Existence is a meaningless Nothingness.

Antoine Roquentin, the main character of Sarte’s Nausea, is a 30-year-old adventurer who is settled down in a town called Bouville. He seems to be a antisocial type; in fact, from his earlier meditations on his diary, he seems to be a quietist. Roquentin’s struggle to cope with others’ existence and also his own is shown throughout the book. Roquentin is in a pursuit of meaning of existence, if there is any. On the process of observing himself and the surrounding people, he definitely beholds distinct difference between him and the others. “All these creatures spend their time explaining, realizing happily that they agree with each other.” While only thing one needs is to be “lonely enough to get rid of plausibility,” people are so bound to one another and society that they don’t actually know of their self-individuality. (8)

Then strange sensation, which seems both physical and mental, plagues Antoine Roquetin immensely. Although it seems to involve physical feeling, it is not like repulsive motion sickness or acid indigestion. It is nausea. He feels nauseated because of his observation that life is absurd. Fortunately we have freedom to create our own essence of existence. Although nausea, like fear of Spinoza’s theory, never goes away; our created essence of existence is capable of prevailing the nausea. “I receive nothing and give nothing” (6). Everything is so absurd that existence of things that is outside of our body is meaningless and yet we have nothingness within ourselves.

Meaning of existence for people is to be defined by others and define others. Yet he cannot even grasp the reason to exist: “Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance” (133). In spite of that, people all think that they are “necessary, causal being[s]” (131) and; therefore, their existence also is necessary. However, in fact, existence is contingent. It is true that we, the human beings, exist but we exist with absence of necessity. The fact of our existence insofar is being so without having to be so, the absurdity is the fundamental principle of life. Our existence doesn’t justify that we have reason to exist.

It’s all about the Nausea

Roquentin seems to be a person who is depressed and the nausea itself is one of the symptoms of his condition. I believe that Roquentin’s nausea is stemmed from him dealing with his own existence and the existence of the people around him. He is unemployed. His living condition my not be the best and he does not have much contact with the outside world. He reflects back in time and in the present. His past and his new beginning.
He cannot bear for objects to touch him. He believes that an object should not touch because they are not alive. He is afraid to be in contact with them as they are living beast. (10) He recalls his experience with a pebbles and how it was like nausea in his hands. (11)
Roquentin is not much of a social butterfly. His existence is surrounded by his stories and the stories of others. He observes and listens to other people’s conversations. When he is at the café’ and he sees Adolph, the bartender he feels the nausea. Roquentin says, “ The nausea is not inside of me: I feel it our there in the wall, in the suspenders everywhere around me. It makes itself one with the café, I am the one who is within it.” (19) What really brought on this nausea? It seems like the mere observation of Adolph’s looks and clothing brought on his nausea. His encounter with Adolph is very different from his encounter with an object touching him. This is confusing because it seemed like objects brought on the nausea. After his encounter with Adolph, he asks Madeleine to play the something on the phonograph. For some reason this music from the rag-time has an affected on his nausea. He says, “ I grow warm, I begin to feel happy”. The nausea that had taken over him is now subsiding from the broken seats he sat on at the café to his encounter with Adolph and the purple suspenders.
Roquentin’s frequent visits the library enables him to encounter with the self-taught man. His relationship with the self-taught man has helped him to reinforce his own existence. When he reflects on his experiences and the people has encountered in his past/present he begins to understands the nausea. He realizes that he posses the nausea. According to Roquentin, “to exist is simply to be there; those who exist let themselves be encountered but you can never deduce (you can only make a judgement based on the information that you have) anything from them.” (131)
Inclusion Roquentin realizes that the nausa will no go away. He is able to have some control over it but should not allow the nausea to take over his existence.

Is our existence meant to be? Or is it just a pure accident?

According to Sartre, the answer to my title would be our existence is just a pure accident, but we invent “a necessary, causal being” (131) or an essence in order to explain our existence.

In other words, the necessity cannot define our existence which overrules the traditional thought of our existence; rather, Roquenitn claims, in order to exist, it merely means “to be there”, not like we exist for a certain purpose, necessity or essence. (131) Moreover, Roquentin asserts that “[we] can never deduce anything from [existence]” which implies that nothing can be derived from our existence and thus, there is no derived purpose or essence from our existence. (131)

The principle of Sartre’s “no essence from our existence”, relates to Roquentin’s conversation with the Self Taught Man at a restaurant. The Self Taught Man claims that he ought to love every human being as a socialist and Roquentin inquires if the Self Taught Man loves the couple who is sitting behind him. (119) Although the Self Taught Man wouldn’t recognize them if they were in the street, he still states that he loves them for their youth. (119) And, Roquentin responds that the Self Taught Man loves only the “symbols” such as “the Youth of Man, the Love of Man and Woman, [and] the Human Voice” which according to Roquentin, the essence such as the Youth or the Love from one's existence does not exist. (120) And yet, the Self Taught Man exists to love the symbols since “all men deserve [his] admiration.” (120) As a result, the Self Taught Man covers up his existence or hides from his existence by replacing essence in the place of his existence.

In addition, the “contingency” of our existence is “the perfect free gift”, however people “hide from themselves”, themselves meaning their existence by creating an essence to justify their being while “they are entirely free.” (131) Moreover, Roquentin tells when he was thinking about his existence, nothing was in his mind and his mind was empty. (127) And, if someone was to ask him what existence was, he would answer existence is “nothing, simply an empty form which was added to external things” (127) which leads back to Sartre’s principle that essence cannot precede existence since existence is nothing but an empty form.

However, Sartre claims existence precede essence since we are “entirely free” (131) we can create our own meaning of our existence rather than following what seems to be the essence of our existence. Therefore, we have the absolute freedom over our lives and in the end of Nausea, Roquentin commits himself to write a novel since writing the novel is only way for him to “succeed in accepting [himself.]” (178) Therefore, a purpose or an essence doesn't make us to exist, but we exist and then, we understand our absolute freedom and create our own meaning of life.

Despair and Optimism

Nausea is a slow realization; a journey through the familiar to the essential strangeness of reality. It is the story of Roquentin’s awakening to the realization of his absolute freedom, and it is born of the slow demolition of everything he thinks he is. This is called despair. In Roquentin’s case, he is conscious of his despair. He loses everything he thinks he is: his book, his history and, eventually, Anny. All of this is lost because he sees the contrast between himself and the Other. The familiar faces, their familiar attitudes, and the insurmountable gulf between them and him.

Roquentin, in the beginning of the novel, doesn’t talk, doesn’t think, and in fact his very thoughts are in a mush. Throughout the book he is confronted with the masses; how they talk in order to realize that they happily agree with each other, (pg. 8) and hide themselves in the chaos of everyday life. A prime example is that of Lucie in the alley. The woman he thought he knew is something else; something she could not have been in the “quiet, pink streets” (pg. 27). Is this extension of feeling possible in a crowded room? Is raw emotion possible in the world of preset desires and concrete opinions?

The Self-Taught Man is another case in point. He is the thorough reader of other people’s opinions; a lover of humanity (perhaps too much) and all of its accomplishments. He is so completely unsure of himself, unsure that he may have the wrong opinions. He is a sad lonely person with nothing to his name except all the books from A-L. Such circumstance are usually conducive to the Nausea, or to some sort of awakening, but the Self-Taught Man finds solace in something larger; in a humanity that he cannot touch. He is a man like Rollequin, but one who tries to find his way into the steady stream of humanity, if not in actuality, then at least in ideology. He is like a drowning cat; he’s wet and useless but he’s still mewling.

Rollequin himself loses everything one by one. He discovers the facticity of time, and the falsehood of his past. His past can no longer comfort him; his woman is not the same as she was before. Who is it that exists in other people’s minds? It is not him. His consciousness is there, he cannot deny, but for no a priori purpose. Consciousness is superfluous, and the Nausea is just the projection of this onto his physical surroundings. Following this train of thought to it’s logical conclusion he discovers that he is only what he is at this very moment. He discovers freedom. He does not hide from this thought; there is nothing behind which to hide, but he decides to live and to write. This is the only form of true optimism. After going through the very depths of despair to emerge, not to a rosy world, but to reality.

I'M PRESENT, BUT YOU’RE IN THE PAST

What is existence relative to time? A man who seems to be obsessed with the past, Antoine Roquentin shifts through multiple periods of time. Once eager to give life to the dead Marquis de Rollebon, he slowly loses his interest in recreating the past and becomes overwhelmed with nausea. Life seems to be a field of flowers filled with colors and life. But is there more to life than what meets the eye? When we see a rose, the first thing that catches our eye is the beauty that is outlined by the vivid colors of the petals. What we see next is the vivid color of the stem, followed by the pointy thorn. We see the thorn last because it is something our minds tend to look past, as it is only natural to look past the poison and find only the pure. What we get when we begin to analyze past the beauty and research the true skeleton of being, is exactly what Roquentin received once he realized the truth of his existence. Nausea.

Like Roquentin, the past seems to be an important time for Anna as well. "I live in the past." (page 152) But what connection does the past have with the present, relative to existence? It is not possible to understand the meaning or the basis of existence without first living through the experiences (or, in other words, the veil of lies that blinds a man from the truth) that cause your existence to have a particular essense. All creatures develop within a case, and none are born with the nausea of truth. Once they emerge from the case, they see the world for the first time, and the last thing on their mind is why they exist. Following their birth, they develop memories, and deal with the many "lies" of life that create their essence. And therefore causes them to forget what they truly are, and it is that exists within them. "The function explained nothing: it allowed you to understand generally that it was a root..." (page 129) It is once the essence is destroyed or moved aside that men realize the truth, that it is possible to define one's own essence. Therefore, in order for a being to define an essense, a being must first define its own existence; but this cannot be done without fluctuating between the past and the present. Realizing what defines a person's essence becomes the key to defining his existence, and in doing so, allows them to redefine their own essence.

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

Everybody Makes Mistakes... Even God

In “Meditation Four” of Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes is primarily concerned with God, His creations, and the faculties assigned to His creations.

Descartes begins by restating the conclusion he came to in “Meditation Three”—that he is a thinking thing. He is a thinking thing that doubts, or is uncertain of things, so he is incomplete and dependent. And because he is incomplete and dependent, he comes to the conclusion that there must exist something that is the opposite: a complete and independent being—God (36).

According to Descartes, there is a supreme being (God), the non-being (nothingness), and the being in the middle of these two (himself). The supreme being is perfect, meaning that His judgment is undoubtedly correct and therefore He never makes a mistake. The non-being, or nothingness, is as far away from perfection as possible, meaning that it has traits that are uncertain. And the being in the middle shares both these traits to lesser degrees (36).

Descartes says that God is the supreme perfect being, so nothing else that exists can be perfect because He is supremely perfect. This means that God is unable to create other perfect beings because he is the perfect being. Therefore, he can only create less than perfect beings. Because he can only create imperfect beings (for example, Descartes), those beings’s judgments are not always correct, and those beings are prone to making mistakes. But because these imperfect beings are a creation of God, these imperfect beings and God must share a similar trait, which must be flawed judgment and proneness to make mistakes. Thus, we can’t be certain that God is a perfect being if he creates things that are imperfect, because creating things that are imperfect reflects a flaw in judgment. And if we can't be certain that God is a perfect being, we can't be certain that he exists.

But Descartes says that God is a positive, perfect being and so, He can never make a mistake. “… it is impossible for God to ever to deceive me, for trickery or deception is always indicative of some imperfection” (36). Here, Descartes says that God would never deceive him on purpose because that would indicate an imperfection, and God cannot be imperfect by definition that he the perfect being. However, God may not be deceiving Descartes on purpose. Perhaps Descartes is deceiving himself because God gave him a faculty that is supposed to work that way. But why would God give him this faculty with which he can both avoid and make mistakes and cause uncertainty? Descartes says that God created him and gave him no faculty for making mistakes so he cannot make them. But if God is perfect, why would he create an imperfect being? If God Himself never intended to create an imperfect thing, and created Descartes, an imperfect being, that would mean God unintentionally made a mistake. God may have an ulterior motive, but of that, we cannot be certain. Because we cannot be certain of whether or not God has ulterior motives, we can't be certain if God really is perfect, and if we can't be certain if He really is perfect, he may not even exist because He would not have the attributes contrary to Descartes’s incompleteness and dependence that are required of Him to exist.

In closing, here are wise, wise words from a Disney star:

“Everybody makes mistakes, everybody has those days…. Nobody’s perfect.”

—Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus

Thank God for God

In the essay “Meditations on First Philosophy: Meditation Three,” Renee Descartes sets out to prove, or make certain of his existence. He does this by making certain of Gods existence.
            Descartes begins by trying to prove his existence by establishing that he is a thinking thing. “I am a thing that thinks, that is to say, a thing that doubts, affirms, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things, wills, refrains from willing, and also imagines and senses” (p. 24). Here, Descartes clearly states that he is a thinking thing, and then goes into what a thinking thing does. To Descartes, due to the fact that thinking things are deceitful it is hard to base his existence on something which is uncertain, such as imagining and sensing. All of these things a deceitful, and therefore cannot be the determining factor of his existence. All that he knows is that he is in existence because he is a thinking thing. However, Descartes needs something to further explain his existence. He therefore attempts to explain the existence of God, because if he can prove, or make certain of the existence of God, something which is infinite, than he can make certain of his existence.
Descartes establishes that humans and all other things that exist are corporeal things. Corporeal things can only affect and come from other corporeal things. In addition, corporeal things have limitations, therefore, according to Descartes, they are finite. “But perhaps I am something greater than I myself understand” (p.31). Here, Descartes expresses that he is a finite being, because he cannot fully understand himself. Therefore, the only thing that could fully understand a finite being would be an infinite thing or being.
“Thus there remains only the idea of God…I understand by the name “God” a certain substance that is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful and that created me along with everything else that exists” (p. 30). The fact the Descartes exists means he is a finite being, therefore a finite being must come from an infinite being, which is God. Finite beings have a beginning and end. They run a course, but God, who is infinite, has no beginning or end. In addition, according to Descartes, to even fathom the idea of finite beings is so beyond what a finite being can fathom, that it would take an infinite being to fathom. Due to this, finite beings cannot fathom infinite beings. “It is no objection that I do not comprehend the infinite or that there are countless other things in God that I can in no way either comprehend or perhaps even touch with my thought. For the nature of the infinite is such that it is not comprehended by a being such as I, who am finite” (p. 31). Here Descartes demonstrates his vulnerability by stating that he cannot comprehend an infinite being. In turn, by doing this it proves how finite things can have uncertainty. However, because these finite objects and things come from an infinite thing, whom is God, which is supremely perfect, it can be certain that he is certain that he exists.
Finite things can produce and fathom other finite things. They cannot therefore think or produce infinite things, because it is beyond their scope of reason and thought. Therefore, there is much uncertainty to finite things. It takes an infinite thing to create a finite thing. In order for Descartes to prove his existence, it takes a thing, which has no beginning or end to bring him into existence. That thing is God. God is infinite, and in order for finite to exists, infinite must exists, hence, Descartes exists, because God exists.

Critical Reading ...

Can anyone explain to me what the following text means? In particular, how long the quiz is available for? I've been reading philosophy texts for so long stuff like this bounces right off me.

This is a quiz on the readings from Aristotle's Physics and Categories. It will be available from October 23rd, at noon, until October 30th, at noon.

Pretty confusing, no?!

Wake up and smell the fire!

In the Second Meditation of Rene Descartes "Meditations on First Philosophy", the Meditator is concerned with knowing something certain, or at least knowing that nothing is certain. In order to continue in his attempt to know something certain, he will “put aside everything that admits of the least doubt, as if I had discovered it to be completely false” (17). By doing so, he will allow himself only to focus on those things that can not be doubted any longer, which would mean that they are certain. He supposes that everything he sees is false, and that he no longer has senses.

The Meditator has become certain of the fact that he is a thinking thing, and because of this he begins to question why he can not identify what the “I” that does the thinking is. He uses the example of a piece of wax to help him identify what this “I” is. First he examines the wax with his senses by looking at its color, shape and size. He realizes that it makes a noise when it raps his knuckles, and it smells like fresh honey. He then places the piece of wax by a fire where it begins to melt. The Meditator notices that the previous solid piece of wax was changing shape and smell, and no longer makes a noise when raps his knuckle. This is when he realizes that all of the sensible properties of the wax have changed, however he still knows that it was the same piece of wax. He then asks “so what was there in the wax that was so distinctly grasped? Certainly none of the aspects that I reached by means of the senses. For whatever came under the senses of taste, smell, sight, touch or hearing has now changed; and yet the wax remains” (21). This allows him to realize that he did not come to know wax through his senses, or his imagination, but instead through intellect alone. He concludes that, contrary to his initial ideas, the mind is a far better knower than the body.

I agree with the Meditator that the senses can be deceiving, but I think that it is a combination of the senses and the mind that allow us to learn and come to know things, not just intellect alone. For example, if some one were to ask you if you smelled something burning when in fact you did not, it may be possible that their senses were deceiving them, although in order to know what something burning smells like, you must also have experienced a burning smell before. Some one who was uses senses alone with out the help of the intellect would not be able to tell if something was burning because although he may smell the actual fire, he would not be able to identify what the smell is. With his intellect alone he would not smell the fire, but only be able to categorize it as a fire. With the combining the mind and the senses, not only can you smell the fire but you can realize that it is dangerous and you should get out. In this situation, the separation of the mind and the senses are much less usefull. Together they allow you to become aware of the fires existence, and know how to react in this situation.

A Little Bit of Perfection

In “Meditation Three” of Descartes’ Meditations of the First Philosophy, he reviews what he already knows and then questions what other things he is made up of that he has not already brought up, but then becomes doubtful. “…I am certain that the same reality was not in me, either formally or eminently…therefore I myself cannot be the cause of the idea, then it necessarily follows that I am not alone in the world, but that something else, which is the cause of the idea, also exists.”(pg 29) He realizes that the cause of his ideas comes from “without” and thinks that there is a possibility of a God who cause have given him these ideas in order to deceive him.
Descartes then says he has no cause to think that there is a God deceiving him. Rather, his perception of the “ infinite” comes before his perception of the “ finite”. By expressing this idea, he knows that in order to understand why he doubts and desires is by comparing himself to a “more perfect being”, which is God. (pg 31) He says that he cannot comprehend the infinite, but then continues by saying that of all the ideas he has, the idea of God is the most clear. But how can this be the most clear if he cannot fully comprehend the infinite, which is God? It is true that being finite (man) limits our understanding of the infinite, but according to Descartes there can actually be some minor form of perfection that increases within us gradually. If that is the case and we are made in God’s likeness, is it possible for us to attain the perfection in which He has? And if so, how do we know when we have reached this perfection? Since we cannot truly know the infinite, how can we know how perfect God is? Descartes looks to compare himself, a finite being, to God, but how can he possibly compare himself? If he is trying to represent all other men, and all other men contain slight perfection which grows gradually, then can it be that one man can be more perfect than another? Depending upon how this perfection grows, one man may gain perfection quicker than another. If this perfection of which Descartes speaks is attained gradually by his increasing knowledge, then maybe this “perfection” is his idea of maturity. Each person has a certain degree, yet the process of becoming more mature is gradual; and once we reach what we think is full maturity, maybe we can understand God more.
If this is the case then what are the necessary steps which one must take in order to enhance the slight perfection that we have been given? He says that the potential of perfection is in him anyway.(pg32) By saying “potential“, Descartes now poses the idea that perhaps we do not actually have perfection inside of us, but the potential to become closer to perfect rather than actually becoming perfect.

Perception: The Foundation of Existence

The "meditator" in Rene Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy" believes that whatever you perceive clearly and distinctly must be true. But what does perception ultimately mean? Perception, according to dictionary.com, is the "the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding." This is ultimately true; it is how we understand and reason through the senses or the mind. This plays a huge role, according to the meditator, in determining what an "I" is. By an "I," he is ultimately asking what clearly defines existence. He concludes that an "I" is a thing that thinks, understands, wills, imagines, and senses. Note that none of these things are physical or tangent things. By stating this, he is saying that an "I" is something that perceives. Perception defines existence. We can now see what a huge role perception has upon us.

The meditator states that "..even bodies are not, properly speaking, perceived by the senses or by the faculty of imagination, but by intellect alone, and that they are not perceived through their being touched or seem, but only through their being understood, I manifestly know that nothing can be perceived more easily and more evidently than my own mind," (Pg 23, paragraph 34).He breaks down perceptions into two groups; imperfect/confused and clear/distinct. He shocked to reveal "how prone my mind is to errors," (Pg 22, paragraph 32). It is easy to be deceived, especially through sensible and imaginative qualities. What defines sensible qualities? They are what we feel, what we taste, what we hear, what we see, and what we smell. Imaginative qualities are what we imagine, or ultimately make up through things in real life. Mermaids, for example, are half woman and half fish. He believes that whatever we perceive through these two qualities will ultimately be imperfect and confused perceptions. He provides us with the "wax" example. Through our senses, we can conclude that wax is hard and cold. This is an example of how easy a mind could be deceived. As we move the wax towards something that emits heat, a fire for example, the wax loses its structure and becomes liquid. We can imagine the several different shapes that it can become, but still it does not provide us with a clear definition of what wax is. It is only through our cognitive abilities and careful mental scrutiny that we determine the lasting qualities on wax, which are that they are "extended, flexible, and mutable," according to the meditator. He states that "insight is not achieved by the faculty of imagination," (pg 22, paragraph 31). Thus he concludes that sensible and imaginative qualities provide us with imperfect/confused perceptions, while careful mental scrutiny provides us with clear/distinct perceptions. In his third meditation, he elaborates more on the idea of perception. He believes that when examining tangible and corporeal things, you can only clearly perceive size, extension, shape, motion, duration, number, and substance. But as a thinking thing, there are no limitations. Whatever you perceive clearly and distinctly must be true.

The meditator is clearly true when it comes to clear and unclear perceptions. We must depend on our sensible and imaginative qualities, but they only provide us with indefinite answers. From there, we must rely on our reasoning and cognitive abilities to provide us with clarification. The meditator believes that what defines an "I," or existence in this case, depends strictly on one's ability to think. This is clearly true. Form does not determine existence, our ability to think does. Look at God for example. God has no "true" form, but most of us still know that he exists. The same is true with us; even without a body, if we still continue to think, we still exist.

Doubt and Existence

In Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes, he discusses his doubt, his existence, and the existence of God. In the First Meditation, Descartes sits by a fire and thinks about things he believed but came to know were false. After this he clears his mind so he can build his opinions back up again from the ground. "Accordingly, I have today suitably freed my mind of all cares, secured for myself a leisurely tranquility, and am withdrawing into solitude. At last i will apply my self earnestly and unreservedly to general demolition of my opinions."(Descartes. 13). Descartes states that he has accepted that most of what is true he can perceive through his senses. But he states that at times your senses can deceive, but with only regard to objects that are small or at a distance. He believes that you can not doubt simple or universal things such as arithmetic or geometry, but you can doubt things such as "physics, astronomy and medicine"(Descartes, 15) because they are dependent on other things unlike arithmetic and geometry. Lastly in Descartes Meditations One he states that a God must exist because if God didn't exist there is a greater chance of us being deceived by our senses since they would not be created by a perfect being.

I can mostly agree with Desecartes on his concept of doubt with regard to the senses, mathematics, and science. What we see, feel, touch taste, and smell (without regard to those that suffer from hallucinations, delusions and things of that sort) must be true because that is how it is perceived the world. If we doubt our senses then the world we live in and everything around us would be subject to question. As for his thoughts on mathematics, I believe he is correct because they are based on concrete structure, for example two and two will always be four. I also agree with Descartes that science can be doubted because science is based on theory, subjects that are not based on a solid structure or truth.

In Descartes' Second Meditation he takes up the subject of his existence. He recalls on his first meditation asking what if his senses are defective and if what he sees does not actually exist. He also pretends that he lacks a body and senses . He discovers that since he is thinking these things, he must exist. "Here i make my discovery : thought exists, it alone cannot be separated from me . I am; i exist - this is certain."(Descartes,19). He also questions what is "I", what does that make him. He doubts all of his aspects except for one, that he thinks, and decides the he is only a thinking thing.

I agree that as human being an important part of our existence is our thought . But i feel that to say we only exist because we think is absurd. For example, if a person gets into an accident and is brain dead, this person may not think, but still exists in the real wold.

Descartes and the Journey Into Dreams and Reality

In Rene Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy and more specifically in his first meditation, the eternal question of what is real is explored and dissected to the point of asking whether our own senses can be trusted in this search for truth. In this first meditation, the nature of dreams and its role in the search for reality is explored. Descartes believes neither dreams nor what we call reality can be trusted and distinguished as he writes " I see so plainly that there are no definite signs by which to distinguish being awake from being asleep"(14). I believe that dreams and its role in our lives is not sufficiently explored on a metaphysical level and also its role on a day to day basis. It is interesting to observe the connection between Aristotle and Descartes in the sense of what is real. Aristotle wouldn't view a hand as something that might not exist but something that truly exists as a differentia. The hand is connected to a person, who would be the primary substance and Aristotle believes the primary substance to be what is real and which all nature stems from. Descartes asks the question of how do we know the primary substance actually exists and how do we know the nature of something if it truly might not exist at all? Most people have such lucid dreams that seem so real and when just awaking it seems hard to distinguish between the real world and the dream world. In a movie called Inception, there was a character, who entered the dream world often and needed a physical object, an anchor, to let him distinguish between the dream world and the real world and let him know whether he is still dreaming. It would be interesting to know what Descartes thought of this idea and even more interesting if future technology would let us to be able to examine our own dreams on a deeper level. If this was possible, would Descartes still question the distinction between dreams and reality. Has technology let us to be able to view our beings and consciences in a more objective fashion such as viewing our own selves on television. Or does this make no difference? Can viewing ourselves in any fashion, television or otherwise. still be a subjective manifestation of our imagination? It seems these questions are eternal and might possibly never be answered because even forming these questions and thinking about them, might not actually be happening according to Descartes because reality and imagination might never be distinguished. At the end of the first meditation, Descartes seems to favor the notion of "ignorance is bliss" because living in the dream world seems more peaceful than having to fight the notions of what is real and what is not real on a day to day basis. The question of whether we would choose a particular dream and live in it forever or have to battle the day to day questioning of what is real seems to depend on how much time we spend towards metaphysical examination on a day to to day basis and how much it means to us as humans.

Does a Tree Falling in the Forest Make a Sound if Noone Hears it?

I overheard a precocious child asking his mother this question on the subway. For him, it was resolved: yes, because the event produces soundwaves that are emitted regardless of whether someone has heard them.

My favorite version of this question is:
Does a work of art lying in the bottom of the ocean continue to be a work of art? (Schelling)

Or:
Does a blog that no one reads and contributes to continue to be a blog?

Does Altruism Really Exist?

I think the answer is clearly no. However, I am guessing some of you think otherwise. You should read the essay "Is Pure Altruism Possible?" by Judith Lichtenberg on "The Stone", which is a New York Times blog. I am sure you read the NYTimes regularly, or the Washington Post (both free online). If you don't, you should. At any rate, "The Stone" regularly features short essays written by actual well known professors of philosophy (like myself, albeit not as well known).

A question about altruism would be a great extra credit question on a quiz.  Just sayin'.

Just for your edification, here's what I think. I am of the Kantian/Freudian persuasion (as she charitably puts it).  That is, I think, if altruism is understood as action on behalf of others purely for the sake of others and not for self interest, than yes, it is impossible.  I reach this conclusion because it seems that people are always motivated by multiple (self-)interests or desires (depending on your Kantian or Freudian persuasion) and those interest or desires are never completely clear to us.  Thus, if it is possible that there are other interests or desires motivating us, we cannot be acting purely for sake of others.

I don't think that is a problem.  I don't know why people should have to act only for the sake of others in order for their actions to have moral or ethical worth.  On the other hand, I am also not concerned that all actions are necessarily egoistic, and this because our own interests are frequently bound up with the interests of others.

Even if all actions were completely egoistic, it seems like frequently there would be actions ethically or morally significant in terms of their consequences.  For example, I think that public libraries are a vital social and cultural good and the charity that supports them is ethically laudable.  Thus, even if a blue blood donates to this charity wholly because of the cachet it may give him or her in the neighborhood where he or she lives, that still seems to be ethically laudable action, and so because of its consequences (the maintenance of public libraries).

All right, back to grading.  See you later today.

Physic

In the book of Physics, written by Aristotle. He talks about nature, cause and chance, teleology and necessity in nature. I was intrigued by the first two pages, where he talks about nature and form. In his introduction he talks about this idea, all natural objects being the substances. First let's talk about what he thinks to be the nature.
In the first paragraph Aristotle stated: " among thing that are, some are natural, others are due to other causes. Those that are natural are animal in their parts, plants in the simple bodies, such as earth, fire and water; for we say that these things and things of this sort are natural. All these things are evidently different from things not naturally constituted; for each of them has in itself an origin of change and stability, whether in place, or growth and decay or alteration".
When I think about it, what he says, make sense and i agree. I interpret it to be, things that when we human beings came on earth, we've seen many unexplainable things. Such as trees, animals etc. All these things we have no clue, on how they ended up being in this planet are consider to be natural. therefore nature are things we don't know the origin. He later says whatever has a nature is a substance. I think is right, for example: a substance is like a molecule in human body, without this molecule we wouldn't be human, and i think it's the same for nature. Without this substance there would'nt be nature according to Aristotle. Also he thinks that form is nature. I agree, because for something to be call nature, it needs a form or it has to have a form first, for example: a tree, would not be a tree if it didn't have the form. therefore according to Aristotle. so therefore the form plays an important role than the nature itself. The form precedes nature. that's why i believe he stated: " the form is nature more than the matter is ". Matter for Aristotle i think is what is actually is, for example: when we plant an apple tree, the result will be the same thing that was originally planted. According to Aristotle the apple is not the origin. It's being nothing more than what it really is.

Science or Scripture?

Summa Theologica is a discussion of the components of religion. According to Aquinas, "... things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man though his reason, nevertheless, what is revealed by God must be accepted through faith" (386). His discussion tackles the idea that religion can not be classified only in one category and must consist of both to make sense. I agree with this idea and definitely think that small parts are gathered together in this case to make up an entire idea. When taken just as parts, each one is significant for its own reasons but isn't as powerful as the end result. Each article he presents a different idea that is subsequently tackled to be shut down. He says things like, “It seems that sacred doctrine is a practical science, for a practical science is that which ends in action, according to the Philosopher” (388). In the first quote we assume he is siding with a philosophical stand point, we move down to the second and realize that the complete opposite is stated here. There is no side taken by Aquinas because he is pushing for the idea that they can not exist for the purpose of doctrine separately. This is like the idea that language is a sum of its parts. Words mean one thing on their own but when placed into a context their meaning may or may not change. Here we have a repeated mention of how technical science is and very close behind it we are convinced about how scriptures and doctrines were written by people who were only capable of thinking scientifically and therefore have to have meaning behind it all. I think that because he constantly repeats ideas he supports, he wants his reader to focus on that which is key, not just the body of the text.

Is it all just luck?

In “Book II: Physics,” Aristotle talks about the nature of things and how they change. According to him they change because of four causes: material, formal, efficient & final. In section 4, titled “Luck and Chance,” (Pg.207) he discusses how luck and chance are said to be causes, and what exactly they are. The passage that interested me was the one titled “Doubts about the existence of luck.” In it he says that some people wonder whether or not luck exits because nothing results from it. Anything that is said to result from it has a “cause.” He gives the example of a man going to a marketplace and meeting another man that coincidently he wanted to meet but did not expect at this time. The “cause” was the man wishing to go to the market.
So, does luck exist or not? Yes but not as a “cause”. In fact Aristotle says that luck stems from events that nature itself may have cause. While reading this passage I was reminded of Spinoza, and how a mere coincidence can cause an entire belief in superstitions. Since fear causes irrational behavior, superstitions (that stem from fear) are irrational beliefs that something good will happen only if you follow a certain ritual. The fact that something good does happen is a coincidence. There is nothing that proves that the opposite could have equally happened. What does this have to do with luck?
Well, luck defined is good or bad fortune caused by accident or chance and is also associated with faith or superstition. Since luck is basically coincidences it cannot be thought of as a cause of anything in nature, seeing as how things in nature did not happen as just a coincidence. Right before the end of this section on luck and chance (Pg. 211 paragraph “How luck and chance are…”) Aristotle himself says that the mind and nature must be prior causes of many things in this universe and chance and luck are posterior.

Categories, Aristotle

In his treatise Categories Aristotle breaks down the function of words in relation to each other. He defines language in terms of primary substances, species and genus. In terms of meaning, on can associate the intelligibles and perceptibles that Al-Farabi wrote of to the primary substances and to the species and genus, respectively. The primary substances are subjects and all other entities depend on them, there wouldn’t be species or genus without primary substances. Aristotle’s analysis of language is also a reflection of how reality is simply a creation; random words, assigned to elements of the universe, define our existence. This reading was overall boring and difficult but Aristotle reveals his thought process most lucidly in the paragraph entitled There Are Ten Kinds Of Beings. Here he identifies the various types of primary substances said without combining other words. These beings are, “substance or quantity or quality or relative or where or when or being in a position or having or acting on or being affected.” Aristotle also writes that in order for these primary substances to be true or false, that is, to have affirmation, they must be combined with other words. This begs the question; does combination affirm the existence of some being because it makes it true or false? Is man just being called man not enough confirmation of his existence?