Descrate's Assumptions

Descarte argues that the only thing we can be sure are real are our thoughts. This led our class to begin a discussion on the legitimacy of our own senses to observe our reality correctly. According to Descarte these observations are the only thing we can be sure are true. However, there are many instances where people experience sensory experiences or even incorrect thoughts. How would Descarte explain such happenings?

Through out recorded history many people have developed incorrect assumptions about the world based on false thoughts and interpretations of their sensory observations. Yet, according to Descarte these things were the only things such people could be 100% sure were real.

This leads me to question what reality is. Could reality simply be each person's own interpretation of the world around us? Can reality be different for every person? This seems to contradict the general connotation of reality. Reality is supposed to be free from personal interpretations and the same for everyone. If this is the case, then is our hold on reality as secure as we think it is? Do we even really know what reality is?

While in class I also wondered if people have the ability to realize when their sensory observations are false? Can reason and/or logic allow people to recognize this flaw?

I think Descarte's assumption that the only thing we can be 100% sure exists is too bold. Yet, when I really sit down and contemplate it, I can't think of any more logical assumptions. It is very scary to think that we may be living in an illusion. Maybe this is why it seems so implausible that everything around us may not exist. But it seems impossible to prove that anything exists but your own personal thoughts.

In Descartes’ fourth section (I believe) he claims that because he thinks he exists. This assumption is completely plausible. There is no way to challenge your own existence. It is the one thing that, to each individual, is permanent, no matter what else around him changes. This, however, is the only part of Descartes’ reasoning that I find completely plausible. As he continues on he discusses the existence of God and how there must be a perfect being above him to allow him to think. This, though slightly less plausible, still convinces me enough to support his argument. However, his next claim, that we all must abandon every assumption we hold about the world around us to allow us to discover the world for ourselves, is not only implausible but downright impossible.

First I will discussion how it is implausible, then I will explain how even Descartes himself demonstrated the impossibility of such a task. If it was possible for a person sitting in a stove-heated room to abandon everything he knew about the world, then when he began to observe and create his own assumptions about the world he would be limited to the space he can observe, i.e. the stove heated room. Since his mind is a blank slate the only things he could be sure existed are the components of this room. His entire world view would be based upon this room. This would become the starting point for all of this thought processes. Not only would this make his world view very obscure, it would also severely limit the purpose Descartes had for abandoning his knowledge in the beginning. No matter what method a person uses to understand the world, they must have a starting point. Now rather than the education he received as a child being his basis for understanding the world, his own personal assumptions and observations about this room would be his initial influence. To me this seems completely absurd.

In addition to this method being implausible, Descartes also, unknowingly it seems, demonstrates how impossible it is to employ. During his time in the stove-heated room, Descartes contemplates some proofs on triangles. In his attempt to prove to himself the correctness of one such proof, he fails to abandon all of his previous knowledge about triangles. In his contemplation he holds onto the fact that the three angles of a triangle must sum 180 degrees. Never does he record figuring this information out for himself. Rather he failed to abandon this knowledge he learned in his youth. In his attempt to demonstrate the usefulness of his own method he actually points out its flaws.

It is a shame that Descartes did not recognize such a flaw in his work for he had such an influence on the way people thought about the world during his time period. His empirical method did revolutionize the way scientists conduct their experiments and research, but his intention to bring this thought process to the masses failed because of errors like the one I have just discussed.

The Enlightened Worldview

I find it very interesting that all of the Enlightened minds we have read in the second half of this semester have taken a similar attitude towards people. Starting with Montague we have seen these men display a general faith in mankind. Montague placed his faith in other cultures, he believed they were more "civilized" and Europeans had much to learn from them. Shakespeare demonstrated his faith in humanity through his writings. He encoded many social and political messages within his plays and he expected his audiences to be able to decipher his work. By publishing his work and thinking the public would accept it, Galileo displayed his faith in mankind. He thought they would see the truth in his discoveries and embrace his revolutionary ideas. Finally, DesCartes believes all humans have an equal ability to reason. How each person uses this ability may differ, but each person possesses the same potential. Few people during DesCartes' time were willing to make such a generalization, placing all of humanity on the same level.
Many people argue that to this day this trend has continued. I have not seen enough of the world yet to make such a generalization. But from my experience so far, it seems that the "educated" sector is socially more liberal, which seems to be the modern day equivalent of the Enlightened thinkers. Does this mean that education opens your eyes to humanity's abilities? Does a greater education allow people to view people with more compassion? Or are there just as many people in the "uneducated" sector who share these beliefs but just do not have the means to vocalize them?

We haven't talked about this much in class, but being the history nerd that I am, I keep getting stuck on this point. The Church was under so much attack and looked so bad at this point in history (due to the Great Schism, the Reformation, the religious wars, etc) those in power were willing to take drastic measures to preserve what little power they still maintained. The Medieval mindset was one of repetition. No one expected change; life was very cyclical for almost 1000 years. The Church controlled everything, even how people thought, and no one ever considered challenging this way of life. However, as the Petrarch led the revolution in Italy towards Humanism, certain people in society began to embrace change. Reading the rediscovering, and translating for themselves, ancient texts by Greek and Roman philosophers, these forward thinkers began to realize it was "ok" to challenge authority. The process began in the 14th century and by the 17th century (when Galileo lived) it was still in its infancy. People were, however, now making some attempts to explore their worlds, make their own observations, draw their own conclusions, and challenge the current doctrine and truths.

This "thinking revolution" posed a great threat to the Church. They had controlled everything for so many years, they did not know how to handle such change. It has been a pattern through out history, who ever is in power wants to do whatever it takes to ensure they remain in power. This is not an outrageous claim, but in doing so, the Church prevented itself from incorporating scientific discoveries and other revelations into its doctrine. The actual discoveries made by someone like Galileo or Newton did not threaten the power of the Church, they could have been easily assimilated into the belief system. But, because the Church was so afraid of losing power, this was not an option. Thus, the Scientific Revolution, and later the Enlightenment, bloomed as oppositions to the Church, rather than as physical and philosophical support for the Church.

I'm not really sure where I was going with this post, or why I ended up where I did. But these were some thought that have been going on in my mind during our classes recently and I just felt like writing them down. Sorry for the "stream of consciousness" writing.

Galileo

The first thing that came to my mind when reading the expert from Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief Systems of the World- Ptolemaic & Copernican were the similarities in structure between it and Euthyphro. Not only is the structure of both pieces almost identical, the overall tones also mimic each other.

For the structure, Euthyphro and Simplicio are characterized in very similar matters. Both are supposed experts in their respective fields, and yet their ideas are easily refuted by their "challenger." Obviously, Salviati is Aristotle's parallel. Both take very sarcastic tones with their opponent and openly poke fun at their ignorance. Both men are also very planned in the attacks they make. They lull their opponents into a false sense of security about their own ideas, and then quickly bring them down with their logical reasoning. It appears that both characters intend to embarrass their opponents, simply to accentuate their view's validity. Dialogue is also broken up into four days, each presenting a different argument. This mimics the four arguments Euthyphro presents, all of which Aristotle refutes.

The overall tone of both pieces is similar as well. In both texts, the man refuting the ideas held by the "expert" (and society) takes a very sarcastic and at times openly hostile attitude. It is obvious that both Aristotle and Salviati lack respect for their opponents. Both believe their opponent's theories are bogus and they cannot understand how any person could belief such things. Neither man ever directly states these opinions, but through the tones they use it is obvious to the readers that both men feel this way.

While reading this excerpt, it was obvious how influential Aristotelian reasoning was on Galileo. His entire piece is modeled after it. Galileo lived during the Renaissance, a time when ancient texts were being rediscovered and held in high regard. Therefore, it only seems practical that Galileo would model his argument after one of the greatest, in his opinion, philosophers.

Of Cannibals and The Jesuit Relations

Recently in class we have begun discussing Of Cannibals and we will soon discuss The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. Both of these sources deal with "barbarians" or "savages" from the New world, as viewed by European contemporaries. In both texts the authors have had their own eyewitness accounts or have heard eyewitness accounts of the culture and lifestyles of the aboriginal societies within the New World. Such accounts appear to have made the men question the culture of Europe. I noticed that both documents encourage their European readers to look inside themselves and consider how their actions may be more barbarous than those whom they refer to as barbarians.

Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, when these pieces were written, was going through large social and intellectual revolutions. There was a large outpouring of political and social theories, criticizing the medieval mindset that had its grips on Europe for so long. These documents appear to be part of this proliferation of writing.

Based on that conclusion, I wish to hypothesize, as we attempted to do in class, that these papers were written to initiate change within Europe. While the writers may have cared about the "savages" in the New World, the view Europeans had of them was not their main concern. This was simply a tool employed by these men to bring to head a larger social issue in a time period when they could not directly state such grievances.

This conclusion made me wonder what effect photographs of the same cultures described in these two essays would have on the people of Europe. I don't believe they would cause the introspection these essays can cause. Rather, it seems that such photographs could support the Euro-centric beliefs held by the majority of people. We often talked about the differences between texts and photographs. In this instance I believe that the photographs have many more limitations than the texts would. The emotive value of such photographs may impact Europeans. However, the background necessary to explain their cultural practices (cannibalism in particular) that came with the texts and pointed on the hypocrisies of European society, would not come with the photographs. Thus, this would negate any emotional impacts they possess.

The Threat of Mediocrity

Are our discussions really mediocre?

I'm in no way attacking your statement Anton but what you said really struck me. Before we discussed this in class I was always impressed with our discussions. From talking with people from other CIE classes, it always seemed as though our class held impressive discussions. I've heard a lot of complaints about classes where no one wants to contribute or where one person dominates or even where the professor dominates the discussion. We never have any of those issues. Our discussions always flow very well and everyone always seemed comfortable enough to share their honest opinions.

However, since Anton made this statement I have been thinking more about the actual content of our discussions. It is true that at times we talk about "significant" and interesting issues, but there are also many times when I feel like we are simply bantering back and forth. This seems to be what is bothering Anton. But for me, if we held serious, profound discussions all the time our discussions would falter. There needs to be times of lightheartedness and insignificance. I honestly don't believe that humans can be serious all the time; its against our nature. This is why we all need to let loose and have fun once in a while. The same must go for our discussions. We need to treat our mental state in the same manner as our physical state.

So as much as I understand Anton's frustration, I think that it is important to have these periods of mediocrity in our discussions. Without them, our discussions could become tired and worn out. The lightheartedness allows for interesting twists on our discussions and allows people to think about various issues in ways they normally wouldn't.

Contradictions?!?

I just have one question from our discussion today.

We discussed action and intent again today. We seemed to decide that when Krishna spoke of action he was also referring to the mental state of that action. He believes that people must be in the right mindset, "thinking about nothing," to perform actions in the right manner.

So this led me to the question: Does Krishna expect people to act on impulses without thinking before they act?

It seems like he might. He placed such a strong emphasis on duty and thinking about nothing, that it would lead me to reach this conclusions. He also discussed how everyone is born into a class and the work they do is intrinsic. From this I would garner that the proper actions a person must perform are intrinsic. Thus, impulses are always the correct actions.

However, acting on impulse seems to contradict the idea of discipline that is such an overarching theme within the BAG. Discipline of the body and mind is the direct opposite of impulsive action. Discipline requires much thinking, contemplating, and restraining of oneself. How can two such differing ideas be necessary to live a life free of karma? To me it seems almost impossible to escape the cycle of reincarnation.

There was one passage in the second teaching of BAG that really has me thinking.

Lord Krishna says:
When your understanding turns,
from sacred lore to stand fixed,
immovable in contemplation,
then you will reach discipline.

In response Arjuna asks:
Krishna, what defines a man
deep in contemplation whose insight
and thought are sure? How would he speak?
How would he sit? How would he move?

This passage really struck me. Lord Krishna is telling Arjuna how to mold his mind to reach discipline. Why then does Arjuna ask about the physical features of a man "deep in contemplation?" Why is Arjuna so stuck on the physical actions, rather than the spiritual and emotional aspects that Krishna is referencing?

This brings back the discussion we had a few classes ago, about what is more important, thought or action. It appears to me that Krishna believes thoughts are more important, but Arjuna believes action is more important. I would like to assume that because Krishna is the "teacher" his view is right. But the culture also seems to place a strong emphasis on action. This is why Arjuna is so torn. He does not want to kill his family in the battle, but he also knows that it is his duty to fight. His physical battle is just as significant as his internal battle.

However, as I continued to read further into the teachings, I discovered that Krishna places an emphasis on both action and inaction. This led to further confusion for me. How can one place equal emphasis on two opposite traits? Arjuna seems to always place his emphasis on action. There are many other similar passages within the other teachings to the one I listed above. Arjuna always wants to know about the physical representation of disciplined or knowledgeable person.

So after finishing the book, I have not found an answer to which is more important: action or inaction. Krishna has placed an emphasis on both, while Arjuna seems to lean more towards action. However, Arjuna is the student questioning Krishna about how he should live, so I don't know if I can trust Arjuna's ignorant views. Personally, I believe that action is more important than inaction. Action is the physical representation of your thoughts and beliefs. How can you demonstrate how you have disciplined your mind or body if not through actions? Why would you work so hard to mold your mind if such discipline can't be put into action?

So as I leave, I am still pondering the significance of action and inaction. Hopefully further analysis of the text will provide me with some answers.

???

As a class we decided that humans are rational beings. We need reasons and logic to gain an understanding of the world around us. We also decided that the gods of the ancient Greeks are subject to the same rationality. If this is true than I am still confused as to what separates humans from gods. If gods are subject to the same rationality than how are they immortal? How do they have such powers? What makes them better than humans? How can humans and gods ever be grouped within the same category? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of being a god? Humans are supposed to be subservient to the gods, so how can we share qualities? This evens the playing field.

I can't seems to grasp this concept. I understand what Nathan said in class about the gods having other powers and attributes, but the logic didn't make sense to me. To me, rationality has proven that humans are not immortal. So why are gods, who are subject to the same rationality, immortal? Examples like this just don't make sense to me.

I feel like I am missing something important from our discussion today, so if someone could explain it to me I would really appreciate it.

Euthyphro and Socrates

Since our discussion Wednesday I have been thinking a lot about the blessing of naivety. There are many instances in life in which lacking knowledge is more of a blessing than a curse. There seems to be a common belief among our society that the more knowledge a person has the better off he is and, therefore, we should always seeking further knowledge. However, I don't think that is always the case. For example, Euthyphro felt he had all the knowledge he needed in life. He was perfectly content with his present situation. That was, of course, until Socrates began to argue with him and demonstrate the lack of knowledge Euthyphro actually possessed. Socrates crushed Euthyphro, not only in the argument, but also in the sense of his confidence in himself. By the end of their discussion Euthyphro was begging for an excuse to get away from Socrates and save any last scrap of dignity that remained. Had Euthyphro remained in the dark about his lack of knowledge he would have maintained his confidence and continued to live a content life. However, now that he has realized he does not have all the answers, he may begin to question other things in his life. He may realize that he really does not, like most people, have any answers. We all may just be living in naivety, hoping that our eyes are never opened to the truth like Euthyphro's were, because if that occurs we may receive the same devastating blow to our sense of life and the world.

"Socrates and Abraham Walk into a Bar..."

So during class Nathan played upon the two men walk into a bar joke to help us compare the views of Socrates and Abraham on religion and piety. While I found this statement very humorous, I can't help but sit and actually wonder what would the two men have discussed.

I believe it is true, as I think Carrie said, Abraham appears to be so strong in his faith that he would be able to provide a stronger argument for Socrates. Abraham worships only one God, so that would eliminate Socrates' first challenge to the definition of piety. Abraham might actually be able to persuade Socrates that piety is what God loves and the opposite is what he hates. Abraham would be able to back up this theory because he has actually conversed with God. From the view of Abraham his argument seems plausible.

Unfortunately I believe Socrates is too intelligent to ever allow himself to give in to defeat. I believe that he would attack Abraham's statements that he talked to God. Abraham can never prove that he actually talked to God. How can Abraham be sure he wasn't talking to the Devil or that the voices he heard were not a figment of his imagination? He cannot, and because of this, Socrates will have the opening he needs to go in for the kill.

Socrates is at a distinct advantage both against Euthyphro and Abraham. Socrates must simply sit back and wait for the other men to disclose a flaw in their arguments. Once they do so, he can pounce and make a fool of them. Socrates himself does not need to provide any definitions. Many people assume that Socrates has already come to his own conclusions about the topics he asks others about. I, however, am not convinced. I believe that Socrates may have questions just like the rest of society and he actually is interested in collecting data to formulate his own conclusions as he goes along.

The questions that Socrates asks are always so broad and influenced by opinions and beliefs that it is almost impossible to establish one solid definition. There is always room for interpretation and change.

Definitions and Examples

So on Friday Nathan asked us to explain the difference between an example and a definition. This question really stuck with me. It seems so simple, yet, when I really sat down and tried to think about it, I found myself struggling.

As a class we seemed to come to a consensus that a definition is a universal truth that describes all scenarios while an example relates to one case. I agree with this statement but I still feel like it might be a little vague. I have been sitting here thinking about it and I want to add to what we have already come up with. I believe that a definition is used to provide everyone with a general picture or understanding of something. Once this general knowledge has been acquired, examples are necessary to elaborate and clarify any remaining questions.

After coming to this conclusion, I am left with another question. Must definitions be presented before examples to provide the best explanation? Or is it possible to gather enough information from an assortment of examples to lead one to a sufficient definition? Which is better? Which is faster? Are there certain situations in which one way is better than the other? All of these questions lead me to believe that I still do not fully comprehend the difference between a definition and an example.

Action vs. Intent

In this blog I want to bring together the topic of intent that we were discussing last class. We never came to any conclusion about whether a person should be judged on his intentions or his actions. Originally, I felt that a person should be judged on his intentions. I always believed that motives showed a person's inner-self; its harder to hide yourself in your motives than in your actions. However, after partaking in our discussion on Monday, I am beginning to think that what matter more, at least here on Earth, is your actions. A person's intentions, whether good or bad, never directly influence the world. Rather, your actions always make some impact on the world, no matter how big or small. So even if some has horrible intentions but ends up doing something good through them it is better than someone who has good intentions but ends up doing nothing, or even worse, something bad with them. You always here people saying I meant to send you a birthday card, but I forgot, or I really meant to work out today but I never had time. It is true that they had good intentions, but those intentions led to nothing. Only through actions can a person better himself or others.

After reading Socrates and Euthyphro's discussion on piety, I began to wonder how Socrates and Euthyphro would feel about our discussion of intent versus action. I would like to try to discuss in class exactly how we think both men would respond to our discussion. I have made some of my own conclusions but I don't have a textual evidence to support them, so I want to wait until a class discussion, if we are able to have one, to make any claims.

Ramblings on Noah

I'm not sure if this actually made sense to anyone. In my head it made sense but I don't think I was able to fully collect my thoughts and accurately transcribe them into this blog. So good luck to anyone who tries to decipher what this actually says...

Last class we spent a great deal of time discussing the story of Noah cursing his son after he saw him in his drunken/naked stupor. I know that we came to many conclusions about the reasons why Noah cursed his one son and not the other two. But I am still stuck on the fact that Noah was simply mortified about what he had done and angry that his son had exposed his actions to his other two sons. Had Noah's son simply never acknowledged Noah, I believe Noah would have been less embarrassed and not taken his anger out on him.

I also really liked Anton's point about the significance of vision. There is a distinct difference between simply knowing something is happening and actually witnessing the same event. The visual effect makes it more real, once something is seen its existence can no longer be questioned. If someone only hears about something happening, there is always room for error and/or interpretation. However, once it has actually been witnessed that room for error or interpretation is lost. I believe that this is why Noah was so angry at his son. Had his son simply avoided Noah and pretended not to see what was going on, Noah would have been able to comfort himself, however false the comfort may have been, on the fact that his son may not have actually seen what was going on. Once the visualization took place there was no way Noah could deny what he had done nor could his son deny what he had seen. The fact that his son saw it made Noah have to acknowledge the reality of his actions.

Difficulties...

Since I am someone who always feels the need to be/hates to admit weaknesses, I sat, staring at this computer screen, for a half hour before I could even think of what to write. When I finally figured out what to say, I came to the conclusion that the actual reading of the Biblical texts was not a problem for me. I knew the stories well enough, so that even though the translations were different it did not affect the content for me. When I say that it did not affect the content I think it is easy to see where my difficulty in reading these pieces came from. I already have so many preconceived notions and beliefs about these texts that I really struggled to pull myself away from them and reread the chapters from a different viewpoint. I tried to focus on critically reading the content to gain a different perspective on the subjects, but it was like watching a movie you have seen a million times. You know it so well that you no longer focus on the minute details, you simply see what you expect to be there.
Because I have essentially been skimming the texts I don’t think that I have gotten as much out of the readings as some other people. I know Alex discussed in class how the readings have not changed her beliefs, but they have made her think about things in a new way. I have not even gotten that far yet. I really need to focus on actually reading the documents if I want to gain any insight to contribute to our discussions. So for now, I will maintain my beliefs, but, who knows, if I actually reread the documents with a critical eye, things could be different.

My Two Cents

I find it sad that it took a CIE lesson for me to actually sit down and examine a penny. This object, along with all other monetary forms, have such value in our society that one would imagine each individual would constantly be scrutinizing it. I should not have been shocked to realize that you could actually see Lincoln in his monument on the back of the penny nor should I ever forgot how dashing Lincoln appears in his bow tie. It is almost pathetic how little I truly knew about an object that I have seen/used almost everyday of my life. How are we supposed to be able to learn about other cultures in this manner if we can not even take the time to learn about our own culture?

This activity that we did demonstrated how difficult it is to examine one artifact from a culture in hopes of gaining an understanding of such culture. Yes, we may have been able to come up with some decent insights, but that is because we could never truly separate ourselves from the background information that we all possess. Having to attempt such an activity with Gilgamesh or some other ancient text will prove to be more challenging. We will be less likely to make as in depth and "risky" claims about the society because we do not have the background knowledge to support our assumptions. It is difficult to gather information about the culture and the beliefs, morals, and values of the time period from one text. Try as we may, I believe we may be forced to take things out of context and make assumptions that we can not necessarily defend.

Take into account a modern day example. If, in 2000 or so years, someone came across a Michael Moore documentary, he may assume that this is how our culture viewed the truth, simply because it is title a documentary. Many people would be led to make such an assumption, leading them to conclusions about our culture and society that are far from the truth.

Keeping this in mind, I believe that it is necessary to read Gilgamesh with the utmost caution to prevent yourself from making too many assumptions that can lead to false impressions of the society we are studying.

The First Post...

After completing the assigned Genesis reading and reviewing the other posts that people have left I have developed some questions. First off, I, like Alex, consider myself a religious person; I too have grow up with these stories and I am relatively familiar with everything that we have read so far.

When reading the text there was one passage on page 28 that really stuck with me. It read "And the Lord regretted having made the human on earth and was grieved in the heart." This statement contradicts everything I have ever been taught about Christianity. The passage does not follow with the context of the rest of the reading nor does it make much sense. Even when God made the Flood happen he did not say such things. I don't know if it was just the translation (because there was such a long introduction dealing specifically with the translation) or what, but that really stuck out to me. I think we should possible discuss how the translation of an ancient text can alter the meanings of the original manuscript because this point is relevant with all texts we will read in this class.

There were also some very sharp similarities between Gilgamesh and Genesis. The most obvious one, to me at least, were the flood stories. The two stories were almost identical, down to the manner in which both men were warned of the coming floods. It is necessary to discuss these similarities within our discussions this week. Some of the other similarities that we should also look at are the similar creation between man and Enkidu, the cultural similarities between the two texts, and the role mortality/immortality play within the texts. What influences were there in both societies that made these texts so similar? What roles did other myths/legends play in the development of the stories we find in both texts? How can one text, which I personally believe in, be so similar to another that is considered fiction?