Kant- External and Internal Experineces

Kant discusses internal and external experiences. External experiences mean experiences that occur through our senses, through our bodies, and internal would be our souls. So far, it is safe to say that Descarte, Locke and Hume have all agreed on the same topic of mind and body as two separate entities that make up a human structure. Our body is designed for mechanisms, to carry out what our minds want us to do. Together they work to create and complete tasks. However, some people are not in touch with their internal soul and therefore get lost and lose connection.

Kant,- Nature IS possible

Kant brings up the topic of nature of page 56. The question that he is ultimately asking is, “how is nature possible?” The answer to that question is quite obvious because nature is something that just simply exists. We can breathe in air, we can touch the grass, and we can, see hear, feel, and taste rain. These aren’t properties that we assume or make up, they are properties that are obvious, and that everyone is capable of sensing them. We live in the natural world. We are not always aware of the importance of our natural resources simply because they were there first and we did not ask for them to be put there. Therefore nature is possible because we as humans did not create it ourselves, which means that it is not an opinion nor is it questionable by any means by a human being.

Kant:Cause And Effect

The idea of cause and effect is a pure product of the human understanding, and its range at least seems to expand beyond objects of human experience. However Kant was cautious to note that such a priori concepts cannot be practical to things in themselves because an application would be synthetic. Mere analysis of concepts reveals nothing about the existence of things and their properties. Cause and effect makes sense in Kants terms. One you have the reason and foundation, then you get the result or outcome of a situation.

Kant: Experiences

Kant says our knowledge is resulting from experience; it is possible to have knowledge of objects in progress of experience. Kant saw that there are two resources of human knowledge: sensibility and understanding. He thought that the way in which we perceive, identify, and reflect upon objects might have a structure which contributes to our experience. I agree with Kant on this because in order for a person to understand things or do, they need to experience them, and that is how we percieve. I know that for myself, when I knew how to do things that I was more comfortable through experiences because you learn more from past experiences and percieve.

Impressions

What Kant called "imagination" creates our sense impressions with our concepts of understanding, and does them pleasantly, so that we have confidence in the realism of ourselves and of the outside world. Impresssions are a vital aspect to most people. For example, people want to show themselves good the first day because they think the first impression matters. I know through experiences that first impression does make a difference in a person, but then later on that is not what the persons personality really is because you do not know them good enough. Later on, the person will react in a different way, but the first impression will tell you more of a person . For example, when a person goes for an interview, the interviewers get an impression of the person based on their clothing and their way of talking.

Synthetic a Priori

Synthetic a priori judgments are the vital case, because only they could provide new information that is necessarily true but neither Leibniz nor Hume considered the possibility of any of it. Kant sustained that synthetic a priori judgments not only are possible but actually supply the basis for major portions of human knowledge. He supposed that arithmetic and geometry include such judgments and that natural science depends on them for its power to explain and guess events. Kant questioned how are synthetic a priori judgments possible at all? I think that is a good question that Kant asked.The only issue is that people might be good at solving problems or in math, but we learn to know how to solve the problems trough steps

Kant:Perception

"Quite another judgement therefore is required before perception can become experience."

It is necessary that the perception should be included under some such a concept of the understanding. For example, air ranks under the concept of causes, which decides our judgment about it in view to its expansion as hypothetical. In that way, the expansion of the air is symbolized as belonging to it necessarily. In the judgment situation, "the air is elastic," becomes universally suitable, and a judgment of experience, only by certain judgments foregoing it, which includes the intuition of air under the perception of cause and effect.

Kant Page 27

"If two things are quite equal in all respects as much as can be ascertained by all means possible, quantitatively and qualitatively, it must follow that the one can in all cases and under all circumstances replace the other, and this substitution would not occasion the least recognizable difference." I disagree with Kant on this one. If two things are equal they have to replace eachother. It is proven that nothing in the world can be the same and equal. There is always going to be something different about one object with the other one. It is natures way to recongize things...

Cause and effect= Persception and Consequences

Consequences and perception is almost like cause and effect. In order to decipher which comes first, or how the two are distinguished, something must happen. For example. If the weather is cold outside, and a person goes out with no jacket and short sleeves on, then that person will be extremely cold. The consequences of this event would be that the person would suffer being in the cold without a jacket, and perception would be that they are feeling the cold. The “cause” would be that the person walks outside with no jacket AND in the cold, and the “effect” would be that they would be freezing. All in all, there is a similarity between the two.

Kant- Synthetic a priori

At first Kant explains that there are a variety of judgments that are possible of a synthetic a priori. He then carries on about how Hume and other philosophers find it is quite difficult to discover them. In order to make a connection between two ideas, there needs to be some sort of experience in which the ideas are linked. Meaning, it would be impossible to have both a priori and synthetic. Kant believes that math, especially geometry is a priori. For example, 7+5=12 is synthetic. In conclusion math is a synthetic and a priori judgment. I would have to say that I disagree with this because math isn’t something that we are born knowing. It cannot be considered a priori.
We are taught mathamatics in school through use of objects, therefore making links to numbers. We are using separate ideas to relate to one, therefore not making math a priori.

Kant- Impressions

Just because we are given our senses to recognize things, does not mean that we necessarily understand them. A person can sit and observe something they have never seen, but this doesn’t actually mean that they understand the purpose or meaning behind that structure. Almost everything on earth has a purpose, and most things are complex. Some things though, may be deceiving, where they look completely simple, but inside there is a lot more that we cannot see. It is kind of the same. A perfect example of this would be a first impression. A person can take a quick look at another person walking by and begin to for a judgement. Not knowing anything about him/her, from what we see, we have already decided the person’s character. Little do we know that they can either be the complete opposite, or they can have an amazing life story that may be inspiring, or even sad. Most first impressions are wrong, because we are only observing

Kant- perception and experience

"Quite another judgement therefore is required before perception can become experience."

An experience wouldn’t be an experience if our senses didn’t exist. With our senses, we are able to create our own judgements by perception. In order to form a judgement, we must first analyze what we have observed through our senses.

Hume- Cause and Effect

“our reason, unassisted by experience, can never draw any inference concerning real existence and matter of fact.”

Hume uses the example of bread nourishing our bodies. By looking at the bread we do not know that it can provide us with nutrients, or that it is even healthy for us at all, unless we are told it is and provided with actual evidence.

Hume- on definition and opinion

Hume discusses liberty and necessity in Chapter 8 and says that people define things differently and interpret them based on their own definition. If people were to define things the same exact way, then their opinions would be exactly the same. But, as human beings we are all given our own individual brains to think our own individual thoughts. Conflicts occur when people have different opinions, or views on certain things due to differences in opinions. Without differences in interpretations, there would be no conflict, no debates, and no open minded thinking. Therefore, philosophy would be unheard of because there would no opposition to certain matters.

Memory of pain

Hume says that once pain is inflicted, it is stored in the memory and that there will never be another feeling like that one again. But, it seems to me that he is making it seem that nothing will ever be AS painful as the last. I would have to say that I only slightly agree with this due to pain tolerance. When someone is hurt, and is hurt quite often thereafter, they become more tolerant to the pain so that they can endure a little more each time. As morbid as that sounds, it is the truth. For example, someone who has 15 tattoos is more used to needles and the pain than someone who doesn’t have one or who only has one. There are many different levels of pain, and I think tolerance is what prevents us from feeling the same pain again.

Rolling pool ball

Hume discusses the pool ball and how when the white ball is hit, it is expected to either eventually stop when momentum is lost, or when it hits into another ball. For someone who has experience in playing the game of Pool, they would most likely make this conclusion. But for someone who does not know the game, they will not know what to expect. The ball doesn’t necessarily stop all the time when it hits another ball however. Sometime it just merely rubs against another ball and keeps on rolling past. Either way, whether the ball just bounces from wall to wall, or ball to ball, scientific rule says that it will eventually stop.

expansion of thought- Hume

“It seems a proposition, which will not admit of much dispute, that all our ideas are nothing but copies of our impressions, or, in other words, that it is impossible for us to think of any thing, which we have not antecedently felt, either by our external or internal senses."



I am a bit confused when it comes to this. It seems to me that Hume once said that our thoughts can be expanded upon. But here it seems that Hume is saying that what we have installed in our brains are our only limits of thinking, that he believes, like Locke maybe, that we have a clear slate in our minds and until we have experienced through our senses, it is then that we know about it. Maybe we only know, and are only capable of thinking what we already know? Or are we capable of thinking beyond.

Miracles- Hume

"But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life, because that has never been observed in any age or country"

Maybe Hume does believe in miracles, regardless if they are small ones or big ones. Hume says that miracles do occur day to da, and when people least expect things, or when something happens without plan, then it is considered a miracle. When someone expects something to happen and it doesn't, maybe that is a miracle in itself because maybe it wasn't MEANT to happen. Miracles can mean many things.

"Quite another judgement therefore is required before perception can become experience."

In order to make something into an experience, there is more than just perceiving it. You must perceive something through your senses, and judge it or understand it. I believe that an experience is more complex than we realize. We compare our perceptions to things, we connect them to other things or people, and we form an opinion of them too.

"Arithmeical judgemnts are synthetic."

Kant explains that although at know 5+7=12, when we think of 12 we do not merely think of 5+7. 12 can be a combination of numbers, and we must analyze the concept and provide aid to show this result. Our concpet,12, is clarified by the addition of 5+7, but can also be clarified by the addition of 6+6 or the subtraction of 13-1.

"When an appearance is given us, we are still quite free as to how we should judge the matter. The appearance depends upon the senses, but the judgment upon the understanding; and the only question is whether in the determination of the object there is truth or not."

I agree that we observe something, perceive it, and make a judgement. We understand that thing to the best of our ability, and I don't think anyone truly knows the truth about it. We can research, observe, and declare things as they are from what we know, but does anybody really know the truth about anything? I'm just not sure.

"If two things are quite equal in all respects as much as can be ascertained by all means possible, quantitatively and qualitatively, it must follow that the one can in all cases and under all circumstances replace the other, and this substitution would not occasion the least recognizable difference."

I am not sure if I believe that any two things are exactly alike. I believe that there is always something, no matter how minor or small, sets two things apart. I don't believe that God would create anything the same; I believe He would make each individual or thing unique in his/her/its own way.

"Judgment of experience are always synthetic. For it would be absurd to base an analytic judgment on experience."

Synthetic involves a proposition that does not result in contradiction if negated. We discussed in class that all unmarried men are bachelors, which is analytic, but then we stated that all bachelors watch sports center. The definition of bachelor is an unmarried man, not an unmarried man who watches sports center.

"For the predicate of an affirmative analytic judgement is already thought in the concept of the subject, of which it cannot be denied without contradiction...."

Analytic means that something is true becuase denying it raises contradiction. The example we had been using was that all bachelor's are unmarried. This is undeniable because the mere definition of bachelor is an unmarried man. Another example, boys are anatomically different from girls. This is true because research and physical evidence shows so.

"If you tell me, that any person is in love, I easily understand your meaning, and form a just conception of his situation; but never can mistake that conception for real disorders and agitations of the passion "

When we reflect on our past emotions and affections, our thought is a faithful mirror, and copies its objects truly.A man in a well of anger is motivated in a very different behavior from one who only thinks of that emotion. When people say there in love they are blinded by everything around them. They say they have found their other half. But for how long can that keep up. Do people see each other after 50 years in the long run with each other. After their beauty is gone and fatter? When you find out what they are truely with gross habbits can you still say your in love? Love is only for a short period of time, then it turns out to become a job that you dont want to give up.

Experiences

Past experiences: What happens when you cannot reason with your past experience? What if your past experiences do not have the answers for the present or the future? How about those people who don't have acknowledgment of their past experiences? What happens then? Hume says that those who do not have prior experience are not going to understand the process of cause and effect. In this section Hume states that our reasoning of experiences is derived from custom not understanding.

I think that many people learn from their past experiences but then there are people who do not. You only learn by experiencing from past experiences. I agree when hume says that for the people who not have prior experiences are not going to quite understand the process of cause and effect. I agree with Hume thinking that there aren't answers for the present or the future. You just learn and observe from your past experience, and based on that most people change as a person, and others do not, but there are not given answers to how your experiences in the future will be.

"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 acquainted 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 etc. and of the effects which result from their operation"

The ignorance and inexperience of the young are clearly obvious from the sly and wisdom of the old, who have learned, by long examination to avoid what hurt them, and to follow what gave ease. For example, a horse, that has been familiar to the field, becomes familiar with the proper height which he can leap, and will never attempt what exceeds his force and ability. Hume says that the animal infers some fact past what immediately strikes his senses, and that this inference is in total founded on past experience. Both human and animals learn many things from experience. We observe.

Miracles

"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.".....................

I do think that a miracle is an unexpected situation. For example, there has been times where I have heard that a person is really sick and in the verge of dying, but then found out that they became well as opposed to how they were. Many people believe in miracles today and I would perhaps be one of them. Hume is right, miraces do consist with the laws of nature and they are just full of surprises. Hume was alert that no matter how scientific or rational a civilization became, belief in miracles would not be eliminated.

Memory & Senses

"Custom, then, is the great guide of human life. It is that principle alone, which renders our experience useful to us, and makes us expect, for the future, a similar train of events with those which have appeared in the past. Without the influence of custom, we should be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact, beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses."............

Hume discusses that our conclusions from experience carry us past our memory and senses, and guarantee us of matters of fact which happened in the most far-away places and most isolated ages; however some fact must always be present to the senses or memory, from which we may first carry on in drawing these conclusions.

Ignorance

"Though there be no such thing as Chance in the world; our ignorance of the real cause of any event has the same influence on the understanding...there is certainly a probability"............

I think that regarding with ignorance, veil of ignorance, effectively forces self-interested bargainers to consider other people’s interests. It is the obligation that participants do not know what their own position or any one else’s will be in the society that results from the bargaining game, and know very little about their own talents and skills either. Not only are players in the bargaining game ignorant of their own skills and capacities, they do not know what their interests, their goals, or their conception the good life will be. Apart from these limitations on their knowledge of their own position, the players in the bargaining game are extremely well formed: “They understand political affairs and the principles of economic theory; they know the basis of social organization and the laws of human psychology.”

Forming Thought

When Locke says we are apparent that we as human beings possess the power to form thought. He says we distinguishes us from all other species is that our brain has the capability to think and form thoughts. I sometimes I ask myself that animals out there was once like us. That they to can become what we are today. But they cant for that reason thats why were known as the smartest. What seperates us from anything like us that we embrass learning and teach one another. As Locke says we are able to create ideas, recognize, and compare objects through our senses. We learn from our mistakes and study them. Thats why human beings possess the power to form thought.

God???

Locke states that god exist although we can no prove that he does with out proof. I must disagree on this. Even though I believe in god how would I actually know he does exist. If it was not for my parents and the people around me. I would not have the thought of a greater being that creates everything around us. Just think about it if no one ever mentioned the word god and the meaning of him. And just one day a stranger comes and tells you that there is man called god. And controls everything around us and makes all the choices. You would turn around and think this man is crazy. So when Locke says that god does exist with out proof. How is that so when no one actually saw him. You can not base your knowledge on something by the words that come out of peoples mouths.

I think it will be granted easily that if a child were kept in a place where he never saw any other but black and white till he were a man, he would have no more ideas of scarlet or green..." (Locke, pg61) Locke is trying to say in this paragraph that when a child is born he is not aware of his surroundings. That he takes in what he hears around him and what he sees. When locke finished his last line. Saying if he never saw any other but black and white till he were a man, he would have no more ideas of scarlet or green. I think different though because there is never a black or white to start with. Colors would come darker or lighter to see a object. So if a baby cant see color and only sees black or white. Then that baby would not only see black or white but would make a whole different set of colors from just the two of them. "So no matter what he would always have more ideas of scarlet or green"

cause and effect

For the longest time, we were taught that when something happens, it will cause something else. Without the cause there can be no effect. When you get a cut, you bleed; when you snap your fingers, you get a sound. Even though this is true, there may not always be the same effect from one cause. I may get sick 100 times after eating a certain food, but on that 100 first time, I could be perfectly fine. There is never a certainty as to what can happen from a cause, but it is certain that there will be an effect.

"Every one will readily allow, that there is a considerable difference between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the pain of excessive heat, or pleasure of moderate warmth, and when he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation,or anticipates it by his imagination. These faculties may mimic is copy the perception if the senses; but they never can entirely reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment."

I agree that we can often recall a feeling that we will never forget, but we cannot reach the original perception of each feeling we have. I can easily recall that I was really warm sitting in class the other day, but until I feel that again, I cannot truly understand the sentiment. Memory often fades in and out throughout time, and unforunately that is somethign we cannot change.

"If you tell me, that any person is in love, i easily understand your meaning, and form a just conception of his situation; but never can mistake that conception for the real disorders and agitations of the passion."
I believe Hume is trying to say that unless he is experiencing something, he cannot know what it feels like. You can easily understand waht it is like to be inlove, afraid, sad, happy, etc. but unless you are feeling those emotions, you cannot conceive their situation. I often try to put myself in other people's positions to understand where they are coming from or to treat them how I would want to be treated, but it is harder than you think. I hear myself saying "oh I would be so mad" or "I would hate that", but how do I know that unless I am in that situation in that instance?

chance

"Though there be no such thing as Chance in the world; our ignorance of the real cause of any event has the same influence on the understanding...there is certainly a probability"

I believe that there is always a chance of anything. There is a chance it may rain tomorrow; there is a chance my teacher may cancel class. You never know what the future holds, and I beileve that undoubtedly.

" One, who in our climate, should expect better weather in any week of June than in one of December, would reason justly, and comformably to experience; but it is certain, that he may happen, in the event, to find himself mistaken.

Situations in life usually develop a pattern in which we follow to predict what may happen. We predict things from past experiences, but these experiences may not always lead us in the right direction. Weather is the perfect example because weather forecasters are rarely correct. They predict sunny skies for ur vacation and you find yourself with a week of rain. You predict you will beat the underdog in a basketball game but wind up losing in the last minute. You can predict, but it doesn't mean you're accurate.

thoughts or ideas

"Here therefore we may divide all the perceptions of the mind into two classes or species, which are distinguished by their different degrees of force and vivacity. The less forbidle and lively are commonly denominated THOUGHTS or IDEAS."

To Hume, thoughts and ideas are based on impressions. Impressions left on the mind lead us to perceive the meaning behind them which causes our thoughts or ideas. Our thoughts could be reactions to something, feelings about something, or emotions. On the other hand our ideas are a collaboration of all of those things and our ideas bring about something new.

constantly repeated ideas can scarce be lost

".. those (ideas) that are oftenest refreshed by a frequent return of the objects or actions that produce them, fix themselves best in the memory, and remain clearest and longest there..." (pg 99, Locke)"

When something is constantly being repeated, it is easiest for the mind to store it in its memory. For instance, if someone spends a large quantity of time with either a specific person, or if they are even exposed to a constant behavior, many different stimulants will trigger a memory of that subject when they aren't around it. Consistency and repitition are also one of the basic building blocks for intelligence also. By constantly imprinting something in someone's mind, it is seen and/or noticed more and more and eventually it becomes learned. It will even be triggered when the slightest hint of it is mentioned elsewhere.

The denominotations of actions often mislead us

"But because very frequently the positive idea of the action, and its moral relation are comprehended together under one name, and the same word made use of to express both the mode or action, and its moral rectitude or obliquity, therefore the relation itself is less taken notice of; and there is often no distiction made between the positive idea of the action, and the reference it has to a rule."

Actions depend on whether or not they are done in good favor. Some words have a bad conotation. For example, if I were to tell you I smell an odor. One would think it is a terrible smell. When infact I could be speaking of the odor of a rose. Language is full of many words and actions. If an action or word is being used in good favor is it really considered a bad action or does it depend on the context the word or action is being used?

Perception

From birth we are observing things, people, and behaviors. These behaviors will later be peceived as either good or bad to any given person. By using our senses we try to understand what exactly we are seeing, hearing,smelling, tasting, or feeling. From these clues we can make judgement from our past experiences. Depending on the environment,and how the person was raised will determine how that indvidual person will percieve that person, action, or object.

as observed by children

"But all that are born into the world being surrounded with bodies that perpetually and diversely afect them, variety of ideas whether care to be taken or no, are imprinted on the minds of children...Light and colours are busy at hand everywhere the eye is but open; but sounds and some tangible qualities fail not to solicit their proper senses, and force entrance to the mind; but yet I think it will be granted easily that if a child were kept in a place where he never saw any other but black and white till he were a man, he would have no more ideas of scarlet or green..." (Locke, pg61)

From what I take of this, Locke is stating that as a child we are observant to sound, and attracted towards light and color. Some things we tend to focus more on, and some of which we observe and tend to not pay attention to. Locke discusses that we subconsciously manage to imprint both in our minds. What we first see and familiarize ourselves with as a child is what we are subjected to know. For example, Locke says that "if a child were kept in a place where he never saw any other but black and white till he were a man, he would have no more ideas of scarlet or green" . This means that even though at birth that child may have seen reds and blues, the mind is immature, inexperienced, and underdeveloped. Therefore, if the child grew up from then on only knowing of black and white, then it will no longer remember the other colors because as the brain developes, it familiarizes with only black and white through constant repetition.

Knowing God exists... or not knowing?

Locke explains how we KNOW that God exists. He explains states that God isn't necessarily an innate idea. But, we know that God does exist although he/she/it leaves no evidence of being a true life form.

I would have to disagree that we as humans just KNOW that God exists. It is apparent that some people believe in the idea of a God, where as other do not. But, once again, when we are born, we have NO knowledge of any type of God, until however, we are taught about it. From then on we search for evidence to further prove this theology, and when some unexplainable event happens, we tend to say it was a miracle of God. I disagree because, what if someone was NEVER EVER told about a greater being such as a God, and that person lived life without ever knowing of the idea altogether. That means that person wouldn't have thoughts about God, therefore the belief in God is not an innate idea. They may possibly end up forming some kind of thought that maybe there is SOMETHING, but that could only be done through the prosses of actually thinking, comparing, and recognizing, which are all innate properties.

idea, the object of thinking

it is apparent that we as human beings possess the power to form thoughts. For this is a quality that sets us apart from all other 'animals'. Obviously we are of the most intelligent. What distinguishes us from all other species is that our brain has the capability to think and form thoughts. We are able to create ideas, recognize, and compare objects through our senses.

The questions Locke asks are, 'how is our brain ABLE to recognize these ideas?' And are these ideas instilled in our minds from the very beginning our existence? Is it our senses taht cause us to retrigger some undiscovered innate ideas by first recognizing an object? From my point of view, I feel that as we get older, our brains are more capable of comparing and contrasting for example, right from wrong, the good from the bad, and big versus small through experience and repetition. Saying that ideas are formed right from the beginning is tough to declare as a true statement, because we are unable to distinguish and recognize 'things' until we are taught how to, or told what that 'thing' is.

Method

In method, "it is therefore worth while to search out the biunds between opinion and knowledge, and examine by what measures, in things whereof we have no ceratin knowledge, we ought to regulate our assent, and moderate our persuasions".

The first method describes how to inquire the original of the ideas which a person observed.
The second methods describes to show what knowledge and understand the hath of those ideas and understanding the evidence and the extent of it.
The third method makes some inquires into the nature and grounds of faith or opinion and how we should examine the reasoning of the truths of not knowing certain knowledge.

Qualities

On page 87 Locke talks about his concerns of colors and smells can also mean and be understood of tastes and sounds. "Whatever reality we by mistake attribute to them, are in truth nothing in the objects themselves, but powers to produce various sensations in us, and depend on those primary qualities, viz., bulk, figure, texture, and motions of parts", says Locke.

This situation describes how our senses and qualities work together. For example, with admiration to sight, taste and smell, looking at a color may suggest any number of other sensations.

mind/body

"They are, in the bodies we denominate from them, only a power to produce those sensations in us..."

Descartes and Locke are thinking along the same lines in with this statement. Descartes said that what we think we are seeing for the first time is really forgotten knowledge that we had already known. It seems to me like Locke is saying that the sensations we feel to create our ideas are already sensations we know in our minds but have forgotten.

mind/body

"If it shall be demanded , then, when a man begins to have any ideas? I think, the true answer is, when he first has any sensation."

I like this quote because it simply explains Locke's entire way of thinking. With our senses-sight, sound, touch, etc.- we are able to draw conclusions, form ideas, etc. in our minds. Through the experience of sensation we can then perceive, remember, and recollect which shapes our memories. Where Descartes believes that reasoning is linked to ideas, Locke links sensation with ideas.

perception

"the ideas we receive by sensation are often in grown people altered by the judgement without our taking notice of it."

This brings a couple ideas to mind. First, we see what we want to see is popular saying. I had a friend who was very mean, shallow, and disrespectful. It took me years to notice it because I saw something dfferent. I looked past those characteristics because I saw potential and somethign better in her.

Second, it reminded me of the game 'telephone' where you whisper a phrase into someones ear and keep the chain going to see if the phrase remains the same throughout the exchange from person to person. For the most part, it never remains the same. You alter visions, sayings, etc. without realizing it all the time. Your perception results from experiences, personality, morals, and all things in your life.

morale, not innate

"Moral rules need a proof; not innate."

I think it's as simple as "do to others as you want done to you." For example, I'm a believer that if you want respect you must give it. It reminds me of 'karma'-Your actions define your fate, and you are in control of what happens to you. In my previous blog I referred to 'maternal instinct' as being innate, but I am second guessing myself. You develop morals and ethics by which shape your life. You know you must provide for your children because you love and care for them. You would do anything for them not because you were born with a voice in your head telling you to, but because it's a way of life that you had and know is right.

God as innate

"If any idea can be imagined innate, the idea of God may, of all others, for many reasons, be thought so"

How can the idea of God be innate whn the existence of God is still a controversial issue? Coming into this world we have no idea what things are, why they are here, or how they are here. We learn the myths and ideas that answer these questions as we grow older, but still, have no proof. In early civilizations, to answer any questions, people would attribute things to Gods. Some civilizations had several Gods, and some had a God for every piece of nature. Through experience and education, we develop theories about God or a supreme being, but it is impossible to be an innate idea.

Locke on experience

"Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas; how comes it to be furnished? To this I answer, in one word, from experience: in that all our knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives itself."

This is tough. I agree that we learn so much from experience and experience shapes our lives. Without trying something you will never know what you are capable of. You grow from past experiences and they teach you for future experiences. At the same time, I also believe that you are born with instincts that tell you to do certain things. People always talk about a mother's maternal instinct. You have a child and you would do anything to protect that child not because you've seen other mothers do that, but because its instilled in you to be "motherly". Also, you ever realize how little kids never know what to say or what not to say because they tell it like they see it? Well, doesn't that mean that telling the truth is inborn in them? You learn to lie by growing older and seeing other people lie, being lied to, lying to stay out of trouble, or lying to protect someones feelings.

The Mind and body problem is the combination of reality and the perception of reality. Descartes doubt the reality of the physical world and he doubts his own mind therefore, his mind and body problems became one of his biggest issues. The mind and body is really hard to understand, but Descartes help us to explain by giving us an example of what the problem is about. His example was if he cut of his leg, he would be affecting his physical body, but his mind would not be affected. With that Descartes example, we can understand a little bit more about his mind and body problem. Also, another question related to Descartes mind and body problem is that what is the relationship between the mind and the body? So, that is Descartes mind and body problems and how he came across the problems.
For a while he couldn’t find the answer to his doubting question, but eventually he came with an answer to one of the mind and body problems. He found that the relationship between the mind and the body is that one affects the other. He said that the mind needs the body and the body needed the mind to work properly. In that relation, the mind and body are still two separate entities. For the second part of the problem that deals with the mind and body is the perception of reality, at that part Descartes has to figure out where does reality lie. As he was thinking about the problem and keep on wondering about it, he finally came up with the solution, Cogito Ergo Sum, “I think there for I am”. As he thinks about the problem he realized that since he is using his mind to think and working it, so then he must exist and that was his reality.

Med. 5

Descartes further mentions proof of the existence of God. Although God does not have any specific qualities that we oberve through out senses, we do know that God does exist in some way, therefore what makes him 'true' is the quality/property of existence.

Discourse Pt 1

"... I have been nourished on letters since my childhood, and because I was convinced that by means of them one could acquire a clear and assureed knowledge of of everything that is useful in life, I had a tremendous desire to master them. But as soon as I had completed this entire course of study, at the end of which one is ordinarily receieved into the ranks of the learned, I completely changed my mind. For I found myself confounded by so many doubts and errors that it seemed to me that I have gained so many doubts and errors that it seemed to me that I had not gained any profit from my attempt to teach myself, except that more and more I had discovered my ignorance..."

What Descartes is trying to emphasize here is that as a child everyone is told that all the answers and all intellect can be obtained through teachings from facts and/or stories from a book. As a child Descartes had a strong desire to learn all and everything there was to know. He planned on making it his job to "master" all that was taught to him. Although he has gone through all stages of schooling and is amongst the highest of intellect, he doesn't believe that makes him any different from anyone else. In fact, he states that "... I had discovered my ignorance..." which will cause him to venture out and seize the answers he is longing for. Clearly, Descartes is expressing his own self doubt amongst everything he has been taught.

method of doubt

By doubting almost everything Descartes decided to throw everything that he knows and learned away. So, he came up with the Method of Doubt, by questioning about everything that the past philosopher in the past has came up with, and fined the answer to them, and then the idea would not be doubtful anymore. That was his new way for finding the ultimate truth. Every time he questions about an idea that was already there and when he doubt about it and go into his meditation state, he hope to find the ultimate truth for that question.

Reason

I think that when people give advice and give reason to what they want to tell you,they actually want them to follow that reason. I believe that when someone gives an opinion that they want to recognize their statement. If that was not so, no one would give reasons for anything. No one would learn from others. So actually, I think Decartes is lying when he says that he doesn't want people to listen to his reasons because if that was true; he would never give a reason in the first place.

Doubt

Decartes has learned after years of studying and developing up some of his own ideas about the world he live in, he started to doubt in his own belief. He doubted the lesson he learned and the reality that he is living in and eventually he became really skeptical of everything. He questioned that did everything he learned and know so far is true or not. Did everything was pre planed in his head or did he really learn it all.

What leaded Descartes to this great problem; well before he came up with the problem he had a great education and a great opportunity to get one. I think Descartes is a man of the Lord, he understand great things that no one else can. During his studies of philosophy, he became really skeptic and starting to doubt the things he learned in the past. He studied up on Plato and his Forms and form and the natural and unnatural world.

Descartes, in Meditation 5 discusses the quality that makes something true, or definite. That is, a 'thing' is not a 'thing' unless it obtains properties. For example, a triangle is a triangle because it has certain qualities that make it a triangle. It is not our senses that make it what it is. He discusses that essence of a thing.

Discourse Part 1

In the very beginnning of Part 1, Descartes expresses how 'good sense' is something we are all born with. Many people seem to beleive that we obtain it all in many different ways, such as, through different experiences and the different roads we lead our lives on. Finding 'good sense', according to Descartes, takes time and humbleness to recognize that we are actually born with it. That we obtain it from day one and it is something that throughout our lives, we must recognize it and apply it, rather than search for it, and distract ourselves from it.

In the very beginnning of Part 1, Descartes expresses how 'good sense' is something we are all born with. Many people seem to beleive that we obtain it all in many different ways, such as, through different experiences and the different roads we lead our lives on. Finding 'good sense', according to Descartes, takes time and humbleness to recognize that we are actually born with it. That we obtain it from day one and it is something that throughout our lives, we must recognize it and apply it, rather than search for it, and distract ourselves from it.

Choices

Descartes thinks that people make good choices, but actually there action our by mistakes. He also said that his purpose here is not to teach the method that everyone out to follow in order to conduct his reason well, but merely to show how he has tried to conduct his own. He alsow says that what we look at is probably not what we see.

Gods

With Descartes there is more than one God. In this I agree and disagree. People might fight and always say that there god is better than others. Who are we to say that one is better. I believe that everyone believes in the same god. People make it seem there is thousands of different gods out there. But in reallity there is one god. I believe that people believe in the same god but just look at it from a different angle. If you think about about everyones religion says basically the same thing. No ones gods tells them to go out and murder someone or steal something. Thats why I think there is one god instead of thinking there is more than one god.

Descartes greatest question during his time of studies is the Mind and Body problem. What is the Mind and Body problem? Well Descartes claim that the Mind and the Body are two separate entities, but some how have to be related. So, the problem is that "what is the relationship between the mind and the Body?" Descartes knowledge of philosophy leads him to help him to find this relationship between the mind and body.

More than one God

"Next I cannot understand how there could be two or more Gods of this kind."
We say in catholicism that we shall have no other Gods before our God. How can that be a logical statement if we believe in one Supreme Being?

meditation 5

"First, I cannot think of anything aside from God alone to whose essence of existence belongs."
I agree with Descartes on this quote. Just the other day I asked my brother if it was wrong of me to say I'm not sure taht I believe in God. He told me if there was no God why would it matter what you say? What would it mean? and to whom would it mean something? Like Descartes I cannot think of anyone or anything to associate existence with besides God. I grew up learning about God and I was baptized, received communion and confirmation. I guess I answered my own question.

Discourse Part 1

In Part 1 of Descartes' Discourse I think the main point he is trying to make is that every person has good sense, but not all know how to use it well. You can use up all your time studying and learning everything you possible think you should, but you end up still lacking a lot in life. You need experience and abstract thinking for yourself in order to make true progress and developments.