Happy (almost) Valentines Day. Bring goodies to share, for a base on the scorecard.
Montaigne, Descartes, & Pascal-LHP 11-12. Weiner 14. Rec: FL 13-14. HWT 14-15.
PRESENTATIONS:
- Descartes- #7 Nate G.
- Pascal- #5 McKinsley S. #7 Lindsey F.
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
Commenting on the peice above,, I can say walking allows time to be silent and think. In a world of distraction, noise, and chaos, walking can do wonders to calm anxieties, stresses, and increase blood flow. My grandmother walks everyday; she believes it has kept her body in good condition even in her old age.
ReplyDelete6. I think this is an interesting arguement that holds some validity and logic. You loose nothing by following God if it turns out He does not exist; however, if you are wrong about His existence, you will have spent your whole life in complacency and eternal consquences will follow. Some may argue that following God would require sacrifice and selflessness; therefore, they do not want to waste their efforts for something that does not exist in the first place. I would say there is something deeper at root here. To view following a higher being as a gamble or inconvenience signifies a lack of desire to know the truth (whether it be there is a god or not). I believe that arguement reveals an apathetic heart to intentionally finding the truth and evidence.
Based off our dicussions today, what characteristics of machiavellianism do you see in our political realm today? Over the past decade?
Commenting on your response to number 6, I don't think that not believing in God if he turns out to be real will result in damnation of some sort. If one lives their life well and morally, if one lives a good life where they stand for what's right and aren't some crazy super villain to people around them I believe they will be rewarded in the next life if God exists. Because even if you don't believe in a higher power but live in those values, you are in a way following God's path even if you don't realize it. So I think it doesn't even matter what you believe as long as your life is well lived without hate for others and such.
DeleteWanted to comment about the first paragraph of your response. You are very right about walking being therapeutic especially without your phone. Multiple studies from universities like Harvard and Stanford show that walking at least 4000 steps per day has an associated relevance to reducing the risk of depression
DeleteIf we do make the wager on believing in god, and we were to follow Pascal's interpretation of predeterminism, aren't we just as likely to go through our life as devout Christians (which was a particular sacrifice in earlier years) and end up in eternal suffering than going to heaven?
DeleteBelieve it or not, but the idea of being asleep and this life being a continuous dream is one of my worst nightmares. This was not a scary chapter context wise, but oh man I am happy I read this in the morning… Does anyone else have this fear?
ReplyDeleteI agree. The fact that this entire life could be a dream is certainly threatening to our collective world view.
DeleteI will say though, isn't it just as scary as being randomly organized organic molecules that formed sentient beings?
I think the truth of our existence is so terrifyingly complex that the human mind is not evolved enough to wrap our minds around it. This certainly breeds existential dread, but worrying about it excessively can rob us of our happiness and peace.
I see your point though, it can be overwhelming when we ponder it.
I read that chapter late at night when I was the only one awake in the house... it was trippy to say the least! I was sitting there like wait.... AM I really dreaming of this book?? Although, now that I am awake, I'm glad that it was not a dream.... at least I hope!
DeleteI've had those 2 AM existential thoughts, where you don't know what's real or not. If you look at it, even if this was a dream, that would imply that there is a way to wake up, that there is comfort in knowing that death wouldn't be the end. The issue with that thought process is that then life becomes meaningless, so it would be better to assume this is the only life you have.
DeleteIt gives me a bit of peace to know that even if this is all a dream and/or if I don’t have a physical body, I am still an alive and thinking thing. Regardless of what is real and not real, I know I am real. The idea of “I think, Therefore I am” is comforting to me. I had heard that quote a lot and have seen tons of people have it tattooed on them, but I never knew where it was from or the context. The chapter on Descartes was both scary to me but comforting. By the end of it I didn’t feel as scared that my life might be an illusion.
ReplyDeleteI like your take on this topic! I have always heard that quote but never applied it to my life that often.
Delete^^His way of thinking was very interesting and he makes me wonder that whatever I want to believe makes me that and no other individual can tell me otherwise.
Delete^^I agree with you. If everything you want to believe is what it is then there is not certainty or objectivity to certain thing such as the sky being blue. You might believe it is blue but how do you rationalize someone who believes it is pink, or red because their heart tells them it is.
DeleteYes I feel similarly. It is a scary thought that all this could be a dream but at the end of the day I realize that it doesn't matter I suppose. What you had yesterday and the day before is still there now, you have people and memories that don't seem to change in any crazy way than they were the day before, so even if none of this is real I am still happy. What i perceive to be real is real enough for me.
Delete“For him, the heart, not the brain, was the organ that leads us to God.” - Warburton on Pacal
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very noble way into thinking about religion and the existence of God. In my experience my heart reveals to me God is real and that He is working in my life. I don’t have to think logically to know God is real and living, because I know in my heart that I feel His guidance and His ways moving through me. I think, yes, some logic is needed to form a foundation of faith, which is why the Bible is so important to Christians, but I personally don’t need a philosopher's deep analysis of religion and God to tell me if He is real or not. I know in my heart, and in my own experiences that He is real and alive.
1.) His Method of Doubt established that if you take a belief, examine it, and only come to accept it if you are certain, it can't be wrong or misleading. If there is a tiny room for doubt, then reject it completely. Basically, the key was to not accept anything as true if there is a possibility that it isn't true.
ReplyDelete3.) Gilbert Ryle mocked Descartes view with The Ghost in the Machine with basically means that the body was the machine, and the soul was the ghost inhabiting it. I don't necessarily think that this notion is silly because we often think consciously or unconsciously before we act. Not saying that we are robots, but the mind often controls how our body reacts to daily. What I do find silly is the analogy he used.
6.) Pascal thought that that if you gamble on God, you lose "nothing". This was a take that I never heard of but he basically meant that if you choose to believe in God all of your life and you end up being "wrong" then you will have lived your life faithfully and pass on without knowing that.
I agree with Pascal in this sense, I think that if you spent an entire life believing in a truth, and no human in life can know if that's wrong, then there is no way to be wrong. I can see how this perspective might be unpopular, as people want to believe in what's right rather than just what they think they CAN believe in.
Delete1- 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?
ReplyDeleteAns: "I think, therefore I am" Beliefs that are immune from skepticism. Probably yes. His argument of you being capable of thought means that you exist to a certain degree in a certain form even if you are not sure if your body exists is a basic requirement for you to doubt things around you. I do believe it is possible, but it depends from person to person. If you are a hyper skeptic then anything besides your capability of thought might be an illusion, however, if you are not a skeptic you might argue that since you exists and there are certain risks you wouldn't take since you might die shows that there is a high chance of these things being real and not simply illusions. Unless you are willing to jump in front of a moving truck.
2- Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
Ans: Pascal's wager. I don't think its conclusive to stand on it's own however, it is an ok place to start.
3- Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
Ans: You lose your chance of eternal bliss in heaven. To a certain degree. Believing in God does not automatically give you 100% the chance to enter heaven because what God do you believe in? Brahmin? Allah? The trinity? Yahweh? e.c.t... while believing in a God is a good place to start it is not your ticket ride to heaven depending on what religion you believe in.
Pascal's argument, or Pascal's Wager, isn't too appealing to me or convincing. Like I commented before on someone's post, I don't think that the act of believing in and of itself is enough to promise any kind of eternal reward. That just means you can be a bigot and completely immoral but as long as you believe in God you shouldn't expect any kind of punishment? Unfortunately I see a lot of believers be extremely hypocritical when it comes to God's supposed teachings about loving thy neighbor so believing seems unimportant when compared to actions.
ReplyDelete1. Pascal's Wager is the name of Pascal's option of living and believing if God exist or not. He thought that there was 50% chance that God exists. He encouraged others to believe in God. If they chose and lived by the ways of God and found out he was real, they would live in eternal bliss. If it turned out that God wasn't real, they still lived a good life and were good people.
ReplyDelete2. Montaigne said that the way to find the truth was to go and experience life. He said to trust yourself, your doubts, and experiences. Death gives people a reason to live. He believed that all of life's wisdom and reasoning teaches people to not be afraid of death. Montaigne was afraid of dying not death itself. He lost many relatives and friends at an early age.
3. I personally disagree with Descartes's idea of Cartesian Doubt. He said that we should not accept anything as true if there is a possibility that it is false. I feel like everything has a possibility of being false or made up. He also said that God exists merely because humans have an idea of who his is. I do not think that just because we have an idea that, that determines that he is real.
I believe the walking distinction is very crucial as well. Without it I feel as though we enter a mindset of habit stacking ourselves to ‘happiness’ or our goals. Rather than appreciating the steps and detours. Consistency is good, but not at the cost of becoming a human ‘doing’ and discarding or suppressing your being
ReplyDelete5. Pascal’s Wager is not all that appealing to me. I do think it holds some merit, however. Because, maybe faked faith eventually does turn into something genuine. But, just doing the ‘right’ things to make it to eternal bliss, would make free will redundant.
1. Conspiratorial explanations attempt to make what kinds of connections?
ReplyDeleteConspiratorial explanations often seek to establish hidden or secretive connections between events or entities, suggesting that certain outcomes are the result of deliberate, covert actions by powerful groups. These explanations typically involve linking unrelated events to propose a narrative of intentional manipulation or control.
2. What was the Freemasons’ grand secret, according to Franklin?
Benjamin Franklin, a known Freemason, is often associated with the idea that the Freemasons’ grand secret was the promotion of Enlightenment ideals such as reason, science, and secular governance. However, specific details about Franklin’s views on the Freemasons’ secrets are not well-documented in mainstream historical sources.
3. What conspiracy did Abe Lincoln allege in his famous “House Divided” speech in 1858?
In his 1858 “House Divided” speech, Abraham Lincoln suggested that there was a conspiracy to nationalize slavery across all states. He implied that recent political actions and Supreme Court decisions were part of a deliberate plan to extend slavery, threatening the nation’s future.
4. Why did many northerners think the Civil War went badly for them early on?
Early in the Civil War, many Northerners believed the war was going poorly due to unexpected Confederate victories and the perception of inadequate leadership within the Union army. These setbacks led to concerns about the Union’s ability to suppress the rebellion and doubts about the war’s overall strategy.
5. What did the narrator of a popular 1832 work of fiction say about the slaves?
In the 1832 novel The Partisan by William Gilmore Simms, the narrator portrays slaves in a paternalistic manner, reflecting the pro-slavery sentiment prevalent in Southern literature of that era. The work romanticizes the relationship between slaves and their owners, suggesting contentment among the enslaved population, which served to justify the institution of slavery.
Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
ReplyDeleteDescartes never claimed with 100% certainty that he was dreaming. But he was incredible skeptical of everything and believed that everything may not be real. That any moment could potentially be a dream. He questioned everything about his existence. I often have the same wonder. Am I in a dream right now, will I wake up one day?
How did Montaigne reverse himself on what we learn from philosophizing? But is it really a reversal?
ReplyDeleteHe came to believe that philosophizing leads us to realize how limited we are. This is the complete opposite of his original philosophy. He originally thought that philosophizing would lead us to certain knowledge and wisdom. As he dove deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole he felt as if he truly knew nothing.
Why doesn't Eric "buy" Epicurus's dismissal of death as a worry? Do you agree?
ReplyDeleteEpicurus believed that death is not something that one should be feared or worried. We should not have worry because when we are dead we won't experience any pain. Eric did not believe this ideology and argued life was sacred. You could lose future experiences, emotional attachments, and was afraid of death.
This is Will Phillips
DeletePersonally, I don't agree with this line of thinking. If death was not an experience that you had, then you can't actually "lose" emotional attachments or memories. It does make sense that no longer having a life does mean you can't pursue anything, but that should just be a stronger motivator to achieve your dreams in the time you have. It's completely reasonable to be afraid of dying (especially too early / young), it's very common, but it's not as reasonable to be afraid of death itself.
Delete4. Pascal's best-known book is PASCAL'S PENSÉES. Do you like his aphoristic style? His aphoristic style is incredibly powerful. I find the way he distills complex ideas into concise, impactful statements to be quite striking. His ability to explore deep philosophical, religious, and existential themes in such a fragmented yet cohesive way invites reflection.
ReplyDelete5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
Pascal's argument for believing in God is called Pascal's Wager. It's a fascinating approach that suggests it's more rational to believe in God because the potential benefits of believing vastly outweigh the consequences of disbelief. Essentially, he argues that if you gamble on belief and you're right, the reward is infinite, while if you're wrong, you lose little.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
Pascal thought that if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose nothing." He argued that even if you believe in God and it turns out there is no God, the worst-case scenario is that you’ve lived a virtuous life and missed out on some pleasures, but ultimately, there’s no eternal consequence. I agree with his statement, but I am also religious.
7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right?
True. As Nigel Warburton points out, Pascal’s wager limits the options to a binary choice between Christian theism and atheism, excluding many other possible belief systems. Pascal’s argument doesn’t account for other religions, deities, or spiritual beliefs that might offer different outcomes and consequences. By narrowing the choice to just these two options, Pascal oversimplifies the complexity of human religious belief and doesn’t consider the variety of possible “bets” one could make.
McKinsley Slicker Section 005
DeleteWhat did Descartes seek that Pyrrho spurned? Was his approach more sensible than Pyrrho's? Do you think it's possible to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought?
ReplyDeleteDescartes wanted to prove that some things can, in fact, be known for certain and thus be immune to even the most extreme ideals of skepticism. He actively sought for anything that he could consider to be true and real. Yes, I do believe that this way of thinking was much more reasonable than Pyrrho's because I think Pyrrho's way of thinking was too extreme to make sense. I do think it is possible to achieve the state of mind that Descartes pushed for because it is much more rational than that of other commonly known philosophers. I like Descartes for his more realistic approach.
Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
ReplyDeletePascal's wager is something that has always been very interesting to me. As a Christian, I do think that it is logical and that some people might be influenced by it, but I don't think it is going to be something that everyone cares about. Many non-Christians are very set in their ways (I reckon I have respect for this sort of stubbornness-- I am like this as well!) and because they don't believe in the possibility of a god, they are not going to take the idea of his wrath very seriously. So for these sorts of people, Pascal's wager probably wouldn't be so effective to get them to consider Christianity. However, for those who might be more open minded to looking at other possibilities, I think they would be more likely to find Pascal's wager to be logical.
6. Pascal thought on gambling on god and losing, "you lose nothing" or little at all. In the end, you don't risk anything at all. But, however if you bet against God's existence and are wrong, you risk losing eternal happiness in heaven. This is the argument of Pascal's reasoning in defense of belief in god.
ReplyDeleteI semi-agree with this just because it's a personal matter whether you believe in God or not.
Delete1. What state of mind, belief, or knowledge was Descartes' Method of Doubt supposed to establish? OR, What did Descartes seek that Pyrrho spurned? Was his approach more sensible than Pyrrho's? Do you think it's possible to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought?
ReplyDeleteDescartes sought to spin skepticism on its head by seemingly appealing to Pyrrho's method of doubting everything. The Method of Doubt starts at base level, questioning the validity of any belief. From there, he examines the belief for any certainties that it is legitimate. If there exists any doubt, Descartes thought you must reject it. Instead of taking solace in doubt the way Pyrrho did, Descartes sought to doubt everything to then discover beliefs that were unquestionable. In some ways, Descartes' approach was a bit more sensible than Pyrrho's. Even though he doubted everything and rejected his senses like Pyrrho, he still held certain facts of life to be truth. I think trying to achieve Descartes' state of mind is not entirely achievable for there will always be something we don't know or some way to doubt what we do know.
2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
ReplyDeleteDescartes pushed his doubt to the max, questioning even his own existence. He claimed there was a quality of being awake that differed from even the most realistic dreams and further, he proposed he must exist because he was able to ask himself that question. In his mind he wondered how could something that does not exist have the ability to question its own existence? I think it could be argued either way. There is no sure fire way to prove we are awake or that ourselves or others are not somehow being manipulated. All we can know is what we perceive, and even then our perceptions could be misguided.
This is a very interesting discussion because I cannot tell for certain if all that is happening is real. Maybe it is all a dream and I would wake up one day and find out- or maybe because I know a dream is something I wake up from, which has less real aspects as compared to actual life, I am expecting to wake up from this dream called life.
Delete1. Descartes wanted to find something he could be certain about. He doubted everything to see if there was anything he couldnt question. Pyrrho, on the other hand, believed you could never be certain about anything at all. Descartes was less extreme because he used doubt to find something he can be certain about. His approach is more sensible compared to Pyrrho because it uses more logic.
ReplyDelete2. He did not claim that he was dreaming but he showed that it could be possible since we cannot rely on our senses. I do not doubt whether I am awake or not. They both feel very different.
3. Gilbert Ryle compared Descartes' dualism to "the ghost in the machine " where he states that the idea doesnt make sense. I think it doesnt make too much sense either because the mind and body work together rather than being completely separate.
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?
ReplyDeleteHe established absolute doubt in absolutely anything that could not be proved to be 100% true. I don't think its possible to achieve this state of mind we have to understand that we have limitations in understanding everything.
2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
No, Descartes never claimed to know he wasn't dreaming, he was very picky about believing what could be real and not. I think it is very clear to me when I am not dreaming. I have never had an experience where I truly didn't think I was dreaming and found out that I was.
3. What strange and mythic specter did Gilbert Ryle compare to Descartes' dualism of mind and body? ("The ____ in the ______.") Does that specter seem strange or silly to you?
The mind in the body. It doesnt seem strange to me I think that we need to understand how special it is to think the way we do. The mind is a part of the body in fact.
Henry Hamlin 006
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
ReplyDeletePascal believed there was less to lose by betting on God than to not. If you believe in a God who does not exist, you lose nothing. However, if you do not believe in a God that does exist, than you could risk loosing eternity or worse, be punished. While this argument comes from a rational place, appealing to probability, it does not consider a multitude of other factors. I think his methodology excludes the existence of other religions, and therefore feels a little one note. Religion is a also a major commitment, riddle with restrictions, so to discover God does not exist, your efforts were for not and you may have missed out on certain aspects of life in your one shot. The gamble Pascal proposes is more complex than he describes. All this said, I do not think Pascal was trying to indoctrinate, only expressing his views and his rational.
Section 007
ReplyDelete4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
His best known book was “Pensees” (thoughts). I kind of like the style of the book.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
Pascal’s Wager is his argument for those who still question God. This wager pretty much said he believes it’s better to believe in God and him turn out to not exist than not believing at all. I like this argument because you’d rather do something and get nothing out of it than risk not attempting at all.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
Pascal thought if you gambled on God then you loose nothing. I agree with this because there’s really nothing to loose out of something that constantly gives us hope.
7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right?
True there’s a lot of different religions out in the World and they all can’t fit his idea if they don’t believe in the same things.
I'd like to comment on something from the Weiner that is currently sticking with me in regards to Epicurus' argument that we shouldn't worry about death since we don't worry about the time before we were born:
ReplyDelete"The nothing that was me before I was born is not the same nothing that will be me after I’m gone. One is a nothing that was always nothing while the other is a nothing that was once something, and that makes all the difference. The void of space and a hole in the earth are not the same. Nothingness is defined by its proximity to what was, and what still is."
That last line is striking. I've generally been aloof to the concept of death and generally took the approach which I now know is what Epicurus believed, is that I shouldn't worry about death because I won't exist. But Weiner's quote here has brought the context of what once was and that is not comforting.
I think this is poignant and I feel similarly to Weiner when considering the type of non-existence before vs after life. Although, without the ability to observe the periods of nothingness that bookend my own existence, they are effectively the same to me. If I died before one of my parents, their perspective of my non-existence prior to my birth and after my death would be in line with Weiner's description. This raises a question for me. If I worry about the effects my non-existence has on other people, am I worrying about death or the lives of others?
DeleteI'd also like to comment on Pascal's view on why we should take the wager to believe in god. As the text mentions, Pascal believed in predeterminism and yet he believes that we should believe because we can have the possibility to go to a pleasant after life. But the question of if god already exists and has determined my place after death, what is the point?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this, I realized I asked pretty much the same question as you in this comment section. A potential answer that came to mind while formulating my question was that he was bound to create it by his lack of free will. If he believed his actions are predetermined, then perhaps by creating this wager, he created a path for people who are predestined for heaven but don't already believe in God to be able to live out their fate.
DeleteI feel like God doesn't nessacerily determine your path and then that's the path you live, I think he has an idea of the path he wants to to live but whether you live that path or not is determined by the decisions that you make along the way. I think he gives you opportunities in life where you are forced to choose between things or choose to do certain things.
Deletequestion 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?
ReplyDeleteresponse 1: Descartes' Method of Doubt aimed to find certainty by doubting everything until he reached something indubitable—his own existence, expressed as "I think, therefore I am." Unlike Pyrrho, who rejected certain knowledge entirely, Descartes sought a firm foundation for it. Descartes’ method seems more practical, aiming to rebuild knowledge on a secure base, but achieving absolute certainty may be impossible, as our beliefs are shaped by factors beyond our control.
Question 2: 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?
response 2: Gilbert Ryle compared Descartes' dualism of mind and body to "The ghost in the machine." He used this phrase to criticize the idea of the mind as a separate, non-physical entity controlling the body. To Ryle, the concept seemed both strange and problematic, as it implied an unnecessary and illogical separation between mental and physical processes. It might seem silly, as it suggests a kind of mystical presence inside the body, which doesn't align with how we typically understand human behavior and cognition.
question 3: 5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
response 3: Pascal's argument for believing in God is called Pascal's Wager. It suggests that even if the existence of God cannot be proven, believing in God is the safest bet because the potential gains (eternal happiness) outweigh the potential losses (temporary sacrifices). Whether it's persuasive or appealing depends on one's perspective. For some, the pragmatic approach to belief may seem rational, while others might find it unappealing, arguing that belief should be based on genuine conviction, not on the fear of possible consequences.
Something I would say is since our body is controlled by our mind, it wouldn't make sense to say they are one thing as everything relies on one another to accomplish basic movements. Just as muscles rely on each other to move, our body relies on our mind to even exist. Point being, I do agree with this idea of body-mind dualism."
ReplyDeleteIn regards to whether I am dreaming or not, when something I can't believe happened occurs, occasionally I try to convince myself that I am dreaming when I really am not. This then proves that I am not dreaming and makes whatever happened all the more miserable. I think as humans, somehow our conscious just knows the difference between dreaming reality vs. reality dreaming. Whether it is the increase in heart rate we have awake than compared to sleeping or just due to the higher brain activity when we are awake, no matter what we are able to distinguish whether we are dreaming or not.
Personally, I choose to believe in God not because I am gambling, but because it allows me to respect the person who I was created to be, as well as respect the people around me who were also created by Him. Just as one would respect someone who saved them from a burning building, in the same way, God has done this for not just me, but all of humanity; and to me that is something that deserves immense praise and respect. While I wouldn't force someone into faith, I would most definitely ask them to weigh the options on what their life's purpose is and why they were put here on earth. My faith would say, we are all here to not only glorify God, but to also love those around us. Love, from this religion, keeps me going everyday.
I really like your point when you said "I choose to believe in God not because I am gambling, but because it allows me to respect the person I was created to be" I think if a lot more people were open to this way of thinking then people would respect themselves more.
DeleteI find it interesting that Pascal, who was a Jansenist, was responsible for Pascal's wager. If Jansenists don't believe in free will and do believe in predestination, then your fate is sealed no matter the actions you take in life which are also predetermined.
ReplyDeleteThe researches of how walking improvises our mental health and overall wellbeing was a very interesting idea. It made me wonder that if this is the very reason why in a lot of religions pilgrims travel and go on such holy journeys on foot- those were definitely long walks!
ReplyDelete1. What state of mind, belief, or knowledge was Descartes' Method of Doubt supposed to establish? OR, What did Descartes seek that Pyrrho spurned? Was his approach more sensible than Pyrrho's? Do you think it's possible to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought?
ReplyDeleteDecartes' Method of Doubt established that if something cannot be proven with absolute certainty, then to doubt it. Personally I think it more possible to achieve the complete opposite of this state of mind--to trust/believe in something without hardcore evidence or if you're given SOME evidence, but not necissarily enough to prove something. I believe its easier for people to believe rather than doubt.
2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
He did not claim to know that he was or was not dreaming. He questioned, or rather, doubted, every aspect of existence. Sometimes I will have dreams that feel like reality and also moments in reality that feel like a dream, but I think its just a part of my insomnia.
4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
Pascal's best known book is called Penees. I think that the style is interesting yet unfamiliar.
Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
ReplyDeleteit seems like he did eventually claim to know that he was not dreaming as it says towards the end of the chapter "I think, therefore, I am." I personally have never actually thought that I was dreaming when I wasn't. I do have dreams sometimes that feel very real but when I wake up I'm usually instantly able to tell that I was dreaming and now I am awake.
2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
ReplyDeleteDescartes didn't claim he wasn't dreaming at the outset of his meditations. I have wondered whether I am in reality, or if my mind has wandered somewhere else, or if I was dreaming on occasion, although I haven't taken that thought too seriously. I haven't dissociated to the point that I truly believe I am dreaming while I'm actually awake.
1 Descartes' Method of Doubt aimed to establish certain, indubitable knowledge, ultimately grounded in his own existence. While Pyrrho rejected certainty altogether, Descartes sought to secure it his approach offers a more structured path to truth.
ReplyDelete2 Descartes didn’t initially claim to know for sure he wasn’t dreaming, and this doubt was central to his meditations. I sometimes wonder if I might be dreaming, especially when things feel too surreal or uncertain.
3 Gilbert Ryle compared Descartes’ dualism to “The Ghost in the Machine.” That metaphor does seem strange, highlighting the oddity of separating the mind from the body.
4 Pascal’s best-known book is Penses. His aphoristic style is sharp and thought-provoking, but it can be a bit dense at times.
5 Pascal’s argument is called The Wager It’s compelling in its pragmatic appeal, though it may not resonate with everyone depending on their perspective.
7 Pascal said if you gamble on God and lose, “you lose nothing.” I agree that it’s a risk-free bet in terms of material consequences but still carries deep existential implications.
8 True. Warburton critiques Pascal’s wager for being too narrow in scope, excluding other potential religious or philosophical options. That’s a valid point, limiting the scope of the argument.
CAMERON WHITE
ReplyDeleteDescartes’ Method of Doubt was meant to establish a foundation of certain knowledge by systematically doubting everything that could be false. He sought an unshakable truth (such as "I think, therefore I am") that Pyrrho, as a skeptic, rejected. Descartes’ approach is arguably more practical than Pyrrho’s because it allows for doubt but also aims to rebuild knowledge, rather than suspending judgment entirely. Achieving the certainty Descartes sought is difficult—many philosophers argue that absolute certainty is impossible—but his method laid the groundwork for modern philosophy and science.
ReplyDeleteAt the outset of his Meditations, Descartes did not claim to know for certain that he wasn’t dreaming. In fact, he used the dream argument to show that sensory experience can be deceptive, making it possible that everything we perceive is an illusion. As for you—have you ever experienced a dream so vivid that you questioned reality?
Gilbert Ryle compared Descartes’ dualism to "the ghost in the machine." This phrase criticizes the idea that the mind is a separate, non-physical entity controlling the body like a ghost haunting a mechanical structure. Do you find dualism strange, or does it still seem like a useful way to explain human consciousness?
Pascal’s best-known book is Pensées. It’s a collection of thoughts and reflections rather than a structured argument, making his aphoristic style memorable and thought-provoking. Do you enjoy the fragmented, poetic nature of his writing, or do you prefer more structured philosophy?