanDerSlik
ReplyDeleteLHP 5-
Pascal’s argument for believing in God is called Pascal’s Wager. I did not find his wager very persuasive or appealing personally. While there can be a chance that god or any other god exists, it is not certain in my mind no matter what. I do not care for religion, it has never appealed to me, sure I can see the points behind beliefs of different religions and I will not outright denounce or say they cannot exist for certain, but I will not just agree to believe in god because of a missed opportunity after I have already died. As he said, worship does not truly take away from life, but I do not see the point of doing something if I do not even fully believe in it.
LHP 6-
Pascal thought that if you gambled on God and lost, then “you lose nothing,” as you would not have missed out on heaven or eternal bliss in the afterlife. However, if you don’t believe in god and do nothing to support his existence, then you have lost everything, you have lost that opportunity. I cannot say I wholly agree or disagree as I have been atheist since I was younger, however my view is that whatever religion that might exist exists, I do not NOT believe in god, but I also do not credit him to anything but a thought of someone that soon spread. On the other hand, if he does exist, then I feel I can live with that loss, it was never something I saw in my future after death as I do not care for it, if I die it happens. What happens after can be a worry if something does happen after, why waste life contemplating a future after death?
Weiner 1-
Eric does not “buy” Epicurus’s dismissal of death as a worry as the nothingness that occurs before and after you have lived, birth and death, are completely different. On one hand, before you were born, you were nothing, and never had been anything before, so that worry is for naught. On the other hand, after you die there is nothing, but there has been something before, which causes a void to be somewhere. Before you are born, the absence is normal, after you die the absence is new and unusual. I agree with Eric, if I had never existed I could not have affected the people that care for me and those I care for. As I have existed, my new found absence through death causes a great impact on those I knew in life.
I would like to mention further on Descartes, I am currently taking psychology at the moment, so we learned about how psychological dualism was created by him. Seeing him appear in my philosophy class makes sense with how he thought of the mind and body as two separate things, that they were fundamentally different based on the psychological view. We had learned that he viewed the body as it was made of material substance, but the mind was made of immaterial, seeing the more philosophical sense being the body and the soul, instead of mind, was interesting to me. As the soul inhibits the body instead. There was a psychological view that was the opposite of Descartes, it was called materialism. Seeing how psychology and philosophy are lining up for me in my class is very interesting and makes me glad I took them together!
DeleteH#3
ReplyDeleteLHP
1- Descartes’ Method of Doubt aimed to establish the idea that nothing can be considered entirely true if there is even the slightest possibility that it may not be. Unlike Pyrrho, Descartes sought to find something that could not be doubted in any way. While this approach may seem similar to the philosophy of Pyrrho, Descartes did not take it to the same extreme. He recognized that his stance could be interpreted as accepting everything as true, but he also understood that taking this idea too far could undermine the purpose of life. While achieving this mindset is possible, it is crucial to avoid taking it to an extreme.
4- Pascal's most famous work is "Pensées" or "Thoughts." I appreciate his straightforward approach to expressing his beliefs, even though I don't always share his views. Personally, I lightly adhere to Christian religion but I also see it as a 50/50 chance as to being right or wrong.
5- Pascal's most renowned argument is Pascal's Wager, in which he seeks to logically compare the probabilities of 'betting' on the existence or absence of God. He argues that believing in God is the safest option, as winning means enjoying eternal bliss in heaven, and losing simply results in wasted time and living with some illusions.
Weiner 1: Epicurus said that after death there is nothing and before death there will be nothing. Just how we were before birth, we will be like it after death. Why fear what was before we existed? It's the same as what is after death. However, Weiner does not buy this. He believes that the feeling of what is to come is a bit more complex then how we were before birth. I agree with Weiner on this one. We weren't sentient before birth.
ReplyDeleteWeiner 2: Montaigne's idea of certainty about death is preparation. We must always be prepared to go at any moment. The idea of death haunted him. The best we can do is share truths.
Weiner4: In his near death experience he almost died. He fell to the ground and started throwing up blood. This was a moment where his life "flashed before his eyes." He laid down and accepted his death. Nature has a way of giving comfort to death. I don't think it's a form of denial. I think it's an acceptance of ignorance. We cannot know everything about everything.