PRESENTATIONS...
#1 Adedoyin Adeyeni-Descartes. Krish Patel-Pascal. Jeremy Vargas-Machiavelli. #2 Charlie Mayo-Descartes & AI. Brennan Bortz-Machiavelli. Ella Shafer-Pascal. #3 Amanda Maldonado-Montaigne. Aliya-Descartes. Michelle Reyes-Free Will
LHP
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?
SSHM ch1
SSHM ch1
1. Calvinism set out, for Henry James Sr., what impossible task?
2. Kaag thinks the Civil War gave WJ his first intimation that what?
3. WJ's entire life had been premised on what expectation?
4. What did WJ say (in 1906, to H.G. Wells) about "SUCCESS"?
5. What Stoic hope did young WJ share with his friend Tom Ward?
6. What thought seeded "the dilemma of determinism" for WJ?
7. As WJ explicated determinism in 1884, the future has no what?
8. WJ found what in Huxley's evolutionary materialism alarming?
9. Determinism has antipathy to the idea of what?
10. To the "sick soul," what seems blind and shallow?
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... [I had a chat with ChatGPT about reality and related matters. It may not be conscious but it does simulate the appearance of consciousness pretty impressively...]
We had a serious and sober conversation in Environmental Ethics 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
#1
ReplyDeleteFirst note: Descartes-- If I have a concept of a god-- god must have left that there for me! (Not convincing, but I'll allow it for the sake of argument) and if god is perfect (not proven) then he must exist and be good. And if god is good then he wouldn't toss us into a illusionary world! (Uhh...)
Yeah, those flaws have added up too much for me to take you seriously. Ever heard of a white lie Descartes? Even if he was good, god may have a reason to lie to us. And I still want reason for why a creator has to be perfection.
I know my parents created me, and they're not perfect.
Also, I invent gods all the time... Doesn't mean one (or all of them) were sending me secret messages implanted in my brain at birth. I invent entire worlds without suspecting they're real. (Would it be cool if they were? Sure. Would I have lots of ethical questions to consider in relation to chicken and egg of suffering in those worlds, hell yes). Humans convince themselves constantly that people around them have feelings that they don't. That the world isn't as it is. That they can escape punishment forever. Historically, that the earth was the center of the solar system. Humanity has come up with many concepts that don't yet or just don't and can't exist in this world. I see no reason why god shouldn't be something similar to these.
Pascal, Pascal. You and I had the same thoughts, but varied widely on the outcome. Legitimately, when I was considering whether or not to subscribe to Christianity, one of the many things I considered was the risk. (There was also the thing where my dad shouted at me that the blessed wine was actually blood and not a metaphor - which seemed flat out wrong and also highly vampiric which is supposedly associated with demonic. That threw me pretty badly off the beaten Christian track. Seriously, I hate the taste of alcohol and that tasted very much like alcohol, not blood. There is no way everyone who drinks it believes that).
A) you go to church, and you're wrong. You've wasted every Sunday of your life worshiping some guy that doesn't exist when you could have been out making the world a better place actively. Not to mention all the time stressing and planning services and whatnot. Sure you may have made friends, but you didn't make as much of a difference as you could have, and now it's all over. Bad end
B) You go to church and there's a mean old testament god, so you're one of the chosen few in heaven! Sucks-- you alienated a lot of your friends in life but at least you're in heaven with the chosen few, right? Eternal paradise, but at what cost? Bad end
C) you went to church and god is good new testament. He takes good non-believers too! Even heretics! Yay, you can go to heaven with your friends. But uhh... earth could have used your Sunday's better than god could have. Even god would probably admit it. But he wouldn't have shamed you for choosing to listen instead of help do the proverbial dishes. Good end.
D) (I'm going to shorten these a bit) No church Mean god, Bad end/hell
E) No church nice god, good end. Again, dishes or learning at his feet-- both are valued.
F) Wrong god, vengeful, church. Bad end.
G) Wrong god, vengeful, no church. Bad end
H) Wrong god, neutral, church. Bad end (you rooted for the wrong team)
I) Wrong god, neutral, no church, good end (you didn't join any sides and were a good person)
J) Wrong god. nice, church or no church, good end. (good people or all people get good afterlife flat out)
K) No god. Good life. Good end.
Clearly, its better to be a no church good person that a churchy good person by the odds!
LHP
7. Pascal is totally limiting his options. Silly mistake for a mathmatician who focused on probabilities to make.
Some would say a lifetime of wasted Sundays is a small price to pay for a shot at eternity, but I agree with you: we only have a finite window of opportunity to be meliorists, we'd best not squander it.
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDeleteA Little History of Philosophy
1.) Descartes Method of Doubt was only accepting things as true/ real when you could be certain that the concept is not misleading. This differed from Pyrrho and his followers because they believed that you could not know anything for certain. I agree with Descartes. We should fact check things, but some things are for certain. Philosophy class is certain, otherwise my grades don’t matter, and this course doesn’t matter.
5.) Pascal’s Wager is the belief that if you bet on God and he exists, you win infinite rewards, if you bet against God and he exists, you risk going to hell, and if God doesn’t exist and you bet for or against him, you still gain nothing. He concluded that God is the safer bet. Although this did not influence my faith, I do agree believing is the safer bet. If you don’t believe, and God does exist, there’s a possibility of burning for life. However, even if you do lean to God as a “safer bet”, but you’re lukewarm, there’s still a possibility of burning in hell. It’s better to be fully in one than halfway in.
6.) Pascal put his saying as “If you win, you win everything. If you lose, you lose nothing.” There is nothing to win or lose if God does not exist. I believe he does exist, but if it turns out he does not, I would be losing nothing. I’m not really sure what I believe death would look like without the possibility of God. It is good to have something to look forward to, but again, I have to be not on the fence in order to receive the eternity I believe in.
Be careful with "certain": for Descartes, it means indubitable, incapable of being doubted, not possibly mistaken. Isn't it more prudent to acknowledge the ubiquitous possibility of error, however slim it may seem in a given instance, rather than claim infallibility? We're only human. That at least would be Montaigne's counter to Descartes. He thought it enough to claim possibility/plausibility, but never necessary to claim absolute certainty. "Que sais-je?" ("What do I know?") was his motto.
DeleteI have those "false awakenings" sometimes, but more often I have dreams that I can't distinguish from reality, I don't wake up when I'm still living through an experience and it takes like 2 days to realize that it wasn't real. That being said, Descartes' didn't ever "know" if he was dreaming or awake. I kind of understand this, once I broke my phone and I put it down and thought "wait this is a dream I don't have to be upset". I realized the second after that that just wasn't true, but the experience helps me understand Descartes' philosophy.
ReplyDeleteThe Method of Cartesian Doubt tells people not to except things as true if there's any kind of doubt. I understand the point of the method but I don't get it in actuality, I think I take things too far and end up in the "whirlpool of doubt" that he mentioned was a risk. Even if thoughts are a kind of proof of existence
Overall, I feel content with the end product of the philosophy " the world exists and is more or less as it appears, even though we sometimes make mistakes about what we perceive". I don't mean this in way that I'm trying to take an "easy way out" but I find it easier to digest. Previously in the chapter I was just confused and worried, but this makes sense to me and makes me content.
section #1
DeleteWhat if ALL of life is a dream, not just periodic episodes that we've mistaken for waking life? But how would we know that? That's what Descartes thought he could answer with "clear and distinct perception"...
ReplyDeleteIf all of life was a dream, then life would be that dream. There would be nothing else, that would be reality. So would it truly be a dream? Can you have a dream from which there is no waking up? That seems unlikely to me.
DeleteLHP
ReplyDelete7. (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?
By limiting his “wager” to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, Nigel Warburton does say Pasal excludes too many other possible bets. I would agree that this is a flaw with Pascal’s argument. However, if someone was struggling specifically with choosing to be religious or not, I think Pascal’s argument could be convincing. Lots of people doubt their faith, regardless of what their religious beliefs are, at some point in their lives, and if someone were looking for an argument on whether to continue pursuing their religious life or not, Pascal’s argument may be applicable. Replacing Christianity with any other faith, Pascal’s wager could be a general exploration of whether someone will choose to be faithful to their religion or not.
Weiner
1. Why doesn't Eric "buy" Epicurus's dismissal of death as a worry? Do you agree?
Eric doesn’t “buy” Epicurus’ dismissal of death as a worry because he thinks that becoming nothing having once been something is different than being nothing that was always nothing. I side more with Eric on this issue. If we never became something, we’d never have a reason to worry about death; however, we do become something and are given that opportunity, so being something is a different experience than always being nothing. In addition, since we have no real way of knowing what happens after death, the argument that we become nothingness so we shouldn’t worry isn’t very convincing to me. However, I could understand someone saying “we don’t know what happens after death, so we don’t have to worry about it” like the Stoic idea of not worrying about things that are out of your control.
5. What did Horace say to persuade yourself of? Is that a good idea?
Horace said, “Persuade yourself that each new day that dawns will be your last then you will receive each unexpected hour with gratitude.” I’ve definitely heard ideas like this before, and while I can see some benefit to this idea, I think it runs the risk of us becoming too caught up in the anxiety of each day being our last. Personally, there’s a lot of things I’m still striving for and things I still want to accomplish. If I knew that one day would be my last, I would rush to try and get as close to my goals as possible, and I would probably sacrifice time with friends and family because I would be so anxious to try and do everything I wanted to do. Or the opposite might happen. If I lived everyday like it were my last, I might give up on the things I want to accomplish and solely focus on spending time with the people I care about. This question makes me think of what we read about Epictetus, who suggested that we should not strive for things we may not be able to achieve to avoid suffering. If I lived every day as if it were my last, I absolutely would feel sad that I might not achieve everything that I wanted to. However, if I instead focused on living every day fully and continued working towards my goals because it’s what makes me happy, that anxiety wouldn’t exist for me—the focus is on going forward, not things being final. Horace’s idea might work for someone else, but for me, I think it’s better to focus on living a full life instead of living like every day might be the end. I agree with Horace’s notion that gratitude is important, though. I find ways to practice gratitude in my life because I think it’s important to appreciate what I have to be happy. I don’t think you have to act like every day is your last to be grateful for life, though; while I think it’s important to practice gratitude, thinking every day could be your last is not the only way to practice gratitude for your life.
Section #1
ReplyDelete5) Pascal's Wager. I do not find his idea convincing, but I find it persuasive. It evokes a "might as well" mindset while feeling artificial and forced... especially for something that's supposed to be "faith." I'm failing to see how Pascal's Wager promotes piety rather than selfishness.
6) Pascal believed that if you gamble on God and lose, “you lose nothing.” In a sense, sure—you are not losing anything tangible. However, I would argue that, by making the bet in the first place and approaching faith as one would a gamble, you sacrifice your intellectual honesty and the authenticity of belief, reducing religion to a calculated transaction rather than a sincere conviction.
7) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. True or False?
True! I can still gamble on the other 37 slots on the roulette wheel!
Section #2
ReplyDeleteLHP
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, he claimed that we could not know for certain if we are dreaming or not, and he would love to see a concrete reason that we are not. But in his day (and I guess now) he nor anyone else could find one. Like he said, the little demon could be tricking us into believing that we believe we are not dreaming, but we actually are.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
Delete--His argument is called Pascal's Wager, and I think its pretty persuasive. It's logically sound. If you are a pros v cons person like me, his argument that the possible gains outweigh the pretty minimal losses, is convincing. In my experience, going for what one would call "the pleasures of life" like wealth, fame, sexual pleasures, etc. are great at first, but end up wasting away or ending in unhappiness. I personally don't really care about having those enough that i would give up on the possibility of God and end up being wrong. I mean yeah I don't want to be broke, but I'm not going to spend my life trying to be rich. So I think I'm a great example to his argument. But I don't just believe in God because its the better bet, I actually see evidence of God existing and that helps strengthen my belief too. And like our book says on some of the weaknesses of his wager, you may end up believing in the wrong religion, or maybe the God of that religion doesn't count you just because you chose the safest option. To me, that's where evidence comes in-- does everything that this religion say to be true track with nature and what I see? This is a tricky topic for real.
Weiner
1. Why doesn't Eric "buy" Epicurus's dismissal of death as a worry? Do you agree?
--He doesn't buy it because he relates the "nothingness" in relation to existence. This very much reminds me of the famous "glass half-full half-empty" argument, it depends on the relation on the volume of the water before the question. I agree with Weiner on this. If there is nothingness before we are born, we haven't existed yet to know that there was "nothingness" before us, because we don't yet exist. But once we are born an now do exist, we know that there is "existence" and the possibility of "nothingness," and I think it's reasonable to wonder if there is a afterlife or a "nothingness" that follows life.
2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be? Descartes did not claim to know that he was not dreaming. I always wish that I might be dreaming, hoping that I could wake up and be living a different life, no matter how much joy I find in this one. But overall, I don’t usually believe that I am dreaming all the time, mostly because of how the dreams I have when I'm ‘asleep’ are very different from how I feel when i’m ‘awake’ and get very very shaken every morning when my blaring alarm goes off pulling me from my sleep, but maybe that’s all a dream too.
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. I find it sort of persuasive as he puts up a very good argument for how it is rational to believe in God because the potential gain is infinite (eternal life), while the potential loss (eternity in hell) is immense. However, I do think that if people choose this reasoning as to why they believe in God, it is mostly based on a fear of eternal torture after death rather than actual faith.
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.” I agree with this. If you were to gamble and believe in God, and he was real, you would be rewarded with eternal life in heaven with him; however, if you gamble and believe in God, and he is not real, you don’t lose anything, as there's no hell or heaven after death and are just dead.
Side note, I love his quote "...an introvert capable of doing a decent extrovert imitation when circumstances demanded." That is so relatable as an introvert LOL
ReplyDelete1. Descartes did not think we should always immediately trust our senses and he wanted to find ways to be absolutely sure of things. At the beginning of his Meditations, he was not even fully convinced that he was not dreaming. I’ve never had a moment in my life where I was genuinely unsure if I was awake or not, but over the snow break I did begin to dream about waking up to go to class. I’d turn my alarm off, turn on my lights, eat breakfast, and then wake up for real and have to do it all over again. It was a strange experience, but I guess that’s just what happens when you’re locked in your house for a week.
ReplyDelete2. Pascal’s most famous work is his Pensees, or Thoughts. It is a series of short paragraphs, which he originally arranged into bundles tied with string. He died before he could complete it, so the paragraphs are still grouped according to those bundles. I’m interested in how he might’ve organized it if he’d had time, and if he had anything else to add to it, but I like the short paragraph form. The sections make the book easy to read, almost functioning like journal entries.
3. Horace said if you “Persuade yourself that each new day that dawns will be your last, then you will receive each unexpected hour with gratitude.” His intention is not for us to wake up every day paralyzed with the fear that we will die that day, stressed about how much more we need and want to get done before then. Rather, he encourages us to come to terms with our own mortality. Recognize that life is short and unpredictable and that anything could happen, and decide to make the most of each day you’re given. Don’t wake up with dread and exhaustion about the day’s tasks, but joy and excitement that you get another day to see the sun and be with the people you love and eat good food. And perhaps you’ll wake up tomorrow and get another day, and then another after that, and on and on until one day you might not, but at that point you’ll already have lived.
section #3
ReplyDelete1. ) Descartes Method of Doubt was supposed to establish absolute certainty in whatever you were questioning, or certainty that you were uncertain (in the case of Decartes question of if he was really awake). I think Descartes' search for certainty was a good search, but I don’t think anything is ever truly objective. I don’t think you can ever 100% be sure in anything. I don’t think any state of consciousness is fully objective, every state a human occupies is illusory in some way. This thought really used to bother me as a child and now I don’t care at all because this is the state of consciousness I’m in now, so what do the other ones matter to me? I think if I don’t really exist it’s okay because I am existing right now in this way. It’s like with dreaming; when you are in the dream ( for me at least) I always know I am dreaming, but its a small thought at the back of my head, and it doesn’t matter because I’m experiencing the dream in the current moment. Reality is governed by our perceptions which have been set up through evolution to filter out things that aren’t necessary for our survival. I think a lot about how animals see the world, especially prey animals because sight functions in a different way for them. I do lots of painting and I am interested in the way that painting reveals our way of seeing the world; I wonder how we would paint if we saw the world like deer do.
2.) Descartes did not claim to know if he was dreaming (But he did not doubt everything). I always think I am dreaming.
3.) Gilbert Ryan compared Descartes dualism of mind and body as the ghost in the machine. I don’t think it’s silly at all but I also believe in a non tangible spirit existing in conscious individuals. But even from a non religious standpoint I have experienced moments where I felt my mind become disconnected from the body, and even further where I have become disconnected from the conscious mind that constantly runs. There is a meditation technique called Isha Kriya where you make an effort to disconnect the consciousness from the mind and the point is to be the thoughtless observer. Basically you make yourself aware that you are existing within the idea of the ghost in the machine (this sounds like im drinking the kool aid and maybe I am :P)
LHP - 5
ReplyDeleteI agree that Pascal’s Wager is logical and possibly persuasive (if I wasn’t already sure of my beliefs), but I do think it’s not that simple. If we were only relying on cost/benefit analysis, there seems to be a false dichotomy situation here (not dichotomy, there are more than two possibilities, but I couldn’t think of a better phrase lol). We can’t ignore the possibility of other gods being the True God, or the existence of Karma, etc. I also don’t think that acting as though you believe something is ‘good enough’ in God’s eyes. As a Christian I believe that the way to heaven is through a real, two sided relationship with God, and going through the motions (even if you technically believe all the right things) isn’t going to be enough. But I think his line of reasoning is worth considering, and getting involved in the church is a good way to be exposed to religion and may lead to a real faith.
Weiner - 4
I absolutely do not rely on nature making my death comfortable, and that’s not incredibly important to me. He may have truly believed this though, and in that case I wouldn’t call it denial. I just don’t think there’s any evidence that dying is comfortable, unless one passes in their sleep? I also disagree with his idea that dying slowly is better. It sounds miserable, I’d rather take a bullet to the head.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be? He said that he did not know whether he was dreaming or not. I think maybe it could be a possibility, but it's so unreasonable that it makes no sense to think about it.
ReplyDelete2. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing? Pascal's wager is something I agree with the way I live my life; it makes more sense to gamble on the odds that there is a God. I believe there is evidence for a God; however, his reasoning falls short, assuming there is one God.
3. Why doesn't Eric "buy" Epicurus's dismissal of death as a worry? Do you agree? He says that something that was becoming nothing is diffrent than something that never was. I disagree if you belive their is no after life than why fear death? After this, life is nothing. You can fear the death of others because it affects you, but why fear your own?
Pascal's philosophy is very interesting to me. As I read I compared and contrasted with my own Islamic beliefs. Pascal argued that even if we are unsure whether God exists, we should “bet” on belief because the reward (heaven) is infinite and the loss is small. Islam agrees that belief in God and the afterlife has eternal consequences, so ignoring it would be dangerous. However, Pascal had a very pessimistic view of human nature, believing people are deeply corrupted by original sin, while Islam teaches that humans are born pure and responsible for their own choices. Islam also strongly emphasizes sincerity of intention, meaning belief must be genuine and not just a strategic gamble. Another difference is that Pascal’s argument focuses only on Christianity versus no belief, while Islam teaches that correct belief must be in pure monotheism. Overall, Islam agrees that the afterlife is serious and faith matters deeply, but it rejects the idea of believing in God simply as the safest bet.
ReplyDeleteBut often when I think to myself "what if there really isn't anything after death?" I always say I wouldn't regret believing in a God and following morals, because at least I strived to live a peaceful, virtuous life. I agree with Pascal in this sense.
What do you guys think? Do you believe in an afterlife?
section #1
DeleteA note on my own experience with false awakenings: I once had a dream where I “woke up” 8 times, each time believing I had “finally” woken up for real. Every awakening (or layer?) was an increasingly realistic idea of what would happen when I actually woke up for real. This happened around this time last year, and for about a month afterward I could not be sure whatsoever if I was awake or dreaming.
ReplyDeleteThis experience caused me to seriously consider the possibility that my entire waking life is just a dream. It freaked me out, and the only solution that I came to was to continue living as normal, as I don’t have any control over whether I am awake or dreaming anyway.
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 with absolute certainty that he was not dreaming. He did claim to know that he was an alive and thinking being, however. I do think I might be dreaming, fairly frequently. I sometimes feel very far away from reality and my surroundings.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
I agree that if you gamble on God and lose, you lose nothing. By living a life believing in a God who does exist, you have earned an eternal reward. By living a life honoring a God who does not exist, you have at least lived a definitively purposeful life, and hopefully one that loved and honored the people around you. And as Pascal says, if there is no afterlife, you will not be conscious to know that you made a “wrong” choice. There is nothing to lose, and everything to be gained.
LHP
ReplyDelete1. René Descartes used the Method of Doubt to establish absolute certainty, knowledge that could not be doubted at all. Unlike Pyrrho, who doubted everything and believed certainty was impossible, Descartes doubted everything temporarily as a tool to find at least one thing that must be true. He eventually concluded that even if he doubted everything, he could not doubt that he was thinking, which led to his famous conclusion: “I think, therefore I am.” His approach seems more sensible than Pyrrho’s because it uses doubt constructively, not as a permanent state. I think achieving complete certainty is difficult, but Descartes showed that at least our own existence as thinking beings is something we can be sure of.
2. At the beginning of his meditations, Descartes said he could not be certain he was not dreaming, because dreams can feel just as real as waking life. This was part of his method of doubting everything that could possibly be doubted. Personally, I don’t seriously believe I am dreaming, but Descartes’ point makes sense philosophically, because our senses can sometimes deceive us, and we cannot always immediately prove what is real with absolute certainty.
3. Gilbert Ryle compared Descartes’ dualism to “the ghost in the machine.” He meant that Descartes treated the mind as if it were a separate ghost controlling the physical body. This idea does seem somewhat strange, because modern science shows strong connections between the brain and mental activity. However, it also makes sense in explaining how consciousness feels separate from the body.
Section #1
ReplyDelete2.) Descartes claimed to know when he wasn't dreaming because he was thinking. He claimed that what happened in dreams didn't exist, and that things that don't exist don't have thoughts, simplified as "I think, therefore I am". For a long time, I very rarely, if ever, had dreams; these dreams were often cartoonish and easy to disprove in plausibility (like my third grade teacher as a vampire bat?). Later in life though, when I started taking different medication, I started to have very vivid, almost life-like dreams of things that could really happen. When I'm very tired or stressed, I have many of these dreams at once. I'll dream that I did an assignment (sometimes my dreams are my stressors in my waking hours) or answered a text message even when I never did, which has led to confusion when I wake. I don't ever think I'm dreaming, but the line of dream and reality is blurred for me some now.
4.) Pascal's best known book was not a book at all, but a series of strung together paragraphs that historians guessed at after his death. I like Pascal's style of writing as it is almost like poetry or prose. Poetry packs meaning into few words or verses. I like to write and read literature of that nature, so Pascal's short writings are interesting.
6.) Pascal thought that if you gambled on God's existence and lost, you lost "nothing". I find this somewhat true. I think if there is no God, then believers most likely won't ever know they were wrong, therefore they lose no experiences or things they could have had. I could also see there being an afterlife without a god though, and that is mostly what I believe in. I like to think there is something on the other side, even if it isn't necessarily the pearly gates of heaven and the firey depths of hell. Maybe it's something no one has thought of before. Maybe it's something we experience every day and we don't even know it, like a dream. We won't know, hopefully, for a long time.
#2
ReplyDeleteLHP-
I had a dream so real I almost missed school. It was a school morning, and my alarm went off. I turned off the alarm, pulled the covers off, and went to the bathroom. I then got dressed and headed downstairs to make my morning coffee. I made the coffee, and then everything went to a standstill. All of a sudden, I hear a knock on my door. It was my dad asking me why I wasn’t awake yet. That’s when it all hit me: I went through my entire morning routine in my dream. I was still asleep, thinking I was fully awake and active. The dream did have suspicious moments where some things weren’t adding up. For example, I was using the broken coffee machine instead of the brand new espresso machine my mom got. If it wasn’t for my dad, I would have been extremely late to school.
I think Pascal’s thought process is actually quite convincing. It really does make sense. Why wager an eternity of suffering over a couple of wasted years? Would it not be easier to follow God, and if he turns out to be a hoax, then you would have risked very little, since you would not really know, because you would be dead? This is the obvious choice IF the cards at hand only had two choices: the Christian God or no God. Personally, I am a Christian who would naturally agree with Pascal; however, I can definitely see the other side of that argument, because what if these were not the only two choices? If there was another deity that was true other than the Christian God, then you would be in a lose-lose situation. You would have not only wasted your precious time on Earth, but also earned eternal suffering. I have faith that Jesus is very real, but I can most definitely see why people think it could be a risk to follow in Pascal’s footsteps.
“I think, therefore I am”. Honestly, a very genius way of thinking. If you can form a thought, that means the possibility of a soul is extremely high. This thought process leads to a point where the physical embodiment does not matter: if you can think, you are very alive and real. You can have the form of a school bus or a whiteboard; it doesn't matter. If you can think, you are. In a dream, you can not really think. The dream itself IS the thought, which implies that the mind/soul is active somewhere out there.
Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
ReplyDeletePascal’s Wagner. I’ve heard this pitch multiple times, but I don’t find it so persuasive. Much like the book mentioned, it is not righteous to believe in a God, simply to escape eternal damnation. Believing in God takes conviction and commitment, and it can’t be compared to luck or gambling at all. It’s hard to imagine how a man that proclaimed, “heart was the organ that led us to God”, while undermining the value of faith. To me, the beauty in religion is the devotion and intention.
Why doesn't Eric "buy" Epicurus's dismissal of death as a worry? Do you agree
Eric doesn’t align with Epicurus's dismissal of death, because he cannot agree that the vacancy before life is comparable to the emptiness after life. Epicurus believed that, because we spend such little time contemplating the state that exists before our life, we have no reason to fear what comes after life. Eric argues that death leaves behind a “hole in the Earth”, whereas pre-birth has no such implications. While I believe Weiner makes a compelling case about the difference, any fears we have surrounding death can be answered by his belief that we will not be around to experience death. You may fear dying because it is scary to think that you will leave behind a grieving family, but you will not be around to face the consequences. You might be afraid to experience the vacancy, but you simply cannot because you will not be around. The only difference between pre-life and post-life is that we gained the ability to fear during life. We assume that we will have any memory of a life to miss. Maybe the same way that we cannot miss before we lived (because we cannot remember), there will not be a “hole”, because we will have no memory at all.
What did Horace say to persuade yourself of? Is that a good idea?
Horace said to convince ourselves that each day could be our last, because then we will be more thankful for each hour that we survive. I do think that this concept can help ease the fear of life in some and can lead us to further embrace death. We become so invested in our problems, grief, and stress in life that we forget to be grateful we are alive to experience anything at all. Living each day as if it's your last creates a sense of urgency and boldness that cannot be achieved without considering the fleeting quality of life.
I agree with your point about living each day with more urgency as it can help us appreciate life instead of constantly worrying about death.
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?
ReplyDeleteA: Descartes' "Method of Cartesian Doubt" was designed to challenge the existence or acceptance of nearly anything. He didn't hold "anything as true if there [was] the slightest possibility that it [wasn't]." He would utilize this method to ensure a degree of absolute certainty.
2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
A: Descartes never claimed to be absolutely certain that he wasn't dreaming. It was one his most prominent examples of his "Method of Doubt," so naturally, it was a question that Descartes himself had trouble answering. I don't personally recall experiencing a "false awakening," and in my case, I don't think I will. Oftentimes, my dreams are non-sensible and non-linear, so I don't associate my dreams with reality. Therefore, I haven't had any real reason to consider the possibility that I could be dreaming at any given moment.
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?
A: Gilbert Ryle compared Descartes' dualism of mind and body to "the ghost in the machine." I believe the mind and body operate cooperatively, but not necessarily in the manner that Descartes presents. I believe that, for the most part, the mind has absolute discretion over the body.
LHP
ReplyDelete1. Descartes developed a way of thinking he called the Method of Cartesian Doubt. A person using this method must not accept anything as true if there is even a slim chance that it is untrue. Unlike Pyrrho, Descartes acknowledged that we must believe things to be true if we want to be functioning humans. He was not an extreme skeptic, rather he was thorough in his thinking. Descartes sought something he could prove to be certain. In his journey for certainty, Descartes concluded that if he could form a thought, this meant he existed. I believe it is possible to reach a mindset based on the Method of Cartesian Doubt. In fact, I think this way of thinking about the world is smart and practical. This thinking abides the same principles that modern day science and law are built upon. For example, the scientific method and innocence until proven guilty. So much of what we accept as truth is actually based on faith and our limited understanding of our existence. While I find it hard to agree with Descartes on the idea of demons manipulating math to confuse us, and on the existence of god, I do think his philosophy has practical applications for questioning our assumptions in life.
2. Descartes never abandoned the possibility that he was living in a dream. I have contemplated this idea, and ideas like it. As Descartes points out, there is no way of proving that we are not dreaming, so of course the possibility of living in a dream still exists. Dreams can play out with incredible levels of detail and emotion. Sometimes I have memories that I come to realize were more likely dreams from the past, not reality. Descartes even raises the possibility of our brains being in a jar, with someone on the outside probing them with electricity. This idea resembles early simulation theory. I find it probable that we could be living in some super advanced computer or sophisticated biological life form as atoms or photons. Our existence alone is already a miracle. The likelihood of being born is somewhere around 1 in 200 million. With those odds, I think anything is possible, including living in a dream.
Weiner #4
DeleteMontaigne suffered a brutal accident when a strong working horse and its rider collided with him and his horse. The accident sent Montaigne flying off his horse and bystanders thought he was dead upon first examination. Montaigne, thinking in the moment that he would die, would survive the accident despite throwing up a lot of blood. He said the experience gave him the realization that death would not be as uninviting as he assumed. Moments after the accident took place Montaigne described feeling free from pain and ready to accept death. The accident changed his thinking about death and the experience of dying. He said that when the time comes to die, our bodies and nature will give us everything we need to be successful in our transition. I do not expect death to be comfortable or easy, but I do agree that nature will provide me everything I need to be ok. This is not denial, but rather trust towards the body's natural response to dying. I believe nature will be accommodating. The body and mind can do remarkable things to shield us from trauma. In my final moments, I imagine a surge of chemicals in my brain will help me pass. Recent research into psychedelics suggests that the compound DMT (a potent naturally occurring psychedelic) is released during death. If this is true, I will probably get an epic light show and emotional high while dying.
LHP 5 - Pascal's Wager was the idea that if you believe God exists, you will either receive infinite rewards (if he does exist) or gain nothing (if he doesn't). If you believe God does not exist, you will either be damned to hell (if he does exist) or gain nothing (if he doesn't). Of course, faith is more nuanced that a cost-benefit analysis, and A Little History of Philosophy spends a lot of time explaining the fallacies of the wager. For one, it's hard to simply *believe* in a god simply because it's the safest bet. Also, if that is the primary reason for your belief, God would likely think your belief is not genuine. The wager is self-centered, and God may believe you should instead be centering God's teachings instead of the fate of your own soul. Lastly, it only envisions the possibility of a Christian god, meaning committing to belief might still cut you off from the infinite rewards of heaven if Christianity is an incorrect depiction of God.
ReplyDeleteLHP 6 - Pascal believed betting on God and losing only inconveniences you; heaven does not exist and you have deluded yourself for your entire life, but you're dead, so you wouldn't really care. I disagree with this. If God doesn't exist, why should I spend my entire life betting that he does? Devoting myself to faith, living within constraints, all because I maybe might get infinite rewards ("Whatever that f---in' means" -Nayvadius "Future" Cash), and it turns out the rewards don't exist? If God does not exist, and I only get one life to live, I'd hate to waste it on a lie.
1) What state of mind, belief, or knowledge was Descartes' Method of Doubt supposed to establish?
ReplyDeleteDescartes' method differed from just blatant scepticism of everything. Instead, he sought to find some ideals which he could hold on to for certain. He wanted to find views that were immune to scepticism, and were without a doubt true.
4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
Pensees was his most popular book. Personally, I dont mind his style, but its not my favorite.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
Pascal's argument is called Pascal's Wager. I find it to be pretty appealing, as someone who doesn't believe in a God. However, I don't wish to waste all my Sundays on one hope.
Section #3, Presley Baker
DeleteI like your point about Pascal’s Wager. I agree that something can make logical sense without actually changing what you believe.
Deletesection 2
ReplyDeleteThe more that I read and try to absorb the ideas and conclusions of different philosophers the more that I can't quite grasp their perspectives. How could Descartes conclude that everything we can conceive in our minds must be real since we were able to conceive it in the first place yet believe that everything we are experiencing may not be real at all as we can't prove it's not a dream? Wouldn't that inherently mean that all of the lives we have lived through dreams are real lives that we are living since we dreamt them and by extension had an idea of them?
It's increasingly fascinating to me how consistent the thought process of how if someone doesn't believe in God or at the very least doesn't care enough to not NOT believe in God, that the person in question automatically just acts maliciously. As if this God figure is the only option when choosing how to make choices in your life. I don't believe in God, the concept to me is unrealistic and unappealing to me. But that doesn't mean I'm therefore going to act out of complete disregard and malice to others. I won't claim that I'm absolutely a good person, but I will say that without a Godly authority hanging over me I still do my best to act kindly.
Even if it ends up that God does exist, and there is a real divide between the afterlife depending on how my life was lived, I would much rather say that I lived my life as well as possible out of genuine love and care than out of an unconfirmed "what if" in order to please a being that for all intents and purposes may not value that love and care more than how much he/she was personally respected.
Section #2
ReplyDeleteWeiner
What did Horace say to persuade you of? Is that a good idea? Weiner highlights the need to persuade oneself to stop worrying or living in either the past or the future and instead let go. That is embrace carpe diem, which means to seize the day. To some extent, I do agree that no one should live in the glory, pain, happiness, and suffering of the past or future but instead pursue a more achievable goal: the present. However, both our past and future must never be discarded and must still be considered a point of reference for certain endeavours.
Descartes comments on dreaming were fascinating to both read and think. I also enjoyed the wild assumption about a mystical demon veiling the human mind and only providing us with illusions. His belief that we could very well be dreaming aligns perfectly with the three-fold conscious phenomenon (Waking, Dreaming, Deep-Sleep) that arose from eastern philosophy. This trifecta of consciousness operates on the idea that we are indeed "dreaming" and the world before us is only an illusion, or the ultimate reality playing tricks on itself. This idea is justified by the way in which our dreams appear to us as real until we wake up. It is not uncommon to have a hyper-realistic dream in which the events that unfold feel physically and emotionally real. However, all of these events that have unfolded cease to exist once we wake.
ReplyDeleteI find Pascal's beliefs to be anxiety inducing. Although it is true that gambling on eternal damnation scary, this assumption is made on the basis that all of humankind subscribes to the same idea of "God". To say that the Christian God is the one path to truth can bring one a sense of peace, however it would also put roughly 70% of the human population in an unfortunate situation. This argument also reminded me of the George Orwell book 1984. In 1984 the oppressive government fights to control all truth and perception. This overall motto is that you must follow the government blindly regardless of whether or not you believe in their self-proclaimed "truth". Is there any value in forcing yourself to believe in something out of fear? Sure, you can tell yourself that you believe in something, such as me telling myself that 2 + 2 = 5, but if internally there is a disconnect between what I am telling myself I believe and what I actually believe, have I not just created more issues? Would the Christian God himself want followers who blindly believe in him?
Hello Vi, I really liked your point about Pascal’s argument being based on fear. I agree that forcing yourself to believe something doesn’t necessarily mean you truly believe it.
Delete4. Pascal's best-known book is Pensees. I like his aphoristic style because his short, direct statements make his ideas easy to think about and remember.
ReplyDelete5. His argument is called Pascal's Wager. I find it somewhat persuasive because he argues that believing in God could have an enormous reward, while there is little to lose by believing.
6. He said “you lose nothing.” I mostly agree with his reasoning, since believing in God doesn't necessarily cost you much if God doesn't exist.
Section H01
DeleteSection 2
ReplyDelete1. In Descartes' Method of Doubt the goal was to question everything until he reached absolute certainty. I don't think it's sensible for us to know know every last bit of everything, but we can definitely try, so I don't fault him at all for that.
2. "The ghost in the machine" is how Ryle described the dualism between mind and body. It is interesting because Descartes goes on to make the point that we can't imagine not have a mind because we would still be thinking. The mind and body must coexist, whether thats as completely separate things or not is an intriguing conversation.
Baker Kilmartin Section 1
ReplyDeleteLHP2
Descartes did not directly claim he was not dreaming, all he said on the matter was that because he is thinking somewhere out there, he exists. I don’t know about dreams necessarily, but there is always a thought that we are just code to other people or AI/ something along those lines. I would say dreaming to me feels like the incorrect answer because my dreams never go super in depth, and I feel more like an observer that thinks they are in it, than a participant.
LHP5
Pascal’s Wager. I find it actually moronic, LHP does go over this for about a paragraph, but, the idea that believing in god is less risk than not makes no sense. If that is the reason you believe in them, then you don’t believe in god, you believe in the fact that if you didn’t believe in god you would be punished. Which in pretty much all gods I have heard about, not exactly something they want from you.
LHP7
True. I totally agree, his math just does not check out. Realistically (according to Google), there is about 10,000 religions, which (again according to Google) 6 billion people believe in, so no matter which is the “correct” religion, billions of people would be wrong. Then, why not choose not to believe in a religion so as not to “waste” time it seems to me to be just as likely as any other of the religions out there.
Section 1
ReplyDeleteLHP 5,6,7
5, Pascal's Wager
6, Lose nothing at all
7, True
. 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?
ReplyDeleteThe State of mind that Descartes established was to doubt everything even if it had one slight flaw or probability of being false. Descartes really seeked to safety I believe, he always had doubts about everything but was at least much more sensible than Pyrrho who didn't believe anything was real. It is possible to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought though I believe it would be a miserable one to have as you have nothing stand on, someone who doesn't have any belief and doubts anything is really worse than someone who believes in 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?
Descartes did not know whether or not he was dreaming and neither did he try to disprove it, instead he just thought of it as a probability that he could be dreaming. Because of this mindset he instead tried of thinking about what he knew for sure which is where his famous quote says, "I think, therefore I am". He knows he can think so he's for sure some intelligent being. To the second question, I honestly don't know and its frightening, I mean I could have dreams inside of dreams and not know until I'm fully awake. Heck how do I even know what I'm writing on this blog is real is the question. Well, I sure hope it is, I heard theorist say that if we're able to make a simulation of human life then it is proof that we are in a simulation ourselves which reminds me of that one Simpsons episode if you know what I'm talking about with Lisa having her own civilization in a little fish tank.
Section 1
ReplyDeleteLHP
5. Pascal's wager
I do find this persuasive however I have come to my own conclusion about God through reading things like the bible, but I think pascals wager can help create a better world where people try to uphold values and follow principles.
6. Pascal said if you lose, you lose nothing.
I agree with this because there wouldn't be anything to lose if you're already dead and there is no God because you more than likely just stop existing forever. It would be like before you were born, so nothing
1.Eric doesn't buy Epicurus’s dismissal of death because in his mind dying after having once lived is not the same as someone that never lived. I don't agree with this because worrying about death just takes time away from actually living nobody has ever escaped death and there is truly no way to know what actually happens after death so worrying is just stealing the joy of life.
Section 3
ReplyDeleteLHP 11-12
1. Descartes’s Method of Doubt aimed to establish certainty—knowledge that could not possibly be mistaken. Unlike Pyrrho, who suspended judgment, Descartes used doubt to find a secure foundation for knowledge. His starting point became “I think, therefore I am”: even doubting his existence required him to exist as a thinking being. Possible reflection: His approach seems more practical because doubt is a temporary investigation. Some narrow certainties may be possible, but absolute certainty about the entire outside world seems much harder.
5. His argument is called Pascal’s Wager. He argues that believing in God offers the possibility of infinite happiness, while disbelief risks losing that happiness or facing eternal punishment. Possible reflection: It is an interesting argument about risk, but it does not establish that God exists. Believing mainly to obtain a reward also seems different from sincere faith.
6. Pascal says that if you gamble on God and lose, “you lose nothing.” He considers religious commitment a small sacrifice compared with the potential reward of eternal happiness. Possible reflection: I disagree that the cost is necessarily nothing: religious practice can involve time, money, restrictions, and opportunities forgone. It can also provide community and meaning, so its earthly value depends on the person and their experience.
by Young Zhang
DeleteWeiner-
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't Eric "buy" Epicurus's dismissal of death as a worry? Do you agree?
Weiner believes we do leave a mark on the world. Epicurus basically said nothing mattered before and after, but Weiner recognizes we changed something with our time here.
What's the best Montaigne thinks we can do to find truth? Do you think he was trying to build a "tower of certainty"?
Montaigne believes we find our truth through muggers or flutterings. We build our certainty through our doubts and finding these nuggets of truth.
How did Montaigne reverse himself on what we learn from philosophizing? But is it really a reversal?
I think all skeptics reverse their views at some point. Montaigne continually went back and forth as he figured things out. His thinking was not linear. Skeptics should be skeptical of themselves as well.
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)?
He describes his what he believed was his impending death as almost pleasant, no fear or pain. Just welcoming death like an old friend. I don’t believe this is a form of denial. Nature will tell us what to do, we have to be ready to hear it though.
Section 2:
ReplyDelete1. Method of Doubt by Descartes was created to establish certainty through doubt. He differed from Pyrrho's skepticism because Descartes hoped to find something he could be certain in and eventually did by first finding out that the ability to think confirms our existence.
5. Pascal's Wager was an argument to believe God exists by putting it into the odds of a moderate gambler. The risk of not believing is high, as the consequence is eternity in Hell if God is real however, a life is lived without worrying about it. On the contrary, living life in accordance with God, in Pascal's eyes, devotes time to worship and grants the opportunity for life's greatest treasure, an afterlife in heaven. If you are wrong and God does not exist, you die wrong, but have lived a moral life and would never know you were wrong. Logically, it makes sense to me as I had a similar conversation with a friend about this with neither of us knowing about Pascal however we agreed that playing the odds doesn't sound like it aligns with true faith that Christians have.
6. Pascal thought that if you gamble and you lose, you lose nothing. The time spent would have been time adhering to moral values and worship which in the eyes of an already religious man, would mean no time wasted at all however, many non-religious individuals would likely disagree, as they would see it as a complete waste of time.
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?
ReplyDeleteThe method of doubt was meant to establish certainty in any belief. His approach is more sensible in my opinion because unlike Pyrrho Descartes is actually trying to work toward an answer.
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 he did not, he only claimed to be sure of his existence
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?
He mocked it as the myth of the ghost in the machine. It dies not seem strange because in my opinion it follows the same principles as a lot of afterlife theories.
Descartes questioned if he was dreaming and claimed to not be certain if he was dreaming or not, using realistic dreams as evidence. I’ve had extremely realistic dreams like that where I only knew it was a dream after I had woken up so I suppose I could be dreaming right now but I really doubt it although sometimes I have trouble recalling if events really happened or I dreamt about it.
ReplyDeletePascals argument for believing in god is called Pascal’s wager. I personally don’t find it that persuasive as I don’t believe we truly have nothing to lose by accepting the gamble when religious beliefs are so vast and everyone religion has different “rules” so some could have something to lose.
Pascal thought if you gamble on god and loss you lose nothing. I don’t agree with this. From my personal experience, adults around me always said you had to spend hours of your day talking to god and if you don’t hear him talk back, you’re not devoting yourself to him and you won’t go to heaven. Being a child and an anxious one at that I spent so much time worrying I was going to hell because I could never hear god talking back to me. I feared I wasn’t good enough or righteous enough and every mistake sent me into a spiral. Taking the gamble with god gave me so much stress and made life so much less enjoyable for me.
LHP 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?
ReplyDeleteDescartes was trying to find something that he could know for certain by doubting basically everything else first. He wanted to get rid of any beliefs that could possibly be wrong and find something that couldn't be doubted. This is different from Pyrrho because Pyrrho seemed to think that we should just accept that we can't really know anything for certain, while Descartes was using doubt to try to find certainty. I think Descartes' approach makes more sense to me because I don't think questioning everything is necessarily the same thing as giving up on finding answers. At the same time, I'm not sure it's possible to reach complete certainty about everything. There will probably always be something that we could question, but I think trying to figure out what we can actually know is still useful.
LHP 5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
Pascal's argument is called Pascal's Wager. Basically, he argued that believing in God is the safer choice because if God exists, you have potentially everything to gain, while if God doesn't exist, you haven't really lost much by believing. I understand the reasoning behind it, but I don't find it completely persuasive. Believing in something just because it might give you the better outcome doesn't necessarily mean you actually believe it. If I don't genuinely believe in God, I'm not sure I could just decide to believe because it seems like the safer bet. I also think it leaves out a lot of other possibilities, like what if there is a god, but it's not the Christian God? So I think the wager is interesting, but I'm not sure I would base my beliefs on it.
LHP 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. I think Warburton has a point here because Pascal's Wager makes it seem like there are only two choices: believe in the Christian God or don't believe in God. There are a lot more possibilities than that. Someone could believe in a different religion, believe that there is some kind of god but not the Christian God, or just be unsure about what exists. I think this makes Pascal's Wager less straightforward than it first seems. Even if believing in God has a potentially huge reward, you still have to decide which God you're supposed to believe in, and the wager doesn't really answer that question.
Section 2
ReplyDelete4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
Pascal's best known book is "Thoughts'', and it's a collection of paragraphs defending his version/ perception of Christianity. I think I do like his style, I think it would catch my attention more than a regular reading.
5. 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. I find it persuasive because even though I'm already Christian, if someone used argued Christianity to me using the same terms and comparisons Pascal used, I believe I would be convinced.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
Pascal thought "you lose your chance of bliss", meaning you lose your ability to get into heaven. I don't agree because I believe God wish punish and see people to hell who truly deserve to be there, but I don't believe that he would take away someone's ability to achieve true happiness simply because they had some doubts.
Section 2
ReplyDeleteLike many philosophers, Descartes sought the “truth”, he wanted to separate the imagined from reality, and in doing so had a moderate skepticism of life, particularly life experienced through the senses. While this makes him similar to Pyrrho, Descartes saw the danger and difficulty of living life questioning everything, and chose to trust at least in the existence of his mind, coining the phrase “I think therefore I am”. The concept of the body, he wasn’t so sure of.
Though I can understand Descartes logic, I could not live my life under the conditions he did. To separate the mind from the body, while acknowledging their communication to each other, seems illogical. If the body is flawed, producing sensations that are imagined, why wouldn’t the mind be also? While questioning any part of reality, you cannot truly prove another part. If my senses are false, then why can’t my mind be as well? If existence is partly fake, what makes the other part real?
I think that Descartes’ theory does not effectively confront the existential crisis that his belief creates. Though I hope he truly believes in it, I think his theory is an attempt to prevent a complete existential crisis, which skepticism creates. To be skeptical, you seek to prove that something is true, and I don’t think we can ever prove anything about reality to be true, nor can we prove it to be false. What we experience is what we experience, and our life is our life. That is all that can be claimed. Unfortunately that isn’t satisfying, but I think any attempts to make it satisfying, as Descartes did, is nonsensical.
Section #2
ReplyDelete1.) Descartes came to the conclusion that "the world exists, and is more or less as it appears, even though we sometimes make mistakes about what we perceive." So yes, he basically claimed that he was not dreaming. I myself have definitely wondered about this before, so I found this chapter particularly interesting. Sometimes I'll just be going on with my day and I'll just stop and suddenly have the thought "What if none of this is real?" For a second it does sort of feel like a dream, and I get the intrusive thought of doing something that I shouldn't, just because "it's not real" so it wouldn't matter. Then I start to think about how I can't do that, because this is in fact real, and I would end up getting in trouble or something. It's not the idea that I believe I am dreaming, it's just more so that I wonder for a moment if things are real, but then I realize that things must be real and just go on with my day.
2.) Gilbert Ryle compared the dualism of mind and body to "the ghost in the machine" with the body being the machine and the mind (or soul) being the ghost inside the machine. I don't think this analogy is strange or silly; I actually find it quite interesting. I've heard someone say before that we (our mind/soul/thoughts/whatever you want to call it) are the brain controlling a skin suit. I think this idea goes along with Ryle's analogy, and to me it makes sense. The brain is what controls what the body does most of the time; if I think about how I want some water, my brain tells my body to reach out my hand, grab my water bottle, and drink from it. When it comes to the question of how the mind affects the body, I think it gets a little more complicated (because technically all the brain is is just more flesh). I like to think of it this way: when you experience emotions, which is purely a thing of the mind, your body often experiences those emotions as well. For example, if you're feeling very angry or frustrated, you might start to get hot and sweaty, or your face may become red. If you are really sad (or sometimes really happy), you may start to cry. If you feel romantic love for somebody, you may feel butterflies. If you feel very stressed, especially for long periods of time, it can also affect you physically in the form of headaches, an increase in blood pressure, or even heart attacks. All of these emotions are things that we feel and experience mentally first; your arm cannot feel sadness, but your mind certainly can. If these emotions start with the mind but then lead to physical reactions, than surely the mind and body are connected. So, in my opinion, if the mind and body are truly two separate things, I see no doubt that they are not connected, as skeptics have questioned.
3.) Pascal thought that if you gamble on God and lose, you lose nothing. I agree that this argument is logical at first glance, but I disagree that it's something that can easily be put into practice. Obviously, if you believe but lose you lose nothing, and if you win you win everything, that makes sense. But once you start digging into the argument, I feel that it loses it's persuasiveness. First of all, I don't think someone can just start believing in God if they have already been skeptical or have never believed in the first place. And just because you do the motions of praying and going to church doesn't mean that you'll ever start to believe it. So why would God let you into heaven if he knew that you didn't truly believe and were only going through the motions to be safe? The second flaw I see is that Pascal believed that only a few people have already been preselected to get into heaven. To me, that contradicts his entire argument about the wager. How can you gamble on God if God has already decided if you will get into heaven or not? And even if you did end up believing, since only a few people get into heaven, there's probably a big chance that you wouldn't end up in heaven anyway. There could also be the possibility, like the book pointed out, that a different religion is correct so you'll still end up in hell anyway. The point is, I believe that initially Pascal's Wager sounds like a good idea, but is very flawed once you really think about it.
Delete10. To the "sick soul," what seems blind and shallow?
ReplyDeleteOptimism is blind and shallow because there is so much uncertainty and suffering, which is against the healthy soul who lives in an optimistic mind. The sick soul finds the healthy soul’s outlook not cumulative enough because they are ignoring suffering that is a real part of life
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
He thought you potentially lose eternal happiness because you have given up earthly pleasures to live ith religious restrictions. In a way, it makes sense because why would you risk a loss that would effect you for an infinite amount of time for finite pleasures. However, belief shouldn’t be just about what you can gain or what is the punishment for it.
1. Descartes's Method of doubt was mean tot lead t certainty. He wanted to doubt everything until he found something that was undoubtly true, which lead to 'I think, therefore I am'. Pyrrho disguarded any certainty or the possibility of any certainty in anything. He was completely and fully skeptical of all things. Descartes' approach is more practical because it is impossible to be certain about everything but it is needed to make decisions without perfect certainty because we must progress our lives.
Section 2
DeleteSection #2 (1pm)
ReplyDelete1. The Method of Cartesian Doubt was that if there was even the slightest bit of doubt that something is untrue then you cannot accept it. Unlike Pyrrho, Descartes wanted to show why nothing could be known and not just blindly believe and doubt everything. I think Descartes' way is more sensible then Pyrrho's. At least for Descartes, he sought out why he could not trust something. I think the state of mind that Descartes sought could be achieved partially. It is pretty reasonable to doubt certain things but questioning existence is a bit much. It is understandable that there may not be actually proof of actually doing something or if reality is real, but I think it is farfetched.
4. Pascal's best-known book was Pensées. I do not think his aphoristic style is bad. Being more straightforward and concise can make his words more understandable.
5. Pascal's argument about God is called Pascal's Wager. I think this only works depending on what you believe in and what religion you are thinking of. You can live like God exists but if getting into heaven requires true faith then it would not work. If getting into heaven is based on actions, then it may work.
Tyler Scherr - H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
4. Pensees (Thoughts) and I'm not sure how I feel about it.
5. Pascal's wager. It is appealing but I enjoy games of chance so I might have bias.
6. You lose nothing, I agree in theory.
LHP 4). pascals best known book was the pensées. I'm actually quite fond of the idea of using short paragraphs to prove a point. many people just use one example and run with it but the question arises of would this apply to other situations. since pascal uses short segments that aren't all focused on one thing it allows for the proving of many different subjects and how his beliefs can flourish among multiple categories unless I'm reading that wrong.
ReplyDeleteLHP 6). Pascal argues that if you gamble on God and loose then you wont have made a substantial sacrifice. personally I agree and in i sense I have gambled on God and for e at least it has done nothing but improve my life. I've made friends, gotten a job, and overall had a better more positive outlook on my life because I've have placed more value on myself and what I am trying to achieve, but I wont go into the nitty gritty details right now.
LHP 7). Based off of the text id say it is true because there are many religions and many ideas of what the after life could be and many find that it is something other than Christianity. but with that said if you just want to gamble in an attempt to improve your life id say Christianity is the best bet as its primary belief is to love all and if you truly fully follow all of the ideals then your life will be fulfilled. I myself am still learning but for the time being this is the conclusion that I have come to.
Section 3
ReplyDelete4. Pascal's best known book is known as Pensées. I think his particular style makes the arguments memorable because he gets straight to the point and I like that this method makes it easier to discuss the topics.
5. Pascal's argument about God is known as Pascal's wager. His basic idea is that if you are uncertain whether God exists or not, you should consider what you gain or lose from each choice you make. Pascal believes that believing in God is the safer choice. While I think this argument is intriguing, I don't think that simply choosing to believe in God is enough, you have to truly have faith in the ideas.
6. Pascal thought that if you gamble on God, you lose nothing. his idea was that if God doesn't exist, believing in God doesn't cost you much, but if He does, then you have a chance at eternal happiness.
Section 3 LHP
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? Descartes thought you could figure out what was really true if you kept this mindset. Pyrrho thought nothing could really be true, and lived his life in extreme skepticism about literally everything. I think Descartes’ approach was much more sensible. Pyrrho’s was risky and likely put his life in danger at times. I do think that being so frantic to prove the existence of something sounds extremely stressful, though. It would take a lot of rationalizing as a skeptic to prove anything.
2.
He did not. The only thing he claimed to know was that he existed. Sometimes, I think I am dreaming. I often have lucid dreams, and use the hand trick to induce them. Almost always in dreams, the brain distorts your five fingers and they will not look correct. So if you look down at your hands multiple times in the waking day, you are likely to do it in your dreams and notice they look incorrect, inducing a lucid dream. So, I don’t really ever feel like I am dreaming. Or if I did, I would look down at my hands.
6. I think Pascal’s argument is completely based on the idea that God sends people who do not believe straight to hell. In my opinion, if there is a good and perfect god, they would not send anyone at all to a bad place. This concept is hard for even me to wrap my mind around, since there are certainly some very evil people that I think should go to a bad afterlife and cannot conceptualize them being able to join a perfect, good god in happiness. So for me, Pascal’s view is very much based in Christian fear mongering saying that people, even if they are perfectly good people, will go to hell simply for not believing. I can further this point by arguing that ancient humans, and humans in different cultures would have never even heard of Christianity but I think it would be incorrect to rationalize that all those people must have gone to a bad afterlife simply for not being educated on something.