1.Berkeley believed that when we talk about something we are talking about the actual being itself, In reality we are talking about how the being is perceived by someone. Berkeley stated that we can never truly know the true nature or reality of any object because we can never do anything beyond experience our perception of said object.
2. Berkeley thought that Material was a confusing term that we should just do away with altogether. Reality in Berkeley's mind could be considered objective as long as everyone perceived everything else the same way. We shouldn't call it material object any more, we should call it perceived objects.
3. Berkeley claims that the only thing he has to work with in the quest to determine the existence of people is language. Since Berkeley can hear people speak and ask them of what they perceive, and from this we can learn that others peoples perception objects is similar.
4. Any Knowledge of the world is gained through direct perception, The error comes from thinking about what others perceive. Knowledge of the world of people can be perfected by stripping away all thought and langauge from their perception.
5. God produces the experience of perception for us, and with his infinite mind can create the same experience for everyone to perceive. Since gods mind is infinite the object/experience (to a lesser extent) is always there
6. Dr. Johnson Kicked a rock and exclaimed "I refute this!" because what Dr. Johnson tired to refute was an idea in his own mind and not that of something purely physical. He was assigning an idea to the rock that can't be shown or given to other people solely through perception.
7. John Locke believed that primary qualities were objective qualities that every object has that are independent of personal experience (length, width, etc.). While secondary qualities on the other hand are completely subjective in nature, (taste, smell, etc.)
8. John Locke showed how water's primary quality is not it's temperature by preposing a thought experiment consisting of two buckets of water one hot and one cold. He then states that once our hands have sat in their respective bucket for long enough time, and then we put both our hands into a bucket full of lukewarm water, both of the hands will respond with different tempatures. The one in the hot water will say the lukewarm is hot and the one in the cold will say that the lukewarm water is cold. This is John Locke states is how we know that tempature in water is subjective in nature (or secondary) and not objective (primary).
9. Berkeley then argues to Locke that if we know their our some subjective qualities of an object, what makes part of it objective? Berkeley states that size (which is considered a primary quality of all objects) changes for objectives based on the distance of the viewer and the size of the viewer his/her self, which makes size subjective by nature.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Descartes Unit 3
18. Descartes thought had proved that the soul was immortal, by indirectly proving the mind and body exist separately. The mind is not made up of any matter, it can not be duplicated by any means (so says Descartes). The body is composed completely of physical matter and could likely be reproduced. These two different entities share no common properties in Descartes' eyes and therefore can exist independently from one another. Descartes used the concept of properties in order to determine the exclusivity of the mind and body. The mind's main property which makes it a mind is thought. Now Descartes believed the mind took up no physical space. While on the other hand, the main property of the body is Extension, or growth, which means they take up space. The mind-body problem arises from this explanation of properties each holds independently, How can something immaterial affect something that is completely made up of material?
19. HAHAHAHA, Descartes has one hell of a time trying to figure out how logically something that takes up no physical space can affect something that takes up a lot of physical space. Descartes had no way to logically explain how material communicates with the immaterial, so he said that the communicator sits atop the pineal gland and communicates responses from mind to body and body to mind.
20. Idealism is the idea that reality and it's truest form are based solely on the mind. Materialism is the idea that "only matter exists". Science has come such a long way that we can possibly say that "only matter exists" because their things that are unforeseen and have little to no physical presence, such as energy. Since we know energy exists and sometimes it has no physical presence we still hold the same empirical values as the materialist did the only thing is now we have changed the name of the idea to Physicalism to allow for all the new phenomenon we are able to observe. Out of all three of these agruments we know that idealism has to many holes for it to logically hold water, and materialism was our first understanding of how the world works which evolved into physicalism as technologies have progressed.
19. HAHAHAHA, Descartes has one hell of a time trying to figure out how logically something that takes up no physical space can affect something that takes up a lot of physical space. Descartes had no way to logically explain how material communicates with the immaterial, so he said that the communicator sits atop the pineal gland and communicates responses from mind to body and body to mind.
20. Idealism is the idea that reality and it's truest form are based solely on the mind. Materialism is the idea that "only matter exists". Science has come such a long way that we can possibly say that "only matter exists" because their things that are unforeseen and have little to no physical presence, such as energy. Since we know energy exists and sometimes it has no physical presence we still hold the same empirical values as the materialist did the only thing is now we have changed the name of the idea to Physicalism to allow for all the new phenomenon we are able to observe. Out of all three of these agruments we know that idealism has to many holes for it to logically hold water, and materialism was our first understanding of how the world works which evolved into physicalism as technologies have progressed.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Descartes unit 2
11. Descartes had come into philosophy at an interesting time, the church still had control over knowledge but science was slowly on the rise. Philosophy was a mess and it had no real foundations, the scholastic philosopher's just used the bible as the Assumed Truth to base all other knowledge on. Descartes wanted to change the way philosophy was being done by trying to find a foundation on which all earthly knowledge could be built. Thus Descartes methodically worked his way through previous foundations of knowledge until he hit bedrock, Something that couldn't be doubted, something that had to be true.
12. Descartes wanted bedrock, He wanted a form of knowledge that could never be doubted. Once Descartes had found a form of knowledge that couldn't be doubted he wanted able to deduce truth from it. Descartes used a thought experiment called "the wax candle" argument to show that empirical evidence is not something to base the foundations of knowledge on. His argument summed up basically states that you have a wax candle and you can sense that it is a wax candle through touch, smell, taste, etc. But as you get closer to a fire the wax melts and it becomes something completely different then what you first "sensed" it to be. Descartes thus concludes that the sense are unreliable and there must be some sort of innate idea of what a candle is that allows to know that these two different forms are the same thing.
13. Mathematics is a form of deductive knowledge. We have to assume something to be true in order to deduce other truths. Descartes did not want to assume anything to be true, he wanted to base the foundation of knowlegde on absolute certainty. Mathematics has the ability to be true as along as the first assumed premise is true, since every other premise relies on the one before it to be true. Observational facts on the other hand only can work on probability, we can either have a strong case for a fact that has been observed, or a weak case for a fact observed, not all observations logically deduce from one another like mathematics. This simple "observation" lead descartes to favor reason over empirical evidence as to how we get our knowledge.
14. Explain Descartes's famous "Cogito ergo sum" argument.
What imaginary being does Descartes postulate in order to begin this argument? Why does he postulate this being? What kinds of beliefs are undermined by postulating this being? What exactly is proved by Descartes argument? Would you prove the same thing if you used the same argument? Explain in detail how Descartes proves what he proves. (This question won't have hints on the exam.)
Descartes finally comes to bedrock while thinking about thinking. He comes up with the thought experiment of a evil genius who uses trickery and magic to make our senses fool us. Descartes postulates "How can we ever know truth if such a dastardly being exists! If everything can be doubted how do we know we even exist?" and thus bedrock was hit and Descartes realized that with all of his thinking he realized he was thinking even when he was doubting, He could doubt that he was thinking, but he was still thinking about doubting. When this conclusion was finally reasoned Descartes screamed in frenzied ecstasy "I THINK, THEREFORE I AM!!!" Thinking was the foundation of absolute certainty that Descartes was searching for.
15. Descartes now knew that the only thing certain in the world was thinking, and he now knew our existence is proof of that. He knew we had an idea of perfection and that this Idea had to come from somewhere. Since perfection according to Descartes doesn't occur in nature, perfection must come from a perfect being that gives us the innate idea of perfection. Innate ideas didn't just come from perfection, everything in the world had a "substance" (an invisible force which is like a universal) which bonds it together with other things. This idea is also transmuted through "The Wax Candle" experiment. As Descartes senses the candle and sees the transition from wax candle to puddle of wax, the only thing that holds those two states together he says is his innate idea of what a candle is. This argument has holes, then though he saw the transition between candle and wax puddle and can attribute the transition based upon empirical evidence, He needed his innate idea concept to be true in order for the rest of his argument to work.
16. Since there is such a thing as perfection as Descartes as shown, and that perfection has to come from a perfect being, that is perfect in everyday so it has no malevolence. Therefore we know that such a being would never let an evil genius mess with our senses. Logically if there is no evil genius around to mess with us, then we can trust our observations in the world because the perfect being loves us, or at least doesn't want to trick us. Descartes calls this perfect being god and he uses this argument to prove that god exists.
17. Now Descartes has proved that we exist and a perfect being who wants to exist, exists and therefore the world must exist. Since Descartes has now deduced that our senses are reliable because a perfect being exists we can conclude that all our most certain observations must be true because the perfect being is perfect.
12. Descartes wanted bedrock, He wanted a form of knowledge that could never be doubted. Once Descartes had found a form of knowledge that couldn't be doubted he wanted able to deduce truth from it. Descartes used a thought experiment called "the wax candle" argument to show that empirical evidence is not something to base the foundations of knowledge on. His argument summed up basically states that you have a wax candle and you can sense that it is a wax candle through touch, smell, taste, etc. But as you get closer to a fire the wax melts and it becomes something completely different then what you first "sensed" it to be. Descartes thus concludes that the sense are unreliable and there must be some sort of innate idea of what a candle is that allows to know that these two different forms are the same thing.
13. Mathematics is a form of deductive knowledge. We have to assume something to be true in order to deduce other truths. Descartes did not want to assume anything to be true, he wanted to base the foundation of knowlegde on absolute certainty. Mathematics has the ability to be true as along as the first assumed premise is true, since every other premise relies on the one before it to be true. Observational facts on the other hand only can work on probability, we can either have a strong case for a fact that has been observed, or a weak case for a fact observed, not all observations logically deduce from one another like mathematics. This simple "observation" lead descartes to favor reason over empirical evidence as to how we get our knowledge.
14. Explain Descartes's famous "Cogito ergo sum" argument.
What imaginary being does Descartes postulate in order to begin this argument? Why does he postulate this being? What kinds of beliefs are undermined by postulating this being? What exactly is proved by Descartes argument? Would you prove the same thing if you used the same argument? Explain in detail how Descartes proves what he proves. (This question won't have hints on the exam.)
Descartes finally comes to bedrock while thinking about thinking. He comes up with the thought experiment of a evil genius who uses trickery and magic to make our senses fool us. Descartes postulates "How can we ever know truth if such a dastardly being exists! If everything can be doubted how do we know we even exist?" and thus bedrock was hit and Descartes realized that with all of his thinking he realized he was thinking even when he was doubting, He could doubt that he was thinking, but he was still thinking about doubting. When this conclusion was finally reasoned Descartes screamed in frenzied ecstasy "I THINK, THEREFORE I AM!!!" Thinking was the foundation of absolute certainty that Descartes was searching for.
15. Descartes now knew that the only thing certain in the world was thinking, and he now knew our existence is proof of that. He knew we had an idea of perfection and that this Idea had to come from somewhere. Since perfection according to Descartes doesn't occur in nature, perfection must come from a perfect being that gives us the innate idea of perfection. Innate ideas didn't just come from perfection, everything in the world had a "substance" (an invisible force which is like a universal) which bonds it together with other things. This idea is also transmuted through "The Wax Candle" experiment. As Descartes senses the candle and sees the transition from wax candle to puddle of wax, the only thing that holds those two states together he says is his innate idea of what a candle is. This argument has holes, then though he saw the transition between candle and wax puddle and can attribute the transition based upon empirical evidence, He needed his innate idea concept to be true in order for the rest of his argument to work.
16. Since there is such a thing as perfection as Descartes as shown, and that perfection has to come from a perfect being, that is perfect in everyday so it has no malevolence. Therefore we know that such a being would never let an evil genius mess with our senses. Logically if there is no evil genius around to mess with us, then we can trust our observations in the world because the perfect being loves us, or at least doesn't want to trick us. Descartes calls this perfect being god and he uses this argument to prove that god exists.
17. Now Descartes has proved that we exist and a perfect being who wants to exist, exists and therefore the world must exist. Since Descartes has now deduced that our senses are reliable because a perfect being exists we can conclude that all our most certain observations must be true because the perfect being is perfect.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Descartes Unit 1
1. The Wiki article interprets the quote to be the foundations of Descartes theory stating that you use the old foundations on which you are taught to base other new knowledge which can be found. When in reality Descartes was talking about his past experience with ideas and thought, making the claim that at one point he firmly believed that he could succeed in life believing in the old foundations of knowledge he gleaned and the principles of human nature he took at face value in his youth, but after careful examination he came to the conclusion that this is not the case and that everything must be questioned.
2. first, is to not accept anything for truth that he did not clearly know as truth
second, to break apart the problem into many parts in order to work through each to find a sound conclusion
third, to work through a problem from simplest concept to more complex
fourth, is to make sure every calculation is correct so that nothing is omitted that could hinder the examination.
3. Descartes in Shorto's eyes started the modern movement with his ideas that lead to the scientific method. Descartes tried to reconcile the differences between faith and reason by creating his mind body theory which allowed him to describe everything in reality with empirical evidence and allow the world faith to still be intact and unquestioned (relatively)
4. The battle between fundamental theists and secular radicalism, The idea that god rules the universe and all can be explained through him or that the universe is just material and can be explained by reason. Also the people who are left in between the two, like Descartes, that are trying to find the balance between faith and reason.
Questions regarding the Book Lady's Blog.
5. The center of worldly power at the time, the church. The church felt threatened because essentially the Cartesian method wanted people to break down what they took for truth and build upon with things that make as little assumptions about the world as possible. Descartes theory was advocating a new generation of independent thinkers that would second guess everything the church wanted.
6. She simply describes Modernity as reason. This simplified description of modernity fails to capture true essence of what separates modernity and traditionalism (which she describes as religion). Modernity is not about out rightly rejecting religion (as most people seem to think) it is about questioning the axioms on which the foundations of culture and knowledge rest, which in Descartes life both were Dictated by the Church.
7. Shorto thinks the proposal contained in Descartes discourse is to ground knowledge not from the bible or kings, but solely from human reason.
8. This change in academic writing practiced by Descartes opened up the general public to the ideas be presented at the scholarly level. Philosophy was no longer something that solely discussed within the confines of the academic elite. It was a subject to be tackled by the masses allowing them to glean information and start to think critically within their own lives.
9. Shorto thinks that Descartes gave legitimacy to the scientific inquiries at the time by giving a bases of knowledge that can solely rely on human reasoning without the believe in supernatural powers (fewer assumptions)
10. Shorto believes that Descartes was the birth of modern thought because he took everything he knew and doubted it until he found one thing (thinking) in which he could base his reasoning upon. I think Shorto has a rudimentary understanding of Descartes and writes a highly romanticized version of what he stood for. He makes it seem as if Descartes was the original thinker that came up with the first version of the scientific method, when in reality Descartes was simply building upon the foundations of Ockham and all the other "modern" philosophers that came before him, that preferred natural observation to supernatural superstition.
2. first, is to not accept anything for truth that he did not clearly know as truth
second, to break apart the problem into many parts in order to work through each to find a sound conclusion
third, to work through a problem from simplest concept to more complex
fourth, is to make sure every calculation is correct so that nothing is omitted that could hinder the examination.
3. Descartes in Shorto's eyes started the modern movement with his ideas that lead to the scientific method. Descartes tried to reconcile the differences between faith and reason by creating his mind body theory which allowed him to describe everything in reality with empirical evidence and allow the world faith to still be intact and unquestioned (relatively)
4. The battle between fundamental theists and secular radicalism, The idea that god rules the universe and all can be explained through him or that the universe is just material and can be explained by reason. Also the people who are left in between the two, like Descartes, that are trying to find the balance between faith and reason.
Questions regarding the Book Lady's Blog.
5. The center of worldly power at the time, the church. The church felt threatened because essentially the Cartesian method wanted people to break down what they took for truth and build upon with things that make as little assumptions about the world as possible. Descartes theory was advocating a new generation of independent thinkers that would second guess everything the church wanted.
6. She simply describes Modernity as reason. This simplified description of modernity fails to capture true essence of what separates modernity and traditionalism (which she describes as religion). Modernity is not about out rightly rejecting religion (as most people seem to think) it is about questioning the axioms on which the foundations of culture and knowledge rest, which in Descartes life both were Dictated by the Church.
7. Shorto thinks the proposal contained in Descartes discourse is to ground knowledge not from the bible or kings, but solely from human reason.
8. This change in academic writing practiced by Descartes opened up the general public to the ideas be presented at the scholarly level. Philosophy was no longer something that solely discussed within the confines of the academic elite. It was a subject to be tackled by the masses allowing them to glean information and start to think critically within their own lives.
9. Shorto thinks that Descartes gave legitimacy to the scientific inquiries at the time by giving a bases of knowledge that can solely rely on human reasoning without the believe in supernatural powers (fewer assumptions)
10. Shorto believes that Descartes was the birth of modern thought because he took everything he knew and doubted it until he found one thing (thinking) in which he could base his reasoning upon. I think Shorto has a rudimentary understanding of Descartes and writes a highly romanticized version of what he stood for. He makes it seem as if Descartes was the original thinker that came up with the first version of the scientific method, when in reality Descartes was simply building upon the foundations of Ockham and all the other "modern" philosophers that came before him, that preferred natural observation to supernatural superstition.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Thomas Hobbes
61. Hobbes believes that human are wholly mechanistic in nature, and constantly in motion in the universe. Hobbes gives us a geometric account of the motion of bodies, showing us a purely materialistic view of the world. This leads to Human Nature to be broken down into mechanical systems that are driven by pleasure and pain. Hobbes believes that everything we choose to do is an action taken in order to relieve physical discomfort. Hobbes also claimed that even though we are a slave to our selves, we are free, as so long we are not acted upon or constrained by any other agent. Human life unregulated according to Hobbes was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
62. Hobbes basically says because humans are base, vile, self interested creatures our natural state is at war. We are at war with everything and anything, this Hobbes believes is driven by three basic causes, "competition, diffidence, and glory." This means that Humans without an authority regulating their actions would mean in nature we are constantly in a violent self interested free for all with everyone else.
63. Hobbes states the that people cannot solely rely on their independence for their contentment and their livelihood. Thus a commonwealth is born as people develop social contracts in order to rely on one another for contentment and livelihood. People would loose their ability to govern their selves in order to join society, in return they won't have to live in constant fear. The sovereign is elected in order to preserve this is contract, and no one can justly back out or over throw the sovereign. The problem with this is the the sovereign is human and therefore prone to the same down falls that Hobbes says everyone is prone too. The sovereign is a ruler that is sum of man kind that cannot be justly contradicted.
64. The sovereign is not involved with the social contract. The contract is made by the individuals of the society to want a orderly government, the sovereign is just the authority they all agreed with each other to obey.
65. Political legitimacy happens either by "sovereignty of institution" or by "Sovereignty of Acquisition", but these are only terms of ways sovereignty can happen, because in Hobbes eyes legitimacy is not based on how a sovereign comes to power. The only thing a sovereign has to do to make itself legitimate is to provide protection to the individuals within the contract. This means no matter what a person does to get into power, once he is in he cannot be justly thrown out if and only if he doesn't provide "protection" for his people.
66. Hobbes is a strict conservative and believes that sovereign is best at ruling if it is just one person. A monarchy allows one person to have control over the whole population and gives them absolute power and judgment. Hobbes believes this is quickest and most efficient way ruling a population, with a separation of powers, Hobbes believes the government is thrown into paralysis because one branch can contradict the other.
67. Hobbes thinks that a limitation of power to the sovereign is a irresponsible thing, he believes it contradicts the whole premise of the commonwealth in the first place. The commonwealth was started as a shelter to hide from the tempest of nature, to impose a limitation on power would invite disagreements as to how government should be run, starting in fighting, and thus the chaos of nature once again breaks through the shelter and burns in the hearts of men.
62. Hobbes basically says because humans are base, vile, self interested creatures our natural state is at war. We are at war with everything and anything, this Hobbes believes is driven by three basic causes, "competition, diffidence, and glory." This means that Humans without an authority regulating their actions would mean in nature we are constantly in a violent self interested free for all with everyone else.
63. Hobbes states the that people cannot solely rely on their independence for their contentment and their livelihood. Thus a commonwealth is born as people develop social contracts in order to rely on one another for contentment and livelihood. People would loose their ability to govern their selves in order to join society, in return they won't have to live in constant fear. The sovereign is elected in order to preserve this is contract, and no one can justly back out or over throw the sovereign. The problem with this is the the sovereign is human and therefore prone to the same down falls that Hobbes says everyone is prone too. The sovereign is a ruler that is sum of man kind that cannot be justly contradicted.
64. The sovereign is not involved with the social contract. The contract is made by the individuals of the society to want a orderly government, the sovereign is just the authority they all agreed with each other to obey.
65. Political legitimacy happens either by "sovereignty of institution" or by "Sovereignty of Acquisition", but these are only terms of ways sovereignty can happen, because in Hobbes eyes legitimacy is not based on how a sovereign comes to power. The only thing a sovereign has to do to make itself legitimate is to provide protection to the individuals within the contract. This means no matter what a person does to get into power, once he is in he cannot be justly thrown out if and only if he doesn't provide "protection" for his people.
66. Hobbes is a strict conservative and believes that sovereign is best at ruling if it is just one person. A monarchy allows one person to have control over the whole population and gives them absolute power and judgment. Hobbes believes this is quickest and most efficient way ruling a population, with a separation of powers, Hobbes believes the government is thrown into paralysis because one branch can contradict the other.
67. Hobbes thinks that a limitation of power to the sovereign is a irresponsible thing, he believes it contradicts the whole premise of the commonwealth in the first place. The commonwealth was started as a shelter to hide from the tempest of nature, to impose a limitation on power would invite disagreements as to how government should be run, starting in fighting, and thus the chaos of nature once again breaks through the shelter and burns in the hearts of men.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Sir Francis Bacon
1. 'Natures' would be a Baconian term for naturally occurring phenomenon, that can be transferred in to fact,axiom, or law using inductive reasoning.
2. Forms are the shape in which we see the natural phenomenon take when we apply the inductive reasoning to the phenomenon.
3. This is the Idea that people tend to believe in systems of regularity more than they should, just because it is easier to follow or come up with preconceived notions. This could be considered nationalism or nationalist bias.
4. The Cave refers to the individuals reasoning powers, or lack there of, due to personality types, likes and dislikes, nature (though he doesn't say this) or nurture (to a certain extent)
5.The Marketplace is like the idea of the tower of babel, the confusion that occurs in language from different directs, translations, and personal understanding. Also it has to do with the multitude of different languages spoken and written and things that are lost in translation.
6. The Theatre is the idea of misused political or philosophical doctrines that have made their way into modern mind. Bacon believes most of these doctrines are based on faulty pretenses and syllogisms, thus should be discarded as trash.
7. is a list of the testable phenomenon's presence in other things, I.E. if we were to test heat, we would then list all things in which heat occurs
8. Conversely this is a list in which the testable phenomenon doesn't occur, I.E. Heat does not occur in water. So on and so forth.
9. The table of degrees is used to to measure the frequency in which the testable phenomenon occurs in each event. Once we established the degree into which it is present we can than make the observed phenomenon and how it works a law. But it most cases we don't know how it works so we use it as a workable hypothesis until more evidence is provided.
10. The Baconian method consists of making a an observation of a phenomenon that we want to be tested, then we make a list of all the events in which the phenomenon occurs. After having our list of occurrences, we then make a list of all the events in which the phenomenon do not occur. Then we take in account the degrees in which the phenomenon occurs in the events, we can then come to a conclusion as to how and why based upon the degrees and occurences.
11.He found that Aristotle based all his conclusions on syllogisms, and not on observable evidence or at least observations that don't make as many assumptions (Ockham's Razor). Bacon also thought Aristotle was missing alot of Bacon.
12. The Baconian method and the Scientific method both rely on observable phenomenon in order to make a conclusion. The Baconian method doesn't rely on test though, it relies on known instances in which the phenomenon occurs. These "known" instances though could be wrong seeing as how most are just based on common knowlegde and not designed test in ordred to produce a result, being either for or against the hypothesis.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Unit 2: Gallieo, A Pioneer of Modern Thinkin
1. Ockham is described as a “nominalist.” Explain what “nominalism”
means in this context.
Ockham was the father of modern thought by helping usher in Nominalism, a concept used to beat down the idea of universals and the problems it entails. Nomainalism in essence is the contra to Universals (which state that everything is defined by certain categories that exist outside of our physical reality and exist even if nothing they define exists as well). Nominalism is the idea that the abstract categories i.e. Red or Redness are not physical realities that bind red objects together, but just names for convenient categories in the human mind.
2.Explain “Ockham’s Razor” in your own words.
Ockham's Razor is a principle of reduction or economy that states, when explaining a phenomenon one should make as few assumptions as possible. The Razor is used to help us explain physical phenomenon using empirical facts, studies, or logic. We do this by gauging theories based on the relative assumptions they make. The Razor isn't, used as general misconception would have it, the simpler argument. The Razor is used to pick the theory which allows us to make fewer assumptions without empirical evidence.
3. Apply Ockham’s razor to the problem of universals. Which answer to
the problem would be cut away? Which answer would remain?
The razor would cut away Universals because they have us make assumptions based upon metaphysical categories that exist outside the mind. Nominalism on the other hand doesn't have us assume anything other than these categories exist because we name them.
4. What did Ockham believe about “mere belief?”
That it was based on sensory information ans prone to error, but it is good for our usual needs.
5. Which of Ockham’s ideas was important to British philosophy for
years to come?
His idea of the limitions of empirical evidence and the importance of human understand, and knowledge.
6. What did Nicholas of Autrecourt say? Why was this important for the
transition from scholasticism to modernism?
Nicholas believed that reasoning toward the Christian doctorine failed and that it should be abandoned as a relic of a bygone era. This is important because it was a step forward in throwing off the chains of circular logic of scholasticism in order to embrace the the empircial views of the modern age.
7. How did Hasdai Crescas among the Jews and Meister Eckhart apply
rational methods? Why was this important for the transition from
scholasticism to modernism?
They used the rational method to confuse people in order to show our dependence on a higher power for genuine human knowledge. This act probably started to open peoples eyes to their dependence upon reglious doctrine for natural knowledge, and led them to take a more empirical view of the world.
8. How did Nicolas of Cusa try to save scholasticism? Why do you think
it didn’t work?
Nicolas of Cusa tried for one last hoorya with Scholasticism by trying to show that god, created everything, so logically he created the contradictions that are present within the bible and the correlated ideas of the old doctrines. At this point it was too late in the game to get the ball back in the scholasitc's court, I think people were done with going no where.
9. What method of inquiry did Galileo reject?
Galileo rejected going back to classic texts in order to gain a grasp on the natural world, i.e. Aristole
10. What was Galileo’s own preferred method of inquiry?
Galileo used a system of natural observation based on testable evidence.
11. Why did Galileo have so many enemies?
because he didn't just prove people wrong about their ideas of the world, he boxed their ears and gave a good tongue lashing as well.
12. What is Galileo mainly remembered for?
Galileo is remember for his heliocentric views of the universe that contested with the then believed geocentric.
13. Which of Galileo’s contributions was actually most important to
science?
Galileo's ideas of dynamics and mechanics
14. How did Galileo pi… infuriate the Aristotleans?
By trashing their ideas of the world and letting them know they were completely wrong.
15. How does the Aristotlean reaction illustrate the difference
between premodern and modern thinking?
Premodern thinking came with an infalliabilty to their arguements and doctrine. Their logic was we can be wrong because then the bible would be wrong, but the bible can't be wrong since its gods word. Which means everytime Galileo made a mockery of them, He in their minds was mking a mockery of God's word. The modern thought greatly differs from this, modern thinking is based upon testable evidence that can be proven right or wrong based on observations.
16. How was Galileo wrong about comets?
Galileo thought they were atmospheric phenomena, and went about trouncing on a Jesusits idea that they were firey balls set at constant distance away from the earth. Galileo never provided his own theory but did manage to alienate the jeusits from his cause.
17. What did Galileo clearly say about the laws of nature?
Galileo claimed that the laws of nature were purely mathmatical and written into the fabric of the universe. Very remienist of Plato's forms, which seemed to influence the late scholatics which taught Galileo.
18. What was Galileo’s theory of tides?
He believed tides where caused by the sloshing back and forth of water during its travel around the sun on its axis.
19. What was wrong with Galileo’s theory of tides?
It didn't account for two tides a day, his theory would only allow one tide a day, when there has always been an observation of two.
20. How is Galileo’s theory of tides a radical departure from
scholastic thinking?
It wasn't tied to any other work, it is mainly based upon his own observations. Although he was wrong it signified that first leap into the unknown with nothing but our senses as a guide.
means in this context.
Ockham was the father of modern thought by helping usher in Nominalism, a concept used to beat down the idea of universals and the problems it entails. Nomainalism in essence is the contra to Universals (which state that everything is defined by certain categories that exist outside of our physical reality and exist even if nothing they define exists as well). Nominalism is the idea that the abstract categories i.e. Red or Redness are not physical realities that bind red objects together, but just names for convenient categories in the human mind.
2.Explain “Ockham’s Razor” in your own words.
Ockham's Razor is a principle of reduction or economy that states, when explaining a phenomenon one should make as few assumptions as possible. The Razor is used to help us explain physical phenomenon using empirical facts, studies, or logic. We do this by gauging theories based on the relative assumptions they make. The Razor isn't, used as general misconception would have it, the simpler argument. The Razor is used to pick the theory which allows us to make fewer assumptions without empirical evidence.
3. Apply Ockham’s razor to the problem of universals. Which answer to
the problem would be cut away? Which answer would remain?
The razor would cut away Universals because they have us make assumptions based upon metaphysical categories that exist outside the mind. Nominalism on the other hand doesn't have us assume anything other than these categories exist because we name them.
4. What did Ockham believe about “mere belief?”
That it was based on sensory information ans prone to error, but it is good for our usual needs.
5. Which of Ockham’s ideas was important to British philosophy for
years to come?
His idea of the limitions of empirical evidence and the importance of human understand, and knowledge.
6. What did Nicholas of Autrecourt say? Why was this important for the
transition from scholasticism to modernism?
Nicholas believed that reasoning toward the Christian doctorine failed and that it should be abandoned as a relic of a bygone era. This is important because it was a step forward in throwing off the chains of circular logic of scholasticism in order to embrace the the empircial views of the modern age.
7. How did Hasdai Crescas among the Jews and Meister Eckhart apply
rational methods? Why was this important for the transition from
scholasticism to modernism?
They used the rational method to confuse people in order to show our dependence on a higher power for genuine human knowledge. This act probably started to open peoples eyes to their dependence upon reglious doctrine for natural knowledge, and led them to take a more empirical view of the world.
8. How did Nicolas of Cusa try to save scholasticism? Why do you think
it didn’t work?
Nicolas of Cusa tried for one last hoorya with Scholasticism by trying to show that god, created everything, so logically he created the contradictions that are present within the bible and the correlated ideas of the old doctrines. At this point it was too late in the game to get the ball back in the scholasitc's court, I think people were done with going no where.
9. What method of inquiry did Galileo reject?
Galileo rejected going back to classic texts in order to gain a grasp on the natural world, i.e. Aristole
10. What was Galileo’s own preferred method of inquiry?
Galileo used a system of natural observation based on testable evidence.
11. Why did Galileo have so many enemies?
because he didn't just prove people wrong about their ideas of the world, he boxed their ears and gave a good tongue lashing as well.
12. What is Galileo mainly remembered for?
Galileo is remember for his heliocentric views of the universe that contested with the then believed geocentric.
13. Which of Galileo’s contributions was actually most important to
science?
Galileo's ideas of dynamics and mechanics
14. How did Galileo pi… infuriate the Aristotleans?
By trashing their ideas of the world and letting them know they were completely wrong.
15. How does the Aristotlean reaction illustrate the difference
between premodern and modern thinking?
Premodern thinking came with an infalliabilty to their arguements and doctrine. Their logic was we can be wrong because then the bible would be wrong, but the bible can't be wrong since its gods word. Which means everytime Galileo made a mockery of them, He in their minds was mking a mockery of God's word. The modern thought greatly differs from this, modern thinking is based upon testable evidence that can be proven right or wrong based on observations.
16. How was Galileo wrong about comets?
Galileo thought they were atmospheric phenomena, and went about trouncing on a Jesusits idea that they were firey balls set at constant distance away from the earth. Galileo never provided his own theory but did manage to alienate the jeusits from his cause.
17. What did Galileo clearly say about the laws of nature?
Galileo claimed that the laws of nature were purely mathmatical and written into the fabric of the universe. Very remienist of Plato's forms, which seemed to influence the late scholatics which taught Galileo.
18. What was Galileo’s theory of tides?
He believed tides where caused by the sloshing back and forth of water during its travel around the sun on its axis.
19. What was wrong with Galileo’s theory of tides?
It didn't account for two tides a day, his theory would only allow one tide a day, when there has always been an observation of two.
20. How is Galileo’s theory of tides a radical departure from
scholastic thinking?
It wasn't tied to any other work, it is mainly based upon his own observations. Although he was wrong it signified that first leap into the unknown with nothing but our senses as a guide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
