Spinoza, Locke, & Reid-LHP 13-14. Rec: FL 15-16. HWT 16-17....
Spinoza-#5 Nadia Briseno. # 6 Blake W. #7 Ariyanna S
Locke- #5 Nadia Jones. #6 Anslee B. #7 Isaiah B.
FL 15-16 or HWT 16-17-
Something in QE Part I - What does it mean to be human?- #5 Parker R. #6 Conner N. #7 Nick L.
LHP
1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
2. If god is _____, there cannot be anything that is not god; if _____, god is indifferent to human beings. Is that how you think about god?
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
4. According to John Locke, all our knowledge comes from _____; hence, the mind of a newborn is a ______. If Locke's right, what do you think accounts for our ability to learn from our experiences?
5. Locke said _____ continuity establishes personal identity (bodily, psychological); Thomas Reid said identity relies on ______ memories, not total recall. How do you think you know that you're the same person now that you were at age 3 (for example)? If you forget much of your earlier life in old age, what reassures you that you'll still be you?
2. If god is _____, there cannot be anything that is not god; if _____, god is indifferent to human beings. Is that how you think about god?
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
4. According to John Locke, all our knowledge comes from _____; hence, the mind of a newborn is a ______. If Locke's right, what do you think accounts for our ability to learn from our experiences?
5. Locke said _____ continuity establishes personal identity (bodily, psychological); Thomas Reid said identity relies on ______ memories, not total recall. How do you think you know that you're the same person now that you were at age 3 (for example)? If you forget much of your earlier life in old age, what reassures you that you'll still be you?
6. Locke's articulation of what natural rights influenced the U.S. Constitution? Do you think it matters if we say such rights are discovered rather than invented?
HWT
1. What are atman and anatta, and what classical western idea do they both contradict?
2. What was John Locke's concept of self or soul? What makes you you?
3. Shunning rigid essentialized identities, younger people increasingly believe what?
4. What cultural stereotype did Baggini find inaccurate when he went to Japan?
5. What important distinction did Nishida Kitaro draw?
6. What point about individuality did Monty Python make?
7. What is ubuntu?
1. Who wrote a memoir of life on the Kentucky frontier that turned him into a "real-life superhero"? (He's in my family tree, btw.)
2. Who built a cabin by a lake, moved in on the 4th of July, and epitomized a perennial American pastoral fantasy? What do you think he'd say about modern suburbia?
3. What did The New York Sun announce in a week-long "news" story in 1835? Who believed it?
4. Who was P.T. Barnum, and what was his fundamental Fantasyland mindset?
5. Whose touring play marked what key milestone in America's national evolution?
6. Who was Aunt Jemima?
Irvin Yalom's novel The Spinoza Problem suggests that Epicurus's view of the gods as real but distant was "bold, but not foolhardy"... and that it presaged Spinoza's pantheism.
"I believe in Spinoza's God..." --Albert Einstein, as reported in the New York Times April 1929...
Spinoza the pantheist: "he believed that he believed"...
"Perhaps the most famous self-proclaimed disciple of Spinoza in the twentieth century was Einstein, who, when asked by a rabbi whether or not he believed in God, replied, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all being, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men." Einstein was probably just being diplomatic when he answered the rabbi. Spinoza's God is, after all, a convenient deity for those who might more accurately be described as non-religious. The "religion" of Spinozism is in fact rather close to modern secularism. It insists that morality has nothing to do with the commands of a supremely powerful being, and that it does not require a priesthood or the threat of an unpleasant afterlife to sustain it. It rejects the idea of a personal God who created, cares about and occasionally even tinkers with the world. It dismisses the notion of the supernatural, and regards religious ceremonies as merely comforting or inspiring, if you like that sort of thing. It advocates freedom of thought in religious matters... And it places its faith in knowledge and understanding—rather than in faith itself—both to improve the circumstances of human life and to make that life more satisfying. The poet Heine, writing in the 1830s, seems to have glimpsed how far ahead of his times Spinoza was in this respect: "There is in Spinoza's writings a certain inexplicable atmosphere, as though one could feel a breeze of the future. Perhaps the spirit of the Hebrew prophets still rested on their late descendant." What would this "God-intoxicated" man have made of his own intellectual descendants? They include many people who openly profess atheism, and even though atheism now carries no stigma in economically developed countries except the United States, it is hard to imagine Spinoza being altogether happy to embrace it. What were for him the most important qualities among those traditionally attributed to God are, in his philosophy, qualities of the universe itself. God is not fictitious; He is all around us. Spinoza's God is admittedly so different from anyone else's that a case can be made for saying that he was an atheist without realising it; but it does appear that he believed that he believed in God. It is sometimes said that the birth of Judaism constituted an intellectual advance over most earlier religions because it reduced a panoply of gods to the one God of monotheism. On this way of thinking, Spinoza may be considered to have continued the work of his distant Hebrew ancestors by performing a further subtraction of the same sort, and reducing the duo of God and world to one."
— The Dream of Enlightenment: The Rise of Modern Philosophy by Anthony Gottlieb
— The Dream of Enlightenment: The Rise of Modern Philosophy by Anthony Gottlieb
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/spinoza-copy-170517032727/95/spinozas-philosophy-14-638.jpg?cb=1494991685 = image of Spinoza philosophy
ReplyDeleteI am fascinated by what it means to write philosophy as though it were geometry. I was looking for an example of this from his text, but I came across this image explaining the fundamentals of his philosophy. I thought I would share.
God being infinite and God being everything in the world is not accurate. The Bible states that God is limitless and infinite, and He is not of things of this world. There is a difference (which is made clear in the Bible) of godly things and worldly things. It is made strict not to feed into things of this world but center yourself around God and His creations. God did indeed make everything, but there is also evil in the world that tempts us to fall into it. Some things are not from God, but everything is seen by Him.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you entirely! Just because God is infinite, doesn't mean that everything is God. This is flawed logic.
DeleteI found fault in Locke’s way of thinking much like how Thomas Reid felt. The example of A = B and B = C, but A doesn’t equal C is the perfect way to refute this way of thinking. I also think Reid’s math example pulls in the geometry and rationalism that we were introduced to in chapter 13 (Spinoza’s chapter).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Reid's argument of the A = B and B = C but A doesn't equal C. I believe it demonstrates that events are in a chain and that one can effect the other, there is just a fundamental logic flaw in Locke's argument.
DeleteI don't agree with you on this argument only because if A=B and B=C that means A=B=C i.e. A=C
DeleteI think a better representation would be A causing B and B causing C. This way, A doesn't necessarily cause C. Otherwise, equals implies a factual representation of sameness, which would carry over as a result of the transitive property. Events that are independent may happen in a sequence, but they are not necessarily caused by each other. Equality is factual, but causation can be subjective.
DeleteI don't agree with Reid's logic on this. It's a gross oversimplification and seems to miss the point of what Locke was saying. The equation was formatted incorrectly and was missing an enormous amount of variables. Say A+B+C+D+E= Who you are at three. You're now 5 and have forgotten A through D. Now, E+F+G+H= Who you are at 5. You're now old, you only remember E from your early childhood. Now you are E+N+P+Q+T+V. This is still an oversimplification, but I think it demonstrates the concept much more clearly.
Delete1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
ReplyDeleteThis is called pantheism and what I think of that view is that it is unique. I've felt that I heard of pantheism and I understand how someone especially a philosopher like Spinoza would have came to the conclusion and have the belief of pantheism.
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
Spinoza believe that free will is an illusion and I believe it's possible to be a determinist. This is because even though Spinoza believes that there was circumstances that made you choose an option (thus getting rid of free will) it would not affect someone's way of life. For example, I could decide that I am going to but food, but that can't be free will according to Spinoza because I was not born wealthy enough to get a maid to buy for me, but I still do it anyway because it is the position I am in.
Locke's articulation of what natural rights influenced the U.S. Constitution? Do you think it matters if we say such rights are discovered rather than invented?
The natural rights that Locke discovered were the right of life, liberty, happiness, and property were what influenced the U.S. Constitution. I don't think it matters between the distinction of discovering and inventing these rights because it is Locke himself who is associated with these rights because it was his idea that influenced the thinking of other people during and after the Enlightenment. Whether he was the person who created the idea of natural rights or was the one who found a way to connect these ideas as natural rights does not influence how these ideas impact the future.
I enjoyed your example for Spinoza. It depicts a wonderful insight into his way of thinking and i agree. For Spinoza, you were almost already destined to do what you're doing, not because you yourself want that change, but because its whats laid out.
DeleteI agree with you about Spinoza's view on the nature of God being interesting. While I do not believe it is a logical conclusion nor do I believe in the concept of the divine within it's creation in the sense that Spinoza speaks of it, I do find it an interesting concept.
DeleteA major criticism of Spinoza’s impersonal God to me is that it fails to satisfy the human need for a personal, relational deity. Traditional theistic religions emphasize a God who listens, cares, and intervenes in human affairs. Spinoza’s God, being identical to nature, does not offer moral guidance, answer prayers, or provide an afterlife, which many find unsatisfactory. Additionally, if everything follows deterministic laws without divine will or purpose, this raises concerns about human freedom and moral responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI have similar thoughts! His views completely disregarded what many believed about God, saying that he does not care like many think that he does. It completely denounces faith in a higher power that many people believe in.
DeleteI know this was a topic of debate in class, in relation to moral responsibility and such, but I don't think that religion or worship of a specific deity is needed to feel a sense of moral responsibility. I believe the nature of morality and goodness is inherent within us, and where that comes from I don't know, but if one needs a higher power to inspire themselves to act in a "moral" way... I just feel like the idea that God is more of a being without human qualities isn't so bad because goodness can be found in a God like that as well.
Delete^ I partially agree with Sophia Emmanuel. people do have that inherent belief of being able to differentiate between good and evil, however, that 'sense' can get covered and cloudy through society not only that but some people are better at shutting down that voice of moral turmoil within them, which is where I believe religions come in to give a necessary guideline on how to live your life.
DeleteI do agree. I always imagine that pantheism is not so different from deism, even atheism
DeleteI feel the same way. I don't nessacerily believe that you have to believe in God in order to have good morals, however I feel like that is the whole purpose of religion is finding and truly believing in a way of life. You pointed out that Spinoza's god does not offer moral guidance, answer prayers, provide a afterlife, etc. and to me I feel like if a god doesn't do that then why would it even be considered "God"
Delete1.) Spinoza's view was called Anthromorphism, which is when one projects human qualities on to a non-human being, such as God. I think that this view is non-satisfactory to me. His view reduces our God figure to just a piece of nature which does not provide guidance and love to our daily lives. It also in a way renounces our faith and religious practices that we use to reason and give hope to something that is just an entity that does not care about us.
ReplyDelete3.) Spinoza believed that free will was an illusion, as in humans think that they have free choices and can take control of their lives. Meanwhile, we don't realize how our choices and actions can have results as well. It is nice to believe and desire this spontaneous will though.
Spinoza was a determinist that believed that the worst way to exist was to be in "bondage" or in complete mercy of your emotions. I think that his view on life is pretty reasonable to understand. It is possible to consistently be a determinist in life, because everything in life is ultimately out of your hands. You can work hard towards everything but ultimately the results can tend to be unpredictable at times.
Troy R#6
DeleteI like your take on Spinoza's view, but I disagree with your stance. As someone that's not religious, I do think God is just a part of nature. The guidance given to you by him is just your own thoughts, but you pin that to a higher being instead of yourself.
6.) Locke's view that we have a God-given right to life, freedom, happiness, and property influenced what would later be written in the US Constitution. I think that it is important that we say such rights are discovered rather than invented because when one says discovery, the reception tends to be more open versus when you say invented it sounds like a suggestion.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the idea that freedom and happiness has to be written into law irks me. Something that comes so naturally with being human having to be officially stated in a government constitution feels very anti "God-given right".
Deletedid not mean to reply twice whoops
DeleteSpinoza "chose" to be a determinist, and the question is if this is even possible because of the "no choice" nature of determinism. If one believes in determinism I think that there would still be a sort of illusion of choice way about life. Like perhaps you were always meant to be a determinist, so what does it matter if it was technically a choice or not. You did it, so there's nothing to be done about it now.
ReplyDeleteThat's true, if you know you cant change and it was always meant to be, why look into it? Determinism is a very strange and interesting belief system.
Delete1. Spinoza believed that God is everything, nature and God are one. This was called pantheism. On the other hand, Spinoza said that God did not care about anything or anyone. This statement goes against God's word in the bible. I'm a Christian and I believe that God is love. He says that God would not punish sinners because he has no human characteristics. The ones who read the Bible have a different view.
ReplyDelete2. John Locke believed that all of our knowledge comes from life experience. That is very true. If we do not experience something first hand our parents or friends will teach us about it. I like Locke's perspective of this. We do learn from experiences and I will say that everyone learns differently and has different views. That is why people have different opinions because we have lived and learned differently than others.
3. Locke said we have the God-given right to light, freedom, happiness and property. In the Declaration of Independence it says pursuit of happiness but it means the same thing. This statement means that we have the right to live freely, we have the authority to make our decisions, and to live a happy life.
1: That's an interesting point. If God would not punish sinners, then we were to believe, according to Spinoza, that nature would not rebel against bad behavior. I feel like a lot of examples in film showcase nature colluding against the individual, as a result of some belief in karma or goodwill. Nature just doesn't feel benevolent; if we were to think of God as a loving being, then in this perspective, I don't think God would be the same as nature.
DeleteSpinoza's view, that God and nature are the same thing, is called pantheism. I find this perspective intriguing, as it suggests a deep connection between divinity and the natural world, blurring the lines between spirituality and the physical realm.
ReplyDeleteIf god is infinite, there cannot be anything that is not god; if finite, god is indifferent to human beings. I personally think of god as more personal, with a balance of both immanence and transcendence.
Spinoza was a determinist, holding that free will is an illusion. It’s possible to choose to be a determinist if you accept that every action and decision is the result of prior causes, but it challenges the common understanding of human agency.
According to John Locke, all our knowledge comes from experience; hence, the mind of a newborn is a blank slate. If Locke is right, I believe our ability to learn comes from how we interact with the world, shaped by sensory experiences and reflection.
CAMERON WHITE
Delete1. In How the World Thinks, Julian Baggini explores the contrast between atman and anatta and their implications for identity. Atman, in Hindu thought, represents an unchanging, eternal soul that is ultimately one with Brahman, the universal essence. In contrast, anatta, the Buddhist concept of “no-self,” rejects the idea of a fixed, unchanging soul, emphasizing that the self is a fluid, ever-changing process rather than a permanent entity. Both of these ideas challenge the Western notion of a fixed, essential self, as seen in Plato’s idea of an eternal soul and Descartes’ concept of the self as a thinking, indivisible mind (“I think, therefore I am”).
ReplyDelete2. John Locke’s concept of the self, as discussed in How the World Thinks, focuses on continuity of consciousness rather than an immutable soul. Locke argued that personal identity is not based on having a fixed essence but on the ability to remember past experiences. According to him, memory is what connects our present self to our past self—so, in a sense, you are your memories. This stands in contrast to both Hindu and Buddhist perspectives, as well as traditional Western notions of an unchanging soul.
3. Younger generations, influenced by postmodern and non-Western philosophies, increasingly reject rigid, essentialized identities and see the self as something fluid and socially constructed. As Baggini discusses, modern identity is seen less as something fixed by nature or tradition and more as something individuals shape for themselves. This aligns with Buddhist and Daoist perspectives, which emphasize change, impermanence, and the interconnected nature of identity.
4. Who was P.T. Barnum, and what was his fundamental Fantasyland mindset?
ReplyDeleteP.T. Barnum was an incredibly famous American showman. He is most remembered for founding the Barnum and Bailey Circus. His fantasyland mindset is focused on showmanship. Barnum was the master at creating spectacle and drama. He would create nationwide spectacles with his innovations. Barnum would take calculated risks that would pay off big time.
Troy R#6
DeleteP.T. Barnum was a famous American showman, yes, but he was also a huge piece of work. His whole thing was to exploit vulnerable people in his circus and make a profit off them, sometimes in racist displays.
6. What point about individuality did Monty Python make?
ReplyDeleteHe made the point that we all believe that we are individuals which therefore makes no one an individual. Its almost ironic that people can claim to be unique while following the beliefs of the crowd.
What about those who think they aren't individuals
DeleteI wonder if you can see it the opposite way. If we are all in a hive mind, and we believe that we are each a unique part of a hive mind, then we can realize that what we are in is not the thoughts of an individual, meaning that then we do actually think as individuals.
Delete1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
ReplyDeleteThe view is called pantheism. I believe that is true. I feel that everything is connected from the trees, to the mountains, to the ants. Everything we do has an effect on our life. Whether it be god or not how we interact with the world affects how our life plays out.
McKinsley Slicker Section 005
ReplyDelete1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
Spinoza's view, that God and nature is the same thing, is called pantheism. This view suggests that God is not a personal being but rather an all-encompassing substance or force present in everything.
4. Who was P.T. Barnum, and what was his fundamental Fantasyland mindset?
P.T. Barnum was a 19th-century showman, businessman, and founder of the famous Barnum & Bailey Circus. Barnum believed in the power of spectacles to create excitement and wonder, regardless of its authenticity or truth.
2. What was John Locke's concept of self or soul? What makes you?
John Locke's concept of self or soul is centered on the idea of personal identity and consciousness. He argued that the self is not based on a fixed soul or essence but is instead tied to one's memories, experiences, and consciousness.
7. What is ubuntu?
Ubuntu is a Southern African philosophy and term that comes from the Nguni Bantu languages. It roughly translates to "I am because we are" or "humanity toward others." The concept emphasizes the interconnectedness of all people and the idea that our individual well-being is tied to the well-being of others.
Comment 1: Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
ReplyDeleteThat view is called pantheism. I do really think I prefer to think about God this way. I'm not a very religious person myself, but I did grow up Southern Baptist. After hearing all the bible stories and all the proverbs I do think this view of God lines up more with how he's perceived in the Bible than how most churches teach about him today. If God is real, and as he's said before he knows all and is everywhere it would just make more sense that he is everything all at once. It is said in the Bible that we can't comprehend as humans what he is or what form he takes so I relate with this idea that Spinoza wrote about.
Comment 2: According to John Locke, all our knowledge comes from _____; hence, the mind of a newborn is a ______. If Locke's right, what do you think accounts for our ability to learn from our experiences?
ReplyDeleteOur experiences in life, blank slate.
I think we are all born with the ability to learn, it's just a simple fact that our brains from birth are designed to obtain information and evolve with us as time goes on. I don't know what accounts for our ability to learn, but I do some of the science behind it. I know if we were all born knowing everything and with our brains fully developed our species would have died out a long time ago. We were designed to start small, so that we wouldn't kill our mother coming out. Our very dna accounts for ability to learn and I think it's amazing how instead of just being developed early our species rewired itself to still be able to survive. By giving us a chance to learn.
Comment 3: Locke's articulation of what natural rights influenced the U.S. Constitution? Do you think it matters if we say such rights are discovered rather than invented?
ReplyDeleteLife, liberty, and property.
I do think it matters whether or not you say it was invented or discovered. I feel like saying invented sounds like its something man made and able to take away or override. It sounds like it was given to us by our own people and not something that was set in law by nature itself. I think its better to say we discovered it, because truly the right to life was always there. We just hadn't put words to it yet.
Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
ReplyDeleteThis view is known as pantheism. I do kind of agree with this theory in a sense, but my take on it is a bit complicated. As a Christian, I believe God is a divine being that created and rules over the heavens and the earth. I do believe that nature is of God and comes from God, and that, in a sense, He is part of it, but I also don't believe in this in like a "mother nature" way. It's difficult to articulate. The answer is both yes and no simultaneously.
I would say they are very different since pantheism posits an impersonal god while you believe in a personal God
DeleteOh yes true, I should note that that is another difference between my Christian God and Spinoza's impersonal god that does not interact with or really care about humanity. However, I do understand where he is coming from.
DeleteSpinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
ReplyDeleteHis belief in determinism means that he thought free will was an illusion. Honestly, I don't really know what to think about this. I do believe in free will. If I close my laptop right now and willingly choose not to complete this comment, then I did that out of my own decision and free will. However, I reckon one could argue that me choosing not to finish the assignment would be a result of earlier causes. In a way, this can be correct because yes, most things have a cause, but in this scenario, I still went through the thought process of trying to pick between finishing this assignment or not. So no, I do not believe free will is merely an illusion, but I cannot prove this belief.
1. I think Spinoza’s correlation of God and Nature is a very solid starting point to understanding God. However, I don’t think that it is a full picture as there are many scriptures pointing out God as a being above nature
ReplyDelete2. I think choosing to be a determinist all the time is inconsistent. Though I think it is interesting to think that our lives have been cast out, set to complete a course
1. Spinozas view that God and nature were are the same, is called pantheism. I think to some extent it can be true but not in a literal sense.
ReplyDelete3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that free will is an illusion. Choosing to be a determinist contradicts with what it means so its not possible.
4. According to John Locke, all our knowledge comes from experience; hence, the mind of a newborn is a blank slate. Learning from experience means how people react from it, what mistakes to avoid, or how it impacts and shapes different perspectives.
Spinoza's view that god and nature are the is called pantheism, i believe that is only an aspect of what god since he's said to be omnipresent.
ReplyDeleteSpinoza was a determinist meaning he believed free will is an illusion since i can't just get a degree i have to choose to get an education in order to get the degree.
Locke's Life, Liberty, Property was in my opinion discovered rather than created since by it being manmade it's susceptible to being wrong.
This is the last time I'm going to say this: NO NEED TO REPEAT the same textual answer again and again, if someone's already provided the correct one. Instead of telling us yet again that Spinoza was a pantheist, for instance, tell us what YOU think of pantheism.
ReplyDeleteTroy R #6
ReplyDelete6. Who was Aunt Jemima?
Off the top of my head, she was the face of a syrup brand with the same name. I don't know if she was real or not, but I knew that there was a controversy around her being a stereotype, therefore removing her from the packaging.
Kripa Sarkar Section #6:
ReplyDeleteLooking at different perceptions of God, I can't help but ask myself this question- or maybe just throw this question out there- will we ever know who or what God truly is? It boils down to the point on what one personally believes in- but when in search for truth, facts is all that matters; one can believe in multiple things, but that doesn't prove reality.
I disagree with Spinoza when he said that free will is an illusion. Free will is definitely real, and oftentimes, people use this line of thinking to excuse their bad decisions or actions. Beliefs are predetermined by what you were taught and your exposure to the world around you, but what you do with said information is up to the individual and not some fate or fulfilling prophecy that is inescapable.
ReplyDeleteSection 007
ReplyDelete1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
This belief is called pantheism. The view at the time was definitely a radical view because it was something different from past beliefs and ideas.
2. If God is _____, there cannot be anything that is not God; if _____, God is indifferent to human beings. Is that how you think about God?
Spinoza argued that if God is infinite, there can’t be anything that isn’t God. I do believe that God is everywhere and created the universe, but I don’t necessarily think it all fits together and creates God.
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
He believed that free will was an illusion and every action was the result of a previous cause. I think “choosing” to be a determinist undermines the whole idea of there is no free choice and that the action of becoming a determinist can’t be by literal choice.
4. According to John Locke, all our knowledge comes from _____; hence, the mind of a newborn is a ______. If Locke's right, what do you think accounts for our ability to learn from our experiences?
Locke believed that newborns were born as a blank slate and that all our knowledge comes from different experiences in our life. If his thinking is correct, I think the ability to learn from our experiences would likely be based off of past experiences and conversations with others in the same situation.
5. Locke said _____ continuity establishes personal identity (bodily, psychological); Thomas Reid said identity relies on ______ memories, not total recall. How do you think you know that you're the same person now that you were at age 3 (for example)? If you forget much of your earlier life in old age, what reassures you that you'll still be you?
His idea is that personal identity is based off consciousness and memories whereas Reid believed that your core memories instead of total recall. There are very few memories from my early childhood that I still have and my parents as well as photos can help me remember other parts.
What was John Locke's concept of self or soul? What makes you, you?
ReplyDeleteJohn Locke seemed to believe that a person's self is defined by their consciousness and a person's ability to reflect on our own thoughts and experiences.
I like this way of thinking. I like the idea that knowledge comes from experience. I believe going out and actually doing things rather than just listening to somebody tell you how to do something is the most effective way to gain skills in different areas.
What cultural stereotype did Baggini find inaccurate when he went to Japan?
ReplyDeleteHe found conformism inaccurate
^ John Davidson
DeleteHenry David Thoreau built a cabin by Walden Pond and moved in on July 4, 1845, symbolizing a deep American fantasy of self-sufficiency, simplicity, and harmony with nature. If he saw modern suburbia, he’d likely criticize its consumerism, conformity, and disconnection from the natural world. He might argue that people have traded genuine independence for material comforts and artificial communities. Do you think his vision of simple living is still relevant today?
ReplyDeleteIn 1835, The New York Sun ran a week-long hoax claiming that astronomers had discovered life on the Moon, including winged humanoids and lush landscapes. Many people believed it, especially since scientific literacy was lower at the time, and the credibility of newspapers wasn’t widely questioned. It was an early example of sensationalist media—a forerunner to modern fake news and clickbait. Why do you think people are still so easily fooled by extravagant claims today?
P.T. Barnum was a 19th-century showman, businessman, and circus promoter, famous for his extravagant hoaxes and attractions, like the Fiji Mermaid and General Tom Thumb. His Fantasyland mindset was about blurring the line between entertainment and deception, exploiting people's love of spectacle and wonder. He understood that people often preferred a good story over the plain truth, a principle that still shapes entertainment, marketing, and even politics today.