Hume Blog6

"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."

In addition to not agreeing with Hume on miracles, what about the proof of miracles through religion. I would want to ask Hume has he ever had looked into the different religions, and discovered what miracles were really about?

HumeBlog5

"It seems evident that, if all the scenes of nature were continually shifted in such a manner that no two events bore any resemblance to each other, but every object was entirely new, without any similitude to whatever had been seen before, we should never, in that case, have attained the least idea of necessity, or of a connexion among these objects. "

What Hume states that we should never have the idea that these changes need to occur. I agree but sort of disagree, because what about seasons, every year our world goes through the changes of daylight savings, and seasons time, the changes happen and they dont resemble each other. What about the transitions of fall to winter, and winter to spring, and spring to summer?

Hume Blog4

"Though it be too obvious to escape observation, that different ideas are connected together; I do not find, that any philosopher has attempted to enumerate or class all the principles of association; a subject, however, that seems worthy of curiosity. To me, there appear to be only three principles of connexion among ideas, namely, Resemblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cause or Effect."

Hume basically states that that the connection of ideas are only resemblance, and cause and effect. I agree but I disagree, ideas that that are different can always be connected together, its just that they have one common ground. It doesnt matter if they have cause and effect and are similar.

Hume Blog3

"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."

Hume says that he can understand the difference between actually be in love, which he calls a disorder, and actually having passions which is really being in love. I understand where he is coming from because he says if anyone is in love, he can easily separate from the person that has the passion. That is like someone that is saying Im in love with graham crackers, and another person who has the passion for graham crackers, who loves the taste, the look, and the basically the food.

Hume Blog2

"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"

There is such thing as chance, aren't chance and probability in the same caliber, I beg to differ with Hume, when he says that there is no such thing as chance in the world. Probability is the chance of certain things happpening, like one in three million, or something else, thats chance, its something that is taught in math, and something that we go through every day in decision making.

Hume Blog1

"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."

Even though in my personal opinion Hume says that miracles are violations, I believe is wrong. I understand what point he is trying to make. In the laws of nature, routine is very present, like a certain season coming up, after spring comes summer, and so on, but for miracles, unexpected things to appear, does make Kant's point valid. However, I believe in situations of miracles, a strong faith in a higher being, has to appear, thats probably why Hume doesnt believe in miracles because he doesnt have faith in higher being that is amongst individuals.

Kant Blog6

"Judgments of experience [empirical judgments] are always synthetical. For it would be absurd to base an analytical judgment on experience, as our concept suffices for the purpose without requiring any testimony from experience. That body is extended, is a judgment established a priori, and not an empirical judgment."

I agree with the saying that judgements are synthetical. Analytical judgements are judgements that are with logic, and empirical judgements are the ones that are based on experience. Judgements from which you learn from experience through doing certain things.

Kant Blog5

"That the human mind will ever give up metaphysical researches is as little to be expected as that we should prefer to give up breathing altogether, to avoid inhaling impure air. There will therefore always be metaphysics in the world; nay, every one, especially every man of reflection, will have it, and for want of a recognized standard, will shape it for himself after his own pattern."

What Kant is saying is that metaphysical research is that people will use for the rest of the history, metaphysics is our history our trace of identity to find out who we are as a people. Metaphysics refers to beings, how beings act, and their culture. In addition to what Kant says is that man will always look at metaphysics, the ontology, and cosmology, and refer it to their history.

"....knowledge lying beyond experience. It can therefore have for its basis neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology. It is therefore a priori cognition, coming from pure understanding and pure reason."

What the context clues was telling about this quote was something that I was in the middle of truly understanding, I guess knowledge working with experience is what makes understanding and reason. I understood because in essence of experience something whether good or bad you gain wisdom, and learn what could have made something better or made something worse. That in my opinion is the experience of life.

Kant Blog3

"Men who never think independently have nevertheless the acuteness to discover everything, after it has been once shown them, in what was said long since, though no one could ever see it there before."

I agree with post, with independence comes growth, and without the growth of being on your own and experiencing things by yourself, life becomes dull and less challenging, life without being independent becomes comfortable, and that doesn't lead to very much.

Kant Blog2

"Reason with all its concepts and laws of the understanding, which suffice for empirical use, i.e., within the sensible world, finds in itself no satisfaction because ever-recurring questions deprive us of all hope of their complete solution."
Along with Roachcoach, when I read this statement what I found to be interesting was the fact that with reasoning always come questioning and you could never find the complete solution in anything. For example, someone gets a haircut, and someone else ask why, that person could say for a reason that he got the haircut because he wanted a new fresh cut, but then the person would say, why not get dreadlocks, why not let it grow. Proving my example there is no complete solution to everything.

KANT-Pure Mathematics

"Pure Mathematics, and especially pure geometry, can only have objective reality on condition that they refer to objects of sense. But in regard to the latter the principle holds good, that our sense representation is not a representation of things in themselves but of the way in which they appear to us."

When I read that blog, I had to read it twice because what caught my attention was the last comment that was made representation of things in themselves, but of the way in which they appear to us. I would definately say I have to agreee with Kant, because we ourselves even though we might want people to observe us in a representation of ourselves, other people have their own perceptions and impressions. This maybe could be the reason why we dress up well for a particular occasion, or do somethings out of the ordinary because we want to make a good and lasting representation.

Kant's Solution on human mind/metaphysics

"That the human mind will ever give up metaphysical researches is as little to be expected as that we should prefer to give up breathing altogether, to avoid inhaling impure air. There will therefore always be metaphysics in the world; nay, every one, especially every man of reflection, will have it, and for want of a recognized standard, will shape it for himself after his own pattern."

Kant argues that the human mind will always be curious. It will always be willing to conduct research, and if that is to be disputed, we could compare humans as not breathing at all unless it was pure air. All of mankind will at somepoint want to find a standard of metaphysics in some form for themselves to relate to.

Kant Conclusion section 57

"Reason with all its concepts and laws of the understanding, which suffice for empirical use, i.e., within the sensible world, finds in itself no satisfaction because ever-recurring questions deprive us of all hope of their complete solution."

Reasoning and Understanding are things Kant describes real well. Its almost as though he is a fate believer. He states that that even with reasoning and laws of understanding something that happens for a reason, we never feel completly satisfied. Were still inclined to ask why did it happen to us?

Kant part 3 metaphyics

"Metaphysics has to do not only with concepts of nature, which always find their application in experience, but also with pure rational concepts, which never can be given in any possible experience. Consequently the objective reality of these concepts (viz., that they are not mere chimeras), and the truth or falsity of metaphysical assertions, cannot be discovered or confirmed by any experience."

What Kant says here is that any rational idea can never be considered assumed. The objectivity of nature is too great that anything and anything can happen. This also applies to metaphysics, where in the assertions, they also cannot be confirmed in any expierence or be assumed.

"Judgments of experience [empirical judgments] are always synthetical. For it would be absurd to base an analytical judgment on experience, as our concept suffices for the purpose without requiring any testimony from experience. That body is extended, is a judgment established a priori, and not an empirical judgment."

I agree with Kant that experiences are synthetical. Kant also says that our concept is sufficient enough to not even require the expierence.

Kant Pure Math? Remark I

"Pure Mathematics, and especially pure geometry, can only have objective reality on condition that they refer to objects of sense. But in regard to the latter the principle holds good, that our sense representation is not a representation of things in themselves but of the way in which they appear to us."

Kant says that math, with emphasis on geometry, have objective reality. Geometry is much more easier to show this because geometry deals primarily with shapes and figures, rather than numbers. Showing someone that a triangle has a right angle is easy when you look at something at 90degrees, rather than trying to do a formula for it.

Kant 2nd Part, Sec 17

"The formal aspect of nature in this narrower sense is therefore the conformity to law of all the objects of experience, and so far as it is known a priori, their necessary conformity. But it has just been shown that the laws of nature can never be known a priori in objects so far as they are considered not in reference to possible experience, but as things in themselves. And our inquiry here extends not to things in themselves (the properties of which we pass by), but to things as objects of possible experience, and the complex of these is what we properly call nature"

Before I begin to even detail the passage, I just wanted to note that this is by far the most challenging piece of writing I have ever read to understand. In fact, Kant's whole book was difficult.

In this this passage, Kant explains how nature's law of conformity relates to not just expierencing them but them just being themselves. The human mind inquires about them even without the expierence. This is what defines nature. Its something that can't really be changed but is all around us and we want to find out more about it.

on judgments

"Former judgment is merely a judgment of perception and is of subjective validity only; it is merely a connection of perceptions in my mental state, without reference to the object."

basically what he is trying to say is that judgments of subjective validity are basically judgments drawn from references to the mind of perception without acknowledging the object itself because judgments that are objectively valid are universally valid, meaning it is known to everybody, its drawn from appearance rather than perception.

empirical judgment

"in the first place we must state that while all judgments of experience are empirical, yet conversely, all empirical judgments are not therefore judgments of experience............every perception must be first of all subsumed and then by their means changed into experience."

basically what he is trying to say is that as long as the judgments are objective validity;universally valid, me and everybody should understand;, they are judgments of experience but if they are subjectively, they become mere perceptions. meaning we percieve them to be good judgments. but whether we intuit them as an object or perception, since they are empiricle, they become judgments of experience.

idealism concerning space and time

"idealism consists in the assertion that there are none but thinking beings;all other things which we believe are perceived in intuitions are nothing but representations in the thinking being, to which no object external to them in fact corresponds."

in this quote, its kind of confusing what kant is trying to say. from my understanding he's talking about space and time. the external objects that we see, we know nothing of it but their appearance as he says. all objects are given through intuition which are given by our senses. we know nothing but its mere reflection. for instance space is nothing but just a representaion and only is known to our minds according to kant. basically we have no concept of space and time, we now nthing of it but its appearance. he ties all of this to geometry. geometry too is a priori and is the study of our pure intuition of space and time.

emperical and pure intuitions concerning math

in the first part, kant says that if math consist of synthetic a priori, we must be able to distinguish different concepts in the form of pure intuitions. pure intuitions basically are a point of view. kant distinguishes between emperical intuition and pure intuition. emperical intuiton from my understanding is basically sensing something, like something thats known as a fact or so. kant believes that math is synthetic a priori meaning that it has to be pure intuitions. we are able to understand math because theres something innate in us that allows us to distinguish different concepts, we dont have to have experience to undestand math.

judgments into analytic and synthetic

"Men who never think independently have nevertheless the acuteness to discover everything, after it has been once shown them, in what was said long since, though no one could ever see it there before."

In this section, Kant talks about how Hume's as well as Locke's writings are narrowed. Their discussion on judgments is only based on their information and what other writers have wrote. Kant says that one must go where no man has gone and look beyond their own reflection. One has to think independently and go where no man has gone. Cannot prove a point or make an argument if the information is not sufficient.

of the sources of metaphysics

"....knowledge lying beyond experience. It can therefore have for its basis neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology. It is therefore a priori cognition, coming from pure understanding and pure reason."



What Kant is trying to say in this section is that metaphysics as well as mathematics are an a priori because those are things that one learn through pure understanding and reasoning instead of knowledge or experience. For instance how 7+5=12. Kant says that mathimatical judgments are all synthetic, they are a priori and not empirical.

section 10; of 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."

Hume does not believe in miracles. He argues that miracles are not part of nature and do no exist. Our knowledge of miracles come from other people who claim that they seen or experienced a miracle. According to Hume, miracles come form the testimony of individuals and our evidence comes from the laws of nature. In order for a miracle to be true, the testimony has to overcome the laws of nature, but we cannot rely on the testimonies of individuals because they are not 100% trustworthy. Therefore, there is no concrete proof or evidence that miracles do exist.

There are some cases in which i say miracles do happen but then again there is no proof of it. It can be just an act of nature but people rather call it a miracle. What do you think?

section 10; of miracles

"Though experience be our only guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact; it must be acknowledged, that this guide is not altogether infallible, but in some cases is apt to lead us into errors."

In this passage Hume is talking about how we cannot rely so much on our past experiences for the future because they may be false or we can be mistaken at times. When reasoning on matter of fact, our experiences can disappoint our expectations. That's why we cannot rely on them without evidence. This is where Hume adds his concept of probabilities. With our past experience we can weigh the outcomes of evidence on experiments and observation.

I agree with Hume on this passage. Though our experiences help us when reasoning matters of fact, we cannot rely on them 100%. Things will eventually change and the knowledge we have can only help us in the process.

Sec. 2 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 pain of excessive heat, or the pleasure of moderate warmth, and when he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation, or anticipates it by his imagination."

Perception and sensation is always debatable. The power of the perception of the mind can be very compeling to make you think something is really there when it isn't. Take for example walking in the dark. If you're afraid of the dark, everywhere you turn you swear you can hear things you've never heard before, and feel as though walking is taking a lot longer than it ever should.

Section 8: Of Liberty & Necessity

"It seems evident that, if all the scenes of nature were continually shifted in such a manner that no two events bore any resemblance to each other, but every object was entirely new, without any similitude to whatever had been seen before, we should never, in that case, have attained the least idea of necessity, or of a connexion among these objects. "

If no 2 events in nature every bore any resemblance to each other, the idea of necessity shouldnt exsist is what Hume states. I don't agree with Hume because just the idea of no 2 events not having any details the same isn't possible and near improbable. Theres always something that you can relate an event to.

sec 10: of miracles part 2 post 2

"The many instances of forged miracles, and prophecies, and supernatural events, which, in all ages, have either been detected by contrary evidence, or which detect themselves by their absurdity, prove sufficiently the strong propensity of mankind to the extraordinary and the marvellous, and ought reasonably to beget a suspicion against all relations of this kind."

Its true that many miracles can be explained by science or evidence. But Hume sees that mankind would love to believe that there is someone else out there making these events happen. Its almost as if Hume believes that there is a God. That he is there making these extrondinary events happen.

section 10: Of 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."

Miracles are something that are not suppose to happen and do. As Hume states it, it violates the laws of natures. What should happen, doesn't, and it fills you with shock and awe. The idea is that the laws of nature are so concret it they could never be broken expect with a miracle.

section 9; of the reason of animals

Hume says that all our reasonings of matter of fact come from an analogy. How we expect the same causes of one event to be the same cause for another similar event. In this section Hume states that animals and humans both learn from experiences, the only difference is that animals cannot reason. But one thing he mentions is that, even though both animals and humans learn from past experiences, there is something greater that allows us to understand, and that is our instincts. "Instincts are powers that acts in us unknowingly." Instincts is what keeps us away from putting our hands in flames of fire. Because of our instincts, we have certain beliefs and imaginations, this is how the animals learn to survive in nature, by following there insticts. Not just animals but also man.

"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"

Hume says that humans and animals both learn about their surroundings from expierencing them. I believe this is very true because we learn that fire is naturally hot, when we first see or try to touch it. The same thing can be said for water, we know it feels wet, but there had to be a time when we were real young we didn't know what it felt like at all.

David Hume: Of Probability

"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"

David Hume is saying that no things in life are 100% pure chance. All events that happen in life have some degree of probability. I think Hume is right in that sense. Some events can clearly have greater odds stacked against them than others, but the probability of chance is still there for them to happen. Ill use sports as example. If a baseball team is down a large number of runs in the 9th inning, has 2 outs agaisnt them, and an undefeated pitcher on the mound, the probability, or chance, of them coming back in the game is a pretty small chance.

section 5; sceptical solutions of these doubts

"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 similiar 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."



In section 4, Hume discusses how matter of fact is based on past experiences, but 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 aknowledgment 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 agree with Hume. I believe that we cannot base our reasonings through prior experience. We have to observe the situation more than one time to come to the understanding of cause and effect. You cannot base matter of fact on prior experience, it has to derive from custom, its the only way one can infer matter of fact. The form of custom allows us to reason, to understand cause and effect, to see things vividly, this way the thoughts would be "always present to the senses and memory".

section 4; sceptical doubts

In this section, Hume divides human reason and equiry into two parts, relations of ideas and matter of fact. Relations of ideas deal with the logical sense that are certain. For example, "that three times five is equal to the half of thirty", thus showing a relation between those numbers. Matter of fact is the other part to human reason which states that there cannot be a contradiction becasue its based on reality, cause and effect for that matter. If there is a contradictory than it cannot be conceived by the mind. Matter of facts are based on reality. For example, i know my friend is in France because she wrote me a letter. Hume states that matter of fact is known because of cause and effect. But then he questions, how do we know the principle of cause and effect? For example the idea of the pool table as discussed in class. If we hit the ball at a certain angle, how do we know that the other ball is going to move or that the ball we hit will just bounce back causing the other ball not to move? We do not know that the ball will move. Hume then says that cause and effect are based on past experiences. For someone who played pool will know the outcomes of hitting the ball.

How is it that if we rely on past experiences, we will know future outcomes? Are all cause and effect based on past experiences? If we do not have past experiences, how would we know what to do? Will we use then the idea of relations of ideas?

hume: of the origin of ideas; perception of the mind

In this section, Hume distinguishes the difference between impressions and ideas. Impressions are vivid acts that one feels at the happening of it while ideas are thoughts or beliefs based on these impressions. He clearly states that the two are very different from each other.

"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."

Basically what Hume is trying to say is that he may understand the person but he doesnt know what it feels to be in love. When we remember our old memories, we have an idea of the experience we went through but we cannot feel the same way as we did then because the memory is faded and it is no longer an impression but just a mere thought of what happened then.

I agree with Hume on the difference between impressions and ideas. The way we feel at the moment of a situation is not the same feeling we feel as little as 30 min. after the fact.

"Ideas, especially those belonging to principles, not born with children- if we attentively, consider new-born children, we shall have little reason to think that they bring many ideas into the world with them: for bating, perhaps, some faint ideas of hunger, thirst, warmth, and some pains which they may have felt in the womb, there is not the least appearance of any settled ideas at all in them.. "

I agree with Locke that children don't have many ideas when they are born. The idea that they can feel pain, thirst, and hunger are enwoven into every human being, as being the most basic needs of any person. The only way people can learn new ideas is being introduced to them in the real world and Locke is dead on about what he says.

Locke on men and god ideas

Can it be thought, that the ideas men have of God are the characters and marks of himself, engraven in their minds by his own finger; when we see, that in the same country, under one and the same name, men have far different, nay, often contrary and inconsistent ideas and conceptions of him? "

Locke's trying to question if what one person vision of what God looks like and his actions, compare with someone elses. Its true that nobody has ever taken a picture of God so its very easy to have your own opinion on how he might look like. Its also true that in different religons God has different roles and different opinions.

book 1 God worship not innate

"7. Idea of worship not innate.- That 'God is to be worshiped,' is, without doubt, as great a truth as any can enter into the mind of man, and deserves the first place amongst all practical principles; but yet by no means be thought innate, unless the ideas of God and worship are innate."

Unlike Roach's arguement and Locke's ideas, i think that the idea of worshiping God has to be innate. Who else put the idea in our minds of worshiping God? I mean yes depending on how we grow up, some worship God more than others and they learn by going to church and reading bible and so on, but how do we know that God is to be worshiped? Where did the idea come from if its not innate? I don't agree with Locke, if there is one thing that is innate, i would have to say that that is the ideas of God and worship. Descartes sure believes that the idea of God was placed into our minds by God himself, him being the creator of man and everything we see.

Chapter 9 perception and the mind

Perception is the idea of reflection upon the mind. The mind perceives everything that is in its sight. If the mind does not perceive an object or idea, than that idea or object does not exist. In order for it to exist it has to be reflected on the mind. For example, the tree falling in the forest but no one there to hear it, does it stil make a sound? According to Locke the answer would be no for the simple fact that it was not perceived, therefore how can it make a sound?

I agree and disagree with Locke. I agree that in order for the mind to perceive something, it has to be reflected into the mind, but i disagree with the idea that if its not reflected it does not exist. Even though we did not perceive the sound of the falling tree, it is still there and the falling of the tree existed whether it was percieved or not. There are certain things that still exist whether its perceived or not. It has to do with the whole science logic of matter cannot be destroyed. If a tree falls, a sound is going to occur because that's the way it is. Blind people cannot perceive such things as color, but a well sighted person can. The color still exist. That's something that will not change. Our mind cannot perceive everything around us. So is Locke correct? Does the tree make a sound?

book 2 sleeping and being awake paragraph 12

If the sleeping man thinks without knowing it, the sleeping and waking man are two persons.

Locke is saying that the soul is another person apart from the person itself. If we are sleeping and we are unconcious of the fact that we are dreaming or thinking while asleep is because the soul leaves the body and thinks else where. How else can we explain the idea of thinking while sleeping and not knowing it? "The soul thinks and perceives while sleeping."

In a way i kind of agree with Locke. If the soul is this thinking thing while sleeping, then why we cannot remember or be aware that we are thinking? I think that in this case our soul does leave the body to think else where, perhaps another body. Like Locke says in his example of Castor and Pollux, we have the body of two men with one soul between them. The soul thinks apart what the man is not conscious of.

book 2 chapter 1

In the first couple of paragraphs, Locke talks about our mind and how we perceive things and feel things. Our knowledge of knowing what is an elephant, sweetness, hardness, sensations as heat, cold, water, and so on is described in one word accroding to him, "experience".

We are able to think, feel, and observe things because of the experiences we go through. Ideas is the object of thinking and they come from sensation. AS long as we experience, our mind is able to think and have ideas.

Locke Book 2, God and the association of spirts

"36. No Ideas in our own complex one of spirits, but those got from sensation or reflection.-This farther is to be observed, that there is no idea we attribute to God, bating infinity, which is not also a part of our complex idea of other spirits. Because, being capable or no other simple ideas belonging to anything buy body...we can attribute to spirits no other but what we recieve from thence"

Locke says that we can, and also must, relate spirits with God and I agree with him. Spirits, of people who are now dead, are not part of human society, and are therefore not part of the body we see. Spirits are rarely seen, and are often just seen in glimpses of apparitions.

People who have had near death expierences, say they have seen the light, or God. At no other time in their life have they seen it, and when they emerege alive, they tell others about it. This shows that God is also a spirit, not a body, and only seen in really spiritual situations, like death.

Locke Book 2 Ideas of God

"35. Idea of God- For it is infinity which, joined to our ideas of existence, power, knowledge, (etc.), makes that complex idea whereby we represent to ourselves, the best we can, the Supreme Being. For though in his own essance, which certainly we do not know (not knowing the real essance of a pebble, or a fly, or of our own selves), God be simple and uncompounded;..."

Locke tries to better explain the idea of God, the Supreme ruler. He says that we'll never really know what his real essance, or providing, he has for us. To compare it to a better phrase, its like growing older. You never know what you had when you were younger until its taken away from you.

Locke says that we use all our capabilities to help better understand the idea of God, but that it is very complex.

Locke Book 1 God again

"7. Idea of worship not innate.- That 'God is to be worshiped,' is, without doubt, as great a truth as any can enter into the mind of man, and deserves the first place amongst all practical principles; but yet by no means be thought innate, unless the ideas of God and worship are innate."

I would have to agree with Locke in this sense that worship is not something that you inheret when you are born. You need only look at atheists who believe in nothing but science created the world and when we die we go to a box in the ground.

People start going to church, who are religous ones anyway, right after they are born. I was brought up this way, although now I'm not religous much anymore. Everything given to me in book and scripture was new to me. I have no idea what had happened with the world, and if my parents didn't take me, I never would have though at the time worshiping was necessary.

Locke also says that if you think worshiping is innate, then you would have to make God innate as well, which in the next blog post, you'll see how I described it.

Locke Book 1 God

"8. Idea of God not innate.-If any idea can be imagined innate, the idea of God may, of all others, for many reasons, be thought so; since it is hard to conceive how there should be innate moral principles without an innate idea of a Deity..."

I been trying to put into words what this means for most of spring break now and I think I finally got it. The word innate means that you are born with natural talent or you inheret something at birth.

What Locke says is that if God was born (or created) without all of his inheret power, nothing else can be created innate.

I think Locke believes this because since God is what started it all, he had to have been given the powers to create everything. If not then, who would he learn it from? So by saying that God isn't innate, means we could never be since humans never have the same powers of God.

Locke:mind and body

"General assent the great argument."

This is known as mankind having certain principles of speculative and practical when born.

"....the souls of men receive in their first beings, and which they bring into this world with them...."

What this argument says is that man is born with certain principles that allows them to know some type of truth. Locke argues that if this is known to be true, then it has to be innate, but how can man prove that such principles are innate?. Locke argues that in order to prove such a thing, man has to have reason with in it. Reason to Locke is something learned, and therefore if man goes through reason to prove such principles, then these principles are not innate.

I disagree with Locke, i do believe in this universal consent. Man has to be born with some type of reasoning and principles. There are some truth that the human mind has a clear understanding of without it being perceived. It's something that is just understood by the mind.

Locke:mind and body/god

Are we born with innate ideas? According to Locke, a child's mind is at a "blank" state or "tabula rasa" when born,it does not contain innate ideas. The knowledge we acquire is due to the experiences we perceive throughout life. Locke states that an educated mind deals with a healthy body and a good source of knowledge. Locke argues, that if we are able to distinguish such things as colors, shapes, and tastes, is because we are exposed to it at an early age, beginning with the womb, not because they are innate ideas. This also applies to the idea of God. According to Locke, since we do not have innate ideas then we do not have innate principles which means that how do we know we should worship God? We don't even know if he exist.

Locke does make some good arguments but i do not agree with him entirely. The whole idea that we are born at a "blank" state can be controversial. I am going to have to agree with Descartes on the idea that we are born with innate ideas, one of them being the idea of God. If we are born with a blank mind, then where does the idea of God come from and our senses? We have to be born with some type of knowledge, not everything can be known because of experiences, i don't think we are born at a "blank" state. How can this be? How is it that everything we know is due to experiences? Can we honestly say without argument that we are born at a "blank" state?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

Descartes/Meditation Part 1

"Be that as it may, there is fixed in my mind a certain opinion of long standing, namely that there exists a God who is able to do anything and by whom, such as I am, have been created. How do I know that he did not bring it about that there is no earth at all, heavens, no extended thing, no shape, no size, no place, and yet bringing about it about all these things to appear to me exist precisely as they appear now?"

Another quote that I wanted bring up, from Meditations, Descartes in the place of describing doubt, questions the existence of God, where do the heavens, the earth. and everything that makes existence, where does it all come, and how does he know that it all came from God. This question myself, I pondered, like what was before God, and what made God just appear and create everything. This is questioning, is what Descartes points out in order to have reason you have to doubt everything, you have to ask how does everything come into existence. However, I believe in my opinion there is a reason for God's existence, the earth, heavens and all other natural things that exist, but why is there still doubt today about God's existence?

Descartes/Meditation Part 1 Doubt

"Yet to bring this about I will not need to show that all my opinions are false, which is perhaps something that I could never accomplish. But reason now persuades me that I should withold my assent no less carefully from opinions that are not completely certain and indubitalbe that I would from those that are patently false. For this reason it will suffice for the rejection of these opinions, if I find in each of them some reason for doubt"

The statement above to me was the main idea and focus of everything. Descartes states in order to have reason to things, you must have doubt. This statement is pointed throughout the text of part one of Meditations.

discourse and meditation

Through out the Discourse and Meditation, theres alot of questions on doubt and the existence of God. Descartes says that God is the creator of everything we see but at the same time, he kind of doubts the existence of God. How do we know he really does exist? He is known to have the superior power, no man is more powerful or perfect than God. The fact that we are able to reason, think and perceive, we exist, and our existence is devoted to God. Descartes writes alot of things that can be controversial, but the main subject that i'm concerned with throught out both the discourse and the meditations, is God's existence because Descartes argues that God is the reason for our mind and body and so on but at the same time theres doubt. How do we know whats in doubt and whats not? Theres so many questions to ask but who has the answers?

mediation 1 repsonse 2 GOD

"...there is fixed in my mind a certain opinion of long standing, namely that there exsists a God who is able to do anything and by whom I, such as I am, have been created."

Descartes re-establishes himself from what was said in his discourse. He still does believe that a God in some form exsists, that God created mankind. He believes that God is still able to do anything. He explains that how does anyone actually know he did not create the heavnes, the earth, size, shape and places?

Mediation 1 response

"...I see so plainly that there are no definitive signs by which to distinquish being awake from being asleep"

Descartes tries to explain that when we dream, we take everyday objects that we see from our very eyes, and incorperat them in our dreams. He says that alone makes it very difficult when we sleep to tell if we are indeed dreaming or not. Its obvious that dreams arn't real, but when in the state of slumber, its taken for granted that it is indeed being acted out in real life.

meditation 1 continued....paragraph 21

In paragraph 21, Descartes talks about the existence of God and how he is able to do anthing.

"How do i know that he did not bring it about that there is no earth at all, no heavens, no extended thing, no shape, no size, no place, and yet bringing it all about that all these things appear to me to exist precisely as they do now?"

Basically Descartes is doubting the fact that God created all these things that we see upon us. How do we no that there was no such thing as earth or heavens and that God created them? This may be the biggest doubt that Descartes has spoke about in the Meditations. If he believes that God is the creater of everything, why is he doubting it now?

".......be deceived every time I add two plus three or count the sides of a square, or perform an even simpler operation, if that can be imagined?"

In this quote, he imagines being deceived by simple things as two plus three or a square having only four sides. With this he explains how God is good and he shall not deceive him in such a way.

meditation 1 continued

".....and even if it is n0t within my power to know anything true, it certaintly is within my power to take care resolutely to withhold my assent to what is false......"

This quote ties to God and how he has the superior power of all. In this statement, Descartes says that we can't over power God because his power is the most powerful and clever. Although we may not have his power, we do have the power to agree with what is false. Even though many of us are deceived everyday in many different ways, we do not know the truth to everything, but one thing we should know is how to distinguish between truth and false.

I agree with Descartes when he says that we have the power of knowing whats false because like he says, there are just some things that no matter if we are awake or asleep, we know that they are true, For example, like i posted earlier, 2 + 2 = 4 and a square only has 4 sides. Things as simple as that we know are not false and we can prove it. It's not something that we need science for, these are things that are logic and are the way they are because thats how it was meant to be.

"...lest this deceiver, however powerful, however clever he may be, have any effect on me."

No matter how we are deceived, we should never let that affect us.

meditation 1: doubt

"But on what grounds could one deny that these hands and this entire body are mine?"

In paragraph 19, Descartes describes how even though our senses can deceive us, there are such senses that cannot be put into doubt. For instance, that our body are real and not something that can be questioned as, are these hands real? or is it just an illusion? There are things that cannot be called into doubt, such as 2 + 2 is 4. We know thats a fact because there is no way around it. Something as simple as that cannot deceive us in any way.

Later on in the paragraph, Descartes starts to distinguish the difference from being awake and asleep. How do we know that we are not dreaming, that we really are awake? With that in mind, for the sake of argument, as he says, let us assume that our hands, eyes, and other parts of the body are just images. But how can they be not true if such bodies are on paintings. Paintings cannot be false, it has to be true. Therefore, our hands and eyes cannot just be images.

I think that Descartes is not trying to doubt that our bodies are images or any like, i think that he is trying to convince us that whether we are awake or asleep, simple things as our bodies, shapes and simple math equations, are true no matter what and should not be put into doubt because the way we are and how a square can only have 4 sides, is all created by God. Yes sometimes our senses are deceived and people can deceive us but that does not mean that everything that comes from the same senses should be put into doubt. God created things the way they are because that's how he wanted them to be. He doesn't want us to be deceived by everything because God is good and he wouldn't do such a thing. This whole doubt thing, in my opinion is just another form of Descartes showing that God does exist and that he is good, and that should not be doubted.

Discourse on Method-Section 5-Continued-My Response to Humans and Animals Similarities and Differences

Continuing Section 5, Descartes also makes similarities and differences betweeen animals and humans, through their respiratory system. He goes on to describe how blood flows through the vena cava, and blood flowing through the heart, and he compares the flowing of blood throughout the body through the veins as trees with limbs, he later on goes to describe the differences between the flowing of blood through humans and the flowing of blood through the animals, and the similarities that animals and humans have in the way of senses. However, Descarte mentions that were are the complete same as the animals, but some animals have the skills as such Humans. My response to this part of the section is that Descarte is right. My reasons for saying he is right because some of the things he says about animals and humans having some of the same skill is because of animals and humans having a machine and our machines sometimes working in the same way.I found another similiarity is that Animals and Humans are similar because they both work on clocks, however animals work on the clock of nature, and we work on the clock of time, however, we still work on the clock of nature as well, if I can use the phrase "biological clocks." Although, section 5 was difficult to interpret in my opinion I enjoyed reading Descarte conceptions on the body of the universe, the body of animals, and human beings.

Discourse on Method-Section 5-My Response to Descarte describing the Importance of Nature

Through Section 5 in Descartes Discourse on Method, Descarte first discusses the significance of Astronomy, the Universe, and nature. Descarte mentions even though if there was chaos in the world, nature and the Universe would still work in the same way in my opinion. Descarte describes the earth and how perfected the Earth is through God. He mentions how the separation from the seas to the land, the mountains to the air, and the importance of FIRE, how it can be a guidance of light, the way it can be used to have heat, how it make objects such as glass, and makes different colors. Out of Section 5, I was most amazed of Descarte's interpretation of fire, he explained the concept very well. What phrase stood out to me was "how it was made. how it is nourished, how sometimes it has only heat but no light, and sometimes only light but no heat, how it can introduce various colors, and various other qualities into various bodies; how it melts some bodies, and hardens others; how it can consume nearly all of them or turn them into ashes and smoke."

Discourse part 5 cont.

To go into further detail about how Rene Descartes feels about God, he mentions that the body has a soul. He believes in the afterlife, and that after someone dies, the soul moves on and leaves the body. The soul is therefore immortal, and cannot die.

The 2nd half of part 5 of the discourse deals with a few things about the human body. The book explains how blood flows throughout the body. It explains that the reason one side of the heart chambers are smaller because there is no oxygen in them, and are therefore thinner. The book explains how man vs beasts are different. He goes into detail that even though beasts may have some of the same organs we have, they use them differently enough to seperate us from them. He ends part 5 of the discourse mentioning that only a God could have created us seperate from beasts, so he reasons that there is indeed a God.

discourse on method part 5 continued

Paragraph 42, 43 and 44.

.....because light proceeds almost entirely from them.....

In this paragraph Descartes speaks about light. He points out that light comes from the sun, the stars, heaven,plants, comets and earth. The sun, stars, and heaven transmit light; planets, comets, and earth reflect light, and all of this is observed by man. In respect to the light, Descartes believes that there should be nothing about this matter observed by man. He felt that his explanation of where light comes from was sufficient to know that that is something man can not interfere with. Furthermore, he then speaks about earth and how the movements of the sun, heaven and moon have something to do with there being water and air on the surface. He then explains how this is all part of nature.

Many may argue Descartes on his explanations of light and nature while others may agree with him. I in the other hand would be one of those people who agrees with him. I believe nature is something that no man can interfere with. Such things as light, air and water happens naturally. I do believe it has something to do with the sun and all other elements outside of earth.

discourse on method sec.5

In part 5 of discourse on method, paragraph 57, Descartes talks about how there is no machine better than that of the human body.

.......if there were any such machines that bore a resemblance to our bodies and imitated our actions as far as this is practically feasible........they were not at all, for that reason, true men.

Descartes is trying to say that there is no machine created better than the human body. He argues that the machine may perform many tasks better but lack in other areas. The key to a great machine is reason; perfection is reason. The best part of man is that we have reasoning. We are able to express our selves in many ways and we are able to understand each other and communicate. He also argues that yes animals have similiar organs as we do but they lack reason. They are better at certain things than man because thats how their organs function, not because they are intelligent.

I agree with Descartes point of view. Yes animals can perform some task better than man but they lack reason and the ability to speak. As he points out, some animals like parrots and monkeys can be trained to speak and utter some words but they cannot carry on a conversation or communicate with man. If animals were to be understood by man, then reality would be that they would be better machines than us. But since they lack reasoning, there is no machine better than the human body.