Not Your Average Nausea

You and I are nauseated by awful odors or disgusting food. Roquentin on the other hand, is nauseated by the thought of existence. Roquentin realizes that he does not know what the definition of existence is; or rather it is an abstract idea. Analyzing a chestnut tree, the definition of existence unfolds. He concludes that existence “hides itself” (page 127) Roquentin realizes that if you tried describing the tree, or any part of it, you are not proving it exists. The chestnut trees’ physical characteristics (its height, color, smell etc) are masking its existence. While analyzing the root's essence, or its physical characteristics, he says that simply saying the roots function as a “breathing pump” (page 129) does not prove anything about existence. “The function explained nothing… it allowed you to understand generally that it was a root…” (page 129) Thus, existence precedes essence. An object must exist first, and then each person can create the characteristics that complement or describe that object. Therefore you can not say that the root exists because it is long or that it is brown.
While something as simple as a tree or a piece of paper might seem simple and easy to describe, each individual observer might use different terminology to describe that same exact thing. I might say that a piece of paper is plain and white. Another observer might say it is a little transparent, with a “darker” white spot on the upper right-hand corner” So you can not say the paper exists because it is white or a little transparent. Thus a thing must exist first, and then each individual creates the characteristics he/she would like to use to describe it. The amount of descriptive variability an object can have contributed to Roquentin’s nausea. Roquentin describes the trees bark as black. But is it really black? Can’t it be “more than black or almost black? (page 130) Roquentin realizes that color does not prove existence rather it is a “confused effort to imagine black…” (bottom of page 130) Roquentin concludes that to exist means to simply “be there” ( 2nd paragraph, page 131).
Essence does not prove you exist because different things, although the same can be described in different ways. So the basis of existence can not be based on characteristics. But without essence the object can not exist because there is no way to describe it. They go hand in hand. If I were to say the table exists, and said say “it is brown and rectangular,” and someone else said it is a dark reddish/ brown, with a round-cornered rectangular shape, how does that disprove that the table’s existence?

Existence is in the Eye of the Beholder

At least that's what Quine implies. But in a discourse permeated with as much a concern for linguistic philosophy as general ontology, it seems Quine makes more of a point on what can be said to be, rather than what actually is. His analysis on the subject has him cross over varying ‘schools’ of ontology, scrutinizing each and developing arguments with purportedly equal objectivity. Most notably, however, he develops the "semantical formula" “to be is to be the value of a variable”[141] not in an attempt to pinpoint which ‘school’ of ontology, or rather which ontology, is most viable, but in order to better evaluate how we should commit to an ontology.

In the tenth paragraph, Quine does away with the word ‘exist’ in favor of the simple verb ‘is’ which can also be taken as the present form of ‘to be.’ He does so in order to compensate for Wyman’s “ill-conceived effort to appear agreeable” [136] by distinguishing between existing and subsisting. Wyman’s ontology allows for what Quine considers an “overpopulated universe” by vouching for an endless regurgitation of possible values that undermine the state of existence. In allowing possibles into our ontology, we would be inviting an effect similar in nature to the idea of infinite regress. Quine elaborates on this point ad nauseam, questioning the existence of the possible bald man standing at a doorway and his relation to other possible figures with varying properties. This is where I come across my objection.

As far as I understand, which I might concede to say is not very far, Quine’s slogan or formula only argues for more convenience in ontology rather than more efficiency or truthfulness [and by truthfulness I mean, resulting in more truths]. In discerning what is, concerning one’s self only with variables that have set values would result in an ontology that disregards shifting values or values that may or may not fluctuate in and out of existence. One may only totally discover what there is by either stopping time all together, or being efficient enough to figure out all there is in one instance. However, even if either was possible, what there is one moment may not be what there is another moment, effectively creating an ever-swelling margin of error proportionate to the rate of change in the universe. I understand how this may be beside the point, but considering it thoroughly, it actually might not be, and I’ll explain why shortly.

Another issue with his formula is that it inadvertently argues for a teleological universe, or rather a universe [proverbially] ‘embedded in stone.’ If it were the case otherwise, an ontology that abides by his formula would be stuck deciphering ‘what there is after this series of circumstances’ rather than actually ‘what there is.’ That being said, using the rationale that it would be an assumption to declare the conformity between past, present and future, it would similarly be an assumption to conform to the idea that this series of circumstances, or rather the collection of happenstance, or occurrences, both macro- and micro-, that has led to what we call the present is either the only state of existence, or the only state of existence viable for examination.

To put it plainly, if the ontological question is “what is there?”, an ontology adhering to Quine’s “semantical formula” would only prove to pierce the surface. Though it can be argued that it is this surface that matters, and that as such his “semantical formula” simply acts as an aid to better examine the ontological question, this argument is a subjective one, predicated on a series of meta-ontological assumptions including the assumption that objective answers cannot be ascertained. Still, based solely on my very limited and fallible knowledge of philosophy as a whole, it seems this frustrates the point that ontology aims to find out what there is, not what there is that matters, affects, or can be perceived/understood by us.

the power of choice.

In Sarte's "Existentialism is a Humanism," he addresses the various reproaches to existentialism and argues that, contrary to what many believe, existentialism presents the most optimistic outlook on life. He argues that every individual has the ability to make their life what they want it to be. Our lives are not defined by our situations or circumstances, but ultimately by the actions we take. On page 4, Sarte says “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism.” This is the fundamental idea behind existentialism; that man is in control of his own life. That each individual chooses what he wants to become and becomes that through action. This point, that man is only what he makes of himself, that man creates and defines himself, holds each man responsible for his own life. On page 11, Sarte quotes the typical excuses people offer for failure; “Circumstances have been against me, I was worthy to be something much better than I have been. I admit I have never had a great love or a great friendship; but that is because I never met a man or a woman who were worthy of it…” These excuses, however, hold no ground, because every person can choose what their own life is going to be. That truth, that man makes himself, is a terrifying one. It shows that only you can be held accountable for the things you do or don’t do. According to Sarte, there is no such thing as predestination or a decider (such as god) to place blame onto. There is only you and the choices you make. You control and are responsible for your own life.

            Although the idea that we are responsible for our own lives may be terrifying, anyone who knows that they are in control of their own life has an infinite amount of freedom. They have the freedom to do what they please, to pursue their own interests, to make their own decisions. Often, we don’t know what the “right decision is.” We fumble and stress over what classes to take, what major to pick, what career to choose. We look to other sources; parents, advisors, friends, to make those choices for us. But at the end of the day, each of us has to make a choice for ourself. We are free, because despite what the opinions of those other sources are, the choices you make define you and are ultimately made by you. 

Your decisions affect everyone.

According to Sartre, responsibility is very important. What a man chooses to do, not only affects him, but everyone else as well. He even states,

“…The first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders. And, when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.” (pg.4)

By this statement he is saying, that if any man acts upon his will, it not only will affect his life, but it will affect everyone’s lives around him. A good example of this that Sartre gives is a pupil of his. This young man had a choice to either go off to England to join the Free French Forces, or stay home and take care of him mother. In this situation his choice would affect everyone. If he choice to go to England his mother would surely get sick and not be able to go on with life. But, if he chose to stay home with his mother, he would not be supporting England and all those in need of his help. Responsibility concerns all of mankind as a whole. This is nothing that man can escape. When man is born, this is put upon him and he doesn’t have a choice. Just like when others make decisions it also affect his life. Man is also responsible for whether he is known as a “hero” or “coward”.

Sartre also explains to us what anguish, abandonment, and despair mean.

Anguish is when man is committed to something, and knows that what he does is not only for him, but for everyone. An example of anguish is a military leader. By him making all the decisions of what everyone should do, he feels anguish.

Abandonment shows that God does not exist. I wonder, what would it be like if God didn’t exist? Sartre quotes Dostoevsky, “If God did not exist, everything would be permitted.” With this, I completely agree. This image of God is what keeps everyone in order. If he did not exist people wouldn’t fear anything and they would surely go out of control.

Despair simply means that we limit ourselves based on our wills. With despair you learn that you cannot count on a man you don’t know, or know very little of.

These three words have a certain responsibility to them, and I believe this responsibility is necessary to understand. All of mankind makes his own decisions, but he must know that these decisions affect others as well.

Does Pegasus Really Exist?

Well, it depends on what you believe existence is. In Quine’s “On What There Is”, he creates two philosophers named McX and Wyman in order to demonstrate the ontological problem. Quine describes McX’s mind as “elementary”, while Wyman has a “subtler” mind (136).

McX argues that Pegasus must be something because we talk about something when we use the word. He then continues by saying he will never see the flesh or blood of Pegasus because Pegasus is an idea in men’s mind. This creates a problem because when people talk about Pegasus existing, they’re talking about the physical Pegasus, not the idea of Pegasus.

Wyman starts off his argument by trying to make his definition of existence more specific. He limits the word existence to actuality; thus making it necessary for Pegasus to be here in space and time in order to be considered existing. Wyman believes Pegasus is an “unactualized possible” (136). Wyman says “unactualized” because he believes Pegasus is in nonexistence. So you can say McX and Wyman both agree on this point. The “possible” part, however, is the part that makes them disagree. Wyman added the “possible” part because Pegasus is an idea that could possibly exist in space and time.

Quine clearly takes sides with the “subtler minded” Wyman, stating, “Subtler minds, taking the same precept as their starting point, come out with theories of Pegasus which are less patently misguided than McX’s, and correspondingly more difficult to eradicate” (136). This may be true, but Wyman never proves McX wrong; McX seems to have a pretty logical explanation as well. The major difference between the two arguments is the definition of the word existence. Wyman may have a more specific definition to the word existence, but does it really make a difference when you know something that is nonexistent, such as Pegasus, is never going to be in this world? Quine starts the essay by saying the question to “What is there” could simply be answered as “everything” and everyone would accept this answer. After reading “On What There Is”, you begin to realize this question is not as simple as it looks. If there were “everything”, I would choose Pegasus over the train as transportation to Hunter College any day.

Person A: You want the truth, you cant handle the truth. Person B (after reading Nietzsche): Apparently you cant either...

It seems that Nietzsche looks at truth through a microscope, at its most basic level of existence. As he states, man's truth rely on how they apply to man, not how they exist in reality. He states that the truth, how man knows is, is built upon layers upon layers of half truths, falsities, fallacies and deceptions that are so far from the actual truth. To him truth, this is not about perception, or what our minds interpret. This is about what really exist, what really takes place underneath the surface.
He talks about the leaf (pg 91). He states : "...no one leaf is is exactly similar to any other, so certain the idea "leaf" has been formed through an arbitrary omission of these individual differences." I think though to him this is a form of disrespect to what actually goes on in the world. He makes man out to be vain and cocky for assuming that what he knows as truth, actually holds weight in nature. He even more has a problem with man thinking that nature is somewhat indirectly bound to his analysis of the truth. Nature, according to Nietzsche, could care less what man thinks, for it is nature itself, with all its complexities, reactions, wonders, unknowns, and evolutions, that is in fact truth incarnate. He is right when he states (p89) : "Does not nature keep secret from him most things, even his body?"
We might have a soar throat, and say to ourselves we are coming down with a cold. But according to Nietzsche that is not the absolute truth. We are associating the the pain we feel with our predisposed notion of a cold, not for once mentioning, or taking into consideration the things that might have caused your throat to be soar? Maybe its an allergic reaction or a bacteria you picked up eating food. Nevertheless the real truth's lie in nature, not in the association of the thing to the concepts of man. To him, men are blind, and only see face value. He believes man rely's on form, where as truth relies on individuality, something that man ignores. As he states (pg91) "...disregarding of the individual and real furnishes us with the idea, as it likewise gives us the form". To man, truth is a gathering of idea's. To Nietzsche, its a gathering of individuals realities.

Mankinds Needs It

In Friedrich Nietzsche’s “Philosophical Writing”, page 96, quoting, “And as a man binds his life to reason and its ideas in order to avoid being swept away and losing himself […]” This quote is intriguing because he basically stated that men are dependent upon reasoning for confronting truth. Reasoning and ideas are constructed impressions of man and man is used as a template for these conceptions. He uses an example such as trees and plants are anthropomorphic, having human characteristics; trees are masculine, plants are feminine. Human perceived them by applying our own perception, quoting, “[…] would be necessary to apply the standard of right perception i.e., to apply a standard which does not exist”. What is the right perception? Is this perception our own that we constructed or some other higher standing. Mostly people think rationally; they need reasons to comprehend the complexities, it is simply easier to understand when something is relatable or have significant to. What made men perceived the whole world as a humanlike thing? Does this relate to how their altruistic behavior, self-centered, egoistical, desired of importance and purpose to their existence?

“Such seekers contemplate the whole world as related to men”. Men are “artistically creative subjects” and are used as templates for all things. He goes off mentioning language was the initially used to construct these ideas that is later “science”. Basically language was to falsely assert what we don’t know. I think he took a light jab at science setting out it is an illusion that human pursuit for knowledge that is build upon, refined and it is finite. Nietzsche also pointed that science is interpretation to understand the world but we don’t really know. He uses a small example of if someone looking through the microscope or telescope and concluding their findings, but these conclusions are all “products of fantasy”. Back to what I mentioned about perception, science is relative if we subject our own thoughts on others. I think what he summing up is that we don’t really have facts; we make it as facts. Man creates them in a way that these scientific ideas are coherent and don’t overlap with one another. Science is not absolute, its not complete and it is subject to change but it is always refined for clarity. I find it difficult to understand clearly on Nietzsche’s perspective on science, arts and mathematics. He mentions a couple of known figures significant in these fields but…

Extra Credit

For Extra Credit:
Go to the lecture announced below and write a one-page summary explaining both of the problems and the possible solutions discussed. Must be typed and emailed to me by 6 p.m. on Thursday.  Late submissions will not be accepted.

The summaries will be graded for clarity and completeness, and they will substitute for your lowest quiz grade.

Another extra credit assignment that will raise the first exam grade is described in the "Assignments" folder on Blackboard.

                                                               

SPECIAL TALK FOR HUNTER STUDENTS, FACULTY, AND STAFF

COME HEAR RENOWNED EXPERT ON GENDER, RACE AND DEMOCRACY

Carole Pateman

Distinguished Professor of

Political Science at UCLA

President,

American Political Science Association

Two Intractable Problems about Human Rights:

Obstacles to Women's Human Rights and the Right to a Decent Standard of Living

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College

47-49 East 65th Street, Auditorium

4:00 PM - 5:30 PM

Reception to Follow

Please RSVP to RHRSVP@HUNTER.CUNY.EDU

Moderator: Political Science Professor John Wallach, Chair, Hunter Human Rights Program

Discussant: Assistant Professor of Political Science Robyn Marasco

Co-Sponsored by: Hunter Human Rights Program, School of Arts and Sciences, Department of Political Science, Department of Philosophy, and Women and Gender Studies Program, with the cooperation of the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College.

A Limited Truth

Nietzsche contemplates and works to validate the authenticity of pure truth in which arises from the origin of human language. The formatioin of ideas is especially important in Nietzsche's account, which aims to identify what we know as truth. Words, which make up language, are automatically transformed into ideas. These words or ideas, are the forms, in the sense that they act as a guidline and a template, giving us an overall understanding of what is not accounted for, which are the individual distinctions within those ideas. Nietzsche refers to this as "equating the unequal" because the form is not at all equal to the individual though they may correspond to one another, but we could not be sure of that either. Out of this also comes the notion of an idea being its own cause. Surely this can not be correct, considering that the forms encompass all of the various differences in an idea. That particular suggestion implies that these differences do not exist, which is clearly false.

"We call a man "honest"; we ask, why has he acted so honestly today? Our customary answer runs, "On account of his honesty." (p. 91) This exactly illlustrates the concept of an idea being its own cause. In this example, it appears to be an accurate conclusion due in part to the fact that the many ways in which one differentiates honest actions are ultimately the cause of the idea of honesty which language has constructed. Despite this, it is also because of these different actions of honesty that the idea is not exactly its own cause unless every single honest action was considered. On the matter of essence in these ideas that are formed from language, like the one just mentioned, which is the pure truth Nietzsche seeks, there is also reason to doubt such a claim. If an idea is the form, or general account of something, excluding specificity, then there exist many causes. Even implying this conclusion leaves us further from the core of truth and essence. It is not to say that our whole way of life is a foolish array of false accounts, but perhaps that we must not mistaken them for complete truth. Imagine, if language was structured based on the individual rather than the form, it would be much more complex, or so it seems. Would we then be a step closer to truth because each idea could directly connect to and be the cause of the thing itself? The language of nature is complex, one that is indistinguishable to us. In saying that, is it also the case that nature is closer to or as far from truth as we are because the "x" that it knows, of which Nietzsche speaks, is possibly more or less knowing to the essence of truth?

The idea of forming ideas

"Every idea originates through equating the unequal" (pg. 91). This is stated by Friedrich Nietzsche in "Philosophical Writings". But what does he mean by it? Perhaps an example will shed some light. No two leaves are alike, yet when one person says 'a leaf', another person will understand, but in their own idea of what a leaf is. So the idea of what a leaf is formed. This implies that there should be a universal leaf: one that with all its properties all other leaves originated from. Therefore the leaf is the cause of leaves. If this sounds familiar, then you are correct: a primal universal is a recurring idea in philosophy.

If that sounds too far fetched or ancient, take a look at it with the universal language: mathematics (which doesn't lie). If Jack and Jill were to draw a triangle, both of their drawing could be different. Jack may draw a small isosceles triangle and Jill may draw a large right triangle. If you break down what a triangle is, you'll see that they are both the same. They have three angles which add up to 180 degrees, and that is the definition of the universal geometric figure known as a triangle. One could not argue that their idea of a triangle is incorrect, should you ask Jack and Jill to go out and return with a leaf, they will return with different leaves but a leaf none-the-less. Did either of them fail their mission? No.

"As no one leaf is exactly similar to any other, ...the idea 'leaf' has been formed through an arbitrary omission of these individual differences, through a forgetting of the differentiating qualities, and this idea now awakens the notion that in nature there is...a something called the leaf" (pg. 91). The leaf is the cause of leaves, just as the triangle is the cause of triangles. Everything is different, but by putting aside the minute differences you end up with an idea that is understood by everyone. Putting aside natural and geometric examples, you can find this theme of ideas in history. Look at a main driving notion for the Civil Rights movement: we may have different colored skin, but we all bleed red. We are all humans despite being slightly different.

So the concept of ideas forming from unequal ideas holds true. One may try to disprove the concept of a primal form, yet examples of it can be found in nature, history, mathematics, and in many other concepts. Perhaps this is the reason why this is a basis commonly seen in philosophy. It is false to say that your fingerprint is the same as my fingerprint, but when we both are at the police station and the officer says they'll be taking fingerprints, we both know exactly what he means by the conceptual idea of fingerprints.

The Invisible Fabric of the Human Mind

In David Hume's AN ABSTRACT OF A BOOK lately PUBLISHED; ENTITULED, A Treatise of Human Nature, &c, he reflects on a larger work concerning the "secret tie or union among particular ideas, which causes the mind to conjoin them more frequently together, and makes the one, upon its appearance, introduce the other" (pg 11; 34).
Hume uses the example of two billard balls hitting each other to help illustrate the notion of cause and effect, which becomes the foundation for every conceivable train of thought that our minds engage in. Hume states that it is only through our experience that we are able to conceive thought, and says, "TIS not, therefore, reason, which is the guide of life, but custom. That alone determines the mind, in all instances, to suppose the future conformable to the past"(pg. 6; 16). Essentially this means that it is impossible to use reason if we do not have any experience in a given situation, but does this mean that the human mind is incapable of improvising and constructing new ideas that seem all together unconnected from our past experiences?
In his example of the two billard balls hitting each other, Hume says that, "when I see a billiard-ball moving towards another, my mind is immediately carry’d by habit to the usual effect, and anticipates my sight by conceiving the second ball in motion. But is this all? Do I nothing but CONCEIVE the motion of the second ball? No surely. I also BELIEVE that it will move. What then is this belief? And how does it differ from the simple conception of any thing? Here is a new question unthought of by philosophers"(pg. 6; 17). Indeed, if one has never experienced a game of billards, then it would be very difficult if not impossible to conceive visually what will happen when the cue ball is struck into another ball.
Hume's idea of experience as the foundation for every connected thought or idea is strengthened when he states that, “secondly, THE mind has a faculty of joining all ideas together, which involve not a contradiction; and therefore if belief consisted in some idea, which we add to the simple conception, it would be in a man’s power, by adding this idea to it, to believe any thing, which he can conceive" (pg.6; 20). This statement clarifies the way in which Hume believes are minds operate, in that for a given situation, we essentially will fill in the blanks with imagination by drawing upon past experiences. If one is isolated from society and has little or no experience in their past, then it will be impossible for this person to ever unlock the ability to use reason or imagination.

Why didn't God make us perfect?

In his “Meditation IV Of The True And False”, Descartes brings up a very intriguing question. According to Descartes, God is all-powerful and all of his faculties are perfect, therefore it would be within his capabilities to create other perfect beings. So if God created us, the question becomes why did he make us imperfect?

Descartes first rationalizes that it is an impossibility that God is a ‘great deceiver’ because any form of deception implies ‘malice or feebleness’ and therefore cannot be present in a perfect God. If God does not deceive, then the faculties that have been given to Descartes must be sufficient if they are being used correctly. However, Descartes is certain that he does make errors sometimes. But if he makes errors and the faculties given to him are adequate (not imperfect), what exactly is the cause of his imperfection?

According to Descartes, on the spectrum of being there are two extremes, the supreme (God) and non-being (state of non-existence). Descartes decides that he is in fact in between these two extremes. Because he is not the Supreme Being himself, he reckons that it then makes sense that he falls into error. But the error has nothing to do with God; Descartes errs because he is not God so his capabilities are not infinite.

This logic is shaky, and that is even apparent to Descartes himself so he attempts to go further and strengthen his argument in removing the blame for his imperfections from his Creator. Since God is Supreme, Descartes is certain of two things: that He could have created everything completely and utterly perfect and that God knows what’s best. If those two things are true wouldn’t that mean that God made the RIGHT choice in making Descartes imperfect?

To answer this question, Descartes takes a cop out route. After using his intelligence for four whole Meditations, he decides that it is ridiculous for him to even think that his intelligence could comprehend the infinite and perfect reasoning of a Supreme Being. So after all of that, the answer that Descartes really gives us as to why God made us imperfect is…”Don’t worry about it, he made you incapable of understanding anyway.” Not too strong I think.

Descartes tries to fortify this by saying that in this grand universe which is perfect, one must not look at a singular thing that God has created and call it imperfect, you must look at the whole. I think this is another cop out; it would make more sense for a supreme being to a universe in which everything within the universe was perfect as well as the whole. Wouldn’t something that is perfect in parts as well as a whole be MORE perfect than something that is only perfect when viewed in certain instances? I think so. What about you?

The Broken Computer [Mind versus the Senses]

Willis had a problem. See experience told Willis that everything he knew was due to his senses. A three hundred year old corpse his class was studying, on the other hand, told him otherwise. The corpse blabbed on in his book about how we learn through our minds, not our senses, even going off on this tip about melted earwax or some crap. It just couldn’t make sense. How could that be when everything he knew, he learned from reading a book, listening to his teacher, or studying for a helluva lot of tests? He figured the whole lot of it was nonsense and that Descartes was nothing more than an aged moron. Without a second thought, he tossed aside his copy of ‘Meditations’ and got onto his computer.

That morning, he managed to get a hold of a bootleg copy of ‘The Hangover,’ which, by the way, is a good, funny movie but one he never got a chance to see. Excited to watch it, he put it into his DVD Drive and waited for the magic, but nothing happened. He tried a few tricks he thought might get it to work, but still, nothing happened. He figured his DVD Drive was malfunctioning so he opened up his computer and looked through it, testing it out a few times and trying to diagnose the issue. From his perspective, there was nothing that could’ve been wrong. The lens was fine, the bootleg spun, and he was certain it was being read. Everything was in perfect working order. Almost everything, anyway.

He finally settled on the idea that maybe it was the bootleg, and not anything in his computer -- after all, he did buy it for three dollars. Putting another DVD in, one he knew would work, he waited again for the DVD to respond but once more nothing happened. Again, he ran his tests and concluded that there was nothing that could've been wrong. At this point, he grew angry. He really wanted to see that really funny Mr. Chow he heard about. Out of the corner of his eyes he spotted ‘Meditations’ but noticing the book that had caused him so much grief before didn’t help at all. He yelled violently as he flung the book across the room. ‘You dead, stupid fool!’ And that was that.

Then, suddenly, it happened. Something just clicked. He shot an apologetic glance toward the book and began to smile. He then went to work on his computer and finally managed to fix it without running into any issues whatsoever. It was a simple fact that he had been focusing on the wrong thing the entire time. It wouldn’t have mattered if the DVD Drive was in pristine condition, or that his copy of ‘The Hangover’ was legitimate and straight out of the proper packaging. He could’ve put a hundred and one DVDs into the Drive, or even replaced it, but without what processed the data being fixed, it wouldn’t do anything but hit a virtual wall. The info on the disc would be floating around in electrical limbo.

‘Hmmm…’ He thought with a grin, ‘Whaddya know, I guess the old Frenchman had a clue after all. All the senses do is bring images, or waves, or textures to our minds and it’s up to it and reason to sort the stuff out and turn it into information. And hey, that earwax example wasn’t too shabby either. Similarity is an idea formed by our mind, without it we could even be looking at two identical apples, or an apple and its reflection, and have no hint in hell that they’re one in the same, we wouldn’t even have the mind to be confused. The fact that there’s any contemplation in the slightest that the two apples might or might not be the same is a product of reason. A camera can't distinguish the people in the photos it takes. An audio recorder doesn’t learn from the voices it records. Those things don’t have the reason to. Sure it could be retained all the same, but these things have no idea what’s going on. Now that I think about it, the senses work a lot like a downloading program. We might’ve gotten an app, music file, or video through the program, but it’s because of the data, scripts, and processes already in our computers that we’re able to install, or even use them. It all makes sense now, Descartes was a genius!’

A week later, Willis took his Philosophy midterm. He got everything wrong except the bit on Descartes. When he got his results, he was positively satisfied.

God Exists Then Descartes Exists

In “Meditation Three: Concerning God, That He Exists,” Descartes first states that all things that can be felt by his senses exist within him. The way in which he values his own thoughts is by evaluating them to outside external forces because if his own ideas could not be challenged in any way they could never be proven wrong.

Descartes believes that there are ideas that are derived from the world outside him because there are things that do not depend upon him. He gives an example of feeling the “heat”. He feels heat from an outside source, something other than himself. He also says that when he thinks about something that is true, it comes to him spontaneously and not as something being taught by nature.

Descartes admits the existence of God through rational thought. First, he admits that he exists. Then, he admits that God exists within him, and therefore, God must exist too. Descartes ideas are reflections of the way to know the true God. He knew that there are secrets of God in all things, because all human wisdom and science was hiding in ideas.

God is the Almighty because God created the earth, all things, and human. Descartes believes in God, which reinforce, Descartes existence. He believes that he exists, and God exists. God created Descartes, people, everyone, and nature. For example, then he is, Descartes says, “there is a God, I exist”(25). Because God made Descartes so he knows God, like people know their fathers because people are made by their fathers. “God created me makes it highly plausible that I have somehow been made in his image and likeness, and that I perceive this likeness, in which the idea of God is contained, by means of same faculty by which I perceive myself/ all things were created too”(35). Similarly to the old testaments, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1: 1), The God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness”(26), and “God created in his own image, in the image of God he created him”(Genesis 1:27). Descartes and Genesis have same ideas.

Descartes concludes that God “necessarily” exists because he believes that there is a substance that is infinite, intelligent, powerful and independent that created him, and all these are not initiated within him alone. Descartes states, “I have no reason for thinking that there is a God who is a deceiver” (25). The ideas of God are not false, he is not a deceiver, and the idea that Descartes has of God is true and clear. Descartes perceived reality of God and he knows that God is true. “I think I intuit as clearly as possible with the eyes of the mind”(25). God is honest, but human is not honest. Descartes says that “let anyone who can do so deceive me”(25). God does not deceive, but humans can deceive other people.

Change in Course Schedule

This is the change in the reading schedule for the next few weeks.

Nov. 8: Descartes, Meditations 3,4
Nov. 10: Hume, "Abstract"
Nov. 15: Hume, "Abstract"
Nov. 17: Nietzsche, "On Truth and Falsity in Their Extramoral Sense"
Nov. 22: Quine, "On What There Is"; Essay assigned
Nov. 24: Quine, "On What There Is"

Class Cancelled--Nov. 1st

I have to cancel class for tonight. I will be posting a revised schedule on Blackboard and on the blog, either later today or early tomorrow.

The Stone: Pictures of Philosophers

Check it out:

Pictures of Philosophers on the New York Times