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
Section #1
ReplyDeleteLHP
5. Locke said psychological continuity establishes personal identity (bodily, psychological); Thomas Reid said identity relies on overlapping 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?
I don't believe there is anyway to guarantee I am the same person in Locke's sense. I don't think my mind would wrestle with that question very much either. I would say my inhabitance of the same body, but Locke didn't believe that is what made a person.
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?
Life, freedom, and happiness. Yes, invented implies governing structures shouldn't be required to act in the interest of preserving those rights and to treat such a notion as an option. Sure, there are governments that do and have neglected rights. If you really want to look deeper into it the U.S. government ignored Locke's idea of property being a right. Discovered implies governing structures should be required to act in the interest of upholding those rights.
I can kind of see where you're going but I have to say that I think the opposite is actually true. A right being discovered doesn't necessitate that it be upheld, while one being invented does. For one, the idea of a discovered right being a necessity leaves the limit of possible rights in the air. For example, if we discovered our natural to impose our will on lesser animals because we are intellectually superior, then we would have to uphold that. Be that hunting for sport, torture, overworking of labor animals. Of course, that is an absurd idea, however, there wouldn't be hypothetical line to draw between "moral" and "immoral" rights, as they would be natural. Secondly, if our right to liberty, for example, was natural, then how does one justify slavery? Throughout much of history we've cultures and even governments engage in organized slavery, yet we supposedly have a natural right to liberty. We've also then seen them change their minds and outlaw slavery. In the first case, the government was acting in accordance with its citizens natural rights; in the second case it makes slavery seem like a conscious choice, which would make it impossible for liberty to be natural right. Moreover, the existence of an invented right in of itself would seem to prove itself worthy of always being upheld by its government. We have such rights that we have now because our society saw a need for them, and so our government, on our behalf, enacted bills and upholds those rights.
DeleteConnor Smith - Section 1
DeleteCorbin Medley - Section 3
DeleteIf inhabitance in the same body creates your identity, do you remain the same person if you lose your memories? Is all that defines you your physical body? I would argue you decide who you are by the decisions you make and the memories you create.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteLHP
3. I think that it is entirely possible and consistent. Determinists hold the position that all of the events in our lives are determined by prior events and we don't have the free will to change the outcomes. So, logically, it should follow that being a determinist is the same. No one just wakes up one day and goes, "Welp, I'm a determinist now," it just doesn't happen that way. A determinist would view them becoming one as a series of events leading to a bound conclusion. Perhaps they took a philosophy class, learned about determinism, researched more about, resonated with it, and came to the conclusion that their views are in line with determinism. Of course, a determinist wouldn't say they "chose" to be a determinist. If we were basing the question solely on language then my answer would be no, but if not, it is both consistent and possible.
6. I would go so far as to say that you cannot "discover" rights. Our unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and happiness are certainly not natural truths. To discover something, it would have to be naturally observable. I can't name a single instance ever in which someone has observed a right to anything. We don't have a natural right to freedom in the same way a gazelle doesn't have the right to drink from a watering hole. However, we use our reason to develop, or invent, the rights we deem suitable. Also in the same way the animals use their limited "reason" to decide it's not worth it to try to kill each other at said watering hole. If every animal had a natural right to it, then why crocodiles stick around and try to devour anything that comes by. Also, if we had a natural right to, for example, happiness, then that would make for some interesting implications. Say I meet a billionaire on the street while I have 5 dollars in my bank account. Him giving me a 100 dollar bill would make me very, very happy. And this act of charity would affect him barely at all. However, what if this is a very greedy billionaire (as is often the case) and him even giving me $1 would make him unhappy because he's losing money. So who deserves the money? I could increase my amount of money by 1,900% or the billionaire could decrease his by 0.00001%. Well, the amount of happiness gained could also depend on how greedy the billionaire is or how much I care about material wealth. This goes nowhere so let's look at a different scenario. Me getting an A in this class would make me happy, so by my natural right shouldn't I be given an A? It improves my well-being and it wouldn't harm the professor to do it. Well one could argue that I could get more happiness if I achieved the grade on my own merit. As well, the professor might feel as if he failed a student if he just gave out a free A. And what if his colleagues find out and shame him, that certainly wouldn't make him happy. But what if I really need this A? If i don't get it then my "Only A's and Nothing but A's" scholarship is going to get rescinded and then I'll have to drop out. All this reasoning obviously goes nowhere. Except if you come to the conclusion that you can only invent rights.
My reasoning behind believing natural rights should be referred to as discovered goes further beyond the implication. I believe Locke himself would agree with my choice of discovered rather than invented. He calls them natural, not synthetic rights. Would that not also imply they were discovered and observed and not invented. I understand you think the natural label should not be applied to his discovered rights because you think they weren't observed. Well I believe they were. He observed that what most wanted from a government was safety, and that a majority of beloved leaders upheld peace and safety. When you break that down you get life: not getting killed, property: not having your stuff get stolen, happiness: being able to do things that bring you happiness, and freedom: not being subject to the will of someone other than yourself.
DeleteI believe you misinterpreted the idea of a right to happiness. Happiness isn't dependent on others. The idea is that you can pursue happiness in means that don't infringe upon others' happiness. Using your professor example it wouldn't be ok for a professor to pursue his happiness by making you fail for no valid reason. As he is infringing upon your happiness to give himself happiness. While if he pursues his happiness in a means that doesn't infringe upon others he has his right to do so. I admit that freedom one is a little iffy. I found out from a book I was using for research that Locke had investments in a slave trading company. That book also states that his views have changed greatly over time and that he didn't even start writing the work that included the natural rights until about 20 years after that. Even with that a discovered right isn't necessarily upheld all of the time. The whole concept is that if one infringes upon another's right the government then infringes upon the infringer's right. The reason I believe discovered in place of invented should be used is that there are governments that are the initial infringers and governments that leave a sizable amount of infringers running around. I believe both of these aren't ideal and framing it as discovered gives more weight to change that. Locke believed the people should change the government through armed means if necessary if this occurred.
DeleteThe earliest form of government/law that comes to mind to me is Hammurabi and his eye for an eye law he had for settling disputes. I stab your eye, you get to stab mine. Now obviously slaves were probably around then, and his system isn't perfect but it does reflect the other rights. There is also probably a good chance that happiness didn't apply to this either but it could. What I am getting at here is Hammurabi's eye for an eye protected life and property through the notion that one's life and property were under threat if they violated someone else's life or property. Now in the context of Locke I wouldn't say he invented the rights, yeah I don't really have an example for happiness and freedom. I can see your argument that someone invented the rights, but given that this is a John Locke question and he specifically chooses wording that gives more of a discovered connotation I believe he didn't invent those rights. Also Hammurabi is from the beginning of written history so I don't think it is too far fetched to assume someone else somewhere on earth between Hammurabi and Locke came up with an idea about happiness and freedom being a right.
DeleteA further nitpick that I'd understand ignoring is that John Locke was a very religious man and had very interesting ideas about ideas. There is a decent possibility he didn't believe in inventing anything, only discovering. He may have believed one couldn't invent as god was all knowing so all one could do is discover god's inventions. Also he believed all ideas derived from simple ideas which were the basic sensual information a person gets from their senses. All other ideas were complex ideas which were compounded simple ideas. For example I have a red ball. What made me know it was a red ball? Well because it is red and a sphere. The fact that it is red is a simple idea. The fact that it is a sphere is a simple idea. You can't invent red or a sphere. Maybe you believe someone invented the red ball, a complex idea. I believe John Locke would say you discovered the combination of red and a sphere. Rights aren't as tangible as a red ball, but those ideas of rights can be broken down and traced back to senses.
DeleteYour example about the professor is very interesting. I suppose it depends on how you view happiness. I believe happiness is fairly relative, and so situations like this are as well. I would also add to this discussion that one thing that makes me happy could completely ruin someone else's day without me ever knowing that or directly affecting them. For example, if my band were to organize an outdoor show on a given day that was ruined by rain last minute, that would negatively affect my happiness. Bonus points if my guitar rig gets wet. However, somebody else may really enjoy rain and that would positively affect their happiness. Neither of us know that the other existed in this case, but yet their happiness still comes at the demise of mine. So, in this case, would it be wrong for them to feel happy, even though the source of it ruins my own happiness?
Delete"No one just wakes up one day and goes, "Welp, I'm a determinist now," it just doesn't happen that way." --Actually it does happen that way more often than you might think, amongst professional academics who spend a lot of time reading and discussing such matters. We literally "sleep on it" and one fine morning realize our old view in favor of(or against, it runs both ways) free will does not withstand a colleague's critique.
DeleteCorbin Medley - Section 3
DeleteI realized I'm largely a determinist after I was given an assignment to argue the hypothetical of being a determinist and how I would explain things like accountability, and how you would be motivated to change the world for the better. It was a sudden and swift change in perspective after some introspection. All this to say that I believe values, even those as existential how you evaluate the unfolding of human behavior, are easily altered with an open-mind and enough critical thinking.
Personally, rationalism does nothing to convince me on whether or not God exists. I feel like religion is not that rational, it is mainly based on faith. Sure, there are some things that you can historically prove, but for the most part, no one can prove for sure whether or not God exists. Saying that God MUST exist because of x,y, and z just doesn't make sense, especially if it's just someone's certain way of thinking. Because what if I don't think that way?
ReplyDeleteI agree, rationalism is not proof of God. Honestly, I believe there is no hard proof of God. I truly do not understand how some people can harp on faith as being the most important thing in their lives and then completely disregard said faith by attempting to use logic to prove God. It simply does not make sense to me. Faith is a beautiful thing for those that find meaning in it, but it is very wrong to shame somebody because they cannot go along with the attempt to prove the unprovable. At least the tangibly unprovable. And those that say it is obvious because of who the natural world works never cease to shock me. I thought the whole point of faith was that it was not obvious.
DeleteGracyn Schmidt (section 1)
DeleteI agree that God is not necessarily rational to the human mind. I think people try to find rationalization of their faith because they want people to experience the same level of comfort that they experience through their faith. At least I hope that is the case and it should be the case. I personally have teetered between believing and nonbelieving but simply find myself being much happier when I believe in something bigger than this world but I think that should be a personal journey for each individual and trying to force it onto others is ineffective and rude.
I think that your emphasis on rationalism vs faith is a super good point. I think that's where an individual is put at a distinct crossroads when discovering their religious identity. Personally, I have always had my qualms with maintaining a steadfast, trusting, faith with seemingly (to me) no or unreliable reasoning. Rationalism makes sense to me because I feel more substance from that belief system. But of course, it's specific to each person and I don't think anyone should dictate which one 'wins' or 'loses'
DeleteI completely agree. Rationalism doesn’t really do much for me when it comes to belief in God either. Faith isn’t something you can fully explain with logic, it’s more personal than that. Like you said, some things can be supported historically, but when it comes down to it, no one can prove God exists beyond all doubt. Trying to argue that God must exist based on a certain line of reasoning doesn’t really work for everyone, especially if that way of thinking doesn’t connect with how you see the world.
DeleteAnother thing I cannot understand is Locke saying that God does not care about anyone or anything. How can you believe that God exists if that is the case? Why would a God that does not care about humans create them in the first place? If created us because he was bored or something, but does not care anymore, why choose to let us continue to live? He also said that we SHOULD love God, even if he doesn't love us, but why would I love someone that doesn't even care about me? I think I might kind of agree with the people that said he was an undercover aethetist, because how could you believe those things about God and still choose to follow him?
ReplyDeleteSorry, this was Spinoza's POV, not Locke's. My point still stands though
DeleteGracyn Schmidt (section 1)
DeleteI disagree with Spinoza here because I think that God is bigger than simply a person. I think it is difficult to understand that one person could love EVERYONE but in my opinion and interpretation of the Bible is that God is beyond human comprehension and does not experience the feeling of "not loving us anymore" or "not caring." It confuses me too really because I do not know the details of the making of the universe but choose to believe that God loves me and my fellow humans.
Spinoza didn't mean that God did NOT care, but that (what he calls) God is not the sort of entity capable either of caring OR not caring. God just is the natural universe, for Spinoza. He wasn't impugning God, he was reconstructing the concept.
DeleteI agree with you. Spinoza said that god was the natural universe and was indifferent to humans. I disagree, though. I believe that God is a separate entity. "In the beginning, God..." I believe that God always was and always will be. It was through his power that he chose to create everything (nature). I also believe that God truly loves and cares for all of us, rather than being indifferent as Spinoza suggested.
DeleteIt's refreshing to hear that Locke believed it wasn't okay to prosecute others for having different religious beliefs. I feel like some of these philosiphers are just trying to get people to believe the same things as them.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. If you force and prosecute others for having different religious beliefs, you aren't really showing the world that you're doing the right thing. Even if the idea was right, by persecuting others, you are doing the wrong thing. That should never be how ideas are taught or spread.
DeleteI agree with you too. I'm reading about the philosophers and I imagine myself back in their time. If I talked to one in person about my religious belief, would they tell me I'm wrong and that I should believe what they believe? How would they know their belief is the "true" belief? I really don't think there's a right or wrong. People can believe what they want to believe. It's their free will (and maybe stubborness too haha).
DeleteI feel the same way. It’s nice to see someone like Locke stand up for religious tolerance, especially when so many others seemed more focused on pushing their own views. It makes his ideas feel more genuine, like he actually cared about people having the freedom to think for themselves, not just about being right. It’s a good reminder that philosophy doesn’t have to be about control, it can be about understanding and respect too.
DeleteYes! Resenting others simply because of a difference in opinion seems like the most blatantly unphilosophical concept. As the first few weeks of this class have gone by, I've realized that making use of my ears is just as important as using my mind.
DeleteBella York, Section #3
ReplyDeleteSpinova’s view of breaking free from “bondage” being not living simply reacting to your circumstances reminds me of the Christian idea of “Joy.” Happiness is the result of your circumstances but joy comes from peace and closeness to God which isn’t reliant on what is happening to you.
Spinova’s idea of God is similar to many Indigenous religions. That God is nature, in everything, and that by interacting with nature you are interacting with God. On the other hand, Indigenous religions tend to still anthropomorphize God and nature, calling God “mother nature” or “nature spirits.”
I think John Locke’s view of memories equating to personhood is false. He argued that if you don’t have memories from being an infant, then you are not the same person as that infant was. However, your experience as an infant and child affect the future you, even if you don’t directly remember them. In extreme examples, babies who were abused for the first year of their life and then adopted into a healthy family are much more likely to experience mental health issues. Even though they can’t remember that time, it still affects them in the future to great effect.
I agree, the concept of memories and personhood makes no sense. I would be very curious to hear how modern-day psychology would respond to this. Your point about childhood abuse leading to mental health issues explains it perfectly. I truly wonder what led John Locke to come up with this theory with no evidence of it whatsoever. Also, his theory on multiple personality disorder does not quite make sense or hold up at all, especially considering that it is not even called that anymore because the name was misleading.
DeleteIn a way Locke's view that you must remember in order to be the same person is a bit contradictory to his views on education. He advocated that our experiences as infants dramatically impact how we turn out later in life, so for him to choose to view personhood in totality and not in an overlapping fashion like Thomas Reid proposed is very odd to me.
DeleteI strongly agree with your first point about the difference between happiness and joy. Having this concept of joy can explain how Apostle Paul would sing in prison or how we can find contentment in the storms of our lives. Regarding the point of Spinova's belief that God and Nature are intertwined, I have grown up with my parents having somewhat similar concepts on this. My father believes in a greater consciousness. So, not necessarily the Christian God, but a force that creates our reality. He also thinks that God may have had a hand in evolution instead of the typical Genesis creation theory. So God works through nature, or is nature rather than being separate. My mother tends to view God as the universe instead of the notion that God created the universe. And through meditation and manifestation, we can work with the universe. Though Spinoza's idea of God is interesting, I take a standard Christian philosophy.
DeleteSection 3
DeleteGracyn Schmidt Section 1
ReplyDeleteI think Spinozas view of God and the universe as one being (pantheism) makes sense. I believe God is everything, including nature and the universe. I think God is the very fiber of all aspects of life. I have tried for years to figure out if God and the universe were the same or if one existed over the other. However, I think I have now come to the conclusion that God and the universe are one all encompassing force.
Section #1
DeleteGracyn, I completely agree with you. And when you think about all of the things we haven't discovered yet about our world or the universe, it's comforting and inspiring to realize that we are just unveiling more of God.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. I actually really like this idea about God. I think it's comforting to know that everything must be a part of God since He is infinite. That leads me to the conclusion that we are part of that body, as well-- which I think the Bible alludes to when it talks about the Holy Spirit and creation. I think this ideology also helps me to appreciate my environment, my loved ones, and the things I have. Spinoza's theory sounds a lot like Aquinas's First Cause, so I want to say that all of these things in my life come from God or were put here by God.
That’s exactly why the idea resonates with me. Seeing everything as part of God makes the world feel more sacred, like there’s meaning in even the small things. I’ve always felt that connection when I think about the Holy Spirit or read certain parts of Scripture, so it’s interesting how that lines up with philosophy too. Spinoza and Aquinas come from different places, but they both point to everything coming from God. That thought gives me peace and helps me appreciate my faith, the people around me, and the world more deeply.
DeleteI really like your idea for this question and I agree with you. The idea that we are all part of something is really comforting especially in todays day in age.
DeleteIts like that episode of rick and Morty when Morty’s mind is split into multiple video game NPCs.
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDeleteLHP
6. The Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence that our unalienable rights are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", modeling Locke's philosophy. I think it does matter when we differ between "discovered" and "invented", because I want to believe that all of humanity has yearned for these things. I don't personally believe that John Locke "discovered" or "invented" these concepts-- there must have been people before him who thought, "y'know, it's not fair that the king is killing everyone, controlling what we do and believe, and not letting us get ahead in life." The only thing I suppose he "discovered" is that these were unalienable rights, but it just feels like that's obvious to me.
I completely agree. I don't think Locke actually "invented" these things. I would be willing to say that people before him discovered the same thing and might have actually acted on it. However, Locke did publish those thoughts, which allowed them to circulate and spread much faster. So he at least affected how those ideas spread, but I don't think he actually invented them; rather, he led others to discover the same thing.
DeleteJeremiah (Section 3) ^
DeleteOriginal response was Lily Agee, Section #1.
DeleteMackenzie Harris, Section 2
ReplyDelete1. Pantheism. I think that is the view of many modern day Christians, but I don't know if I agree or disagree with that.
2. Infinite
3. Free will. I think it is possible to choose to be a determinist when it is convenient. Meaning that these philosophers can claim this but take walking off a cliff. If they are walking straight to a cliff they are saying they have no free will to just turn around.
4. Experience in life; blank slate. I think what accounts our ability to learn from our experiences is making mistakes. Babies aren't born with the knowledge of adding and numbers they have to go to school and learn and make mistakes in life to grow.
I think your point in question 3 is hilarious and I would have to agree with it. Personally I have seen people be determinist when it is convenient to them saying things like "well you know me I guess (insert action) just has to happen" which I thing is a cop out and more importantly an excuse that saves someone from a decision.
Delete2. If god is infinite, there cannot be anything that is not god; if not, god is indifferent to human beings. Is that how you think about god? I believe there is nothing that wasn’t made by God. As the universe developed and our planet formed, He was there overseeing and making sure things were “good”. A plant grows from a seed. That seed came from its mother plant. But ultimately, those plants evolved from something else, and God was the one who made it into reality.
ReplyDelete3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that free will is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist? I’m not sure it is possible to choose and be consistent with being a determinist. I believe in free will. If someone charged their phone right before bed for the next day, we can’t be 100% sure the person will use their phone the next day. Humans can react using logic and emotions, which can bring millions of possible actions from a previous choice. Some people do understand that our choices/actions were brought about by a previous choice/action, and that there can be consequences. However, maybe someone could decide randomly one day that they want to dedicate their life to being a determinist. But would that mean that they came to that want from a previous choice/action? What influenced that decision?
I enjoyed reading about Spinoza this week, I am kind of sad he died at 44 because of his lens grinding career :( ! I think this is the first philosopher we've read about that I genuinely agree with. Rationalism makes a lot of sense to me and I consider myself a rational person. As i reflected on Spinoza's definition of free will—that human action is caused by external happenings not our own desires—I began to understand his reasoning. I was wondering if any of you think that that's necessarily a bad way to live though. I am beginning to be at ease with a "lack" of free will since all these philosophers have so many ideas about the concept.
ReplyDeleteI'm conflicted on the problem of free will but honestly at this point, is it really a bad thing, if we still have the perception of having free will?
DeleteIt reminds me of the infinite tsukuyomi from a show I watched. In short, the Infinite Tsukuyomi is a powerful illusion that traps everyone in a dream-like world, making them live in their ideal reality (Even though our lives aren't always ideal). To the people, they have no idea that they don't have free will and are dreaming, but is it really a bad thing if they don't know? After writing this, it probably lines up more with Descartes but the point still stands.
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDeleteIf God is everything, then nothing exists outside of God—every tree, person, galaxy, and even every thought would somehow be part of the divine. That idea can be beautiful, but it also blurs the line between good and evil, or creator and creation. On the other hand, if God is distant or impersonal, then it can feel like we’re alone in the universe, that God set everything in motion and walked away, indifferent to our suffering or joy. Personally, I don’t hold beliefs, but I can see why both views appeal to different people—some find comfort in a God who is woven into every part of existence, while others find more coherence in a God who’s beyond our reach. Both ideas raise deep questions about meaning, connection, and what it means to live a good life.
I like Spinoza's idea that God and nature are one of the same. As an agnostic, this seems more plausible than an "interactive" God. For me, the strongest argument for the existence of a higher power is the fact that the Big Bang happened. Following the theory of universal causation (not to say I fully believe it), everything must have a cause, and therefore by tracing the chain of causation back to the beginning, the creation of the universe can be identified as the initial cause of all things. In my opinion, if any single event in our universe that we know of was to be tied to some omnipotent or divine force, it would be the creation of the universe.
ReplyDeleteI tend to disagree with Locke's idea that a person's character is determined solely by their memories. And while I disagree, I don't have a counter opinion. I feel unable to identify the causations of my character. I accept that much of it comes from experiences and memories, but I feel there is more that is unknown to me.
ReplyDelete3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
ReplyDeleteSpinoza believed that free will is an illusion. I don't think its entirely possible to choose to be a determinist by choice due to the logic that inhabits being a determinist. I do however believe that someone who decides to become a determinist can believe that the things that made them become determinist were set in place to make sure they did.
Section 2
ReplyDelete3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
First things first, Spinoza held that choice, or free will, is an illusion.
For the second part, I hear this argument a lot when people attempt to refute determinist ideologies, that choice alone should disassemble one’s argument, though I don’t entirely agree. My own views on determinism are fully dependent on my beliefs about the fundamental mechanics of the universe and the nature of the mind, both of which are not very well understood (if at all), lending me to be open to either answer but more partial to determinism just insomuch as it relates to my current, underdeveloped philosophy on those two concepts. For the first factor, the fundamentals of the universe, I am inclined to believe that there are rules of some kind that govern how matter interacts. The degree to which these rules are consistent is a mystery to me, but under the impression that they are entirely consistent 100% of the time, that would begin to incline me to believe determinism. The second, crucial factor which I stand more firmly than the first, is on the nature of the mind. I believe the mind is a purely physical system that has no spiritual or incorporeal form. The only thing that this contends is that the mind must obey the laws of the universe, though with the implication that the laws of the universe have no room for ambiguity, this strongly reinforces the view of determinism. So do I believe in determinism? To a point; only if the universe has rigid laws, which could be false.
Returning to the initial question, does choice refute the belief in determinism? Only if you interpret determinism as denying choice. This may sound paradoxical, but I do (when considering determinism) believe in a version of choice that works in tandem with determinism. The only difference between my definition of choice and the traditional one is that most definitions imagine that choice has permutations, and isn’t just a method of reaction. Essentially, if I, in a world certainly determinist, wake up and decide to have a bagel for breakfast, I still deliberated other breakfast items; the processing to arrive at my decision still occurred in my mind. The actual biggest difference is that I do not believe it is likely that hypothetical realities in which I chose say, cereal, instead are anything but that; hypotheticals, not real (or less so than whatever I consider reality). Most people I have heard discuss determinism conclude that this means, in a given scenario, this means that I will always chose the same thing, such that every time I wake I will then chose bagels. I see this as highly reductive and not factoring into account the fundamentals of my reasoning for determinism. If every choice is the singular result of a given scenario, which is arrived to through unchanging laws of the universe, then I reason that every single detail should have to be replicated for an outcome to actually repeat itself in full. Say I wake up the next day in this determinist hypothetical and decide again what to eat. I am now acting in a different environment than yesterday; the earth has moved and rotated, the events of the day prior have occurred, I have already had a bagel yesterday anyway, and countless other small things could influence me to come to a different conclusion, and it is my belief that the universe never remains the same and never perfectly or completely returns to a prior state, meaning that while the results of different hypothetical choices are probably not real, there is still the constantly changing environment that is the universe to propel unexpected outcomes and fuel a sort of free-will.
Jay Triplett, Section 2:
ReplyDeleteFantasyland:
1. Daniel Boone
2. Henry David Thoreau; Thoreau, as a transcendentalist, famously wrote a lot about the importance of the environment in human life. I think he would despise the modern suburbs for their lack of connection to nature and their manufactured state.
3. They reported that astronomers in South Africa had found life on Mars. Most of New York believed the story, even Yale students and professors.
4. P.T. Barnum started selling lottery tickets in Connecticut but became a showman of a "freak show", where he paraded around people with extreme characteristics. His fantasyland mindset was "if some imaginary proposition is talking, and nobody can prove it's untrue, then it's my right as an American to believe it's true."
5. William F. Cody's, or Buffalo Bill's, traveling play marked a shift towards new American "nostalgia" for a glorified and false American past of pioneers "conquering" the frontier and overtaking the native Americans.
6. Aunt Jemima was a mammy caricature, a derogatory African American stereotype that depicts an older, heavyset black woman as happily subservient to her white slave owners, created for a minstrel song and later adopted by Pearl Milling Company to market their pancake mixes and syrup.
LHP 1. Pantheism. I agree mostly with Spinoza on this one. I personally believe that there is a little bit of G-d in everyone and everything. I think that when people create art, they put a little piece of themselves into it. I think it’s unreasonable to not believe the same to be true about G-d.
ReplyDelete3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
ReplyDeleteDeterminists believe that all human behavior is determined by previous actions/behaviors, and free-will is an illusion. I do believe it is possible and entirely reasonable to be a determinist. I would say I'm largely a determinist, but contradictory (inconsistent and yet another fence-sitting opinion) I would also argue free will does still exist in my determinist understanding of existence. Behavioral psychology shows that the motivations for every single human decision is based off a previous behavior, including thoughts, whether they were immediately preceding or from years ago. We choose to sit in "our" chair in a classroom because it is the one we sat in previously. We chose that chair the first time for reasons that we previously had, such as preferring a spot in the corner because you do not like to participate deeply in class discussion, or perhaps the opposite. Even the most seemingly original thoughts must be motivated by something you have seen and/or felt previously. I would personally call these decisions both determined by our previous behavior and actions of free-will. Just because they are motivated by our own action does not mean we had no choice in them. We are guided by the past to make our own decisions now.
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?
He believed knowledge came from experience and newborns are blank slates. If Locke is right, I believe what accounts for our ability to learn from our experiences are our genetics and evolutionary ability to consume knowledge. Humans are predisposed to certain types of information, such as fear of specific animals, or being able to distinguish sounds among other continuous audio; these are gifts granted by our ancestors who passed these traits down onto us. I suppose newborns are never truly blank slates if this is the case, but that is as close as you can get without having an answer how we are capable of learning.
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?
Locke said that psychological continuity establishes personal identity. He argued that regardless of how many changes happen to the individual's body, they remain the same living organism - they become a different PERSON as they forget memories and create new ones. Thomas Reid argued that this continuity lies in overlapping memories rather than total recall and gave the thought experiment of an old veteran remembering what he had as a youth but not remembering something else he remembered as a youth. I believe Locke and Reid would be fascinated by the Ship of Theseus. I think self-consciousness is largely what decides your identity. Do you realize who you are in any capacity? If you do not know who you are, then you must make yourself anew or rediscover who you were - a conundrum many amnesiacs have had to face.
Forgot to add the tag
DeleteCorbin Medley - Section 3
Section 3
ReplyDelete3. Spinoza was a determinist, which meant he thought free will was an illusion. I think it is possible to choose to be a determinist, even though it may be contradictory. In Spinoza's view of determinism, it's not that we can't make our own choices, but that we're unaware of the true cause of our choices and actions. So, you could choose to be a determinist, you just wouldn't be able to know the true cause of why you chose to believe in it.
Addison Baird, Section #2
ReplyDelete1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
I think the view that god is nature, rather than god created nature an easier pill to swallow, in a religious sense. It also seems to be consistent with a lot of other philosophers (despite how he was exiled). It was a belief that because nature was so perfect and everything seemed to fit perfectly, that there must be a god who created it. I think it is an interesting idea to so that instead of creating something perfect, it is so perfect and balanced because it is god itself.
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
I think its ironic and contradictory for someone to choose to be a determinist, as they believe there is no free will. Perhaps it is possible for someone to believe that it was inevitable for them to discover a deterministic viewpoint, but i do not believe it is possible to choose to be deterministic.
John Locke's views on memories and personhood made me think of something I learned in my AP Psychology class.
ReplyDeleteIn psychology, there is a defense mechanism called repression that is the pushing away of negative thoughts/memories into the unconscious brain. An example of this an adult who experiences a traumatic event (like being the victim of abuse or experiencing a death in the family) would have no recollection of those events due to repression. This does not mean that they didn't experience that trauma; it only means that their unconscious brain is only blocking those memories from entering the conscious brain.
Now, just because these memories can not be accessed/recalled does not mean that they don't exist, or that the traumatic event did not occur. It just means that the conscious brain is being protected by the unconscious brain's repression of the memories. Which leads me to the conclusion that even though these memories can't be recalled, they still exist and are part of that adult's personhood.
Philopateer Iskandar section 3
ReplyDeletePantheism
I don’t really think that the view is correct due to them believing that God isn’t loving I know that God is loving and indeed cares about.
Infinite, Sponzia, No God is all-loving. Nobody would give all their love to something without feeling love back; that is a horrible relationship, and Christianity wouldn’t be able to survive like that.
Free will. I think that people, of course, have the free will to choose anything they like after all people have to choose to be a determinant
Pantheism is the belief that God is everything. Personally, I’m more inclined to believe that the concept of “God” (an all-powerful creator of the universe) wouldn’t possess any human characteristics or qualities. Therefore, the belief that God is the universe is definitely interesting to me and something I think I'm much more aligned with.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteSpinoza believed that free will is an illusion. I believe free will doesn't *really* exist but from more of a psychological standpoint than a religious or philosophical one. Who we are and how we perceive the world is a combination of genetics and past experiences. There very well could have been something in Spinoza’s past that primed him to want to be a determinist and believe free will is an illusion, therefore Spinoza didn't really choose anything at all.
1. Daniel Boone wrote a memoir in 1784 called The Adventures of Col. Daniel Boon that described his frontier exploits in Kentucky. The book turned him into a national folk hero, admired like a “real-life superhero.”
ReplyDelete2. Henry David Thoreau built his cabin at Walden Pond and moved in on July 4, 1845, later writing Walden about his experiment in simple living. He would likely criticize modern suburbia as wasteful and materialistic, far from the self-reliant simplicity he valued.
3. In 1835, The New York Sun ran the “Great Moon Hoax,” claiming astronomers had discovered bat-men, unicorns, and lush landscapes on the Moon. Many readers, including educated people, believed it until the story was revealed as fiction.