Kant: How is pure natural science possible? Section18

"Empirical Judgements, so far as they have objective validity, are judgements of experience, but those which are only subjectively valid I name mere judgements of perception"

kant is aying that Judgements come from proof of observations are judgements of experience because these judgements are something you have experienced and are proved to be right. Judgement that are of perception are something that just exist in your mind. It is an assumption and something you have not experienced. It is a judgement you believe that is right.

Kant: How is Pure Natural science Possible? section 16

"The word nature assumes yet another meaning, which determines the object, whereas in the former sense it only denotes the conformity to law of the determinations of the existence of things generally"

I think kant is saying that nature serves as a symbol of agreement to the law of determining the existence of things. Nature determines what exist and what doesn't exist

KANT How is Pure Natural Sciece Possible? Section 14

"For if experience is to teach us laws to which the existence of things is subject, these laws, if they refer to things in themselves, would have to refer to them of necessity even outside our experience. But experience teaches us what exists and how it exists but never that it must necessarily exist so and not otherwise. Experience therefore can never teach us the nature of things in themselves"

This quote is very confusing. I don't really get what Kant is saying. At he says experience teaches us laws about the existence of things and these laws refer to the needs outside of our experience. But experience teaches us what exist but it doesnt teach us that it must neccessarily exist? How can experience teach us what exists but that the things that exist don't really exist?

kant section 13 how is pure math possible

"What can be more similar in every resoect and in every part more alike to my hand and to my ear than their images in a mirror? And yet I cannot put such a hand as is seen in the mirror in the place of its original, for if this is a right hand, that in the mirror is a left one, and the image or reflection of the right ear is a left one, which never can serve as a substitute for the other. There are in this case no internal differences which our understanding could determine by thinking alone. yet the differences are internal as the senese teach, for, notwithstanding their complete equality and similarity the left hand cannot be enclosed in the same bounds as the right one'

I think Kant is saying how there are internal difference between things that can be the same. These things may seem to be equal but they are not because of their internal differences.

KANT SECTION 10 HOW IS PURE MATH POSSIBLE

"Accordingly it is only the form of sensuous intuition by which we can intuit things a prori, but by which we can know objects only as they appear to us(to our senses), not as they are in themselves"


I think here Kant is saying how we assume things without examining the situation. We feel as if we are just right about certain things without even finding proof that our assumptions are true.

KANT: HOW IS PURE MATHEMATICS? SECTION 7

"All mathematical cognition has this peculiarity: it must first exhibit its concept in intuition, and do so a priori, in an intution that it is not empirical but pure. Without this mathematics cannot take a single step, hence its judgements are always intuitive; whereas philosophy must be satisfied with discursive judgements from mere concepts, and though it may illustrate its apodeictic doctrines through intuitions, can never derive them from it"

I think that here Kant is saying that math shows it concepts as an instinct and something that you should already know. It is not something that can be proven it is something that is pure and comes naturally. He also compares philosophy to math saying that philosophy has many ideas and proceeds to a conclusion through reason instead of intuition.

I don't understand because math really doesn't come naturally unless you learn it. For example, when you learn 2+2=4. You may know this now and when someone asks you this the answer comes naturally to know because you know it but at first you did not know it and someone had to teach it to you so it really isn't natural.

Kant: HOW IS METAPHYSICS IN GENERAL POSSIBLE?

"Without solving this problem reason never is justified." (section 40)

Here Kant is talking about how problems within the metaphysics will never be reasoned as true if they are not solved. This applies to everything in life. Nothing is proven true unless it is solved. To figure out that 2+2=4 one must solve the problem 2+2 to know that it equals 4.

Kant: How is Metaphysics in General Possible?

"Physics cannot altogether refuse and dispense with the testimony of the latter; because with all its certainty, it can never, as philosophy, rival mathematics." (section 40)

I am not sure what the "latter" is, but I am assuming that it is referring to later things in the future. I do not understand what the testimony is though. Also, why can philosophy not rival with mathematics? I do not get it. Does anyone know what Kant is talking about here??

Kant: How is Pure Mathematics Possible?

"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 perceptible difference." (section 13)

Here Kant is saying that if two things are equal in every aspect that one could substitute one for the other and nothing would change. It is very interesting and slightly confusing that Kant can put such an obvious thing into such ridiculous phrases. Although this is correct in our minds I do think that there is a way around everything. And even though something appears to be equal it may not be.

Kant: How is Pure Mathematics Possible?

"How then is it possible for human reason to produce a cognition of this nature entirely a priori?" (section 6)

A priori is a person's ability to have the idea of something without learning it from experience previously. In reponse to Kant's question I think that it is not possible for a person to know mathematics without first learning or experiencing it. People are born with natural instincts, yes, but I do not think that the knowledge of mathematics is one of them.

Kant: How is the Science of Nature Possible?

"...nature is the complex of all the objects of experience." (section 16)

Immediately after reading this I thought that not everything in nature comes from experience. Many things are either a figment of our imagination or grown naturally. Then Kant went on to say this:

"And with this only are we now concerned, for besides, things which can never be objects of experience, if they must be known as to their nature, would oblige us to have recourse to concepts whose meaning could never be given in concreto (by any example of possible experience)." (section 16)

Then I knew that Kant was saying exactly what I was thinking. Although many things are from experience there are even more things that are not from experience. Mant creatures, plants, and organisms are not from experience.

Kant: How is the Science of Nature Possible?

"But experience teaches us what exists and how it exists, but never that it must necessarily exist so and not otherwise. Experience therefore can never teach us the nature of things in themselves." (section 14)

Here Kant is saying that experience teaches us everything. It teaches us not only about things, but also where they come from, but in doing this we do not learn from experience is if something absolutely must exist. He says then that experience will never be able to teach us the real origin of things alone. I kind of see where Kant is coming from when he says this. I agree with him that experience does teach us, come the phrase, "The old and the wise". I was a little thrown off when he says that we do not learn if things do really exist because clearly if we learn of them than they at one point had existed. As far as his last statement in this section I do not think that anyone can learn the original origin of anything or anyone unless they are it.

HUME SECTIION 9

Hume talks about how even though animals learn many parts of their knowledge from observation there are also other parts of their knowledge from nature called instincts. Instincts are something both human beings and animals have which makes us share something in common. It teaches a human being to avoid fire and a bird the art of incubation. it is something that is not learned but it is kind of like common sense.

HUME: Sec. 9

Hume also talks about how discipline and education can have an effect of animals. When they are given rewards or punished they can be taught any action that is contrary to their natural instincts. It is experience that makes a dog become apprehensive of pain because their owner threatens to beat them. It is also experience which makes a dog answer to it's name when the owner calls them because the dog learned how to distinguish their names from anything else that is being said.

Hume Section 9: Of the Reason of Animals

Hume talks about how animals learn many things from experience and infer that the same events will always follow from the same causes. He talks about how they become acquainted with properties of external objects and gather knowledge about the nature of fire, water, earth, their surroundings, etc. He uses the example of a horse that is used to a field and becomes used to the its proper height which he can leap and will not attempt anything that exceeds his force and ability. He also uses an example comparing old animals to young animals. Young animals are inexperienced compared to the older animals that are cunning. The older animals have learned to aviod what hurts them and to pursue what makes them happy. Hume is saying that animals learn from experience and since young animals do not have experience that have not learned anything yet

HUME SEC. 2 Paragraph 8

Hume talks about this contradictory phenomen that may prove that it is impossible for ideas to come fromimpressions. He says that several ideas of color are really different from each other but still similart at the same time. If this is true about different colors then it must be true about different shades of the same color and each shade produces an independent idea. If it is not true it is possible for the different shades of color to resemble a color different from what it should be. Then he uses an example to prove this point: He asked what if a man who could see did not know what the color blue looked like. Hume said that this man is still able to have an idea from his imagination about what this color looks like even though he has never seen it before.

I don't agree with Hum on this because how can someone who has never seen a particular shade of blue know what the color is? He has never seen it before so how can he imagine it?

HUME: MORE OF SEC. 2

"If it happen, from a defect of the organ, that a man is not suceptible of any sensation we always find that he is as little susceptible of the correspondent ideas"

I think that here Hume is aying that if a man is not indluenced by any sensations then he does not experience similar ideas. He uses the example of a blind man who can't see colors or a deaf man who can't hear sounds. he says that if you restore these sense to these men then they will get ideas of what sound or color is annd that they will not have difficulty understanding what these things are. He also uses another example with a man who has a selfish heart does not have an idea of friendship or generosity. I agree with Hume on this.

Hume: Of Miracles

Paragraph 12: "Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature."

I agree with Hume when he says this. A miracle is something that happens not in the natural course of nature. A miracle is an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. I do believe in miracles personally. I think that miracles can be simply a mental/psychological thing alone, but for those with religious views it can become a spiritual things too.

Hume: Of the Reasoning of Animals

Paragraph 2,3,4: Throughout these paragraphs Jume is speaking of how animals can learn from their own life experiences and how they can learn from discipline and education (training) of owners, trainers, breeders, etc... When they learn from a person what to do it is called a conditioned stimulus. A conditioned stimulus is when a person learns to associate certain sounds, smells, actions, etc... with something that they have learned. This causes a conditioned response. A conditioned response is a learned response.

Hume Section 2 OF THE ORIGIN OF IDEAS

"our thoughts or ideas, however compunded or sublime, we always find, that they resolve themselves into such simple ideas as were copied from a precedent feeling or sentiment. Even those ideas, which, at first view, seem the most wide of this origin, are found, upon a nearer scrutiny, to be derived from it."

I think what Hume is saying here is that our thoughts are confined and derived from outward and inward feelings which he calls impressions. He defines impressions as living perceptions(when we hear, see, feel love, hate , desire, or will). He then uses the idea of God as an example. He says that the idea of God comes from the operations of our mind increasing without limit the qualities of goodness and wisdom. He believes that every idea comes from an impression. So I think he is saying that the idea of God comes from the impression of wisdom and goodness because most people believe that God is good and all-knowing.

Hume: Of the Origin in Ideas

Paragraph 5: "But though our thought seems to possess this unbounded liberty, we shall find, upon a nearer examination, that it is really confined within very narrow limits, and that all this creative power of the mind amounts to no more than the faculty of compounding, transposing, augmenting, or diminishing the materials afforded us by the senses and experience."

Here Hume is kind of contradicting himself. First he says that people have no boundaries or limits to their thoughts, but here he is saying that we are limited to what we know because of our experiences and our senses. This, to my understanding, still gives us a lot of space for cognitive growth, but Hume seems to change his mind on the matter. We may be 'thought-limited' by our experiences and our senses, but there are always more experiences to be experienced and, of course, more sensations to be sensed.

Hume: Of the Origin of Ideas

Paragraph 4: "And while the body is confined to one planet, along which it creeps with pain and difficulty; the thought can in an instant transport us into the most distant regions of the universe; or even beyond the universe, into the unbounded chaos, where nature is supposed to lie in total confusion."

Hume is saying here that the mind has no limits. People in his time were kept on Earth and no where else, but he believed that our thoughts and ideas could take us anywhere we wanted to go. Of course, his statements about this are proven to be correct because some people have traveled to other places other than Earth. I think that anyone can do anything if they put their mind to it.

Hume: Of the Origin of Ideas

Paragraph 2: "When we reflect on our past sentiments and affections, our thought is a faithful mirror, and copies its objects truly; but the colours which it employs are faint and dull, in comparison of those in which our original perceptions were clothed."

What Hume is saying here is that we can look back at our memories and remember them so vividly, but the physical colors of everything in it will never be the same as when the original actions took place. He seems to be talking about long-term memory in this section of "Of Origins of Ideas". Having a long-term memory is having the ability to remember something forever, but one characteristic of a long-term memory is that we can remember everything that happened so clearly, but the colors and every little detail will never be so vivid ever again, no matter how hard we try to remember them.

Hume: Of the Origin of Ideas

Paragraph 1: "The utmost we say of them, even when they operate with greatest vigour, is, that they represent their object in so lively a manner, that we could almost say we feel or see it: But, except the mind be disordered by disease or madness, they never can arrive at such a pitch of vivacity, as to render these perceptions altogether undistinguishable."

Hume is saying that many people have thoughts so vivid that they say that they can feel them or see them. He says that only people with a diseased mind can do this and that people without a diseased mind cannot see or feel them until they become real. I disagree with Hume on this. I think that people can see their ideas very vividly inside their minds. Otherwise, how would artists be able to make such beautiful paintings? How could architects draw out blue prints? How could anyone speak, draw, or create something without picturing it and thinking about it first?

The Truth Problem

[IV. v. 5] "...mental, wherein the ideas in our understandings are without the use of words put together, or separated by the mind, perceiving, or judging of their agreement, or disagreement... verbal propositions, which are words the signs of our ideas put together or separated in affirmative or negative sentences. By which way of affirming or denying, these signs, and truth consists in the putting together and separating."

Okay... a lot to take in at once, but I agree with Locke's approach to the propositions of receiving or figuring out the truth. Mental propositions are only ideas in our minds. They have no word value and we do not speak them. They are kept within our minds personally. Verbal propositions are ideas that we put into action with words or actions. I do not understand how these can help people to gain knowledge of truth, but I do see how they can help with everyday thinking and communication. Again, truth is something that is never reached.

The God Problem

[IV. x. 8.] "Something from eternity. There is no truth more evident, than that something must be from eternity. I never yet heard of anyone so unreasonable, or that could suppose so manifest a contradiction, as a time, wherein there was perfectly nothing.

While reading chapter 4 of this book I found this section of passage 8 quite interesting. It caused me to sit back and actually take in and think about what he had said. He says that he has not heard of anyone so illogical that could cause such a huge conflict when there was perfectly nothing. I am kind of confused by the last part (there was perfectly nothing), but I think that it is amazing to think that there is someone or something out there that means so much to so many on earth, yet we don't even know who it is who where it is or how it is. How is it that someone/something created everything from nothing?

LOCKE BOOK 2 CHAPTER X SECTION 14

"Method-- These I think are the first faculitites and operations of the mind which it makes use of in understanding; and though they are excercised about all its ideas in general, yet the instances I have hitherto given have been chiefly in simple ideas; and I have subjoined the explication of these faculitites of the mind to that of simple ideas, before i come to what I have to say concerning comples onex, for these folling reason:"

He then goes on and on about reasons about complex ideas and how simple ideas are more clear and precise and distinct then complex ones. He also talks about how operations of the mind are received from sensations and derived from reflection.

BOOK 2 CHAPTER IV SECTION 12

"For if we may conclude that God hath done for men all that men shall judge is best for them, because it is suitable to his goodness so to do, it will prove not only that God has imprinted on the minds of men an idea of himself, but that he hath plainly stamped there, in fair characters, all that men ought to know or believe of him, all that they ought to do in obedience to his will; and that he hath given them a will and affections conformable to it"

In this section Locke discusses that everyone has an idea of God that is naturally imprinted by God himself. I do not agree with Locke on this and I am also confused by this because Locke believes that the idea of God is not innate but then how does God imprint himself on us. I think that we learn about God through others and I do believe God is not innate because of this. But I do not think that God imprinte dhimself on us. That just doesn't make sense to me.

LOCKE: BOOK 2 CHAPTER XII Of Complex Ideas

In this book Locke discusses how complex ideas are made. There are 3 ways complex ideas are formed in the mind:
1) Combining simeple ideas into one compund ideas
complex ideas, such as beauty, gratitude, a man, and army, are made up of simple ideas but the mind considers them one thing and they are signified by one name.
2) Bringing 2 ideas, either simple or complex, and views them at one time without bringing the two together
3) Abstraction - separating ideas from all other ideas that have to do with reality

Locke also discusses how complex ideas are either modes, substances, or relations.
Modes are made up of different parts and depend on substances. There are 2 types of modes. There are simple modes which are different combinations of the smae idea without mixing them together. The other type is called mixed modes. These are compounded of simple ideas of several kinds put together to make one idea.

Ideas of substances are combos of simple ideas and represent distinct particular things. There are 2 types of ideas of substances. The first is single substances existing separately. For example, a man or a sheep. The second one is putting the substances together. For example, an army of men or flock of sheep.

Relations are just the comparison of idea to another.

All of these things come together to make complex ideas. Complex ideas are things that are very vague but you have different ideas that go with these things.

LOCKE: BOOK 2 CHAPTER XIX Of the Modes of Thinking

In this chapter Locke discusses how ideas come about and how we as human beings think. He says that thinking is the first thing that occurs in our mind. Locke also discusses different things that we do in our minds such as dreaming sensations and perceptions and much more. He says that:
Sensations are the actual entrance of ideas through our sense. I do not really understand why sensations are entrance of ideas. he kind of confused me with this. But I think its kind of like when you see something that interest you he brings idea in your head??

Rememberance is when an idea recurs in your mind.

Recollection is an idea sought after by the mind and with pain and endeavour it is found. Isn't recollection the same as remembering something? I guess it is when you remember something painful that has happened to you.

Contemplation is an idea that is held in your mind under long attentive consideration. I agree with this because when you comtemplate something you are trying to understand it so you think about it for a while.

These terms are used to describe how our mind works. Locke believes that his purpose is to show what ideas are and how ideas come to the mind and he showed this through these times.

Locke: The Truth Problem

[IV. v. 7] "...that if truth be nothing but the joining or seperating of words in propositions, as the ideas they stand for agree or disagree in men's minds, the knowledge of truth is not so valuable a thing, as it is taken to be; nor worth the pains and time men employ in the search of it: since by this account, it amounts to no more than the conformity of words, to the chimeras of men's brains..."

Here Locke is saying that if truth is nothing more than the ideas that people stand for then the truth is not very valuable and that it is not worth the pain and work that people go through to figure it out. I agree with Locke on this one. Where does truth come from? It comes from people. So many people are determined to get the truth out of things for which they will never find. Truth is simply the thoughts of all people and what they agree or disagree with. In that sense, everyone has knowledge of their own truths of which other people try to figure out.

Locke: The God Problem

[IV. x. 4] "That eternal being must be most powerful. Next, it is evident, that what had its being and beginning from another, must also have all that which is in, and belongs to its being from another too. All the powers it has, must be owing to, and received from the same source. This eternal source then of all being must also be the source and original of all power; and so this eternal being must be also the most powerful."

I think that what Locke is saying here is that all beings that have a "power" (I guess a Godly character) must get their power from another higher being. Is Locke suggesting here that God is not the highest power? and that God must have gotten his/her powers from another higher God of some sort? I was a little confused by what he was saying here. It is of most religions to believe in one higher power and nothing about that. I am a strong believer in God, but this statement made me think... is there another One that God got his powers from? No one really knows nor will no one ever know, but it is something interesting to think about.

LOCKE: God is NOT Innate [I. iv.]

"And I suppose there cannot be anything more ridiculous than to say that, children have this practical prinicple innate, that "God is to be worshipped;" and yet that they know not what that worship of God"(Sec. 7 pg.44)

Locke believes that God is not innate because the ideas of God and worship is not innate. When children are born they do not understand the meaning of the word "worship". He kind of compares the word "God" with "fire", "heat", and all these other words we do not understand when we are born. He says that we begin to understand these words when we get information from outside sources. He uses an example with children and if they were on an island alone with fire then they would not know the name of fire or what it is used for. I agree with him because it kind of reminds of the the idea that cavemen or whoever discovered fire did not know what it ws at first or what to do with it.

Locke: The God Problem

[IV. x. 6.] "Nay, I presume I may say, that we more certainly know that there is a GOD, than that there is anything else without us. When I say we know, I mean there is such a knowledge within our reach, which we cannot miss, if we will but apply out minds to that, as we do to several other inquiries."

This statement made me think about church and how important it can be to a religious person, but how easily faith can be forgotten or left behind. Everyone has the ability to believe in a God of some sort and we know that there is a higher power. Locke says that the knowledge of that high power in within reach for everyone, but only if we apply ourselves to it, as we do with other ideas and things. I think that many people these days have lost faith or have not given faith a chance. It is sad that so many people are willing to put so much effort into making money, being a work-aholic, playing video games, being a couch potato, etc..., but they don't even think to give religion a chance. I think that religion is a very important thing to have in today's society, no matter what religion it may be because with all of the negativity and sadness that it occurring lately; I find it useful to have an understanding of a higher power and to know that there is someone or something that is always there to listen and that there is faith for a better time. 

Locke: The Problem of Truth

[I. ii. 1.] "But because a man is not permitted without censure to follow his own thoughts in the search of truth, when they lead him ever so little out of the common road, I shall set down the reasons that made me doubt of the truth of that opinion as an excuse for my mistake, if I be in one; which I leave to be considered by those who, with me, dispose themselves to embrace truth wherever they find it."

I like this statement. Locke is saying that that a man who has his own thoughts about truth that are different then what society believes that the society expresses a disapproval of him. Locke thinks that people should overcome themselves so that they can embrace and seek truth wherever they may find it. I agree with this; Not one person should let his/her society influence what they think or what they desire to seek out, especially if it is truth. Truth is something that people need in life and I think that when and if truth is found the society can become better and stronger. Though people search truth it has not one meaning, but multiple meanings. Truth can be in honesty, good faith, fact, or reality, but whatever a person may seek they should be encouraged to do so.

Locke: God's Existence [I.iii.6]

"I grant the existence of God is so many ways manifest, and the obedience we owe him so congruous to the light reason" (pg.29)

I think Locke believes that it is clear that God exist but he is not innate because God is beneficial He believes that god has power and he is able to punish the bad and reward the good.

"God who sees men in the dark, has in his hand rewards and punishments, power enough to call to account the proudest offender. For God, having the inseprable connexion, joined virtue and public happiness together, and made the practice thereof necessary to the preservation of society, and visibly beneficial to whom all with whom the virtous man has to do; it is no wonder that everyone should not only allow, but recommend and magnify those rules to others, from whose observance of them he is sure to reap advantage of him" (pg.29)

This is where he explains how God sees everything and knows everything and has a lot of power. But I think that he is also saying that God is connected with happiness and goodness and these two things become apart of you when you believe in God.

Descartes Meditations Part 4

"... I certainly understand that error as such is not something real that depends upon God, but rather is merely a defect.. it just so happens that I make mistakes because the faculty of judging the truth, which I got from God, is not, in my case, infinite."

I agree with Descartes when he states these thing, but at the end he says, "... in my case...". I think that this applies to everyone, not just him. Error is within the nature of humans. Everyone has errors and flaws. I, personally, believe that error is a sin, but it is a sin that we must live with because of the choices of our biblical ancestors. This sentence, to me, as a lot of religious referencing. God had a plan for us to live perfectly, but that plan was quickly changed because of Eve and the apple from the Tree of Knowledge. Error and sin has a lot to do with truth and knowing right from wrong. If everyone knew everything, as far as, the truth I think that there would be a lot less error.     

Descartes Meditations Part 4

In paragraph 12 of Meditation 4 Descartes says, " Indeed I have no cause for complaint on the grounds that God has not given me a greater power of understanding or a greater light of nature than he has, for it is of the essence of a finite intellect not to understand many things, and it is of the essence of a created intellect to be finite."

Here I think that Descartes is using the word "finite" in two different ways. The word finite means to have limits or boundaries or to not be infinitely small. "... for it is of the essence of a finite intellect not to understand many things." I think that Descartes is using the first meaning of finite here. He is saying that it is the nature of a limited knowledge to not understand many things. This is to say that those who have a small or sparse amount of knowledge are not going to understand as much as those with more. "... and it is the essence of a created intellect to be finite." I think that Descartes is using the second definition of "finite" in this section of the statement. He is saying that it is of the nature of a created knowledge to not be infinitely small. In my mind this makes some sort of sense, but it seems kind of obvious in a way. It seems obvious that someone with a limited knowledge would not understand many things, but I can't figure out if he meant something else by this that I'm not catching onto. Is there anything that anyone else gets from this?      

Discourse Part 4

I was looking for a quote about education for an essay and I came across this---> "Life at university, with its intellectual and inconclusive discussions at a postgraduate level is on the whole a bad training for the real world."

This quote reminded of waht Descartes talks about in the Discourse. "And this I thought that book learining, at least the kind whose reasonings are merely probable and that do not have any demonstartions, having been composed and enlarged little by little from the opinions of may different persons, does not draw nearly so close to the truth as the simple reasonings that a man of good sense can naturally make about the things he encounters".

I think that both of these quotes are saying the same exact thing. They have to do with how things you learn in school, books, and from you're teachers and parents are not good or truthful because they do not prepare you for the real world. You can have an education and read good books and learn things but the things you are learning does not prepare you for or teach you about life.

More of Meditations part 4

"...it occcurs to me first that there is no reason to marvel at the fact that God should bring about certain things the reasons for which I do not understand. Nor is his existence therefore to be doubted because I happen to experience other things of which I fail to grasp why and how he made them"

I think here Descartes is trying to say that he should not try to wonder why God made things the way he did. He is just going to have to accept the way things are now because nobody can understand God. He is also saying that God exist because he does not understand the things that God does. Descartes should know that God knows what he is doing. I never doubt God because I know that he does things for a reason.

Meditations Part 4

"...for error is not a pure negation, but rather a privation or lack of some knowledge that somehow ought to be in me"

I think here Descartes is realizing that he does have errors but only because he has a lack of knowledge. I think this is true because people make mistakes because they do not know what they are doing. But then again knowledge can not really help you because nobody knows everything. and sometimes it is not about knowledge...sometimes you know what you are doing is a mistake and you just make a stupid decision and do it anyway

Descartes: Meditations Part 4

"And since he does not wish to deceive me, he assurdly has given me the sort of faculty with which I could ever make a mistake. For if everything that is in me I got from God and he gave me no faculty for making mistakes, it seems I am incapable of ever erring"

Descartes believes that God exists but he does not believes that God deceives because that would make him seem weak. But he kind of goes back and forth between his thoughts about him being perfect and making mistakes. He thinks he is incapable of making mistakes because that is how God made him. He believes God is perfect and God makes perfect human beings. I believe that no one is perfect and Descartes can not undrstand God because no one really understands the way he does things. It is true that God works in mysterious ways but you should not try to understand them because God knows what he is doing and you should just trust him.

Discourse part 2

Rene Descartes says that buildings made by one person is better than buildings made by others because it has more art and it is more beautiful. This also ties into the fact that he believes that working alone is better than working in a group. He believes that it is difficult to make or build things that are attractive when you are working with more than one person.
He also states that people who are constructing a new town become organized and orderly when they work together. When they do not cooperate and do not work together the town becomes disorganized. I do not understand how he can believe this when he does not believe that working in a group is a good thing.

Descartes Discourse Part 2

Descartes compares the learning of new ideas to the foundations of a building. He says that it is better to build new ideas on a new foundation, rather then building upon the same old ideas and foundations. Just as one would not continue to build on an old building, but he/she would build on a new foundation. This idea of a foundation ties into the "seek the truth for yourself and not accept only others ideas" idea that he had. I like this metaphor that he has used because it gives a very clear picture of how one should seek their own truths and study their own ideas to themselves and not just live off of what they have learned from others, or the old foundations.

Descartes Meditations Part 4

In Meditations Part 4 Descartes talks about the "Thinking Nature vs. Corporeal Nature". The thinking nature being a "thing" that is capable of thought and perception of ideas, not necessarily a body. This is because he is not even sure if the body exists, therefore, he calls us the thinking things. Descartes says that the thinking thing has four distinct characteristics: understanding, doubting, denying, and refusing. The corporeal nature being the spiritual nature. He wonders if the thinking nature and the corporeal nature are different things or if they are the same two in one kind of nature. Personally. I think that the thinking thing theory Descartes has in absurd. I believe that our physical bodies do exist, so I'm kind of confused as to where he got the idea that they don't exist from. I agree with him though that we have the four characteristics that he has mentioned, but that we have many more then what he states. I don't think that the thinking nature and the corporeal nature are the same thing at all. Sure, some people have a spiritual nature in some way, but it is not our entire nature. There are the spirits we believe in, such as God and then there are us. We have spiritual beliefs and in some sense a spirit in us, but they are not the same things.   

Descartes: Discourse Part 2

In this passage Descartes also talks about knowledge in mathematics and how he will solve those types of equations. He says that he will use lines to represent his relations because he sees it to be simple. He also had planned to create symbols to express the quantities. He says also that he was always practice his methods in order to strengthen his reasoning skills. I think that practice does strengthen people in whatever they are practicing. 

Discourse Part Two

On page 9 of the Discourse Descartes mentions how there are two different types of minds. There are those who believe that they are more capable of doing things than they actually are and in doing so are unable to stop themselves from making risky decisions and those who are reasonable in what they think or believe but question whether things are true or false. Descartes believed that if he had not known all the differences between all the opinions of those who had learned the most then he would've been apart of the second group of minds. He had recognized that those who had feelings different than ours were not to be considered barbarians but that those such people chose to use their mind of reason the same as we do if not more.

Discourse part 2

Rene Descartes discusses how it is better for someone to work on their own instead of working with a group. I believe he says this because so many people have their own opinions about what they want and it is too many ideas and it is hard for people to agree on the same things. So when you work on your own you go by your ideas and you do not have any conflicts. This also ties into the reason he does not believe that learning from books are good. Descartes discusses that books are composed of opinions from others that may or may not be true. He also discusses that the judgements that we have our not our own. Our opinions are based on what others(parents, teachers, friends) tell us.

Descartes: Discourse Part 2

Within Part 4 of the Discourse, Descartes discusses how he had learned a lot through his life in the areas of philosophy, logic, and mathematics. He says, though, that what he had learned was not necessarily correct because it was the teachings of other people and it was what he had grown to believe was right. After thinking about that he then goes on to tell us about how he has formed four rules to apply to his analysis of these subjects so that he may discover the truth in it all. After applying his four rules to his work he realizes that it was so successful that he decides to apply this new method to all of his work so that he can avoid any wrong opinions or misconceptions.

-April