Reclaiming our sense perceptions

Previously to the Meditation Six, Descartes proved the existence of God and came to the conclusion that he was a thinking thing. Meditation Six brings a very important new conclusion, that is the thinking thing that he is is actually "tightly joined" (136) to the body and together with it "constitute one single thing" (136).
The way Descartes explains this is by saying if the mind and the body were not one single thing then the sensations that are experienced by the body would not be perceived by the mind. If we recall Descartes disregarded sense perceptions for the fact that they are not reliable and can deceive us, thus the first step was for him to doubt in all senses. Here however Descartes gives the sense perceptions some more credibility "as reliable rules for immediately discerning what is the essence of bodies located outside us," (137) however admittedly he thinks that they do it "obscurely and confusedly" (137). The way it works is first to establish that corporeal things exists, as the sense perceptions come from corporeal things and can be perceived by the mind without any work on the mind's part. They could be false since the mind can be deceived, but God was proven not to be a deceiver then the conclusion can only be one - corporeal things do exist. However Descartes also recognizes that the sense perceptions are not always correct, not entirely false but rather misleading in some cases, for example a square tower seen from afar might appear round.
Moreover Descartes identifies the connection between the mind and the body to be the brain, or rather "just one small part of the brain" (139). However the sensations are transmitted to the mind through this brain, but if two different sets of things can produce the same movement in the brain then the mind would still get the same information as if they were the same and only one. This is the main reason why the sense perceptions can be so unreliable.
Nevertheless Descartes reaches the conclusion that even though unreliable the senses through the body parts can be generally trusted and we are not merely thinking things anymore but thinking things contained within bodies. This sounds definitely better than having to doubt all sense perceptions and regard the world around as an illusion.

Existence Beyond Our Thought

In Meditation Five, Descartes focuses on the existence of things separate from our thought of them, and applies the same argument to further his case for the existence of God. He starts by recalling that fact that there exist things in the world which we perceive, however, our perception of them does not warrant their existence. He uses the fact that a triangle exists, whether or not he is thinking of it. A triangle has certain properties at all times, independent of the mind and "a certain determinate nature, essence, or form which is unchangeable and eternal" (64), which is similar to God. The “essence” of a triangle always is. God, similar to a triangle, exists, regardless if God is being thought of; God, too, is independent of thought. Although we cannot think of them at all times, both God and a triangle exist at all times. We can think of them if we wish to; we can recall the memory of the demonstration of a thing, removing doubt as to whether or not a thing exists (69). The “essence” of a thing is its ability to exist, whether or not we are thinking of the thing.

In revisiting his argument for the existence of God, Descartes “cannot think of God except as existing” and “it follows that existence is inseparable from God, and that for this reason he really exists” (67). He seems to claim that he thinks of existence because God exists, just as thinking of a mountain with a valley is the result of a mountain and valley existing. He focuses on the relationship of existence and God. Existence and God are necessarily dependent on one another, just as a mountain is to a valley (67).

The Truth Within Existence

Descartes’ strategy is to prove the existence of God that will then affirm the truth of his perceptions and ultimately find the source of the idea of God. He describes knowing God as being “a substance that is infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both [himself] and everything else.” (118) With this claim he realizes that there is more reality in an infinite substance like God than a finite one like himself. His argument explains that all he knows for certain is that he exists and that he is a “thinking thing.” (109) These facts are known to him through “clear and distinct perception,” and he infers that with this method of understanding all of his perceptions are vulnerable to truth. (113) However, he must prove God’s existence in order to confirm the truth of clear and distinct perceptions.

Descartes is able to doubt the existence of some things, but he cannot deny God’s existence because of understanding of God as being perfect and endless. This idea has infinite reality and must be true when compared to other ideas. Given that he exists, then there must be a cause of his existence. If his existence was derived from himself, then he should not have any reason to doubt and desire. Also if he had always existed, then there would be no reason he should continue to exist without a specific force that sustains him. Considering the idea of God, Descartes concludes that God must be the cause of this idea and as a result must exist. (121)

With his conclusion of the existence of God, Descartes questions how he received the idea of God and where the idea originated from. While searching for the answer, he proposes that there are different types of ideas such as innate, fabricated, and adventitious. (115) Innate ideas have always been found within us, invented ideas stem from our imagination, and adventitious ideas come from life experiences. He argues that the idea of God is placed in him by God. Thus, the idea of God is innate, and he was created by God with the idea already within him. Also, since all deception depends on some kind of flaw, Descartes clearly and distinctly perceives that God is no deceiver because He is perfect with no defects.

Perceptions of the Mind

The idea that we do not exist, the question What am I?, imagination and the mind are the main points that Descartes reasons in the second meditation. He wonders if his existence is real and enters a journey of omitting doubt from his thoughts. After realizing that he does exist he wonders what he is.

While searching for the truth about his existence, Descartes starts out by eliminating everything that creates any doubt in his mind. He desires to stay in this path until he has found something certain (108). As his thoughts expand, the idea that God presented him with the thoughts that he had came about. He quickly realized that he must be the author of those thoughts and that if he had the power to think he must exist, "thought exists; it alone cannot be separated from me. I am; I exist ..." (109), he comes to the conclusion that his mind thinks, he is capable of thought therefore he exists. So if he exists what is he?, he ponders "But I do not yet understand sufficiently what I am ..." (108). Coming to the realization that he believes he exists he wants to search for his meaning. The function of thinking makes him question the idea that because he thinks he is but what if he stops thinking? He says "... if I were to cease all thinking I would then utterly cease to exist" (109). With this thought he comes to the conclusion that he is nothing but a thinking thing (109).

Descartes also gives us an example on when perceiving what something is, imagination is not what is being used. The wax that he explains he melts and the shape of the wax changes because of the heat does not change its meaning of wax because its in liquid form or because the color is different. It continues to be wax. Then he wonders, how is it that we perceive wax? Is it through our senses of touch, smell and sight? or our imagination gives us the qualifications for wax? He goes on to say "... I do not grasp what this wax is through the imagination; rather, I perceive it through the mind alone" (111). When the wax changes states our senses tell us that is a different object but that is not the case. Our mind is the one that makes us understand what the object is and this is done through intellect alone (112) and not through the perception of our senses.

Uncertainty of Descartes

It seems to me that in the first part of this writing and the excerpts before it that Descartes says that people should only study things that one can be certain about.(4). By this he meant that it is a waste of time to study things that you will not be able to come to a certain conclusion about. The problem with this is as he states there are very few things that can be studied without certainty, namely arithmetic and geometry. He claims that these two forms of math are so free from doubt because the concept is based on something that cannot be interpreted in any other way as things in nature can be. Because there are so few examples of these types of sciences he says that the only things one can know with certainty are things that can be intuited or deduced; In other words things so obvious that they would be impossible to misconstrue if the people discussing it had any sort of scientific mind.

One of the problems with this is as he claims later that we use our senses to take in all information in the world and we use this information to make our judgments about the sciences. He goes on to say that the sense that is produced doesn’t necessarily have to have any resemblance to the thing that produced it (31) and this can create a problem because the human mind automatically associates one feeling with another, in fact he states “It is the custom of people, whenever they notice any similarity between two things, to attribute to both of them…whatever they have found to be true of either one” (2)

So the mind alters things for the body unconsciously so they can have a better understanding of them so it seems that it would be hard to know anything for certain.

This seems to limit the things available to study down to almost nothing including religion because there is a lot of uncertainty involved that is put down to faith. Later in one of the passages he retracts his claim that the senses are always deceiving, in fact he claims that they are almost always able to tell correctly what is happening, except in two cases, things that are small or distant (104) so this slight correction does nothing to change the fact that religion would be one of the things that is uncertain.

He does however, say that we should not be prevented from believing in divine matters because that is a matter of will and faith and they should be able to be deduced correctly. (7) I was surprised that he wrote this though because that reasoning seems to be so outside of what he was preaching about knowing things for certain and the scientific method. I think his views seem to differ between topics because he does not want to go against religion and say that it shouldn’t be studied despite the fact that it seems in accordance with other things that he says should not be studied.

Follow up to Post: Critical Thinking and Electronic Texts: Distraction

Drum roll please.... I present the partial solution to our inattentive eReading problem. Now you have the ability to mark up pages, lend books to friends, and navigate in full color.

Spinoza and the Religious Fallacy

For philosophers such as Plato, Augustine and Albo, philosophy and theology often were contemplated together. Benedict De Spinoza dismisses this concept, as he believes theology to be rooted in pure faith, and philosophy to be reason based. As reason is not used to prove theological elements, there is no equitable way to compare the two, especially when the faithful have such an ingrained bias. (6) Such biases are a target of great scorn by Spinoza, as he attacks the very element of religion that is faith, considering “Faith has become a mere compound of credulity and prejudices…which degrade man from rational being to beast.” (7) Such degradation of the rationality of man prevents true perception of true and false, ultimately skewing his judgment. Such lack of judgment leads to superstition, an ugly manifestation caused by fear. Superstition, in short, is the exact opposite of everything wisdom stands for. It is the anti-reason. Superstition is a main cause for many quarrels and wars throughout the world, as there is no rational continuity among man. (5) This view on religion differs greatly from Al Farabi’s, who believes it is a means of promoting good within a community, regardless of factual truth.

Why is it that these two philosophers believe similarly on the (potential) ‘factual’ fallacy of religion, but differ so drastically on the practical implications?

The difference lies in the synthesis of religion, and the nature of belief. Al Farabi is concerned mainly with how religion is used within a community towards good, coming after philosophy. (Book of Letters, 2) He states that philosophy is first, but does not articulate the importance of the separation between theology and philosophy. To him, the two are parallel thought processes, while to Spinoza, theology without reason is parasitic to philosophy. Due to this lack of reason he believes to be caused by ‘blind faith,’ there can be no ‘real’ proving of religion. Not only does faith prevent reason, differences in personal faith prevents unification - “As men’s habits of mind differ, so that some more readily embrace one form of faith…[another] scoffs.” (10) In order to banish the misinformation that arises from the superstitious nature of religion, we must prioritize reason. In doing so, we can realize that there is little reasoning behind religion. As we concern ourselves with superstition, we are binding ourselves to temporal gains and disregarding wisdom - the eternal. Moving towards reason and the eternal is the goal of Spinoza, as it allows for the most rational behavior to occur.

Critical Thinking and Electronic Texts: Distraction

I am including below a link to a blog on the NYTimes with a debate, of sorts, between a number of literacy and technology experts on the topic of electronic reading. This is something that has fascinated me for a while, because I am something of a bibliophile. I think I am finally at the point where I could narrate what I take to be an interesting account of learning how to read. Obviously, by the latter I don't simply mean the interpretation of the words on the screen or on the page, but the active engagement with a text, which is really what reading is all about.

The debate on electronic versus paper reading would seem to be a simple, at first glance: do people have a more difficult or an easier time in reading from a screen? But in fact there are a number of related questions about the process of reading--the comprehension and "active engagement," as I put it above, with the text, which are affected by the difference in medium. In particular, these experts seem agreed that there is a tendency to distraction and a dramatically shortened attention span that attends reading from a screen. This is partially an effect of our experience of reading hypertext, on sites like the NY Times or Wikipedia or whatnot, which in knowledge is always produced in small, quickly consumable segments. But a novel or a book of philosophy requires something quite different.

Check it out:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/does-the-brain-like-e-books/

I would be curious to hear your opinions, particularly since probably most of you have grown up in this digital environment ...

The Delineation of Societies’ Laws

A law enforces the principles and edicts established in a community by some jurisdiction and applicable to its people – this is the cardinal statement that has been made by Joseph Albo in The Book of Principles. He expounds on the basic teachings of Judaism with its accent on superiority of the divine law. The essence of Albo’s philosophy is the affinity between divine revelation in both reward and punishment for human deeds. The supremacy of the divine law is revealed in the context of Albo’s work, when cultivating optimal individual traits. Albo contrasts the nomic and divine laws, demonstrating a bias to the divine law. He emphasizes the binding factor of divine Law which proves to be the most perfect kind of law, as it is intended for man's “true happiness.”(248)

Albo begins to explore the aspects of laws that govern the human race by differentiating three principal laws, which are natural, nomic and divine law. He compares nomic law to divine law, while explaining the meaning of natural law as a universal law which equally applies to all the people always and everywhere. The laws are intended to promote justice and manage (even eradicate) injustice; however, they are divergent in their rationale. Nomic law is not regarded as completely fair due to its ambiguity, while divine law gives precise and specific guidelines. Divine law intends to guide individuals in obtaining true happiness and at the same time it teaches society to refrain from abstract happiness so they do not accrue false hope.

The author argues no man’s intellect is adequate to differentiate correctly between “fair and despicable.”(242) He asserts the primary reason for which the nomic law fails to be equal to divine law is because of nomic law’s enduring focus on merely what is fair and what is not fair. The overriding advantage of divine law is its ability to “embrace perfection in moral qualities and doctrines, which are the two parts upon which the perfection of the soul depends.” (244) Restoration of the soul is the final outcome in the process of human perfection that comes as a result of divine law.

From the onset of the excerpt the author provides the reader with a meticulous defense of the ideas dealing with divine law. In turn, Albo exhibits superiority of the divine law over the nomic law. The ideas are supported by a steady stream of arguments that are presented to the reader in a straightforward manner. Albo illustrates the failure of nomic law to differentiate between the “fair and despicable” (244). As I see it, Albo addresses profound problems of human existence that are often marked by the conflict of choice between the divine and nomic laws. In addition, Albo questions human intellect. So, do we really have to live by nomic law or divine law? Or maybe both?

Stanley Fish on Philosophy and the Law

I think it would be fair to call Stanley Fish is a professor of "critical thinking". The below link connects to a blog that he writes for the New York Times. In this blog posting, he writes about a new book examining the practice of "academic abstention", which denotes the ways in which universities are exempt from oversight of the law.

Although Fish doesn't purport to take up Al-Farabi's concerns about philosophy in relation to religion or law, his account of the relation between academic institutions and judicial oversight bears a clear resemblance to it.

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/the-rise-and-fall-of-academic-abstinence/

What makes both philosophy and the academy "select", such that they are not/were not held to judgment by the law? Has that principle changed?

The Superiority of Philosophy

According to Al-Farabi in The Book of Letters in society, theology comes out of the religion and religion comes out of philosophy (1). Al-Farabi goes on to explain the natural progression in a society. Firstly, he says that out of the multitude in society, philosophers are the only ones that are select because everyone else is only similar to them but they all originate from the philosophers (4) maintaining their importance in society. Then Al-Farabi goes back at starts from the beginning of the development in society to discuss how the multitude comes first, followed by language, and expressions and such (4-9). At this point, Society then turns to art (16). The five arts are rhetoric, poetry, capacity to memorize/recite, linguistics, and writing. As people master the arts, they begin to look for explanations of things around them (17) and then philosophy is born. As more things are perfected, society continues to evolve and then these arts are taught to people (19). Following teaching is lawgiving, meaning that the multitude are taught “theoretical intelligible” (19) through these representations because they are unable to understand in any other way. Then a group may start that wants to look more closely at religion. If the founder of the religion explains the bases of it’s philosophy than the group has nothing left to discuss (20). If the founder of religion is not upfront with the philosophy then theology develops as a way to interpret what the founder meant. When this occurs, so does the opportunity for false opinions of that religion. Those who follow this religion “will be unaware of it’s corruption” (21). When this corruption takes place, religion and philosophy become completely opposed (22). Nations may inherit religions or create them but the problem is that if the religion is based on false philosophy and the nation incorporates it into the law then philosophy will be forbidden “because the religion that the lawgiver has given them was a corrupt and ignorant” (23) one. Therefore, nations should not forbid philosophy because since philosophy precedes religion it is the way to discover the corruption and untrue about religion.
Philosophy is superior to theology because theology only studies these corrupt religions while philosophy studies the ideas behind the religions. Theology also has the capability of being corrupt while philosophy does not because it would not fall victim to the false philosophies as religion and therefore theology has.
-Heather Lothrop

Best Website-For Bibliographies

http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/easywriter3e/docsource/1d.asp

I found this on blackboard. If you haven't seen it and you bibliography is bad, use this website its the best I've ever used. Sorry if this is to late :D

A STRESS RELIEF AFTER A HARD ESSAY

Human Life As Seen in the City of God

Book XIX of Augustine’s Political Writings explores ideas pertaining to both “supreme good” and “happiness” through the city of God. Notably, these ideas all relate to Augustine’s virtues of justice, prudence, courage, and temperance, in any way, shape or form.

In looking at the premises, Augustine’s intuitive outlook explicitly states, “true virtues cannot exist except in those who possess true piety” (146). Furthermore, “well-being,” which will be found in the future world, directly relates to happiness. By and far, happiness is acquired through patience and hope, primarily because “we are among evils … until we arrive at those goods” (147). Therefore, live necessarily involves many evils, which pose problems. However, Augustine illustrates the idea of the “supreme good” in the context through peace as opposed to war. For instance, “peace is such a great good that even with respect to earthly and mortal things, nothing is heard with greater pleasure” (150). Thus, Augustine states “that the end of this city … is either ‘peace in eternal life’ or ‘eternal life in peace” (150). On the other hand, Augustine explicitly refers to the Republic of Cicero, where he states that the Romans never really were a people. Augustine argues that the Romans did not possess the virtue of justice, which fairly unites men through a consensus concerning right. Therefore, the city of God is notably the only “true city” because justice exists. Justice exists in the city of God when the “one and supreme God rules his obedient city according to his grace” (162). Consequently, a fellowship of people in the city of God lives by faith, which works through love. Book XX closely follows the question of the last judgment, where Christ will come from heaven to judge the living and the dead.

Both Books XIX and XX provide reasonable explicit accounts where both God and virtues are centerpieces of society. Both these significant pieces are keys to attaining “happiness,” “well-being,” and the “supreme good.” Therefore, is Augustine’s argument viable? Also, should Augustine’s argument, along with the premises outlined, be recognized in its entirety by society?

The defining moment of reason for the conception of original sin

Synopsis:
On Free Choice of the Will: Book Two by Augustine, explores the reasoning (logic) behind our universal attainability of knowledge. This particular book is written through a Socratic Dialogue between Augustine and Evodius, eventually giving way to the culmination of insight that is God’s unmistakable power to provide us with all knowledge of which, using our free choice of will, can be attainable through our omnipresent faith in the deity.

Premises:
1) Evil in the world is the foundation of sin, at the same time, “wisdom, [is] the sweetest light of a purified mind” (61). Explicit

2) Sin (evil’s accomplice) is the inevitable result of a lack knowledge provided to us by the all-truthful, sinless wisdom of God. “But truth and wisdom are common to all, and all who are wise and happy become so by cleaving to truth and wisdom”(68). Explicit

3) “But every good thing comes from God, so there is no nature that does not come from God. On the other hand, every defect comes from nothing, and that movement of turning away, which we admit is sin, is a defective movement” (69). All of those whom do not follow God and his divine wisdom are considered sinners, simply promulgating a “defective movement,” a changeful and corruptive pursuit of nothingness, unable to attain knowledge through the wisdom of God. Implicit

Conclusion:
C) Sin (evil) equates to dynamic nothingness, a pliable globule if you will, providing the world with no imminent sustainable value and evidently lacking discernible reasoning. Further, sin is resultant of a mere defect that is not provided to us by nature, but by that of man’s (the sinner's) own impiously willed contrivances.

Question(s):
Q. A) Although, God inculcates us with the ability to chose faith in order to reason or attain knowledge as result of God’s all-truthful wisdom, are we in-fact destined to faith as a part of God’s master (void the obvious paradox) plan which eventually converts to death, life fulfilled with knowledge, or life lacking-in knowledge or reason? In other words, despite the conception of Free Will, does God in-fact determine our ability to pursue the wisdom of God through individual faith, permitting us to bear the fruits of God’s wisdom (knowledge or ability to reason), while we metaphorically skip down the yellow brick road?

Q. B) As sin is neither a piece of the eidos, nor a function provided to us by the most superior unchangeable entity that provides us with holistic truth (God), does sin in-fact exist? According to Augustine, nothingness is a euphemism for sin, thus can sin be demarcated with its own conception? Considering its figurative vivisection, can sin be discovered through any concurrence of epistemological validity?

Humans & Their Free Choice of the Will

In On Free Choice of the Will, we look at the different views that both Augustine and Evodius have about "why God gave human beings free choice of the will" (29). In this passage they are asking why would God give humans the ability to sin if it is not just? It is believed that God only gives good gifts. Evodius continually tries to question free will and why God gave humans the ability to create evil acts in the world. Augustine then justifies his belief as to why we can also use free will to sin, “but we should not therefore believe that God gave them free will so that they would be able to sin” (30). This is a very interesting point that Evodius does not seem to grasp onto. One who chooses to sin cannot justify his actions by using his God given ability as an excuse; as God only expects good in people and those who choose to do otherwise are punished for their sins. Augustine and Evodius believe that their faith is what gives them their knowledge to believe in these things in God’s existence. So if one chooses to act in an evil manner, it is still their free choice of will?

God is seen as the highest power and it is believed that he would never give humans the right to do wrong. Augustine begins to question Evodius about existence and whether or not God really does exist and why. This is where Evodius explains “there are these three things: existence, life, and understand” (33). If humans contain those characteristics even if they just contain one of those then they are considered to be in existence. Is this really the way to validate that things exist? How are we so sure that God exists? Evodius is certain that “God should not have given us free choice of the will because whoever sins does so by free choice” (64). So therefore, that makes God only a creator of good and not evil?

The Dilemma of Evil

In On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine investigates the root and the cause of evil, as well as the relationship of evil to the law. Augustine views the concept of evil in cosmic terms, thus his logical justifications stem from the divinity of providence. In other words, essentially his major concern is whether God orchestrated evil. The question arises whether evil is an independent force that resulted from the pre-existing conditions of the universe, or is it feasible to assign responsibility of evil to the Creator? According to Augustine, all learning is good, therefore humans cannot learn to do evil things, but merely things that must be shunned (2). This is where Augustine proposes that a person must attain a good will which he describes as, “desire to live upright and honorable lives” (19). Good will however, also creates a sense of freedom and responsibility instilled upon humans. Every individual must have good will, but those who don’t are essentially the creators of evil. Thus, there is a shift, in which the blame for evil falls upon an individual rather than on God. In other words, if evil cannot be learned, but only the things that must be avoided are acquired, those that choose to do the things that must be avoided-- are perpetrators of evil.

Furthermore, Augustine scrutinizes the relationship between the law and morals. He contends that the law itself is good but it can be enacted by those who are not. Augustine metaphorically suggests that each person has law in his hands, reiterating the alternative between good will and absence of it for those who break the law. Augustine finds no justification for those who choose to break the law. There is also a hint that if the law creates leeway for some crime, there is still no escape from punishment, because the divine providence avenges the crime fully.

Augustine comprehends that the laws are conventional, and although good people elect good magistrates those rulers might fail to uphold a standard of justice. Hence, because everything changes-- the law has no immunity. Augustine calls these laws temporal. However, there are also natural and universal laws that are called eternal laws. These laws are according to which “It is just that all things be perfectly ordered” (11). All temporal laws derive from the eternal laws that are unadulterated. The concern is, if eternal laws are catalysts for creation of temporal laws, can one say that they are truly universal? And how does it help those who are unjustly punished to think that the "divine providence" avenges those laws that are not eternal?