Presentations:
19 Berkeley, Leibniz, Hume, or Rousseau -
*Rousseau - #1 Megan #2 aidyn
**How to Think Like Marcus Aurelius - #3 Chenoa
Leibniz - #1 Daniel
LHP
1. How did Samuel Johnson "refute" Berkeley's theory? Did he succeed? Why or why not?
2. What made Berkeley an idealist, and an immaterialist? Are you one, the other, both, neither?
3. In what way did Berkeley claim to be more consistent than Locke? DId Berkeley have a point about that?
4. What was Berkeley's Latin slogan? Do you think existence depends upon being perceived?
5. What obvious difficulty does Berkeley's theory face? Is it possible to have ideas that are consistent (non-contradictory) but still about non-realities?
6. What English poet declared that "whatever is, is right," and what German philosopher (with his "Principle of Sufficient Reason") agreed with the poet? Does this imply that nothing is ever wrong or bad? Is it really possible or reasonable to believe this?
7. What French champion of free speech and religious toleration wrote a satirical novel/play ridiculing the idea that everything is right (for the best)?
8. What 1755 catastrophe deeply influenced Voltaire's philosophy? Do you have a philosophical perspective on natural catastrophes that makes rational and moral sense of them?
9. What did Voltaire mean by "cultivating our garden"? Do you agree with hin?
10. Did Hume think the human eye is so flawless in its patterned intricacy that, like Paley's watch, it constitutes powerful evidence of intelligent design? Why would an omnipotent designer design a flawed organ?
11. What was Hume's definition of "miracle"? Did he think we should usually believe others' reports of having witnessed a miracle? Where would you draw the line between events that are highly improbable and events that are impossible (according to known laws)?
12. Rousseau said we're born free but everywhere are in ____, but can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community, aka the _______. Are we all more free when we act not only for ourselves but for the good of the whole community (world, species)?
Weiner ch3
- What were Rousseau's "multitudes"? Most of all he was a ___. Are you one?
- Rousseau's philosophy can be summed up in what four words? What does he claim is our "natural state"? (Note the contrast with Hobbes's "state of nature" that we previously discussed.) Do you agree more with him, with Hobbes, or with neither? Is it prudent to generalize about human nature?
- Who were some other peripatetics (walking philosophers) named by Weiner? This approach to thinking "gives the lie" to what myth? Do you know how Diogenes "solved" Zeno's paradoxes of motion? [See * below]
- How was Rousseau like Socrates? Are you, too?
- What is Rousseau's legacy to us? How does he contrast with Descartes? What did he foresee?
https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks19/1900981h.html
"...In Hume’s ‘Of Miracles’ in Section X of his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he sets out what he considers a decisive case to show that we are not justified in believing in miracles. Beginning with the proposition that we should proportion our belief in accordance with the strength of the available evidence, Hume observes that the sole evidence most of us ever have for any miracle is usually that of the testimony of others. But hearsay is not particularily strong evidence. He goes on to conclude that the testimony in favour of a miracle can never balance, let alone outweigh, the evidence a gainst it, especially when it contravenes accepted natural law...
...I have not seen anyone raised from the dead, nor have I seen the Sun dance in the sky. On the other hand, I do not wish to seem rude by impugning the integrity of people who do claim to have witnessed such things. I suspect that such events will be fondly remembered as highlights of their lives. Therefore, with Hume, I take the polite course, and can only comment that, not having seen it for myself, I will always have better reasons for not believing such reports than for believing them." Paul Warwick
HWT
1. In what way was the idea of a separable soul a "corruption"? What French philosopher of the 17th century defended it? What Scottish skeptic of the 18th century disputed it?
2. What do Owen Flanagan's findings suggest, that contrasts with Aristotle's view of human nature?
3. If you ask an American and a Japanese about their occupation, how might they respond differently?
FL
1. What amazing theme park was erected in Brooklyn at the turn of the 20th century?
2. Who was Robert Love Taylor?
3. What was Birth of a Nation?
4. What did H.L. Mencken say about southerners?
5. What did The New Theology say about the supernatural?
6. How did Modernists reconcile science and religion?
7. What famous trial was held in Tennessee in 1925, and what did Clarence Darrow say about it, and what was its cultural impact?
...pondering the happy connection between philosophy and a good brisk walk.
If there is one idea intellectuals can agree upon it is that the act of ambulation – or as we say in the midwest, walking – often serves as a catalyst to creative contemplation and thought. It is a belief as old as the dust that powders the Acropolis, and no less fine. Followers of the Greek Aristotle were known as peripatetics because they passed their days strolling and mind-wrestling through the groves of the Academe. The Romans’ equally high opinion of walking was summed up pithily in the Latin proverb: “It is solved by walking.” [Solvitur ambulando, as Diogenes said to Zeno as he literally walked away in demonstrating motion and change]
Nearly every philosopher-poet worth his salt has voiced similar sentiments. Erasmus recommended a little walk before supper and “after supper do the same.” Thomas Hobbes had an inkwell built into his walking stick to more easily jot down his brainstorms during his rambles. Jean- Jacques Rousseau claimed he could only meditate when walking: “When I stop, I cease to think,” he said. “My mind only works with my legs.” Søren Kierkegaard believed he’d walked himself into his best thoughts. In his brief life Henry David Thoreau walked an estimated 250,000 miles, or ten times the circumference of earth. “I think that I cannot preserve my health and spirits,” wrote Thoreau, “unless I spend four hours a day at least – and it is commonly more than that – sauntering through the woods and over the hills and fields absolutely free from worldly engagements.” Thoreau’s landlord and mentor Ralph Waldo Emerson characterized walking as “gymnastics for the mind.”
In order that he might remain one of the fittest, Charles Darwin planted a 1.5 acre strip of land with hazel, birch, privet, and dogwood, and ordered a wide gravel path built around the edge. Called Sand-walk, this became Darwin’s ‘thinking path’ where he roamed every morning and afternoon with his white fox-terrier. Of Bertrand Russell, long-time friend Miles Malleson has written: “Every morning Bertie would go for an hour’s walk by himself, composing and thinking out his work for that day. He would then come back and write for the rest of the morning, smoothly, easily and without a single correction.”
None of these laggards, however, could touch Friedrich Nietzsche, who held that “all truly great thoughts are conceived by walking.” Rising at dawn, Nietzsche would stalk through the countryside till 11 a.m. Then, after a short break, he would set out on a two-hour hike through the forest to Lake Sils. After lunch he was off again, parasol in hand, returning home at four or five o’clock, to commence the day’s writing.
Not surprisingly, the romantic poets were walkers extraordinaire. William Wordsworth traipsed fourteen or so miles a day through the Lake District, while Coleridge and Shelley were almost equally energetic. According to biographer Leslie Stephen, “The (English) literary movement at the end of the 18th century was…due in great part, if not mainly, to the renewed practice of walking.”
Armed with such insights, one must wonder whether the recent decline in walking hasn’t led to a corresponding decline in thinking. Walking, as both a mode of transportation and a recreational activity, began to fall off noticeably with the rise of the automobile, and took a major nosedive in the 1950s. Fifty plus years of automobile-centric design has reduced the number of sidewalks and pedestrian-friendly spaces to a bare minimum (particularly in the American west). All of the benefits of walking: contemplation, social intercourse, exercise, have been willingly exchanged for the dubious advantages of speed and convenience, although the automobile alone cannot be blamed for the maddening acceleration of everyday life. The modern condition is one of hurry, a perpetual rush hour that leaves little time for meditation. No wonder then that in her history of walking, Rebecca Solnit mused that “modern life is moving faster than the speed of thought, or thoughtfulness,” which seems the antithesis of Wittgenstein’s observation that in the race of philosophy, the prize goes to the slowest.
If we were to compare the quantity and quality of thinkers of the early 20th century with those of today, one cannot help but notice the dearth of Einsteins, William Jameses, Eliots and Pounds, Freuds, Jungs, Keynes, Picassos, Stravinskys, Wittgensteins, Sartres, Deweys, Yeats and Joyces. But it would be foolish to suggest that we have no contemporaries equal to Freud, et al. That would be doing an injustice to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Edward O. Wilson, James D. Watson, and the recently departed Stephen J. Gould. But as to their walking habits, they varied. Gould, a soft, flabby man, made light of his lack of exercise. Edward O. Wilson writes that he “walks as much as (his) body allows,” and used to jog up until his forties. Watson, the discoverer of the DNA molecule, frequently haunts the grounds of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, particularly on weekends, and is said to be both a nature-lover and bird-watcher.
There seems no scientific basis to link the disparate acts of walking and thinking, though that didn’t stop Mark Twain from speculating that “walking is good to time the movement of the tongue by, and to keep the blood and the brain stirred up and active.” Others have concluded that walking’s two-point rhythm clears the mind for creative study and reflection....
To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, walking remains for me the best “of all exercises.” Even so, I am full of excuses to stay put. My neighborhood has no sidewalks and it is downright dangerous to stroll the streets at night; if the threat does not come directly from thugs, then from drunken teens in speeding cars. There are certainly no Philosophers’ Walks in my hometown, as there are near the universities of Toronto, Heidelberg, and Kyoto. Nor are there any woods, forests, mountains or glens. “When we walk, we naturally go to the fields and the woods,” said Thoreau. “What would become of us, if we only walked in a garden or a mall?” I suppose I am what becomes of us, Henry.
At noon, if the weather cooperates, I may join a few other nameless office drudges on a stroll through the riverfront park. My noon walk is a brief burst of freedom in an otherwise long, dreary servitude. Though I try to reserve these solitary walks for philosophical ruminations, my subconscious doesn’t always cooperate. Often I find my thoughts to be pedestrian and worrisome in nature. I fret over money problems, or unfinished office work and my attempts to brush these thoughts away as unworthy are rarely successful. Then, again, in the evenings I sometimes take my two dachshunds for a stroll. For a dog, going for a walk is the ultimate feelgood experience. Mention the word ‘walkies’ to a wiener dog, and he is immediately transported into new dimensions of bliss. I couldn’t produce a similar reaction in my wife if I proposed that we take the Concorde to Paris for the weekend. Rather than suffer a walk, my son would prefer to have his teeth drilled.
In no way am I suggesting that all of society’s ills can be cured by a renaissance of walking. But maybe – just maybe – a renewed interest in walking may spur some fresh scientific discoveries, a unique literary movement, a new vein of philosophy. If nothing else it will certainly improve our health both physically and mentally. Of course that would mean getting out from behind the desk at noon and getting some fresh air. That would mean shutting down the television in the evenings and breathing in the Great Outdoors. And, ultimately, it would involve a change in thinking and a shift in behavior, as opposed to a change of channels and a shift into third.
A contemporary peripatetic philosopher, and past MTSU Lyceum lecturer (Fall '25): Does being in motion change how we think? Tracing the connections between thinking and transit—including walking, being transported by a vehicle, and many other modes—this innovative book shows how embodiment and movement deepen, expand, and transform creative thought... g'rDr. Megan Craig, Stony Brook University, at MTSU’s Applied Philosophy Lyceum
Full lecture: https://jcbmtsu.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=f4a600a0-37e1-405f-a5e8-b35a012181b6&start=660
Joined in progress (from closer range):
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZhTSYE66Jg0&feature=shared
==
Peripatetic philosophy:
* The Gymnasiums of the Mind
If there is one idea intellectuals can agree upon it is that the act of ambulation – or as we say in the midwest, walking – often serves as a catalyst to creative contemplation and thought. It is a belief as old as the dust that powders the Acropolis, and no less fine. Followers of the Greek Aristotle were known as peripatetics because they passed their days strolling and mind-wrestling through the groves of the Academe. The Romans’ equally high opinion of walking was summed up pithily in the Latin proverb: “It is solved by walking.” [Solvitur ambulando, as Diogenes said to Zeno as he literally walked away in demonstrating motion and change]
Nearly every philosopher-poet worth his salt has voiced similar sentiments. Erasmus recommended a little walk before supper and “after supper do the same.” Thomas Hobbes had an inkwell built into his walking stick to more easily jot down his brainstorms during his rambles. Jean- Jacques Rousseau claimed he could only meditate when walking: “When I stop, I cease to think,” he said. “My mind only works with my legs.” Søren Kierkegaard believed he’d walked himself into his best thoughts. In his brief life Henry David Thoreau walked an estimated 250,000 miles, or ten times the circumference of earth. “I think that I cannot preserve my health and spirits,” wrote Thoreau, “unless I spend four hours a day at least – and it is commonly more than that – sauntering through the woods and over the hills and fields absolutely free from worldly engagements.” Thoreau’s landlord and mentor Ralph Waldo Emerson characterized walking as “gymnastics for the mind.”
In order that he might remain one of the fittest, Charles Darwin planted a 1.5 acre strip of land with hazel, birch, privet, and dogwood, and ordered a wide gravel path built around the edge. Called Sand-walk, this became Darwin’s ‘thinking path’ where he roamed every morning and afternoon with his white fox-terrier. Of Bertrand Russell, long-time friend Miles Malleson has written: “Every morning Bertie would go for an hour’s walk by himself, composing and thinking out his work for that day. He would then come back and write for the rest of the morning, smoothly, easily and without a single correction.”
None of these laggards, however, could touch Friedrich Nietzsche, who held that “all truly great thoughts are conceived by walking.” Rising at dawn, Nietzsche would stalk through the countryside till 11 a.m. Then, after a short break, he would set out on a two-hour hike through the forest to Lake Sils. After lunch he was off again, parasol in hand, returning home at four or five o’clock, to commence the day’s writing.
Not surprisingly, the romantic poets were walkers extraordinaire. William Wordsworth traipsed fourteen or so miles a day through the Lake District, while Coleridge and Shelley were almost equally energetic. According to biographer Leslie Stephen, “The (English) literary movement at the end of the 18th century was…due in great part, if not mainly, to the renewed practice of walking.”
Armed with such insights, one must wonder whether the recent decline in walking hasn’t led to a corresponding decline in thinking. Walking, as both a mode of transportation and a recreational activity, began to fall off noticeably with the rise of the automobile, and took a major nosedive in the 1950s. Fifty plus years of automobile-centric design has reduced the number of sidewalks and pedestrian-friendly spaces to a bare minimum (particularly in the American west). All of the benefits of walking: contemplation, social intercourse, exercise, have been willingly exchanged for the dubious advantages of speed and convenience, although the automobile alone cannot be blamed for the maddening acceleration of everyday life. The modern condition is one of hurry, a perpetual rush hour that leaves little time for meditation. No wonder then that in her history of walking, Rebecca Solnit mused that “modern life is moving faster than the speed of thought, or thoughtfulness,” which seems the antithesis of Wittgenstein’s observation that in the race of philosophy, the prize goes to the slowest.
If we were to compare the quantity and quality of thinkers of the early 20th century with those of today, one cannot help but notice the dearth of Einsteins, William Jameses, Eliots and Pounds, Freuds, Jungs, Keynes, Picassos, Stravinskys, Wittgensteins, Sartres, Deweys, Yeats and Joyces. But it would be foolish to suggest that we have no contemporaries equal to Freud, et al. That would be doing an injustice to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Edward O. Wilson, James D. Watson, and the recently departed Stephen J. Gould. But as to their walking habits, they varied. Gould, a soft, flabby man, made light of his lack of exercise. Edward O. Wilson writes that he “walks as much as (his) body allows,” and used to jog up until his forties. Watson, the discoverer of the DNA molecule, frequently haunts the grounds of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, particularly on weekends, and is said to be both a nature-lover and bird-watcher.
There seems no scientific basis to link the disparate acts of walking and thinking, though that didn’t stop Mark Twain from speculating that “walking is good to time the movement of the tongue by, and to keep the blood and the brain stirred up and active.” Others have concluded that walking’s two-point rhythm clears the mind for creative study and reflection....
To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, walking remains for me the best “of all exercises.” Even so, I am full of excuses to stay put. My neighborhood has no sidewalks and it is downright dangerous to stroll the streets at night; if the threat does not come directly from thugs, then from drunken teens in speeding cars. There are certainly no Philosophers’ Walks in my hometown, as there are near the universities of Toronto, Heidelberg, and Kyoto. Nor are there any woods, forests, mountains or glens. “When we walk, we naturally go to the fields and the woods,” said Thoreau. “What would become of us, if we only walked in a garden or a mall?” I suppose I am what becomes of us, Henry.
At noon, if the weather cooperates, I may join a few other nameless office drudges on a stroll through the riverfront park. My noon walk is a brief burst of freedom in an otherwise long, dreary servitude. Though I try to reserve these solitary walks for philosophical ruminations, my subconscious doesn’t always cooperate. Often I find my thoughts to be pedestrian and worrisome in nature. I fret over money problems, or unfinished office work and my attempts to brush these thoughts away as unworthy are rarely successful. Then, again, in the evenings I sometimes take my two dachshunds for a stroll. For a dog, going for a walk is the ultimate feelgood experience. Mention the word ‘walkies’ to a wiener dog, and he is immediately transported into new dimensions of bliss. I couldn’t produce a similar reaction in my wife if I proposed that we take the Concorde to Paris for the weekend. Rather than suffer a walk, my son would prefer to have his teeth drilled.
In no way am I suggesting that all of society’s ills can be cured by a renaissance of walking. But maybe – just maybe – a renewed interest in walking may spur some fresh scientific discoveries, a unique literary movement, a new vein of philosophy. If nothing else it will certainly improve our health both physically and mentally. Of course that would mean getting out from behind the desk at noon and getting some fresh air. That would mean shutting down the television in the evenings and breathing in the Great Outdoors. And, ultimately, it would involve a change in thinking and a shift in behavior, as opposed to a change of channels and a shift into third.
© CHRISTOPHER ORLET 2004
Christopher Orlet is an essayist and book critic. His work appears often in The American Spectator, the London Guardian, and Salon.com. Visit his homepage at www.christopherorlet.net
https://philosophynow.org/issues/44/The_Gymnasiums_of_the_Mind
==
A contemporary peripatetic philosopher, and past MTSU Lyceum lecturer (Fall '25): Does being in motion change how we think? Tracing the connections between thinking and transit—including walking, being transported by a vehicle, and many other modes—this innovative book shows how embodiment and movement deepen, expand, and transform creative thought... g'r
Full lecture: https://jcbmtsu.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=f4a600a0-37e1-405f-a5e8-b35a012181b6&start=660
Joined in progress (from closer range):
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZhTSYE66Jg0&feature=shared
==
John Kaag: “James says, no, reality always outstrips the descriptions of it — and that’s for the best.”
NYTimes: Psychedelics Blew His Mind. He Wants Other Philosophers to Open Theirs.
"The findings of psychedelics wouldn't have surprised Heraclitus, Plato, Plotinus, Spinoza, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Emerson, Nietzsche and, most certainly, William James," John Kaag, a philosopher at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell and an expert on James, told me. Only over the past 100 years has the discipline, through an "analytic turn," been "trying to reduce all of human experience to the understandable, to the explicable," he said. "And James says, no, reality always outstrips the descriptions of it — and that's for the best."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/21/books/review/justin-smith-ruiu-on-drugs-philosophy.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
==
The Presocratics
"For the most part, these are thinkers of the sixth and fifth centuries BC. They weren't a group in any sense of the word, they mostly didn't know each other."
https://fivebooks.com/best-books/angela-hobbs-on-the-presocratics/
https://fivebooks.com/best-books/angela-hobbs-on-the-presocratics/
==
If you were Boethius…
I'll bet Neil Degrasse Tyson didn't see this question coming:
https://www.threads.com/@philosophyofaphysicist/post/DO-wagGkj5g?xmt=AQF0OfmKn_aG8HZrECt34ZmFq1LAmOTLWmIKMP25AddsiA&slof=1
https://www.threads.com/@philosophyofaphysicist/post/DO-wagGkj5g?xmt=AQF0OfmKn_aG8HZrECt34ZmFq1LAmOTLWmIKMP25AddsiA&slof=1
4. What was Berkeley's Latin slogan? Do you think existence depends upon being perceived?
ReplyDeleteHis Latin slogan was “Esse est percipi,” translated as “To be is to be perceived.” I do not agree with this at all. In my opinion, according to the fact that object permanence exists, it should be fairly obvious that things continue to exist when they are not being perceived. Another reason I disagree with this slogan is that we can observe results of things that happened long ago with no one to observe them, such as the formation of galaxies millions of years ago. Even though no human observed these events, their effects can still be seen, and so they must have happened. Additionally, “observance” is not very clearly defined. If I video something happening without being present myself and then later watch the video back, did the camera itself “perceive” the event happening, or am I the one observing the event after the fact by way of the video? Do I retroactively cause the event to happen by watching the video back later? Are cameras able to force things to exist simply by being pointed at them? While this is fun to think about, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
8. What 1755 catastrophe deeply influenced Voltaire's philosophy? Do you have a philosophical perspective on natural catastrophes that makes rational and moral sense of them?
The earthquake in Lisbon, Portugal was the event that deeply influenced Voltaire in this way. The earthquake was followed by a tsunami and widespread fires that ravaged the city for weeks.
My perspective on natural catastrophes is based more on my religious beliefs than a philosophical perspective. I believe that destructive natural disasters happen simply by merit of the world being “fallen” as a result of sin. There isn’t really a reason for them.
9. What did Voltaire mean by "cultivating our garden"? Do you agree with him?
In one sense, Voltaire suggested “cultivating our garden” as a way of saying that people should keep themselves occupied by doing activities or working. A person who sits and theorizes all day rather than accomplishing something will quickly go insane. He also meant it as a call to action. “Cultivating our garden” is his way of saying “Make a difference.” In saying this, Voltaire is encouraging the reader to go out and do something good in the world in order to make it better rather than simply contemplating what the right thing to do might be.
I very much agree with him, and would even go as far as to say this is one of my own personal philosophies. I strongly believe in keeping oneself occupied with work, as well as in making a tangible difference in the world through my own actions.
1. How did Samuel Johnson "refute" Berkeley's theory? Did he succeed? Why or why not? Samuel Johnson “refuted: Berkeley’s theory by kicking a very large stone with great force and saying, “I refute this.” He did not succeed in refuting Berkeley’s theory because Johnson’s action of kicking the rock did not prove that the rock existed when it was not being perceived.
ReplyDelete4. What was Berkeley's Latin slogan? Do you think existence depends upon being perceived? Berkeley’s Latin slogan was ‘esse est percipi’, which translates to ‘to be is to be perceived’. I don’t think existence depends upon being perceived. I think that all objects exist even when you’re not actively perceiving them, because for example, how would your food cook? If you were to put dinner in the microwave for 5 minutes, and then go to the bathroom, how would it be done cooking by the time you get back if it stopped existing when you left?
7. What French champion of free speech and religious toleration wrote a satirical novel/play ridiculing the idea that everything is right (for the best)? Voltaire was the French champion of free speech and religious toleration who wrote a satirical novel/play ridiculing the idea that everything is right/for the best. The satirical novel was titled ‘Candide’ and it ridicules the optimistic philosophy “all is for the best” through the eyes of Professor Pangloss.
LHP
ReplyDelete1. How did Samuel Johnson "refute" Berkeley's theory? Did he succeed? Why or why not?
Samuel Johnson said he was certain that material things do exist and aren’t just composed of ideas. He could feel a stone that he kicked in the street. He didn’t exactly succeed. To Berkeley, feeling doesn’t prove the existence of material objects; it only proves the idea of them. Objects are only what we call the sensations they give rise to. There is no reality behind the ideas we have. While I see what Samuel Johnson was trying to do in an attempt to refute Berkeley’s theory, I don’t think he successfully proved that things are real. We experience objects in many ways, including sight, touch, sound, etc., but these experiences from our senses don’t actually prove them to be real; our senses are flawed, and might not be capable of depicting “reality.”
2. What made Berkeley an idealist, and an immaterialist? Are you one, the other, both, neither?
Berkeley was an idealist because he believed that all that exist are ideas, and he was an immaterialist because he denied that physical objects exist. I don’t think I fall into either one of these categories. While I acknowledge that we have no real way of knowing, I like to think that some kind of “reality” actually exists, and while our senses are not always accurate, we are able to in part perceive that reality through them. Because of this, I have to say that physical objects exist and that reality exists in more than just an idea. Even if our perception of reality is not always accurate, I think it exists in physical forms.
9. What did Voltaire mean by "cultivating our garden"? Do you agree with him?
When Voltaire said, “we must cultivate our garden,” he meant that we need to do something useful for humanity rather than just talking about abstract philosophical questions. I think I do agree with him. I think it’s important to take action and accomplish things instead of just thinking about them. It’s important to take actions if you want to make an impact—if entrepreneurs and activists never took action, nothing would have changed, and the discussions about the problems they were trying to solve would’ve amounted to nothing.
Berkley claimed to be more consistent than Locke because there aren't any holes in his way of thinking. Locke's philosophy proposed a lot of questions and there were many holes. Berkley believed that we perceive the world directly and the world subsequently only exists in people's minds. I think that Berkley had a point, I could get behind this one and I understood it but I couldn't really for Locke's.
ReplyDeleteBerkley's slogan is “To be is to be perceived. I agree in some ways but not all. I think that just because you don't know something is happening doesn't mean it isn't happening. If nobody is around to see a tree fall the noise still happened because thats just how the world works. OI understand that the question looks on how the world works, but I find it hard to fully accept any of these philosophies.
Alexander Pope was the philosopher who thought evil had its place in the world in the grand scheme of things coming to the conclusion that "whatever is, is right" and German philosopher Leibniz agreed. I feel like in a way it says things aren't necessarily wrong or bad because they were supposed to happen, but I also think that they understand that it can still be upsetting.
section #1
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDelete1)
English poet Alexander Pope declared that "whatever is, is right," and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz supported this idea with his "Principle of Sufficient Reason." I believe that Liebniz's and Pope's philosophy ultimately does imply that nothing is ever wrong/bad. Sure, they acknowledge that "bad" still exists, but, to my understanding, they also argue that the terrible things that happen aren't necessarily evil. In contrast to Pope and Leibniz, I believe that bad things are simply that... bad.
2)
Voltaire's satirical novel "Candide" mocked the optimistic views of Leibniz and Pope, presenting a world of suffering in which "this is for the best" sounds absurd. On a side note, I wonder how Leibniz and Pope would react to the Epstein Files.
3)
By asking us to cultivate our garden, Voltaire is pushing us to stop, or rather slow down, speculating about the state of the world, and instead focus on actively improving the situation. He claimed we must focus on making purposeful changes and on helping others (and, in the process, ourselves).
Section #1
ReplyDelete1. Berkeley's Latin phrase is Esse est percipi, which means that to exist is to be perceived. Objects exist as ideas, and require minds that experience them. But even when human minds aren’t there to hear a tree fall, God still is. I don’t think existence requires being perceived; to me, that puts too much emphasis on the way others view us, and makes us almost like the objects of our own lives, rather than the subjects. Identity and existence come from within, not from external forces.
2. Voltaire wrote Candide in 1759, a story which satirizes Leipnitz's optimistic view of the world. In the story, Candide travels the world with his philosophy teacher, witnessing disasters, suffering, and wickedness. The whole time, Candide’s teacher, Dr. Pangloss, continues to view these events as evidence that this is the best possible world, that these events are necessary evils, but by the end of the book Candide no longer agrees, even abandoning the practice of philosophy to “cultivate his garden.”
3. Rousseau said, “Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Living in cities, not nature, has caused man to become greedy and corrupt, in constant competition for resources. The only way to be free is to set aside our own selfish goals, and instead seek what is best for the community as a whole. This is the General Will; in order to be free, some sacrifices of personal liberty or will must be made. While I disagree that those who do not desire the General Will must be forced to be free, I think that working in the community’s best interests at the very least brings a sense of intellectual freedom. It takes critical thinking to decide what is best for everyone and how to best accomplish those things.
1. How was Rousseau like Socrates? Are you, too?
ReplyDeleteHe enjoyed the little things in life and found meaning in that. I agree with him, you should find meaning in the little things and look forward to the big things.
2.How did Samuel Johnson "refute" Berkeley's theory? Did he succeed? Why or why not?
Berkeley said that by looking at the eye, you can prove an all-powerful god. Samuel said that at most it could prove intelligent design but not an all powerful god.
3. What did Voltaire mean by "cultivating our garden"? Do you agree with him?
He meant to contribute positively to the world, like donating to charity or becoming a doctor. I do agree that helping out fellow man is an important thing we can do with our lives.
#1
ReplyDeleteLHP
Unfortunately, I don't have as much time as normal, and I shot my fingers with lazers too many times today, so they hurt a lot. My answers therefore will be briefer than normal. I do apologize.
First of all-- and I'm not certain this will count for credit but I do think it's worth mentioning as it regards to philosophy. A fellow student (not of philosophy) who shall go unnamed claimed to be a certified cheater and challenged me on the ethics of cheating.
I am of the opinion that cheating is wrong-- and there are many reasons why, but to find a reason that would work for him, I first asked after his definition of cheating and then his definition of morally wrong. Although he answered the former, he was loath to answer the latter, so after I provided an example of something that was clearly morally wrong, we continued.
Unfortunately, we couldn't finish the discussion (and indeed it took a lot of time away that I could have been reading the chapters and typing up my responses to questions), but I found it to be philosophy in its own way and well worth the time to question my own beliefs and come up with definitions and examples and concrete reasons why instead of vague notions. I feel that is what this class should be about. I ended up inviting him to talk with me later about it if we ran into each other again and I will invite him to explain to me why, in his opinion, it is morally right to cheat.
Define your ideas for others my friends before you let them define you. Think before you act.
Now with that out of the way, let's jump right into today's questions.
3. In what way did Berkeley claim to be more consistent than Locke? Did Berkeley have a point about that?
Locke claimed there were 3 levels to the world Secondary qualities, primary qualities, and then the real thing that we can't observe. Well, Berkley said that if we can't perceive (have an idea of it) it it doesn't exist. He never claimed there was a real world out there that we can check in on and that our perceptions differ from it. He says our perceptions aren't lying, they truly are the only things out there. They're ideas after all, and all that exists are ideas, how therefore could an idea-- which for our purposes are all that exists-- be a lie?
I'm not saying he has a point, but I'm not convinced by any arguments I've heard for a singular truth-- so his claims make a lot of sense to me. It also means that people are a lot more honest than we think they are, which is nice.
7. What French champion of free speech and religious toleration wrote a satirical novel/play ridiculing the idea that everything is right (for the best)?
Voltaire, it was called Candide, and I think you're missing the second half of this question.
Delete12. Rousseau said we're born free but everywhere are in chains, but can liberate ourselves by submitting to what is best for the whole community, aka the General Will. Are we all more free when we act not only for ourselves but for the good of the whole community (world, species)?
I wouldn't define free like that (probably because I grew up in America) but there is something to be said that it does make the world a better place. Free from worry, Free from potholes, Free from selfish jerks trying to influence politics for monetary gain. I like the appeal, however, if the wrong person defined General Will- we easily end up in 1984 and semi fascist to full fascist (freedom to not be free). If there was a truly General Will for the good of the world that wasn't corrupted by people, I'd happily put myself under that yolk (literally my dad challenged me-- asked if I'd keep working if I was keeping less than 10% of what I earn because it was all going to the good of the people (free healthcare, free transport, free lunches, free housing etc) and these goods were actually provided-- I immediately said yes I'd keep going down to nearly 0% of my wealth, especially if everyone else was doing the same. He said I was the strange one here).
Rousseau sounds like he was advocating for this. I can totally get behind that sort of society. Now his opinion on how all humans are innately good and society makes us bad is much harder to believe, but it sure sounds nice. If humanity was truly that good, I'd have hope for this sort of society.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteLittle History of Philosophy
4.) Esse est percipi- to be or to exist is to be perceived. I disagree with this wholeheartedly. I mean… we, as humans, can ignore things, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. An assignment due tomorrow can be, and I could ignore it, but that’s doesn’t change the due date just because I put it off. A streetlight at night still shines when no cars drive by. We may not be consciously thinking about that specific streetlight, but that doesn’t mean it disappears into thin air until we’re thinking about it again.
6.) Alexander Pope wrote this line, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz agreed with him. In their theories, they don’t necessarily imply everything that happens is good, but they do imply that everything does happen for a reason. That also mention that God purposely made the world imperfect because nothing can be as perfect as God. I do agree. Everything does happen for a reason. What I do disagree with is that everything that happens is good. An example used in the text are natural disasters— yes, I do believe that they’re in God’s plan, but that’s doesn’t make them any less of a tragedy. We can be upset when these things happen because we’re human, we’re going to feel emotions, and these things do also affect people’s lives and how they continue to live.
11.) Hume didn’t believe in miracles. He thought miracles defied the laws of nature, and therefore, he thought there were probable explanations for miracles, such as being mistaken or trying to trick you. I don’t draw lines at miracles because anything could happen. There have been many recoveries from diseases that doctors have said people wouldn’t have lived. Sure, it could just be a misconception on the doctor’s end, but it could also be a miracle. That’s where we can hold open the possibility. Some people just simply don’t want to believe miracles exist, which is fine, but I believe they do.
What was Berkeley's Latin slogan? Do you think existence depends upon being perceived? Berkley’s Latin phrase was “to be is to be perceived”. I somewhat agree and disagree that existence depends on being perceived, especially in a conventional sense. I can’t agree that the existence of anything relies on perception in a physical sense, based in the 5 senses alone. I believe there is so much beyond what we can grasp and understand here, and I believe in intangible things I cannot perceive. I believe reality is based in a shared perception of the things around us, much like what Voltaire explains, but I feel that things exist beyond us that we can’t fully understand.
ReplyDeleteWhat did Voltaire mean by "cultivating our garden"? Do you agree with him? Voltaire meant that instead of spending time laying back, contemplating life and the world, we should be proactive and contribute to our communities. I think Voltaire treasured finding ways to improve life and discovering ways to better the world on a small scale. Rather than dappling in metaphysics and the reason behind it all, he believed we should pursue meaningful work throughout our lives. I think there is a balance in philosophy, of contemplating the meaning of things, and hopefully finding a truth that leads you to live a fulfilling and happy life. To me, this is the most important version of the garden.
What were Rousseau's "multitudes"? Most of all he was a ___. Are you one? Rousseau was a philosopher, novelist, composer, essayist, botanist, autodidact, fugitive, political theories, masochist, most of all, he was a walker. While I must admit, I am not a walker to the extreme that Rousseau was; I do enjoy walking a lot. I relate in a way that sometimes I feel restless, and walking helps my thoughts flow, and I feel more creative, productive, and I can solve problems more easily. When I sit down and write for too long, I love to go outside and take a couple laps, because it inspires me. When I feel stressed out, walking helps me play out scenarios in my head and normally I can relax.
I have a question about Berkeley's theory. By his logic, would reality be "a dream molded by the dreamer", like G.K. Chesterton said?
ReplyDeletesection #3
ReplyDelete2.) Samuel Johnson just kicked a rock and said he refuted Berkeleys theory by proving that there was a physical sensation that accompanied the look of the rock, but that didnt actually refute anything because it only could prove the existence of an idea of a physical sensation of a hard rock.
4. Berkeley's slogan was esse es percipi. I think a lot of our perceptions are subjective but I think the answer to this question depends on your framing of the idea of existence.
Section #1
ReplyDelete7.) The French champion of free speech and religious toleration was Voltaire. He wrote Candide, a satirical novel that mocked the idea that everything happens for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Through exaggerated suffering and absurd events, Voltaire criticized blind optimism, especially the philosophy associated with Leibniz. Instead of accepting that all events are part of a perfect plan, Voltaire showed how unrealistic and even cruel that belief can sound in the face of real suffering.
8.) The catastrophe that deeply influenced Voltaire was the Lisbon Earthquake. The massive destruction and loss of life made it difficult to believe that such tragedy was part of a perfectly ordered and good plan. It pushed Voltaire to question optimistic philosophies that tried to justify evil and suffering. I think natural catastrophes make more sense when understood as part of the natural order rather than moral punishments or divine plans. They are tragic, but they do not necessarily carry moral meaning. Trying to force a moral explanation onto them can sometimes make the suffering seem even more confusing.
9.) When Voltaire said we must “cultivate our garden,” he meant that instead of speculating endlessly about why evil exists, we should focus on practical work and improving our own lives and communities. In Candide, this idea comes at the end, after the characters experience constant suffering and philosophical debates that lead nowhere. Voltaire suggests that productive action and personal responsibility are more meaningful than abstract optimism. I agree with him to an extent. While philosophy is important, constantly searching for ultimate explanations can distract us from actually doing good in the world.
Section #1
ReplyDelete1. How did Samuel Johnson "refute" Berkeley's theory? Did he succeed? Why or why not?
A: Samuel Johnson attempted to "refute" Berkeley's immaterialist theory by claiming that he could feel "stone hard against his toe when he kicked it." However, as sound as this argument may seem, it was ultimately ineffective against Berkeley's theory. Feeling the bluntness of a stone against your foot didn't prove the material existence of an object, Berkeley argued. It simply allows us to conjure the "idea" of a "hard stone," never guaranteeing the existence of a material behind the perceived sensations.
2. What made Berkeley an idealist, and an immaterialist? Are you one, the other, both, neither?
A: Berkeley was considered an idealist because he subscribed to the belief that ideas are all that exist; we observe physical manifestations of these "ideas." He was considered an immaterialist because he dismissed the veracity of a material world filled with physical objects. I personally don't conceptually align with either of these systems. I am able to interact with physical objects and I find it unlikely that said objects don't actually exist.
3. In what way did Berkeley claim to be more consistent than Locke? Did Berkeley have a point about that?
A: Berkeley claimed to be more consistent than Locke in his belief that "we do perceive the world directly." This perception, Berkeley argued, is gathered through the observation of "ideas." While I don't personally agree with Berkeley's theory, his means of categorization are certainly more consistent than that of Locke, who drew a distinction between "primary" and "secondary qualities."
Feb 19 LHP 15-18
ReplyDeleteLHP 4. “Esse est percipi”- to be (or exist) is to be perceived. I do not think that existence is reliant on being perceived. In fact, I think this is a deceptive feature of reality. We only have access to the world through our brains and eyes so it is impossible to view reality from someone else’s perspective. This gives us the illusion or misunderstanding that our reality is the only thing there is. I believe that there is a solid and consistent reality that underlies everyone and everything’s experience. However, no entity on earth has access to this reality. Our perception is taking one snapshot at a time and processing as much information as possible like a picture. In that regard, I am more Lockean about how I view reality.
LHP 5. Berkeley’s theory states that the world can only exist while being perceived. He fails to acknowledge the phenomenon of a shared reality. Two or more people can perceive an object at different times and at different angles and still agree on what the object is. I understand Berkeley if he was trying to pose a thought experiment about semantics, and how each person experiences reality in a different way. However, Berkeley does seem to contradict himself by saying that a real material world does not exist without being observed, but then goes on to say that God is observing the entire world all the time.
LHP 8. The 1755 Lisbon earthquake, tsunami, and fires led Voltaire to become more pessimistic about the nature of reality, and reject Leibniz’s idea that we exist in the “best of all possible worlds”. I see natural disasters as agents of change in the universe. When a wildfire scorches the earth, new flowers emerge with rich nutrients and the soil is revitalized with minerals. The disaster can be terrible for living things in the moment, and it is natural to grieve and suffer during a disaster. I am not saying that natural disasters are good or fair. However, I do not curse their existence, because they are to be expected no matter what. The only thing we can do is prepare.
LHP 9. Voltaire believed it was possible to become too preoccupied with philosophizing, and end up neglecting the pertinent tasks that sustain life. He reminds us that while philosophy has its time and place we must never forget the obstacle right in front of us. I enthusiastically agree with Voltaire, because I have found myself in this dilemma of thinking rather than doing so many times. A few years ago I had a philosophy phase with a group of my friends. We all lived together, and we sat around for hours discussing and arguing the deepest concepts we could find. We were not intentionally doing this, I just happen to have a friend group of highly curious people. What I realized was that we spent years trying to uncover truths about the world, but our physical state never changed. We still lived in a one bedroom apartment and had bills to cover, we had mediocre jobs, none of us were classically educated, and we all worked manual labor jobs. I enjoyed every second of those deep conversations, but one night I decided I was going to leave. I could not stay there philosophizing and dreaming any longer. I had to go out into the world and start living. I still find time to think deeply about the world, but cultivating my garden has become the priority.
Weiner 3. Rousseau left a legacy that encouraged democracy and freedom. His ideas pointed out the sacrifices required to live in a society. A person trades some of their freedoms for a protected and connected society. However, he also predicted where a society might go rotten. Rousseau noted that when people are forced to live in close proximity and work for others to climb a social ladder, this will lead to unhappiness, jealousy, and a degenerate society. Rousseau also gave more attention to the heart and feelings than he did rational thinking. In this way, he contrasts Descartes, who was a believer in logic and rationality. I think Rousseau is a powerful example of someone who felt deeply and strongly. Instead of feeling shame from his emotions, Rousseau allowed himself to experience what he needed to no matter how dramatic or petty.
DeleteLHP 1 - Samuel Johnson refuted Berkeley's theory by kicking a rock and saying, "I refute it thus." His point was that the ability to physically interact with things disproved Berkeley's idea that everything was only an idea or projection of what we think that thing is. I think Johnson was unsuccessful, as Berkeley's idea of things being ideas was not limited to sight, but all senses. By kicking the rock, you are only experiencing the idea of the physical sensation of doing that.
ReplyDeleteLHP 2 - Berkeley was an idealist (because he believed all existing things were our own ideas) and an immaterialist (because he denied the existence of true material objects). I'm neither. I think if everything that exists around us is only an idea of something, and truly nothing is material, what difference does it make? If I can sense and interact with these ideas in the same way I could do if these things were material, then what's the point of believing they aren't real? If I'm hammering in a nail, and the hammer is doing its job of pushing the nail further, then what difference would it make if the hammer was material or an "idea"?
Berkeley's belief that things do not exist if they aren't perceived actually lines up in a fun way with video game development. All objects that exist in a digital space must have their position and dimensions calculated within the game's world, and then other engines like lighting and particles (e.g. dust or water) must be calculated on top of that. This process is called rendering. In older generations of gaming, it was too taxing for computers and consoles to render every single object in a game world, so developers created a workaround: if it was not on the player's screen, the computer wouldn't render it. This way, items would only render if they were able to be perceived instead of still taking up processing power off-screen, which really helped to optimize games. In that sense, things would only "exist" if they were perceived, thus meshing with Berkeley's ideas in a fun way.
1. Samuel Johnson responded to Berkeley’s claim that material objects don’t exist independently of perception by kicking a stone and saying, “I refute it thus.” He believed the pain and solidity he felt proved the stone’s physical existence. However, Berkeley would argue this only proves the experience of hardness, not the existence of a material object beyond perception. So Johnson’s reaction appealed to common sense but did not logically disprove Berkeley’s argument.
ReplyDelete2. Berkeley is called an idealist because he believed reality consists only of ideas in minds. He is an immaterialist because he denied that physical matter exists independently of perception. According to him, objects are collections of ideas perceived by minds (and continuously perceived by God). Personally, I would be neither: while perception shapes our experience of reality, scientific evidence strongly supports the existence of a physical world independent of our minds.
3.Locke believed a real external world exists and that our minds perceive it indirectly through ideas. He argued that primary qualities (shape, size) reflect real properties, while secondary qualities (color, smell) arise from perception. Berkeley argued this was inconsistent: if all knowledge comes from experience, we can’t verify that our ideas resemble an external world we never directly access. Berkeley claimed greater consistency by saying we perceive reality directly because reality is ideas. He does have a point- Locke’s theory struggles to explain how we can know the external world’s true nature- but Berkeley’s solution requires accepting the counterintuitive claim that nothing exists outside perception.
LHP
ReplyDelete1. How did Samuel Johnson "refute" Berkeley's theory? Did he succeed? Why or why not?
Samuel Johnson "refuted" Berkeley's theory by kicking a stone in the street. Because he could feel the rock against his foot, he claimed that Berkeley's theory that all material objects are just ideas had been disproven. However, Berkeley's theory extended to all the senses, not just sight; just because Johnson could feel, see, and hear the stone didn't mean it really existed outside of Johnson's perceptions, according to Berkeley's logic.
2. What made Berkeley an idealist, and an immaterialist? Are you one, the other, both, neither?
Berkeley was an idealist, because he believed that all objects are simply collections of ideas, and he was an immaterialist because he did not believe that actual physical objects existed.
I do not agree with either idea. I believe that certainly our senses can fool us at times into misinterpreting reality, but for the most part, what they tell us is there is actually there. The whole "if a tree falls in a forest when there is nobody around, did anything actually happen?" adage seems a bit silly to me. If I see a tree standing upright in a forest, leave it, and then come back a week later to see that it has fallen over, then of course something happened to it while I was not perceiving it, proving that objects continue to exist when we are not around. Of course, I guess Berkeley would then deny that the tree actually exists in the first place, and I would get annoyed at him at that point and probably leave.
4. What was Berkeley's Latin slogan? Do you think existence depends upon being perceived?
Berkeley's Latin slogan was "Esse est percipi.," or "to be is to be perceived."
I do not think existence depends of being perceived. There are so many forces at work in the world that have been at work for longer than humans have even been around- does that mean they didn't exist until we did? Of course not! Gravity was around before Isaac Newton gave it a name. It created starts and planets. Various elements made up the universe before we gave them names, determined their properties, and put them in a little chart. And undoubtedly there exist many more phenomena completely beyond our understanding or perception affecting the universe in ways we know nothing about.
#2
ReplyDeleteLHP
Berkley’s philosophy “to be is to be perceived” is agreeable to some degree. There is a similar concept in quantum mechanics regarding the measurement of particles. When observed, particles behave differently than when they are unobserved in a system. For example, electrons can pass through a double slit and form a wave-like pattern, but this effect ceases when they are observed under a microscope. Even though this is the opposite of what Berkley claims, the concept is that things behave differently under observation. However, I disagree that things that aren’t seen do not happen. A wolf eating an animal might go unobserved, but that does not mean it doesn’t happen.
“Cultivating your garden” is a phrase I can get behind. Humans spend too much time worrying about things they cannot control or doing things that are useless to their own well-being. I remember there was this old movie with Bruce Lee where he was trying to fight his enemies and escape, only to be trapped with nowhere to go. Instead of wasting time on useless escape tactics and punching the walls to regain his freedom, he sat there and began meditating to conserve his energy. That was the best course of action at the time. He saved his energy because he knew he would need it later, when he was not in a four-by-four cage, all helpless. He did not waste his time. This does not mean that humans cannot spend time doing what they enjoy. Sometimes the best course of action is to take your mind off things and relax. Trying to be at 110% all the time can have its negative effects. Spending time on hobbies or other activities of such can boost mental health and help you in the long run, an investment of sorts.
Hube thought that miracles did not actually exist. They defied the laws of nature and therefore could not be possible. He believed that there had to be an explanation for everything. Miracles could be people deceiving others with false information. I personally disagree with this ideology, and I think miracles have and could happen.
#3
ReplyDelete1. How did Samuel Johnson "refute" Berkeley's theory? Did he succeed? Why or why not?
Samuel Johnson kicked a rock, and claimed that since he could feel it when it was kicked, the rock could not just be an idea, but had to be a material object. This did not disprove anything, though, because Berkeley claimed this only proved that the rock was hard.
2. What made Berkeley an idealist, and an immaterialist? Are you one, the other, both, neither?
He was an idealist and immaterialist because he believed that all objects are simply a form of ideas.
7. What French champion of free speech and religious toleration wrote a satirical novel/play ridiculing the idea that everything is right (for the best)?
Voltaire was the author.