KANT

Those who cannot yet rid themselves of the notion that space and time are actual qualities inherent in things in themselves may exercise their acumen on the following paradox. When they have in vain attempted a solution and are free from prejudices at the last few moments, they will suspect that the reduction of space and time to mere forms of our sensuous intuition may perhaps well be founded.

I Found this quote interesting. I feel like Kant is trying to explain to us what he means by space and time bc maybe everyone has their own recollection of what space means to them. He explains that they are actual qualities inherent in things. Kant is saying what ever an object or something is made up of is what takes its space. that is what i am getting out of this quote.

kant: Metaphysics

Kant says: The distinction between ideas, i.e, pure concepts of reason, from the categories, or pure concepts of the understanding, as cognitions of a quite different species, origin, and use is so important a point founding a science which is to contain the system of all the a priori cognitions that, without this distinction, metaphysics is absolutely impossible or is at best a random, bungling attempt to build a castle in the air without a knowledge of the materials of their fitness for one purpose or another.

I found this quote interesting when Kant talks about ideas. What i get out of what he is saying is that without the a priori cognitions of the ideas you will never know which one will make sense or know the purpose of it. When you see someone write something or say something some ideas can be meant differently from what you think so through a priori it will help you figure the ideas out and how to experience and understand.

Kant- Syllogisms

Syllogism is defined as "a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion." An example of this would be something like (a major premise) all humans are mortal.. (the minor premise) I am mortal (conclusion) therefore I am mortal.

Kant separates the differences of syllogisms into three categories: categorical, hypothetical and disjunctive necessary. The idea of the complete subject, the idea of the complete series of conditions and the determination of all concepts in the idea of a complete complex of that which is possible is what reason is founded in these 3 categories.

Through these 3 assures Kant that pure reason is completely represented.

Kant- Ideas of Reason

"..the ideas of reason, unlike the categories, are of no service to the use of our understanding in experience." Kant still believes that the ideas of reason are necessary though. He continues to say that if the soul is or is not a substance is no "consequence to us in the explanation of its phenomena." It struck me how Kant uses the word phenomena here. Looking up the definition of phenomena.. it says its something that is impressive or extraordinary.

I did some more research and I found something in which I think it might have to do with.. Kantianism which is under the definition of phenomena.. a thing as it might appears to and is constructed by the mind, as distinguish from a noumenon, or thing-in-itself." I found that to be very interesting how philosophy had its own section in the definition.

Kant-Mathematical Judgments

Kant states in this section that mathematicians all "proceed according to the principle of persuaded themselves that the fundamental propositions were known from the principle of contradiction." I agree with Kant on this matter. Kant says that he opposes this theory. Math is a priori judgement.. and a priori judgement cannot be a false, it is a fact. A priori judgement cannot be interpreted through experience.

"Mathematics cannot be proceeded from concepts but only by means of the constuction of concepts." I am not sure if I understand what Kant is specially trying to say here. What exactly is the construction of concepts? I took this quote personally by Kant trying to say that once a concept is constructed, thats it. There is no other way of doing that concept.. its almost stuck in stone.

Kant-Possibility of Nature

How is nature possible in general in the material sense, i.e., according to intuition, as the totality of appearances; how are space, time, and that which fills both- the object of sensation possible in general?

I dont think that nature is possible in general in the material sense, exept the things that are present in nature. Apperances, space and time is how nature is possibl...Appereances is mother nature(leaves, grass, water)space is the natural surroundings....and time-the sun and move-how everyday passes by.

Kant-Hume's Doubt

Now we are prepared to remove Hume's doubt. He justly maintains that we cannot comprhend by reason the possibility of causality, that is, of reference of the existence of one thing to the existence of another which is necessitated by the former.

I like that Kant points this out...I dont understant how Hume cannot understand that one thing leads to another...the existence has an effect on another thing and the effects just keep going on...cause and effect is what makes this world keep going...if it wasnt for one thing, we may not have another thing.

Kant-Nature

The word nature assumes yet another meaning, which determines the object, whereas in the former sense it only denotes the conformity to law of the determinations of the existence of things generally. Nature considered materialiter is the totality of all objects of experience.

Yes nature does consits of the existence of things, however material things dont determine nature. Objects are apart of being in nature just like humans..I dont think humans are the totality of nature. We are apart of nature, not what makes up nature. I dont understand how Kant would think there is more than one meaning for nature, and say that it is objects(the existence of things). If he said the existences of things like greenery that surrounds him, I would agree with him.

Kant-Nature

Nature is the existence of things, so far a it is determined according to universal laws, Should nature signify the existence of things in themselves...

Kant is saying the things(objects) around us make up nature..I dont think things themselves make up nature...I think just our natural surroundings make up nature..meaning trees, grass, water, etc. Objects are what we put in nature, not what nature is made up of.

Hume- Miracles

Miracles = violations of nature?? I believe Hume is trying to say that when you pray to God.. you are asking him to change the natural pattern. I feel that Hume is contradicting himself here. When Hume discusses the concept of God.. he says that God cannot exist because of the imperfect world that we live in. In my earlier post, I discussed how Hume views God. Hume does mention that their is no God.. but yet he is telling us that by praying to God to make our lives better, its a violation of nature.. Its kind of like a no win situation with Hume. God does not exist due to the imperfect world that we live in.. so by praying to God to make the world better would not help either because the imperfections in the world is what causes him to believe that their is no God.

Hume- God

Hume mentions the concept of God in this section. Just like Descartes, he has a problem with thinking/knowing that God is perfect. Descartes feels more that God is perfect and he cannot understand why he is not as perfect and powerful as God. Hume, on the other hand, he feels that since the world is imperfect.. he cannot exist? I think Hume is trying to say that if God did exist.. and he was all powerful and perfect.. the world would have no corruption in it? If this is what Hume is trying to say, I completely disagree with him. If the world was always perfect, people wouldn't appreciate what happens in their life.

Hume- Animals

Hume explains in this section of the book his view on animals. He states that if an animal (for example a dog) goes by fire and gets burned, or does any such action in which the dog will feel pain.. it will learn from the experience and know not to go by this cause again. I feel that Hume is stating the obvious here. If any animal/person goes by a certain object and feels pain or gets hurt in any way, they know not to go by the object again.
As discussed in class, our Professor gave us an example about monkeys. If a mirror was placed in front of the monkey, some might actually go try to grab the mirror. They think the mirror is another monkey. Comparing that example to humans.. a human would catch on that its their reflection in the mirror, not another person.

Kant: Mathematics

Kant says that Mathematics is possible invirtue of synthetic(informative) apriori (independant of observation) arithmatic and geometry -> Applied to space and time. He goes on to explain physics is a an apriori which means like i said it is independant of observation. He makes 2 distinctions.
#1- Judgements of perception: Sense of impressions and subjective validity

#2- Judgements of experience: Objective validity and conceptual categories.


I found Kant's writings on apriori somewhat confusing. I find that judgements of experience are more helpful than judgements when someone actually experiences an ecvent or something you can make your idea about it more knowingly because you went through it. Unlike perception which it is just what you think something maybe. Kant though goes towards the idea of perception and say it is not controversial but that experience is. I do not agree with this because if you experienced something then how can it be controversial and a perception is just what you see so to another person it could be different so that is definetly controversial. thats my opinion and argument for that.

Kant: Synthetic Knowledge

Synthetic apriori knowledge is the basis of all our knowledge about the natural world. Such as: Math, Science, and Metaphysics.
Kant argues that this solves the rationalists problem on skeptism about the external world. VS. The empiricists which are skeptics about the patterns of nature. Apostiori knowledge is a basis on abservation.

VS- Rationalism: Agrees about apriori knowledge and unlike synthetic it is not informative.
VS- Impiricists: THey agree with synthetic knowledge.

I agree with Kant when he describes that synthetic apriori knowledge is the basis of all knowledge about the natural world. Because Math, science and the metaphysics are all problems of logic that can be applied to the way people think. Science can be used to figure out different scientific events that have happened in the world to prove their thoughts/ideas.

Kant- Analytic/Synthetic judgement

Analytic Judgement: Subjects that contain what the predicate expresses
these judgements are explicative and adds nothing to the content of the cognition. This is true by definition
It does not tell you anything about the world.
For example: Drinking age in the United States is twenty one. You can see an idea that says your twenty one but there is no way of directly looking at you and knowing for sure that you are 21.

Synthetic Judgement: Informative and expansive.
Increasing the given cognition.
ex- Major league football players weigh over 50 lbs

Kant: Kant's problem

Kant wonders whether or not Hume's problem is through nature.

1- Does Hume's problem generalize by means of cause and effect
Empiricists hold the knowledge of cause and effect is aposteriority.
Based on consumption For ex- if triangle A is larger than triangle B then Aposteriority would be B < A.
The assumption that A has three sides is Apriori.

2- If it does generalize that the knowledge is of nature... there should be 3 distinctions
(A) Apriori- it is a true independant of the observation/Apostiori
(B) Analytic- True by def. of Kant (yes, there are apriori synthetic statements)/Synthetic judgement
(C) Necessity- true in all possible worlds/ contingency

Of the Reason of Animals

Hume- A horse, that has been accustomed to the field, becomes acquainted with the proper height, which he can leap, and will never attempt what exceeds his force and ability.

This sentence caused me to think in terms of how humans and animals are different in regards to our surroundings. Of course a horse will know its surroundings and feel comfortable in their surroundings because they have been there for some time...Humans get accustomed to there surroundings where ever they move...We are made to adapt..However, a lot of animals dont know how to adapt. So if that horse was places somewhere else, outside of what he is used to, he may not know his limits...In regards to humans we know are limits where ever we go..

Of the Reason of Animals

Hume- First, It seems evident, that animals, as well as men learn many things from experience, and infer, that the same events will always follow from the same causes. By this principle they become acqainted with the more obvious properties of external objects, and gradually, from their birth, treasure up a knowledge of the nature of fire, water, earth, stones, heights, depths &c., and of the effects, which result from their operation.

----I agree with Hume, because we learn things from experience and so do animals. Once we experience something whether its good or bad we know that outcome. Animals also use this, they learn also from instinct. Animals are smart enough to know what animals to stay away from, maybe from seeing the result of another animal. In regards to when he talks about fire, children as well as animals know how to stay away from fire from experience. We all learn from sensations also. From birth we learn things and carry them with us through life. Experiences stay with us as well as they do too with animals.

Section X-Of Miracles Part1

Hume says"A miricale is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a firm and unalterable experience has established theses laws, the proof againsta miracle, from the very nature of the fact is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly imagine"

By Hume saying miracles stop nature(that can be a yes and a no)However I would think it was a no.....He argues when something happens to someone/something we ask for a Miracle to fix it or make it better, instead of letting nature run its course..But how does he know its a Miracle that caused changed or nature just running its course-not just in the way he expected it..Someone can be praying for a Miracle however that Miracle might not have taken place but fortunately nature when in that favor of that person or thing...Hume wouldnt know because he cant grant Miracles and he's not in charge of nature..

Section II-Of Origin of Ideas

When we reflect on our past sintiments and affections, our thoughts is a faithful mirror, and copies its objects truly, but the colours which it emplys are faint and dull in comparison of those in which or original perceptions were clothed...

Hume is saying and I totally agree from experience and I know a lot of ppl have too..When we have gon through past experiences and thoughts we remember them(faithful mirror which allows that). However the faithful mirror doesnt gives us those exact images and feelings we experienced. Though we may remeber them the thought wont be the same as what that mirror captured...

Section II-Of the Origin of Ideas

Everyone will readily allow, that there is a considerable difference between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the painof excessive heat or the pleasure of moderate warmth, and when he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation, or anticipate it by his imagination.

I agree with Hume. When you think of something you really dont have a sensation of it until you experience it. Once you experience it you will be able to recall what you experienced. You wont have the same perception of what you felt but you will remember it and have some type of idea.

Hume- Constant Conjunction

Hume believes that events are related to a custom or a habit taken in by experience. We form the association of ideas which produces us to expect the effect. Whenever we experience the "cause," Hume states that we think back to that experience. This whole idea comes from Hume trying to figure out the necessary connection between cause and effect. Locke opposes this idea but Hume questions it.. voluntary motion. Doing some research on Hume on the web, I found that Hume will later on deny the fact of voluntary motion.

"if volition did always produce the intended movement, Hume argued, that would yield no notion of the connection between them."

Hume- Chance vs. Probability

Hume states in the text that he does not believe in chance yet he does believe in probability. In my opinion Hume is almost contracting himself. I feel that probability is somewhat of a chance. The definition of probability is.. "a strong likelilhood or chance of something." The definition of chance is.. "a possibility or probability of something happening." Im not saying these two terms are exactly identical but I feel that Hume is trying to say there is a massive difference between the two and that does not make too much sense to me. I don't understand how Hume doesnt believe in chance yet probability.

Hume- Impressions

"..that it is not absolutely impossible for ideas to arise, independent of their correspondent impressions. I believe it will readily be allowed that the several distinct ideas of colour, which enter by the eye, or those of sound, which are conveyed by the ear, are really different from each other; thought, at the same time, resembling."


Hume states in this section of the book that ideas could possibly arise while not having some sort of impression, which forces the idea upon you. Page 12 talks about the idea of color, which we discussed in class. I found the example about the shades of color to be very interesting. Hume gives an example of a color going from lightest to darkest or vice versa. He claims that a person will be able to identify if a shade is missing. He questions how people identify a missing shade when it has never really been shown to them. This example just proves the quote that I wrote above. Ideas do not just arise from impressions. Thinking about this whole topic, I started to think more in depth about ideas and the mind. I do agree with Hume when he says that ideas arise from impressions but on the other hand, I feel that the mind is very powerful. It does not mind some sort of impression to come up/think about ideas. It does it naturally

HUME- natural event and human nature

Natural Events are cause and effect relations (physics-- patterns) and humans actions are psychology of choosing (scientific-- regularity patterns).

Hume says: Pattern of cause and effect need a necessity.

Matters of fact consist of relation between cause and effect.
ex- Cause - Cue ball in motion Effect- other ball bounces

There is no way of helping what a natural event causes. But human actions are obviously controlled by what the person wants to do or thinks they should do. There are negative events that come out of cause and effect, natural events and human actions. But with the bad comes the good and there can always be a positive out come of it too.
For example: This can go for cause and effect or human actions - You study for a test and pass with an A. becaused you studied hard you recieved a high grade.

HUME- the pool ball example

Hume says causes don't resemble the fact.
ex- The game of pool: How can you tell when the balls hit eachother what is going to happen?!

You will not know what the balls will actually do until you have experienced them hitting eachother atleast once.
Before you have experienced the outcome of the observation - you cannot rule out any of the concievable outcome. All info. about cause and effect is a posteriority which is derived from the observation.

HUME- Enquiry

Missing blue problem: Different shades of blue (Lightest ----> Darkest) if a shade of blue was missing you would be able to tell it was missing.

There is also the red coke can example. The red on every coke can is alway exactly a like. Shows we supplement color info.

This was a prob. for empiricism it is so singular- it doesnt really matter.. It is not part of any geometric pattern.

The of induction is a general conclusion from different instance.

In any kind of constant color pattern is changed we always will be able to tell there is something missing from it.

Power- Locke

"My business being not to search into the original of power, but how we come by the idea of it."

Locke writes in this section about power. An example he gives about power is "fire has the power to melt gold." I feel that both Locke and Descarte are very interested in power. They both talk about the idea of God and how he has endless power. Descarte especially has a hard time dealing with himself not being able to like God. God has endless power and I feel that power is a major issue with both Descarte and Locke. I believe that the idea of power originated from God. Descarte and Locke both believe in God but I think that they have so many questions that are unanswered so they focus their questions on the idea of power. They'll never retrieve answers to the questions they have about God, but by questioning power.. they might be able to better understand.

HUME- section 8 pt 1

-Hume begins by examining what we call necessity in physical processes. There are physical forces that cause the bodies movement. Hume says in his writings that our ideas of connection come from observations of ongoing similar events and what helps make decisions in our minds; but there is no way to see necessary connection but it cannot be observed in nature.

-Hume looks over human nature and the laws that govern our behavior. He finds that over years and observing different cultures we all have the same motives. All similar events cause similar effects. Human nature is human behavior under any actions.

-Hume explains that behaviors that don't make sence to you- there is really a motive to the person who is actually acting that way. There is a possibility it could be "hidden motive" or a "personality trait" that is not familiar to you.

Book II, Chapter IX, 5. Children, though they have ideas in the womb, have none innate

Locke explains how children are born with ideas for example hunger and warmth...These are instincts that come with birth..however when they are in the womb and experience sounds and other things...who is to say they will remember them after birth..it is said that when babies are born they recognized there parents voice...but that may only be in the womb and once they are born that goes away and they relearn things that may have been heard in the womb...Locke is saying things learned in the womb may not be carried on after birth like hunger and warmth..

Book II, Chapter X, 10. Brutes have memory

I like that Locke mention animals in this section..He says, This falculty of laying up and retaining the ideas that are brouhgt into the mind, several other animals seem to have to a great degree, as well as man... This is an example he gives- birds learining of tunes. The questions is how do we know what animals are capable of, mind wise...we dont know if they have there own way of thinking and how they use what they know..just like they dont know what we are thinking and we dont know what eachother is thinking as human beings....How does Locke know there degree of thinking is the same..he doesnt know the degree of other human beings thinking...however as humans we can test our minds and find our capabilities...but how can that be done with animals and we dont know how they think or there meanings for things....

Hume: Origin of Ideas

Hume makes distinction between impressions and ideas. Hume goes on and explains that impressions are lively and vivid perceptions, while ideas are taken from the memory or the imagination and are less likely to be lively and vivid. An example that spark notes gave for these ideas are: both the color red and the feeling of anger are considered impressions. Ideas are what come from impressions we think of or see. The example of the color red and anger are what Hume considers to be ideas.

Like I had said in my first Hume Blog- I believe Hume writes easy to follow and writes straight foward. The example with the color red associated with anger helped me understand his section with how he thought of ideas and impressions.

Hume: Solution of Doubts Part I

Human Reason is divided into 2 different kinds- Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact.

Relations of Ideas: The relations of ideas include science, geometry, algebra, and arithmitic.
ex- 3x5= half of 30 which is 15 --> this shows the relations between the numbers 3,5,15, ad 30.

Matters of Fact: deal with experience that has already happened. ex: that the sun is shining, that yesterday I went for a walk, or that it will rain tomorrow are all matters of fact.
There is usually no contradictions because they are things that you have experienced or have gone through already. Such as- if it is sunny out and you say it is raining; you will be proven wrong by just looking out side.

I find Hume's writings are a lot more straight foward and more easy to follow. I found it really easy to understand what Hume is saying especially in the "matters of fact" idea. I found his examples really helpful to understand what point he was trying to get through. That i explained under the explanations.

Book 2 ch. 8

How does the mind have an understand of the object?

Object (Objective feature: Independant of any experience consciousness) causes Idea of a certain thing (ex: white, cold, round-- Snow Ball) Subjective feature: Depenedance on some experience of consciousness.

Objects have power to produce.

Primary: Solidity, extension (take up space) mobility figure (utterly inseperable)

Secondary: Controversial *colors, tastes, sounds*
Not in the object but caused by insensible parts- secondary qualities does resemble insensible part of the object.

Primary is more simple than secondary it could be just the basic facts about an object. But the secondary goes more complex and descriptive about the figure.

Chapter XXI - Power

"The mind being every day informed, by the senses, of the alteration of those simple ideas it observes in things without, and taking notice how one comes to an end and ceases to be, and another begins to exist which was not before.."

This is the opening of the chapter about power. This is saying that the mind always feels different senses and they are always changing what you are thinking about. It says existing ideas can be replaced by new ideas. The ideas that are pre-existing still try to be known and out of these ideas there are the new ones that are trying to be understood by the mind.

Chapter VII. Of simple ideas of both sensation and reflection

Reading this section, I came about that Locke is saying our ideas reflects our bodies whether its pain or pleasure...The same ideas that causes our pleasure ,pain is usually produced by the same ideas and objects....Ideas will always effect our bodies...when we think it has a connection to our bodies which gives us an reaction or feeling...For example when u are proud of yourself or think you did good, that is pleasure to your body and when you feel you have done wrong that is pain to your body...No matter what u think its always going to cause a sensation...thats my opinion...whenever i think i feel a certain way about what im thinking...i think thats what locke is trying to say...im not sure any opinions.....

Book One, Chapter One.3.Method

I think in this section..he is trying to explain to how to find the truth in our ideas, opinions and what we know...He came about with three steps or ways into figuring it out....He explains how we have to figure out how we got those ideas(what caused us to have those ideas). Then find the certainty and evidence of those ideas. Third, examine everthing..I agree with his method, because in order to figure out if something is true is evidence. But then again im not to, sure because who is to say the evidence is true...so a lot of what we think we know may not be true...because a lot of what is thought of or learn is passed on, so it may be different from its original point.

Existence of Power - Locke

"..the possibility of having any of its simple ideas changed, and in another the possibility of making that change; and so comes by that ideas which we call "power."


I found this section of the book to be very interesting. Locke feels that they’re two different types of powers, active and passive. He feels that God is above all passive power. Descarte also relates to the topic of power. In the previous readings, Descarte has a hard time trying to figure out why he is imperfect and cannot hold all of the powers and traits of God.

In the quote listed above, I feel that Locke is explaining how power can change a person’s view on things. A person can be very influenced by a person with power. This also clashes with Descartes 'Four Rules.' One rule which states something along the lines of never just believing what you hear. Is Locke trying to say that even if you follow these 4 rules.. it wouldnt make a difference if someone with power gets involved?

Locke- "Imperialist"

Locke believed that ideas were caused by the objects in the world. Everything comes from sensations and reflection.
The impact of Locke's views were in bk 2 ch. 1 Locke says reflection is derivited sensation and is the central activity of the mind. He says reflection really does not matter.

This part of Locke's thinking I believe because in contrast Des Cartes always asks the crazy questions of questioning his existance. I can understand Locke's ideas about everything coming from sensation and reflection of worldly objects.

Another question Locke asks is does the mind always think? Locke doesn't think the mind always thinks. When you sleep he says you go into different mental states.

His ideas contrast with Des Cartes who says you are always thinking. I am for once on the side of Descartes because like we said in class aren't we all in someway conscious even in our sleep. We're always dreaming and if something is bothering many times you have dreams about it.

Existence

"I think God has given me assurance enough of the existence of things without me; since, by their different applications, I can produce in myself both pleasure and pain."


In Chapter XL, Locke does not only question the existence of God, but is now questioning the existence of other things. I feel that Locke is trying to say that man himself, does not know if an object truly exists. God gave man the idea of existence. "God with the existence of any particular man, no particular man can know the existence of any other being." If it wasnt for God, man wouldn't know about the existence of objects because God is the one who gave man the idea of existence.

LOCKE-Book II chapter XIX Modes of thinking

Locke begins this chapter by saying the modes of thinking includes sensation, remembrance, and contemplation.

The first mode happens when you contemplate your own actions of life. He also says perception accompanies the impressions that are shown on the body by an object. This makes sensation distinct from the other different modes.

Remembrance is the just about the same as sensation except it is not constantly shown externally. It is reoccured in the mind. ex- recollection of when you went through something painful.

Contemplation is when something is thought about for a long period of time/a considerization.

I found Locke's idea of sensation is explained in a confusing way. He uses contemplation in it and I can also see where remembrance can be referred back to it . I think it could be explained and told more clear like he did for remembrance and contemplation. I found those descriptions more simpler and easy to follow.

Method -Locke

"It is necessary that man should find out some external sensible signs, whereby those invisible ideas which his thoughts are made up of might be made known to others."


This part in the book reminds me of Descartes theory "The Method." Even though Locke is discussing primarily communication, it shows a connection between the two. Descarte mainly focuses on method when it comes to thinking or following the rules of "life" almost. Locke on the other hand, targets in on the method when it comes to communication. The quote above reminded me of something Descarte would say. Reasons for this would be because Locke is questioning his own thoughts. A thought which is inside someones head.. is invisible to others- but how does someone know that others do not already know that "invisible" thought? I feel that Descarte believes that a thought is what occurs first in the mind, whereas with Locke, he believes that something triggers a thought to occur.

Locke-Chapter I- Introduction

I think this pertains to Method- Locke explains how we as people know what we are capable of doing. In paragraph 6 he says and when we have well surveyed the powers of our own mind, and made some estimate what we may expect from them, we shall not be inclined either to sit still....I think he is saying if you know your capabilities and the use of your, go to the extent in using it since you have those capabilities.

Locke-Book 2-Chapter II:Of Simple Ideas

I think Locke has a better understanding and a better way of explaining ideas. In the beginning he is not justifying ideas on if they are right or wrong like Descartes is doing. He explains how some are simple and some are complex. I like how he explained that ideas effect our senses which I agree, at times they do. When you think anout something it may effect you senses beacause its on your mind and usually you react to the way you think.

Locke- Gods Existence

"We are capable of knowing certainly that there is a God."

In Chapter X, I feel that Locke relates himself a lot to Descartes. Both philosophers feel that every though there is no proof of God, they both believe in him without question. Locke states in this section that just because people are ignorant toward the subject of God is no reason to ignore it. I found interesting how Locke says "..he has so plentifully provided us with the means to discover and know him, so far as is necessary to the end of our being." By reading this quote, I feel that Locke has to believe in God because he feels that God wants people to discover him. Even though God has no "witnesses" or any real truths that anyone knows of, just the idea that God is part of our lives until the day we die truly shows that God is certainly something.

Modes of Thinking- Locke

"Hence it is probable that thinking is the action, not essence, of the soul."

This quote really grabbed my attention. Locke is questioning the idea of thinking. In Descartes Discourse, he does the same as well. When first reading this section, I initially felt that Locke was trying to almost separate the whole idea of thinking with the body/mind. But as I read on, I am starting to feel that the problem Locke is having is, by taking action in things is not truly what the soul wants to be doing. I came to this conclusion because of the word "essence" in the quote above. When using the word essence in philosophy, it usually means something along the lines of the inward nature, true substance or constitution of something. As I started to pick apart the quote, I found that the quote could possibly state something like "..thinking is the action, not the true substance/inward nature of the soul."

LOCKE- Mind Capability

Book II looks into going through many things that our minds can do some include:
-questioning our own ideas- asking yourself it they are good enough?
-remembering ideas
-Deciding what makes ideas different
-comparing ideas to one another
-combining simple ideas to make one complex idea
-pulling simples ideas out of a complex idea

Locke makes it a point to share that our minds have the ability to do many diff functions. I definetly understand his points a lot where he is coming from all our different kinds of ideas make sence to me. He shows how differently the mind can think of diff things all at once.

Locke discusses complex ideas puttig them into four basic types:
(1) modes, which are ideas that do not exist in and of themselves, such as qualities
(2) substances- a particular thing (particular man) or collections of such things (an army of men) (3) relations- ex: morally good
(4) abstract generals, such as “man” or “sheep” in general.

Locke's idea of complex ideas is a little confusing. I understand qualities, substances and abstract generals but the ideas he puts with relations is kind of confusing. How does the example of morally good go with relations? What does morally good have any thing to do with relations? Confused about that!
Complex ideas are created through three methods: combination, comparison, and abstraction.

LOCKE- book 2 chap. XII Complex Ideas

5- Simple and Mixed Modes: Two modes deserve distinct considerization.
first, different ways to put simple ideas--> distinct ideas put together= simple modes --> these stay in the bounds of one simple idea.
second, many simple ideas put together to a one COMPOUND idea. A combo of several diff idea of many diff kinds --> mixed modes.
examples Locke uses- beauty: consisting of diff features causing delight for the beholder and this is the idea of the combo of several diff ideas of diff kinds.

Locke is saying that the first mode is a limited amount of different ideas put together or different ways to explain simplicities. It can not get too indepth due to the fact that it is just a simple statement. It cannot be explain in many different ways.

The second Mode- Mixed Modes is many ideas put together it can be complex but in the end it has to come together for one Compound idea. The Compound idea can go indepth and be complex. To become a mixed modes it can be a varirty of topics put together to make a one large idea.

Discourse - part 2

My plan has never gone beyond trying to reform my own thoughts and building upon foundation which is completely my own. And if, my work having pleased me sufficiently, I here show you a model of it, it is not for reason that i would wish to advise anyone to imitate it.

Des cartes is trying to say he is always trying to make himself better than what he was the day before. But also he isn't tryig to make anyone follow the path that he went down and to use his methods to succeed. But he will tell you how and why he does what he does.

Discourse 2-Paragraph 13

And thus, too, I thought that, because we were all children before being men and because for a long time it was necessary for us to be governed by our appetites and our teachers (which were frequently in conflict with one another, and of which perhaps neither always gave us the best advice), it is nearly impossible for our judgements to be as pure or as solid as they would have been if we had had the full use of our reason from the moment of our birth and if we had always been guided by it alone.

Descartes is saying by being taught certain things, ,it has caused and confusion and conflict in their minds and also with the teachers(as if they didnt agree with one another). If they were able to to go off of there own ideas and judgements they would have had a better understanding of things. He also is saying if they were ecouraged to use there judgements, understanding would have been more clear.

Meditation 3-Paragraph 37

Now as far as ideas are concerned, if they are considered alone and in their own right, without being referred to something else, they cannot, properly speaking, be false.

Descartes is saying if you have an idea, with things just pertaining to that idea, they cannot be false. On the other hand, if that idea contains things that is outside of its context it can be question and be stated as being false.

Meditations- Perception of God/Himself

"Thus the perception of the infinite is somehow prior in me to the perception of the finite, that is, my perception of God is prior to my perception of myself."



I really found this quote to be interesting. As I started to analyze it, it didn't make sense to me. The perception of the infinite (not having limitations or not having boundaries) is somehow prior to himself to the perception of the finite (having limitations and having boundaries) ??? I kept thinking about what Descartes could possibly be trying to say and now I think I'm starting to understand. I believe that Descarte is comparing himself to God. He is a bounded version of God. God has no limitations whereas on the other hand, Descarte has boundaries. Descartes cant possibly be God because he is not "wholly perfect." I feel that Descartes is questioning the fact that he is not perfect and he is having a hard time trying to figure out why.

Meditations- Judgements

"Now the principal and most frequent error to be found in judgments consists in the fact that I judge that the ideas which are in me are similar to or in conformity with certain things outside me."


I believe that Descartes has a very hard time just believing what he hears. I believe this because of Descartes Four Rules. He had mentioned in the Discourse Part 2 about the Four Rules in which they would be very sufficent for himself. Rule 1 states "never to accept anything as true that I did not plainly know to be such." Applying this rule to the comment that Descartes made in the Meditations proves to me that Descartes feels that its a very common mistake. I believe that he feels very strongly on having/trying to make the right judgement with the right information instead of judging ideas with information that he cannot back up.

Meditations -Analyzing Objects

"Be that as it may, I have previously admitted many things as a wholly certain and evident that nevertheless I later discovered to be doubtful. What sort of things were these? Why, the earth, the sky, the stars, and all the other things I perceived by means of the senses."


As Im sure everyone knows by now, Descartes is constantly questioning everything. If he sees an object or has an idea anything, he somehow or another ends up being very unsure of it. He mentions the idea about the earth, sky and stars. These ideas were bought upon him. Descartes has a very hard time when he cant analyze things. I feel that Descartes completely contradicts himself. He clearly shows how he has a hard time believing in objects that are "outside of him," but the whole idea of God is never questioned.

Meditations 3- paragraph

But as far as impulses are concerned, in the past I have often judged myself to have been driven by them to make the poorer choice when it was a question of choosing a good; and I fail to see why I should place any greater faith in them than in other matters.


i feel descartes is saying that his natural impulses are wrong and poor because he did not think about them morally and if God would approve of them. He says in the beginning of this paragraph that he has been taught by nature and that he is driven by spontaneous impulses to believe and nature is not showing him the truth. So there has to be a higher being which is God who has to show him the truth.

Meditations 3-(Para. 51)

But the mere fact that God created me makes it highly plausible that I have somehow been made in his image and likeness, and that I percieve this likeness, in which the idea of God is contained, by means of the same faculty by which I perceive myself.

I think he is saying he believes in God if he did make him. And he likes God because he was created this way-in his image. So since he was created in his image the thought of God to him is wonderful becuase he figures in some ways they must be alike.

Meditations 3-Paragraph 44(Falsity)

For although a short time ago I noted that falsity properly so called (or "formal" falsity) is to be found only in judgements, nevertheless there is another kind of falsity (called "material" falsity) which is found in ideas whenever they represent a non-thing as it were a thing.

Formal falsity- I think he is trying to say only judgements and thoughts could be false. And what he is saying about material falsity is when thoughts are conveyed as being an object and when you consider objects you think of it being a fact. So he is saying its a non-thing not an thing so it can have falsity.

Existence

"All I have in mind is that I am driven by a spontaneous impulse to believe this, and not that some light of nature is showing me that it is true."

Descarte is examining the existence of multiple things. He states in this section on how he understands what a thing is, what truth is, and what thought is. This section really gets you thinking. How do you know truly what an object is? Descarte mainly focuses on God. No one has seen God.. no one truly knows if he exists. But I find it interesting that Descarte questions all other objects as simple as hearing a noise, looking at the sun, or even feeling fire but yet he still does not question anything related to God.

"The result is that, of all the ideas that are in me, the idea that I have of God is the most true, the most clear and distinct."

Architect

" Thus one sees that buildings undertaken and completed by a single architect are usually more attractive and better ordered than those which many architects have tried to patch up by using old walls that had been built for other purposes."

When reading this quote, the idea of a single mind vs. a group think came into my head. Descarte is again stating how a single mind is better overall. I understand how he's states a building that a single architect handles is better ordered, but I feel that he is just stating the obvious. If a building is under the power of a single architect, nothing is really given the opportunity to be not well ordered.

I seem to disagree with Descarte when he refers to the part with many architects. I got very confused when he stated that they "have tried to patch up by using old walls that had been built for other purposes." I interpreted this section of the quote by having Descarte seem to believe that the more people that work together, the more mistakes occur. Having a group of architects work together is almost rushing/not caring as much as a single architect would.

Meditations 3- The existance of God

In meditation III, Descartes says that perception and imagination exists because it comes to him in his mind. He thinks about the existance of God and wonders if there is anything that keeps him from believing God is NOT real. He believes God is all powerful and finite but then again he believes that he is finite. He questions God and his perceptions and imaginations of Him.

Meditations 3- Descartes doubts...

In the beginning of Meditation 3 Des cartes classifys the meditators thoughts into different kinds of parts 1- ideas 2- volitions 3- emotions 4- judgements. I understand where he is coming from with these different kinds because when you think about something- you always think of "ideas" to make a situation better or maybe worst. Voilitions are the acts of making a choice at the end you have to think about your final decision. Emotions come into part with thinking about something you have to use emotions about what you feel about something. And judgements are always used to make the right decision.

Four Rules

Descartes came about four rules sufficient for him...
These are my interpretations of the rules...

Rule 1- Don't believe everything you hear unless you have proof that tells you otherwise.

Rule 2- Focus on seperating the difficulties and looking into them; pulling out the different aspects in order to understand them more and to resolve them.

Rule 3- Put thoughts in order from easiest to more complicated. Descartes is saying by putting the easiets things to know first you have a better understanding of the complicated thoughts; even if they don't go hand and hand.

Rule 4- List the progressions:then study and view them making sure everything is there and nothing is left out.

I was wondering does anyone see them this way or do they think Descartes is saying something differnet....

4 Rules

Upon reading The Discourse Part Two, I took a great interest in Descartes 4 rules. He believed by formulating these rules, they would be very sufficient to him.. only if he made a firm and constant resolution not even once to fail to observe them. Rule 1: never accept anything as true that I did not plainly know to be such- Descarte, in my opinion, is trying to avoid prejudice and only believe what he thinks. The words and actions of others will not influence his own judgements. Rule 2: divide each of the difficulties I would examine into as many parts as possible and as was required in order better to resolve them- I feel that this rule follows along with rule 1. He will examine every little piece in order to come to a final conclusion. Like in rule 1, he will not just follow along with a crowd. He will stand out and say what he truly believes is right after he analyzes everything. Rule 3: conduct his own thoughts in an orderly fashion- Rather then trying to figure out the actions of others, he'll first try to figure out other things. I feel that Descarte is relating these 4 rules around the actions of others. He states in the text that when he was younger he studied a little bit of everything. By knowing that, I feel that he is very interested in what people are thinking and why people are interested in what they are interested in. Rule 4: everywhere to make enumerations so complete and reviews so general that I was assured of having omitted nothing- This rule is just to assure that he covered/understands everything.

Value of a single thinker

Descartes believes in a single person works better than a group because there is one single plan to go by. But what is the value of a single thinker? I believe the value is less chaos and does not bring up fights throughout the process of whatever people may be doing. But i also see negative effects such as only one opinion, there is not just one good opinio or idea. Not just one person's answer is right.

Discourse 2 Paragraph 15

2 Types of Minds????

1st mind- PPl believe that they are more than what they really are-meaning they think too highly of themselves...These are the ppl that are always in a rush and never take time out to think..which causes them to always be out of order, however they see themselves in a whole different way(they are into themselves)I think Descartes is saying these ppl who think highly of themselves and don't take time out to think will always have confusion in there lives..it will be hard for these ppl to move foward...There lives will always be a rat race!

2nd mind- These are the ppl who understand they don't know everything and don't go about pretending that they do. These are the ppl that learn from others instead of going off of there own opions...however, they are unsure of of whats the truth and whats false from what they hear from others...

Discourse 2

In the Discourse 2 there's a part where he describes the logic and minds. He is saying individuals work better than groups. He thinks with the individuals they follow one plan and there are no arguments or disagreements abouts the specific behaviors. He said Sciences are flawed because Science is put together by groups of people. How did you guys see this part or the others?