Berkeley, Leibniz, Hume, & Rousseau-LHP 15-18. Weiner 3. Rec: FL 17-18. HWT 18-19. Midterm report presentations continue
SEP 26
- David Hume - #H1 Makayla; #H2 Alan Hernandez; #H3 Andrew Brooks
- Something in FL 17-18 or HWT 18-19 - #H3 Roman Phillips
- Something in QE Part III - Can we believe our eyes? - #H1 Thad Whitfield; #H2 Erick Martínez
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)?
Weiner ch3
- What were Rousseau's "multitudes"? Most of all he was a ___. Are you one?
- Rousseau's philosophy can be summed up in what four words? What does he claim is our "natural state"? (Note the contrast with Hobbes's "state of nature" that we previously discussed.) Do you agree more with him, with Hobbes, or with neither? Is it prudent to generalize about human nature?
- Who were some other peripatetics (walking philosophers) named by Weiner? This approach to thinking "gives the lie" to what myth? Do you know how Diogenes "solved" Zeno's paradoxes of motion? [See * below]
- How was Rousseau like Socrates? Are you, too?
- What is Rousseau's legacy to us? How does he contrast with Descartes? What did he foresee?
HWT
1. In what way was the idea of a separable soul a "corruption"? What French philosopher of the 17th century defended it? What Scottish skeptic of the 18th century disputed it?
2. What do Owen Flanagan's findings suggest, that contrasts with Aristotle's view of human nature?
3. If you ask an American and a Japanese about their occupation, how might they respond differently?
FL
If there is one idea intellectuals can agree upon it is that the act of ambulation – or as we say in the midwest, walking – often serves as a catalyst to creative contemplation and thought. It is a belief as old as the dust that powders the Acropolis, and no less fine. Followers of the Greek Aristotle were known as peripatetics because they passed their days strolling and mind-wrestling through the groves of the Academe. The Romans’ equally high opinion of walking was summed up pithily in the Latin proverb: “It is solved by walking.” [Solvitur ambulando, as Diogenes said to Zeno as he literally walked away in demonstrating motion and change]
Nearly every philosopher-poet worth his salt has voiced similar sentiments. Erasmus recommended a little walk before supper and “after supper do the same.” Thomas Hobbes had an inkwell built into his walking stick to more easily jot down his brainstorms during his rambles. Jean- Jacques Rousseau claimed he could only meditate when walking: “When I stop, I cease to think,” he said. “My mind only works with my legs.” Søren Kierkegaard believed he’d walked himself into his best thoughts. In his brief life Henry David Thoreau walked an estimated 250,000 miles, or ten times the circumference of earth. “I think that I cannot preserve my health and spirits,” wrote Thoreau, “unless I spend four hours a day at least – and it is commonly more than that – sauntering through the woods and over the hills and fields absolutely free from worldly engagements.” Thoreau’s landlord and mentor Ralph Waldo Emerson characterized walking as “gymnastics for the mind.”
In order that he might remain one of the fittest, Charles Darwin planted a 1.5 acre strip of land with hazel, birch, privet, and dogwood, and ordered a wide gravel path built around the edge. Called Sand-walk, this became Darwin’s ‘thinking path’ where he roamed every morning and afternoon with his white fox-terrier. Of Bertrand Russell, long-time friend Miles Malleson has written: “Every morning Bertie would go for an hour’s walk by himself, composing and thinking out his work for that day. He would then come back and write for the rest of the morning, smoothly, easily and without a single correction.”
None of these laggards, however, could touch Friedrich Nietzsche, who held that “all truly great thoughts are conceived by walking.” Rising at dawn, Nietzsche would stalk through the countryside till 11 a.m. Then, after a short break, he would set out on a two-hour hike through the forest to Lake Sils. After lunch he was off again, parasol in hand, returning home at four or five o’clock, to commence the day’s writing.
Not surprisingly, the romantic poets were walkers extraordinaire. William Wordsworth traipsed fourteen or so miles a day through the Lake District, while Coleridge and Shelley were almost equally energetic. According to biographer Leslie Stephen, “The (English) literary movement at the end of the 18th century was…due in great part, if not mainly, to the renewed practice of walking.”
Armed with such insights, one must wonder whether the recent decline in walking hasn’t led to a corresponding decline in thinking. Walking, as both a mode of transportation and a recreational activity, began to fall off noticeably with the rise of the automobile, and took a major nosedive in the 1950s. Fifty plus years of automobile-centric design has reduced the number of sidewalks and pedestrian-friendly spaces to a bare minimum (particularly in the American west). All of the benefits of walking: contemplation, social intercourse, exercise, have been willingly exchanged for the dubious advantages of speed and convenience, although the automobile alone cannot be blamed for the maddening acceleration of everyday life. The modern condition is one of hurry, a perpetual rush hour that leaves little time for meditation. No wonder then that in her history of walking, Rebecca Solnit mused that “modern life is moving faster than the speed of thought, or thoughtfulness,” which seems the antithesis of Wittgenstein’s observation that in the race of philosophy, the prize goes to the slowest.
If we were to compare the quantity and quality of thinkers of the early 20th century with those of today, one cannot help but notice the dearth of Einsteins, William Jameses, Eliots and Pounds, Freuds, Jungs, Keynes, Picassos, Stravinskys, Wittgensteins, Sartres, Deweys, Yeats and Joyces. But it would be foolish to suggest that we have no contemporaries equal to Freud, et al. That would be doing an injustice to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Edward O. Wilson, James D. Watson, and the recently departed Stephen J. Gould. But as to their walking habits, they varied. Gould, a soft, flabby man, made light of his lack of exercise. Edward O. Wilson writes that he “walks as much as (his) body allows,” and used to jog up until his forties. Watson, the discoverer of the DNA molecule, frequently haunts the grounds of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, particularly on weekends, and is said to be both a nature-lover and bird-watcher.
There seems no scientific basis to link the disparate acts of walking and thinking, though that didn’t stop Mark Twain from speculating that “walking is good to time the movement of the tongue by, and to keep the blood and the brain stirred up and active.” Others have concluded that walking’s two-point rhythm clears the mind for creative study and reflection....
To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, walking remains for me the best “of all exercises.” Even so, I am full of excuses to stay put. My neighborhood has no sidewalks and it is downright dangerous to stroll the streets at night; if the threat does not come directly from thugs, then from drunken teens in speeding cars. There are certainly no Philosophers’ Walks in my hometown, as there are near the universities of Toronto, Heidelberg, and Kyoto. Nor are there any woods, forests, mountains or glens. “When we walk, we naturally go to the fields and the woods,” said Thoreau. “What would become of us, if we only walked in a garden or a mall?” I suppose I am what becomes of us, Henry.
At noon, if the weather cooperates, I may join a few other nameless office drudges on a stroll through the riverfront park. My noon walk is a brief burst of freedom in an otherwise long, dreary servitude. Though I try to reserve these solitary walks for philosophical ruminations, my subconscious doesn’t always cooperate. Often I find my thoughts to be pedestrian and worrisome in nature. I fret over money problems, or unfinished office work and my attempts to brush these thoughts away as unworthy are rarely successful. Then, again, in the evenings I sometimes take my two dachshunds for a stroll. For a dog, going for a walk is the ultimate feelgood experience. Mention the word ‘walkies’ to a wiener dog, and he is immediately transported into new dimensions of bliss. I couldn’t produce a similar reaction in my wife if I proposed that we take the Concorde to Paris for the weekend. Rather than suffer a walk, my son would prefer to have his teeth drilled.
In no way am I suggesting that all of society’s ills can be cured by a renaissance of walking. But maybe – just maybe – a renewed interest in walking may spur some fresh scientific discoveries, a unique literary movement, a new vein of philosophy. If nothing else it will certainly improve our health both physically and mentally. Of course that would mean getting out from behind the desk at noon and getting some fresh air. That would mean shutting down the television in the evenings and breathing in the Great Outdoors. And, ultimately, it would involve a change in thinking and a shift in behavior, as opposed to a change of channels and a shift into third.
© CHRISTOPHER ORLET 2004
Christopher Orlet is an essayist and book critic. His work appears often in The American Spectator, the London Guardian, and Salon.com. Visit his homepage at www.christopherorlet.net
https://philosophynow.org/issues/44/The_Gymnasiums_of_the_Mind
==
#H02-
ReplyDeleteLHP-1
Samuel Johnson famously “refuted” George Berkeley’s theory of immaterialism by kicking a stone and proclaiming, “I refute it thus!” Berkeley’s theory posited that material objects do not exist independently of our perception of them. In other words, to be is to be perceived. Johnson’s act of kicking the stone was meant to demonstrate the tangible reality of the material world, which he believed contradicted Berkeley’s theory.
However, Johnson’s refutation is often considered more of a rhetorical gesture than a philosophical argument. By kicking the stone, Johnson was appealing to common sense and the immediate experience of physical reality, rather than engaging with the underlying philosophical principles of Berkeley’s immaterialism.
In terms of success, Johnson’s demonstration did not address Berkeley’s arguments directly. Berkeley could have responded that the stone’s existence and Johnson’s perception of it were still consistent with his theory, as the stone exists because it is perceived by Johnson (or ultimately by God, in Berkeley’s view). Therefore, while Johnson’s refutation was compelling from a common-sense perspective, it did not succeed in philosophically disproving Berkeley’s theory.
LHP-4
George Berkeley’s Latin slogan was “esse est percipi,” which translates to “to be is to be perceived.”
As for whether existence depends upon being perceived, this is a deeply philosophical question. Berkeley argued that objects only exist as perceptions in our minds and that their existence is dependent on being perceived by someone. This idea challenges the notion of an objective reality that exists independently of our perceptions.
From a philosophical standpoint, I feel that existence does depend on perception because our understanding of reality is shaped by our sensory experiences. However, it's also important to remember that objects have an independent existence regardless of whether they are perceived.
HWT-3
When it comes to discussing occupations, Americans and Japanese might respond differently due to their cultural contexts. Americans often emphasize individual achievements and personal identity, so an American might respond with their job title and possibly elaborate on their role and accomplishments, such as saying, “I’m a software engineer at a tech company, and I work on developing new applications.” In contrast, Japanese culture places a strong emphasis on group identity and social harmony, so a Japanese person might respond by mentioning their company first, reflecting their role within the organization, for example, “I work for Toyota in the engineering department.” These differences highlight the broader cultural values of individualism in the United States and collectivism in Japan.
Maheswari Ramesh (Maahi)
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP #2: Berkeley was labeled an idealist because he believed only that ideas existed. He was an immaterialist for a similar reason: he denied the existence of materialistic things. So, Berkeley thought the reality we want to believe is not so, but somewhat just idealistic experiences. Things exist when we see or utilize them; more so understandable is the example of a tree falling in a forest and nobody being around to hear it. Did it really fall? This is a concept I have pondered before, not to the extent that I'd label myself an idealist or immaterialist. However, I am intrigued by the idea of appearance versus reality, and Berkeley's take on it is appealing.
LHP #6: The English poet Alexander Pope declared the quote "whatever is, is right," and the German philosopher Gottfried Wilheim Leibniz agreed with him. The confidence behind this quote is that everything that happens is part of God's plan; if it's part of God's plan and His universe, then it cannot be wrong. For those who are very invested in religion with this perspective, it may be a comforting thought. However, this is not a realistic or substantial way to go about life. When horrific events occur, it is not just to slap religious optimism on them to deem them as okay.
LHP #7: François-Marie Arouet, commonly recognized as Voltaire, was the French champion who wrote a satirical novel poking fun at the religious optimism expressed by Leibniz. The neat thing about Voltaire is that although he had an entirely different set of beliefs, he never spoke on restricting individuals like Leibniz and Pope from expressing their views. We need this more than ever in our local classroom and in society as a whole; the matter of ignorance is for another discussion. Voltaire used this entertaining novel to display the faults in the "whatever is, is right" mindset by taking the main characters through a journey that exposes them to an abundance of awful things present in our day to day world. Satirical examples like this are all over our media and can be effective in demonstrating the faults in popular beliefs.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
4: Berkeley's latin slogan was "esse est percipi" meaning to be is to be perceived. This is not a view that I agree with because things can exist without being perceived. In fact I think that it is much easier to exist without being perceived by us pesky humans than to exist being perceived by us.
6. Alexander Pope wrote that "whatever is, is right" while Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz agreed with. This might be comforting for the religiously devout (particularly of the Abrahamic religions), but for everyone else this is difficult to believe in because a lot of what happens is the result of humanity and other things are just out of our control, but still there are way too many factors that we do control and at the end of the day what is right comes from our own definitions.
8: The 1755 Lisbon earthquake followed by a tsunami and fires is what influenced the philosophy of Voltaire. I for one believe that natural disasters are just a misfortune of life, therefore we should always be ready for one on the fly but really my belief isn't much else as to me they sort of just occur. It is a tragedy that life gets lost in natural disasters, so we should just try our best to minimize their impact rather than spend time trying to think why it could or did happen to a certain place.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. Samuel Johnson refuted Berkeley’s theory by kicking a stone and stating, “I refute it thus,” expressing that the stone must be more than an idea if he can physically kick it. To Berkeley, Johnson was thinking of the idea of a stone when he kicked it. I think Johnson was successful in refuting Berkeley’s theory. How could Johnson have the idea of a stone in his mind if stones do not actually exist? Additionally, how could anyone have an idea of anything if it does not truly exist? There must be a physical thing that exists in order for someone to have an idea of or an experience with it. The universe was not created from ideas, but it can be experienced through ideas, thoughts, and beliefs.
LHP 3. Berkeley claimed to have a more consistent idea than Locke because he believed that we perceive the world directly because it is in our minds. He did not mean that things come into and out of existence, but that things only exist through our perception of them. Berkeley makes a point here; we can only see the world through our sensations and experiences, so the world has no consistent existence. I think Locke and Berkeley would agree that the world exists in two planes: one in our perception, and one in reality.
LHP 7. Francois-Marie Arouet, commonly called Voltaire, was a French novelist and playwright that criticized Leibniz’s idea that everything was “right” and the best of all possible worlds. In the novel, he uses characters to ridicule Leibniz’s philosophy. The main character, Candide, went through many misfortunes and his tutor, Pangloss, explained that all those misfortunes happened because they lived in the best possible world.
I find Johnson's rebuttal interesting because he is almost proving Berkeley's beliefs through it. Like you said, how could he have the idea of a stone in his mind if it does not exist. And how could he feel the stone against his foot when he kicked it if it is merely an idea. I think Johnson ended up supporting Berkeley with his own disagreement.
DeleteRoman Phillips H#03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Samuel Johnson refuted Berkeley's theory by kicking a stone hard into the street because Johnson was certain that material things do exist and are not just composed ideas. He was not successful in refuting Berkeley's idea because the stone was not the real reason Johnson's foot was in pain. Feeling the hardness of the stone against Johnson's foot did not prove the existence of material objects. It only proved the existence of an idea suggesting there was a hard stone. Berkeley believed that there was no reality beyond the ideas he had. Berkeley is not only labeled as an idealist meaning that all that exists are ideas, but he is also described as an immaterialist because he denied physical objects (material things) exist. Matter does not exist in Berkeley's mind so with this type of thinking, how do we tell if it is real or just an illusion? Berkeley believed that the experience of reality and the experience of illusion should not be contradictory. Berkeley was prepared to follow an argument wherever it went, even when conclusions ignored common sense.
7. Voltaire (Francois - Marie Arouet), a French champion of free speech and religious toleration wrote a satirical novel/play ridiculing the idea that everything is right (for the best). Published in 1759, "Candide" made fun of religious beliefs and diminished Pope and Leibniz's beliefs about optimism regarding humanity and the universe. Voltaire expresses his belief - that contradicts Pope and Leibniz - that all things happening are not for the best and this is not the best of all possible worlds - arguing that optimism is absurd and evil does not have a true purpose.
8. The catastrophe that deeply influenced Voltaire's philosophy occurred in 1755 which was a major earthquake in Lisbon that killed more than 20,000 people. After the earthquake in Lisbon, the city was further destroyed by a tsunami as well numerous outbreaks of fire. This intense suffering of loss and lives deeply disturbed Voltaire who questioned how God could allow all of this anguish. Voltaire used this tragedy in part of "Candide" to show how stubborn his character Pangloss faithfully clings to the idea of his pre-established harmony of everything that is, but this tragedy also plays an important part in the transformation of the title character Candide who by the end of the book questions everything (skeptical) and searches for more reasonable solutions to life's problems. Personally, I believe everything happens for a reason and with faith you can react to what has happened.
9. I think Voltaire was saying to worry about your own problems and focus on your own life instead of worrying about others' problems or trying to change the world when he referred to "cultivating your own garden." I have several thoughts about this. Yes, it is important to focus on my own problems. However, others' problems sometimes become my own problems too. For example, there is a huge single-use plastic problem that contributes to environmental issues. Yes, I am guilty of using one-time plastic utensils and one time bottles. So, the convenience of single-use plastic is a problem on my radar now. I can do my part and recycle my used item, but will it truly be recycled or will it end up in a landfill adding to the pollution problems already plaguing our planet?
FL
Delete1. In Brooklyn, New Yorkan amazing theme park was erected at the turn of the 20th century. Colossal misrepresentations continued as evidenced by “Black America,” a theme park type show created by Nate Salsbury and Billy McClain to showcase over five-hundred Black actors reenacting slavery on a southern plantation. For "Black America," these actors pretended to be enslaved - they picked cotton and processed it at a real cotton gin. The idea of this theme park was to showcase the happy go-lucky lives of slaves as they went about their work and lived in their cabins. This show actually was very successful and toured the Northeast.
2. Robert Love Taylor was the former governor of Tennessee and a US senator who lectured around the country about the glories of the Old South. Taylor was nominated by the Democratic Party to run for governor and defeated his own brother, who was the Republican Party’s nominee. Remaining governor for two consecutive terms, Taylor successfully passed a series of election laws, including poll tax and registration. Taylor had a bizarre version of the South he circulated while on the lecture circuit.
3. "Birth of a Nation" is a silent film that erroneously depicts African Americans. This film was widely circulated and was actually the first film shown at the White House under Woodrow Wilson. Although the film is fictitious, it includes factual historical references such as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln as it reveals the relationship between two families, the Stonemans and the Camerons. When the film debuted in 1915, it portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as a heroic force protecting American values and supporting White supremacy.
4. In an essay for HL Mencken's magazine, Wilbur Cash explained, "Everywhere [the Southerner] turns away from reality to a gaudy world of his own making."
5. Fundamentalism is a protest against the rationalistic interpretation of Christianity which seeks to discredit supernaturalism. When the supernatural content of Christianity is removed, it fails to be a religious movement, but instead an illustrious code of ethics.
6. Because Science had proved that humans descended from animals, modernists reconciled Science and religion using scientific evidence. Modernists explained that astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, and biologists simply discovered the operational details of God's miraculous creation of man.
7. In March 1925, the Tennessee state legislature passed a bill that banned the teaching of evolution in all educational institutions throughout the state. The Butler Act set off alarm bells around the country. The ACLU responded immediately with an offer to defend any teacher prosecuted under the law. John Scopes, a young popular high school science teacher, agreed to stand as defendant in a test case to challenge the law. He was arrested on May 7, 1925, and charged with teaching the theory of evolution. It did not matter that he was absent the day his class was actually taught evolution. Scopes was actually a football coach and science teacher, but he didn’t teach biology. He was filling in as a substitute biology teacher when he taught from a biology textbook that included evolution. After the trial, Scopes even said he couldn’t remember if he had actually taught evolution. Since the trial was more about testing the law and creating tourism for Dayton, he and other witnesses acted as if he had taught it. Clarence Darrow was the lawyer for the ACLU and William Jennings Bryan, a former Secretary of State, three-time presidential candidate, and the most famous fundamentalist Christian spokesperson in the country was the star witness for the prosecution.
DeleteThis trial became a sensational spectacle with approximately a 100 newspapers in attendance to report on the daily events of the trial. It was also the first trial to be broadcasted on live radio. After an intense eight day trial, the jury returned with a guilty verdict in less than nine minutes and fined John Scopes $100. Sadly, Bryan was publicly humiliated and died a week after the end of the trial. Interestingly, the verdict was reversed by the state Supreme Court on a technicality and the Butler Act was never enforced again. As a constitutional matter, the Scopes Monkey Trial failed to resolve the conflict in America between science and creationist fantasy. Meanwhile, the ACLU would wait another 43 years before it could test anti-evolution laws again. This case is widely known as the Scopes Monkey Trial because of H.L. Mencken’s reports. Although Scopes was found guilty, people disagreed over which side really won. Many people who listened to the trial on the radio believed Scopes’ lawyer, Clarence Darrow, made the best argument. Darrow claimed that Bryan's years of antievolution beliefs were "responsible for this wicked, mischievous, and foolish" new law (referring to the Butler Act). Others who were there in person saw the trial as a win for anti-evolutionists because of the guilty verdict.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
6. Alexander Pope was the one who declared "whatever is, is right" while the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz is the one who endorsed him. This does not imply that nothing can be wrong in the universe, as everyone's experience of life should reveal to them a ridiculous amount of injustice and evil. The central point of Pope's ideology is that there is a reason behind this injustice and evil that is beyond our understanding, which is in place for a positive purpose. An example can be found in a point made by Augustine, in which he offers an explanation as to why human beings have the ability to do things which should be in opposition with God's will if he is all good. Augustine suggests that free will is the reason for our creation, and because of this created purpose we are given the option to do things contrary to God's will for the sake of upholding our free will. This is an example of how evil and injustice can exist for a good purpose, allowing the existence of freedom of choice. I'm sure there is a limit to our understanding of this concept, but just because we can not explain every single injustice in the universe does not mean there is no greater explanation for said injustice. Through this logic, I believe Pope's philosophy to be completely reasonable.
8. The Lisbon earthquake killed more than 20,000 people and deeply disturbed Voltaire, which lead to the development of his philosophy. It is impossible to truly know a morally pure reason as to why natural disasters and events like them occur. A possible explanation can be found in the identity of the person who has dominion over the earth. The Christian Bible explains that God gave humanity dominion over the earth, and thus allowed humanity the choice of who its ruler should be. When Adam and Eve sinned, they deliberately made the decision to separate themselves from God, which caused God to respect their decision and relinquish his authority. In doing so, the devil rose to power as "The Prince of the Earth" and made it his goal to repeat history by causing all of humanity to make the same decision Adam and Eve did. Through this perspective, the existence of injustice and natural disasters would be events caused by the devil to manipulate people into turning against God, as he would use his authority to bring about evil.
9. Voltaire suggested that thinking about religion and philosophy was useless, as it would be better for people to spend their time working on good deeds rather than thinking about abstract philosophical ideas. I disagree with Voltaire strongly on this point, as how can one know what a "good" deed is if one does not have a basis for good and evil? If no objective morals exist, wouldn't it make the most sense to adopt Machiavelli's philosophy and do whatever it takes to gain the most power and pleasure? Without thinking through the existence of God and the objective morals of the universe, one does not have the proper incentive to do good deeds, which gives immense merit to religion and philosophy.
11. Hume's definition of a miracle is an event which defies the known natural laws of the universe, such as a person can not rise from the dead once they are confirmed to be dead. Hume did not believe it was reasonable to believe in stories which defy the known natural laws purely based on eyewitness testimony alone. I agree and disagree with Hume to a certain degree. Believing in the eye witness testimony of an individual or a small group of people who have incentive to lie is illogical and not reasonable. However, adapting a historical perspective to events which defy natural laws can make belief in said events reasonable. We often determine the historical authenticity of an event through 4 methods, number of witnesses, motives of the author, geographical consistency, and internal consistency. If the exact same story comes from numerous people, then the probability of the stories reliability increases. If the authors or witnesses do not benefit from telling a story, then the probability of the stories reliability increases. If the story has no internal contradiction and no geographical contradiction, then it becomes almost reasonable to assume that the story is true. I believe this same method can be applied to determine the authenticity of miracles, to ultimately determine if it is reasonable to believe one occurred.
DeleteH02
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. Berkeley is seen as an idealist and also an immaterialist for a number of reasons. First, he was seen as idealist because that all that exists are ideas. Berkeley believed that the only reason things exist is because an idea made them exist and relevant. On the other side, he was an immaterialist because he denied material things, like physical objects. These two beliefs went hand and hand with what Berkeley stood for because he believed that the reason why things exist is because we perceive them. They are an idea to us because we declare them to be. The idea is shared and is a collective understanding among others making us declare that it exists because we believe to. I feel like I am neither of these and I think it is because I am a Stem major. I feel like things exist physically and not because we think them to exist. I don't really agree with both.
7. Voltaire, was commonly known as the French philosopher who championed on free speech. Voltaire was an outspoken character that had most of his works done because he challenged the social norm. The work that finally got published and cherished Candide, which, completely undermined the idea of optimism when it comes to humanity.
11. Hume believed that a miracle was something that defied the law of nature. Hume, thus believed that miracles weren't a thing that happened. He believed that if someone says that they witnessed a miracle they are either something wrong or telling a lie to make themselves look interesting. In summation, Hume thus believed that miracles were just simple mistakes.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 2- Berkeley was an idealist because he believed that ideas were the only things that existed and he was an immaterialist because he didn't believe that material objects existed (physical things are not real because the only things that are real are ideas). I disagree entirely with him, although honestly it's an interesting thought experiment. Maybe the whole outside world only exists in your mind and everything you see is just your imagination. But I think that's a horrible existence to believe in. That nothing physical is real? It is more enjoyable (the purpose of life to me) to believe in the reality of the physical world than to spend your whole life trying to prove it.
8- In 1755 the Lisbon earthquake killed 20,000 people through overshocks, tsunamis, and fires. It greatly influenced Voltaire because it might have converted him into being an athiest. Or at least, a nonbeliever in the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God. How could God have a good plan when people were killed by horrific natural disasters such as this? I agree with him on this. The idea that God has a plan is stable until really bad things happen and then it falls apart. Innocents should not be killed impersonally for the purpose of a "grand plan". That is evil. I believe in nature, and that nature cannot and absolutely should not be anthropomorphized. It does not have thoughts or care about humanity. That is how natural disasters happen, randomly from environmental causes.
11- Humes defined "miracle" as an event that defies a law of nature, and he thought that we should disbelieve pretty much everyone who has ever said they have witnessed a true miracle. I fully agree. It has been proven over and over that first-person eyewitnesses in court are highly unreliable and the same is true even in not a criminal sense. People are very bad at remembering accurately what they saw, and they are very easily led into believing they saw something they did not. Drawing a line between improbable and impossible events is difficult. Scientific laws and theories are improved upon all the time, so something could be true tomorrow that we think is false today. Impossible to me though, with our current laws of nature, means miracles. I believe that they are impossible.
W03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Samuel Johnson kicked a rock down the road, and by feeling the rock hit his foot, he determined that things can exist even without seeing it. Berkeley countered by saying that what exists is not the object, but the idea of the object. The only way to confirm it exists is by seeing it with your own eyes. I believed that Johnson's rebuttal, while valid, fails to counter Berkeley's belief because he already had a counter to the rebuttal.
2. Berkeley was a idealist because he believed that all that existed was ideas, and he was a immaterialist because he denied the existence of material things. If we are going off of Berkeley's definition of immaterialism and idealism, then I believe in neither. Both definitions are absolutes, either you believe one thing exists and deny the other. I believe that ideas exist just as material things exist.
3. Berkeley claimed to be more consistent because he believed that we perceive the world directly, since it is all just ideas. I do not believe Berkeley has a point, because I think there is another problem. I may be wrong, but are perceptions and ideas just the same thing? If we see something, we perceive it one way, just as we have an idea about what it is. If my reasoning is correct (and it may not be), then Berkeley and Locke's belief are two sides of the same coin.
It's interesting to read how Berkeley thought he was more consistent than Locke when in the end, I agree, they are ultimately arguing the same point.
Delete#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Samual Johnson kicked a rock in the street with his foot. He determined that the rock must exist because he felt the pain from kicking the rock. I think Johnsons refute was valid, but it still did not prove that berkelys belief was false.
4. Berkleys latin slogan was 'Esse est percipi' which means to exist is to be perceived. I do not agree with this statement. I think we all view the world differently.
9.Voltaire meant that we need to do more as a society and do more for humanity than just sitting around doing nothing. I do agree that we cold all do more for our world.
melie oakes H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. Samuel Johnson’s attempt to refute Berkley was kicking a rock along the road, his foot hit the rock and he perceived the pain. To Johnson this was proof that the object existed physically not just as an idea. However Berkley would say otherwise because he thought our interactions with physical objects were just with the idea of that object, and we perceive it as such. Therefore Berkley’s theory wouldn’t necessarily be refuted by Johnson’s little stone kick.
LHP 2. Berkley was an idealist because he didn’t believe the existence of were proven by our interaction with objects, they could merely be the idea of that object. This went hand and hand with being an immaterialist, because believe physical objects to exist, all that existed to him were ideas. I wouldn’t consider myself either an idealist or immaterialist but I have had phases in my life where I did think like this but it was never a philosophy or belief but an intense fear of everything being ideas and my perceptions instead of a tangible world.
LHP 3. Berkley said he was more consistent just because he believed our perceptions were directly from the world, but the world is just ideas whereas Locke explored how we could really be perceiving the true nature of world. Locke was more concerned about incorrectly perceiving the world while Berkley thought our perceptions were correctly interpreting a world made of ideas.
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Samuel Johnson refuted Berkeley's theory by using an example of him kicking a stone. He could feel the stone hard against his tow when he kicked it. This, however, did not do much refuting because although he could feel the stone against his foot it only proved the existence of the idea of a hard stone, not the existence of the material object itself. It almost proved Berkeley's belief that the stone is nothing more than the sensations is gives rise to rather than refute it.
2. Berkeley was an idealist because he believed that all that exist are ideas. He was an immaterialist because he denied that material things existed. This ideology came about due to his fascination of the relationship between appearance and reality. I am neither an idealist nor an immaterialist. I don't believe that everything that exists is merely an idea, and I also don't agree with the denial of material things existing. I believe things are what they are because we see and feel and experience them ourselves.
3. Berkeley claimed to be more like consistent that Locke because unlike Locke, he believes that we do perceive the world directly because the world is nothing but ideas. The entirety of experience is all that there is. Berkeley was trying to explain that the world and everything in it only exists in people's minds. I think for someone who follows Berkeley's ideas he definitely had a point to his beliefs, but as someone who does not agree I think his explanation makes no sense and does not have any point to it.
H#2
ReplyDeleteLHP #1 - Samuel Johnson refuted Berkeley's theory because he kicked a stone and determined that since he felt the stone without seeing it, things must exist while not perceiving them. While I think Johnson was correct, he didn't fully invalidate Berkeley's theory since Berkeley said the idea of the object is what exists. I think this is a stretch on Berkeley's end.
LHP #7 - Voltaire wrote the satirical novel Candide to poke fun at Leibniz's optimistic views.
LHP #8 - The Lisbon earthquake happened which killed over 20,000 people, then a tsunami hit, then fires went on for days. The answer to why so much wrong happens in the world has been one of my biggest struggles with truly connecting with religion. You get told that there's an almighty god that has so much power yet you hear about these terrible things and have no answer for why.
LHP #9 - When Voltaire said "cultivating our gardens" he meant to do our duty as human beings and do our part towards the betterment of humanity. Do work that will progress us in a positive direction and make advancements in any category. It's what we ought to do as humans. Our connection in this world and purpose is to make life better for the people after us. I agree with this belief and think it makes the question of "What is the purpose of life?" a simple question to answer. It gives purpose to life and can make you feel connected as a whole.
LHP #11 - Hume defined a miracle as something that defies a law or nature. He believed that we shouldn't believe someone who claims they witnessed a miracle because there is usually an obvious explanation that they have ignored to see. I would draw the line whenever something that I've never heard of happening is said to have happened. I would be extremely skeptical of that and find it impossible.
HWT-1: The idea of a separable soul is considered a "corruption" because it comes from the ancient Greek idea, particularly in Aristotelian thought, where the soul was more integrally connected to the body and not something that existed independently. The soul, in this view, is more a set of functions or characteristics of the living being rather than an intangible entity that can exist separately. The French philosopher who defended the idea of a separable soul was René Descartes. He argued for dualism which is the idea that the soul and body are distinct substances. The Scottish skeptic who argued otherwise was David Hume, who challenged the notion of a soul as a separable, distinct substance. Hume argued that what we consider the "self" is merely a mix of perceptions and experiences, rejecting the idea of an independent, permanent soul.
ReplyDeleteHWT-2: Owen Flanagan's research, particularly in the context of cross-cultural psychology, suggests that diverse cultures have distinct conceptions of self and human nature. His findings indicate that human nature is not as universal as Aristotle might have thought. Aristotle viewed human nature as more or less consistent, with a natural telos towards which all humans strive for something like happiness or eudaimonia. However, Flanagan’s findings contrast with this by showing that conceptions of self, emotions, and ethics vary significantly across cultures, implying that there is no single universal human nature.
HWT-3: If you ask an American about their occupation, they are likely to respond in terms of their job title or profession, emphasizing individual achievement and personal identity in their work. For example, they might say, "I’m a lawyer" or "I’m a teacher." In contrast, a Japanese person might respond more in terms of the company or organization they work for, emphasizing group affiliation and their role within a collective context. They might say, "I work for Toyota" rather than giving a specific job title, reflecting a more group-oriented sense of identity.
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
4. Berkeley’s Latin slogan was “Esse est percipi” which is to say that to exist is to be perceived. I do not think that existence depends upon being perceived. My reasoning behind this is based on the conservation of mass, as mass can neither be created nor destroyed, and therefore what is not perceived must still be there as its physical mass cannot be destroyed or just disappear.
7. Voltaire was the French champion of free speech and religious toleration that wrote the satirical novel/play ridiculing the idea that everything is right or for the best. His play/novel was called Candide and followed the events that happened to Candide and his philosophical teacher Dr Pangloss and how the horrible events that happened and how they only made him stronger in his beliefs.
9. When Voltaire wrote that we need to cultivate our garden, he meant that we need to cultivate something, or do something good for society. I do agree with this, as doing something good for society can be a very fulfilling thing to do, and can better the society which can in turn make your life better.
10. Hume thought that the human eye being so flawless in its patterned intricacy did not constitute powerful evidence of intelligent design. An omnipotent designer may design a flawed organ to show that nothing is perfect, there must be a reason other than that the being is not really all powerful. I think it would be to show that down to the finest details it is early perfect but will never be able to be 100% truly perfect.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1 - Samuel Johnson refuted the idea by kicking a stone in a street. He believed he was proving the stone's existence because he could feel the sensation of the hard stone against his foot. Berkeley refuted this refutation by coming to the conclusion that there is no "real" stone causing this pain but instead the idea of a hard stone is what caused to pain.
3 - Berkeley claimed to be more consistent than Locke in the idea that humans do perceive the world directly. He says this because the only real things in the world are ideas, therefore always existing in our minds. I do not quite agree with this point just because I think that there is a reality where objects do exist, we just give them meaning based on ideas we as humans collectively have.
6 - Alexander Pope declared "Whatever is, is right." I can understand the idea behind this, but I cannot agree when I believe that humans are responsible for many bad things in the world such as global warming due to excessive fossil fuel usage, terrorism, etc. Just because they happen does not make them right or natural.
8 - The Lisbon Earthquake greatly affected Voltaire's philosophy and his belief in God. I do tend to think stoically about things out of control such as natural disasters, however when it comes to terrible things happening due to human causes that can be changed, I think that it is important that we as humans should do better to cause less harm to one another.
11 - Hume's definition of a miracle is something that defies a law of nature. He said that we should not trust others' eyewitness accounts because they are most likely deceiving you or are mistaken in what they saw. It is hard to say where I would draw the line between impossible and highly improbable because of some theoretical situation. Your hand passing through each atom making up a table for example.
#H1 - Zoe Kuhn
ReplyDeleteLHP - #1
Samuel Johnson refuted Berkeley's theory by simply stating, "I refute it thus." Johnson also said that he believed that material things do exist and that they aren't just ideas of things, and to demonstrate this, Johnson kicked a hard stone into the street to show that he felt the stone against his toe when he kicked it. Therefore, material things exist.
LHP - #2
What made Berkeley an idealist and an immaterialist is that he believed that all that exists are just ideas and that all material objects didn't exist, either. I feel like I am a mixture of an idealist but not an immaterialist. I believe physical objects are real.
Weiner - #1
Rousseau’s multitudes were philosopher, novelist, composer, essayist, botanist, autodidact, fugitive, political theorist, and a masochist. Most of all, he was a walker, meaning he loved going on strolls because he believed it was the best freedom humans could have.
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP-4
" To be is to be perceived". This was Berkeley's Latin phrase. It captured his idea that physical objects are made up of ideas. Therefore, their existence is entirely based on perception. I do think existence depends on being perceived because either we as humans are going to perceive objects or God is always going to be " In the quad" which makes me think all things must be in existence because of one or the other.
LHP-9
Voltaire thought cultivating our garden was an important philosophy. He used this metaphor to relate to how we as human beings should be cultivating this world like any garden. Planting seeds, watering, picking out the weeds. We should all feel obligated to participating in the betterment of our world to produce the best fruit and society for us to coexist.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
8. A devastating earthquake in Lisbon, Portugal that killed tens of thousands threatened Voltaire's belief in God. The seemingly meaningless cruelty left him pondering the "Question of Evil." Why would an all-good God allow such a terrible thing to happen to innocent people. My philosophy about natural disasters is that they are inevitable, natural ocurrences that are unfortunately often deadly. There's no calculation or real "evil" behind them. They just happen. A series of natural events will build up, and a devastating event will result from the entropy of the previous happenings.
11. To Hume, a miracle was something that defies the laws of nature. He was skeptical of others' accounts of miracles, believing instead that there is a more logical and probable explanation for what they believe to be a miracle. I'd define a miracle similarly to Hume. It would have to be something that completely disregards humanity's understanding of reality. Things like a man standing on water or a religious person seeing a spirit can be explained away as delusions or illusions. For something to be truly miraculous, it would need to be irrefutably impossible. For example, it would be a miracle for George Washington to rise from his centuries long slumber. A miracle should also be observed and accredited by multiple, reliable sources. Just one testimony is not enough to prove a miracle. Multiple people of sound mind would need to undoubtedly witness the miracle for it to be legitimate.
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 think that acting as a community affects one's freedom. "Freedom," the way I see it, is somewhat subjective. Not everyone feels freed by the same things. To universally define devotion to the General Will as "freeing" is simple minded. There are likely many who will not find this freeing, and Rousseau's idea to "force" the opposition to be free is antithetical to the pursuit of freedom. Maybe, if freedom were defined like some form of enlightenment. Like how some believe that you can become enlightened by suffering. You can be free by joining the community. But, I believe that "freedom" is too subjective of a feeling to confidently agree with Rousseau's position. And while I like the idea of a tight-knit community pursuing the General Will through mutual aid, this system could be abused and misused, defeating its purpose and stripping all freedom from this way of life.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP #1:
Samuel Johnson refuted Berkeley's claims by kicking a stone. The point was that he could very clearly feel the stone, so the stone must be there in the outside world, but Berkeley's theory still holds, because this could be written off as just an experience of kicking a stone, even if there was no real stone at all. This seems like a sort of Cartesian way of thinking.
LHP #2:
Berkeley was an idealist because he believed that our experiences were reality. There is no world external to what we perceive because the perception itself is the real thing. The world consists of ideas in our minds. I don't think that you could ever prove this wrong, but, as long as you believe that there are still other people experiencing the world (or simply experiencing) then the way in which you live your life does not necessarily need to change.
LHP #5:
The difficulty is in explaining how anything we perceive can be false. Berkeley said that when a perception is inconsistent, it is false. So if we perceive a piece of paper with an optical illusion that gives the impression of a moving pattern, we can tell that it is merely an illusion because we can feel that nothing is moving on the paper. If you were to perceive something consistently that was still false, how, then, would you know that it is false? This does not seem to be a problem for me, because this is how new knowledge can be gained, by perceiving it consistently. Sure, it may turn out to be untrue, but that would simply mean we haven't perceived it enough to find its inconsistency, so until then, we should believe that it is true.
LHP #10:
David Hume did not believe that the intricacy of the eye pointed to an intelligent creator. One explanation as to why an omnipotent being would create an imperfect eye is because it is simply imperfect by our standards, but who is to say that our standards and our idea of perfection would be the same as an all-powerful and all-knowing god?
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
2) What made Berkeley an idealist, and an immaterialist? Are you one, the other, both, neither?
Berkeley was considered an idealist and an immaterialist. He believed that all that existed were ideas, which made him an idealist, and he denied that material things, such as physical objects, existed, making him an immaterialist. Berkley was also fascinated by the relationship between reality and appearance. I do not consider myself an immaterialist since I think material things like objects are real and not just mental perceptions. When considering the idealist theory, I tend to lean more towards realism rather than idealism. I agree more with the realism theory that all manifestable possibilities emerge from preexisting certainties.
4) What was Berkeley's Latin slogan? Do you think existence depends upon being perceived?
Berkely’s Latin slogan was “Esse est percipi” which means to be, or exist, is to be perceived. This view, to me, is a little extreme. While perception may play a role in how we view the world, ourselves, and people around us, it does not necessarily determine our existence. We exist regardless of whether we are perceived by others, and our existence is not limited to how others perceive us.
11) What was Hume's definition of "miracle"? Did he think we should usually believe others' reports of having witnessed a miracle? Where would you draw the line between events that are highly improbable and events that are impossible (according to known laws)?
Hume’s definition of “miracle” was it had to defy a law of nature. Hume did not think we should usually believe others’ reports of witnessing a miracle; he was skeptical of believing in miracles. Hume believed that there were always more plausible explanations of what was going on. I find myself being skeptical of others at times of unlikely events. Sometimes it is easy to exaggerate what happened when you experience something unlikely firsthand, so decerning the truth can be tricky. Although when it comes to miracles from God, I am more likely to believe in that unlikely event if, for example, it was an answered prayer. God is the exception and miracles occur through Him.
#H01
ReplyDelete1. Johnson refuted Berkely's theory that material objects do not exist independently of those perceptions, but instead, exist only as ideas in the mind of perceivers. Johnson famously refuted this by kicking a large stone and declaring, "I refute it thus!" Johnson believed that by demonstrating the solid, undeniable reality of the stone through physical interaction, he could refute Berkeley's claim that atter only exists as a perception of the mind. I believe that this act of kicking a stone did not pose a threat to Berkeley's claim on a philosophical level because Johnson's act of kicking the stone was still an idea that came from his mind, and therefore, it isn't refuting his claim on a philosophical level.
2. Berkely was both an idealist and an immaterialist. he was an idealist because he believed that reality is a mental game, and that everything that exists is either a mind or an idea within a mind. Basically, he said that objects cannot exist independently of our perception of them, and that objects are simply collections of ideas perceived by us. He was also an immaterialist because he denied the existence of material substances. For Berkely, the only things that exists are minds and the ideas within those minds. For me, I believe that he has a level of validity in his argument, but I think that there is a lot more to the unknown world that humans have yet to perceive. For example, the dark matter that houses the compounds of the universe are invisible to the eye, but they still exists with a simple purpose of keeping the immense space between planets full. Berkely wouldn't believe his eyes when he learned about the vast matrix of atoms and cells that fill our world to the microscopic level!
3. Berkeley claimed to be more consistent than John Locke in rejecting the idea of "material substance." Locke had argued that we perceive the world through sensory experiences (ideas), but he also believed that these ideas were caused by material objects existing independently of our minds. However, Locke admitted that we cannot directly perceive these material substances; we only know them through the ideas they supposedly produce in us. Berkeley criticized this view as inconsistent. If we only ever perceive ideas, he argued, then it makes no sense to posit the existence of an unperceived material substance behind those ideas. For Berkeley, it was simpler and more consistent to conclude that only ideas and minds exist, and that matter is unnecessary for explaining our perceptions.
LHP 1- Samuel Johnson "refuted" Berkeley's theory by kicking a stone, claiming since he could feel the hardness of the stone against his foot it must exist. He assumed he was proving the theory wrong, but it actually wasn't really doing much. Berkeley's theory explained that feeling the stone only proved that the *idea* of it is shown through our sensations, and our perception of it. So kicking the stone didn't solidify it's existence; it only proved our perception of it.
ReplyDeleteLHP 3- Berkeley claimed to be more consistent than Locke because of their difference in beliefs. His belief system claimed that we, as people, do percieve the world directly, but it really is all ideas, with no question. Locke was way more skeptical of it, and he was more interested in questioning it all.
LHP 4- Berkeleys latin slogan was "Esse es percipi," which meant, "To be (or exist) is to be perceived." I don't believe this is true. There are so many discoveries and things that have existed for so long before anyone has found them. Although it's hard to imagine, just because we don't see or know about something doesn't mean it isn't there.
H1
ReplyDeleteFL 2. Robert Love Taylor was the last democratic district judge of Tennessee.
FL 3. Birth of a Nation was a silent film that was racist propaganda.
FL 7. The famous 1925 trial was against a teacher who taught evolution in a public school, which was against the law. His lawyer, Darrow, called this law foolish. This trial was very controversial, but the law that started it wasn't enacted again. Because of the controversy surrounding the guilty verdict, which was later reversed, there is still conflict over whether or not evolution should be taught in schools.
HO2
ReplyDeleteLHP1- Johnson attempted to disprove Berkeley by kicking a rock. He thought that if the rock was just in his head and didn’t actually exist why do you feel it when you kick it. Berkeley’s retort was that Johnson kicked the idea of a rock and his mind caused the stimulation.
LHP2- Berkeley was an idealist because he thought everything that existed were just ideas while he is a immaterialist because he doesn’t think physical objects are exist. I don’t agree with either because empirically it makes no sense I see things so something must exist that is physically there.
LHP3- Berkeley considers himself more consistent than Locke because in Lockes’ view you weren’t seeing the whole picture, but Berkeley says you are but your mind takes the idea, what your actually seeing, and gives it form in your mind. I don’t see his point because I am not convinced by idealism.
1. Samuel Johnson refuted Berkely’s theory, saying he was certain that material things do exist because he can feel them. He then would kick a stone and argue that it’s real because he could feel it. When going against Berkely’s argument, I would say that this falls flat. When he kicks the rock, he says it is real because he feels it. However, feeling is perceiving. So, Berkeley’s theory still holds up.
ReplyDelete4. Berkeley’s Latin slogan “Esse est percipi” or “to exist is to be perceived” argues that things don’t exist when they aren’t being perceived. I think the idea is ridiculous. If something couldn’t operate without being perceived, so much of the world would be inoperable.
8. “Cultivating your garden”, for Voltaire, refers to being useful for humanity rather than just asking questions and proposing solutions. This is something that really speaks to me when talking about philosophy. A lot of time is spent pondering and thinking about problems, but action is rarely taken to rectify them. The world would benefit greatly with more action and less proposition.
All LHP
DeleteGavin Cooley H2
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Johnson heard Berkeley's theory and proceeded to kick a stone to prove that the stone was really there. It was not of anyone's imagination. His idea was refuted by Berkeley, who said that there was simply an idea of a stone, and the feeling of it was only due to the idea. Johnson did not succeed, as Berkeley makes it clear that the object may still not be there, it could just be imaginary.
2. Berkeley was an idealist and immaterialist because he denied material things existed and believes that the only things that exist are ideas. I am neither. I find it much easier to believe that the things in the world are as I perceive them and do exist as such. It's much better in my opinion to live with these certainties and avoid getting too wrapped up in the concept of existence.
4. His Latin slogan was "esse est percipi," or "to be is to be perceived. Existence does not occur based on perception. While Berkeley's logic may make some type of sense for objects, it falls apart in relation to people. An unperceived person still exist. Their life is still their life even though others may not perceive them.
H2
ReplyDeleteLHP 2: Berkeley was considered by some as an idealist, because his philosophy was that nothing existed except the ideas of something. He was also considered an immaterialist because he believed that nothing made of physical material exists. I am neither, solely because the philosophies of both are almost too “far out” for me to think about without reconsidering existence itself.
LHP 4: Berkeley’s latin slogan is ‘Esse est percipi’ meaning that to exist is to be perceived. I think that in a literal sense, existence does not depend on being perceived, because I don’t believe that everything simply disappears when one is not observing it. In a metaphorical sense, I do believe that human-wise our existences depend on how other people perceive us, because the human mind is always thinking about what others are thinking about us.
LHP 6: English Poet Alexander Pope declared “Whatever is, is right” and German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz agreed with Pope on his statement. It does not imply that nothing is ever wrong or bad, rather that the hardships are meant to happen despite the positive or negative effects of them. I think it is reasonable to believe this, because it can bring comfort to one and help them mentally navigate the feelings towards hardships and negative events, bringing one hope that in the end, it’ll all end up positive.
H#03
ReplyDeleteLHP#1. Samuel Johnson countered Berkeley's theory by kicking a stone and concluding that because he could feel the stone without seeing it, things must exist even when not being perceived. Although Johnson's point was valid, he did not completely disprove Berkeley's theory, as Berkeley argued that it is the idea of the object that exists. This was a bit of a stretch on Berkeley's part.
LHP#2. Berkeley was an idealist because he believed that all that exists are ideas. He was an immaterialist because he denied that material things existed. This ideology came about due to his fascination with the relationship between appearance and reality. I am neither an idealist nor an immaterialist. I don't believe that everything that exists is merely an idea, and I also can't entirely agree with the denial of material things existing. I think things are what they are because we see, feel, and experience them ourselves.
LHP#3. Berkley claimed to be more consistent because he believed that our perceptions come directly from the world. However, he argued that the world is made up of ideas. On the other hand, Locke delved into how we truly perceive the world's nature. Locke was more concerned with the possibility of incorrectly perceiving the world, while Berkley believed that our perceptions accurately interpreted a world of ideas.
H03
ReplyDelete(LHP, Question 2)
1. Berkeley is considered both an idealist and an immaterialist because he believed that ideas are the only thing that exists, and that material or physical objects do not exist. I can get behind the concept of idealism, or at least the concept that the only truly knowable thing is that our knowledge is real. However, I think I lean away from the thought that material objects don't really exist. I cannot say with 100% certainty (perhaps this is just an incredibly convincing dream) but it seems to me that objects do exist, in the sense I can sense and manipulate them. For me, it's easier to imagine that reality is mostly the way I perceive it to be, rather than to assume that it is actually radically different than I think.
(LHP, Question 9)
2. On a surface level read, the phrase 'we must cultivate our garden' is slightly humorous. Voltaire implies that we must get on with work, pushing aside all those heady philosophical questions for now. On another level, though, Voltaire may be using the phrase as a metaphor for taking action and doing something practically useful for yourself and those around you as opposed to merely pondering about abstract philosophies. For the most part, I agree with Voltaire's message. Helping those around us seems like a much more practical and moral action to take with our lives as opposed to being lost in the clouds all the time, oblivious to the reality around us. I think though that we can have our cake and eat it too. It is possible to strike a balance between living and working pragmatically and also pondering philosophical questions for our own satisfaction and edification. You could even argue that thinking and sharing ideas with others IS "doing something useful for humanity..." if you are able to give someone a new perspective on life.
(Weiner, Question 1)
3. Weiner describes Rousseau as a man of multitudes. A "philosopher, novelist, composer, essayist, botanist, autodidact, fugitive, theorist, [and] masochist. Most of all, he was a walker." I am capable of enjoying walks, though I think I'm much pickier than Rousseau was. Nothing makes me more miserable more quickly than having to walk in the humid Tennessean heat. Walking for extensive periods of time can also turn an otherwise calming and meditative experience into a thoroughly lackluster one (I'd say my limit of enjoyment is probably about an hour to an hour and a half). While I don't feel quite as spiritual about it as Rousseau, I have found that going for a walk is immensely helpful for clearing my head if I can't focus or have been trying to focus too hard on work.
Quinny VanDerSlik H03
ReplyDeleteLHP 4-
Berkeley’s Latin slogan is “Esse est percipi.” It means to be (or to exist) is to be perceived. Just to be alive or to exist means you are also being perceived; without being perceived, one would not exist. I do not fully believe that existence depends upon one being perceived. It is hard to explain, but just existing is possible without others knowing or acknowledging it. For example, would there still be a sound if a tree falls with no one around? Just because no one perceived the tree falling, it still did so; therefore, it still exists without having to be perceived.
LHP 6-
The English poet who declared that “whatever is, is right” was Alexander Pope, and the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz agreed with him. First, Pope’s saying was about how everything is the way it is for a reason; it’s all a part of God’s plan. With this saying, there is an implication that whatever is wrong or bad is never truly that; while things might seem to be going badly, they are not. It is certainly possible that people believe this line of thought, but I find it unreasonable to think in such a way. The reason I find the saying so wrong is just due to how cruel reality can be created; what if before things get better or to get better, one first must die, and one first has to lose someone dear to them? Sure, it might have to happen for a reason, but to believe that nothing is ever wrong or bad is unreasonable to me.
Weiner 1-
Rousseau’s multiple multitudes were being a philosopher, novelist, composer, essayist, botanist, autodidact, fugitive, political theorist, and masochist. However, he was most of all a walker. I am a walker; walking around can be pleasant and calming, especially when it gets colder in the fall. I might not always enjoy the company of someone with me, though. I enjoy company occasionally; walking in silence with another person with no other noise can be excellent.
Section H03:
ReplyDeleteLHP Q1: Johnson refuted Berkeley's theory of reality. Berkeley's idea questioned how we know things did not just vanish after one was not in contact with it anymore. How do we know objects exist after you leave. However, Johnson claimed that if you kick a rock and it hurts, that it was reality is. It is real since it was an object that he had encountered.
LHP Q2: Berkeley was an idealist since he had the idea that objects don’t exist once life goes out of contact with them. While simultaneously being an immaterialist thinking that material vanishes after it loses contact.
Weiner Q4: Rousseau swore by walking as Socrates did as well. Walking was his philosophy being on the move helped his brain move. Something about being in motion allowed him to philosophize. I strongly believe in this ideology. I physically cannot think if I am not talking. If I am on the phone, I am always on the runway, strutting down the street. Moving about helps my brain move and work properly.
H03 John Owens
ReplyDeleteLHP
Q1: He refuted Berkley by smashing his toes against a, then, feeling the pain of his toes smashing a hard rock, announced that he refuted Berkley because he could “feel” a hard rock, therefore it had to exist and not just be an idea. I would say he didn't really succeed because Berkley’s argument wasn’t that sensations, or ideas, aren’t real as in we don’t experience them. He meant it in that while Johnson believed he felt the “idea” of his toes hitting a hard rock, the reality was they didn't.
Q6: “whatever is, is right” was said by Alexaner Pope, and the “Principle of Sufficient Reason” was created and used by Gotfried Wilhelm Leibniz. The philosophers who created this line of thinking didn’t believe that the world was perfect because nothing bad happened, but instead that what does happen, bad or good, is necessary in Gods greater plan to create a perfect world. Basically, it’s all about the big picture, but the picture is from Gods perspective so we humans could never understand it. I think that this is a perfectly reasonable argument since it just relies on the already common belief, among Christians, that God and his plan are unknowable, but he is the ultimate good so it’s best to just trust in the process.
Q1: Rousseau was a novelist, philosopher, composites, essayists, botanists, fugitive, and political theorists, but most of all he was a walker. I’m a university student so I think I’m basically always walking so I would yes, I am a walker.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Samuel Johnson decided to kick a stone and say “I refute it thus.” Basically, his claim was that he was certain material things do in fact exist and are not just ideas, as Berkeley declared. However, Johnson did not succeed in swaying Berkeley. He explained that feeling the hardness of the stone does NOT prove the existence of material objects, just the idea of a hard stone.
2. The reason Berkeley was considered an immaterialist and an idealist was because he believed that everything that “exists” are just ideas. He completely denied the existence of things, such as physical objects. I do not consider myself either of these because I do believe that physical objects do exist and are more than just ideas.
3. Unlike Locke’s belief that there is in fact a world out there that we perceive indirectly, Berkeley claims that we do in fact perceive the world directly. I believe Berkeley did have a point about that because we can really only perceive the world around us through our own senses.
4. Berkeley’s Latin slogan was “Esse est percipi” meaning “to be” or “exist” is to be perceived. Basically his point was that a tree can’t make noise or a fridge light can’t be on if there is no mind present to experience them. I do think that a majority of our existence depends on being perceived, but you can also exist while not using your senses such as sight or hearing to experience the world around you.
H02 Erick Martinez
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Samuel kicked a rock and said that since he felt the pain of the rock, that the rock existed and wasn't just an idea. So, he thought he proved Berkely's theory wrong. However, Berkely stated that feeling the stone on his foot didn't prove that the stone existed but only the idea of the stone. That there was no reality but just our ideas. So, Samuel was unsuccessful in proving Berkely's theory wrong.
6. Alexander Pope an English poet declared that "whatever is, is right," and Gottfried Wilhelm a German philosopher agreed with the poet. This does in fact imply that nothing is wrong or bad. I don't think this is reasonable. I believe that there are wrongs and bad in this world and instead of believing its good, I believe it's bad and it teaches us lessons. Our job is to learn from the good and the bad and grow, but that does not mean there is no bad or wrong in the world, because there is.
11. Humes definition of a miracle was something that defied a law of nature. Hume believed that there was also an explanation to situations that people would consider a miracle. So, we couldn't really believe other people when they say they've seen a miracle. I agree. I don't think we can fully convince ourselves that something exists if we don't see it with our own eyes even if it were a miracle or not. While it might be possible someone does see a miracle, sadly I don't think anyone could or should believe words coming from another human without being skeptical because it wasn't seen with our own eyes.