the whipping post

Kant: Math

robinsonm1@student.wpunj.edu (Mark) — Sun, 18 May 2008 18:32:00 +0000

According to Kant:

Math is analytic and synthetic.

Meaning you have to take two knowns and put them together to have math make sense. This doesn't make too much sense to the though. If someone had no knowledge of anything in the contemporary world, you still could teach them values and quantites of something. 1 egg and another egg is 2 eggs. Very simple. How is synthetic knowledge ever incorporated into that math problem? No knowledge of eggs, their producers or chickens are needed to understand that simple problem. Even if you were to know the information on the following, it would be useless to the subject of math.

Kant illusion

robinsonm1@student.wpunj.edu (Mark) — Sun, 18 May 2008 18:19:00 +0000

At one point, Kant goes into depth about illusions. Like all ideas, they originate from our minds and only our minds. If we witness something with our own eyes or visualize something someone tells us, we have our own images, kind of like a built in copyright. Noone could ever have the same interpretation. Illusions are these ideas in our own minds. He mentions time and space, space is the volume and capacity of our minds and ideas? how shallow or deep the thought is? how would you measure the shallowness of a thought though? and on what basis? Time could be the amount of time to put synthetic ideas together to formulate your...illusion. pretty cool if you ask me.

Kant is confusion

robinsonm1@student.wpunj.edu (Mark) — Sun, 18 May 2008 18:07:00 +0000

After reading Kant's book, I've realized that he is confusing like Descartes. Linking math and metaphysics, using sciences to prove the unproven in his own mind. He thinks cognition belongs all in a unified system with some type of organization. Whether or not we actually see this whole "unified" organized system is no mentioned in this book. Is it in our subconscience? I guess so because of his reasoning with totality, we go through life trying to stride for complete understanding of everything and the organization that goes with it.

Hume: Comparing notes with Locke

robinsonm1@student.wpunj.edu (Mark) — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:19:00 +0000

In this blog, I want to compare the existance of God between Locke and Hume because they're both empiricists. Locke claimed that all of our thoughts, ideas, concepts and actions came from perception and gained experience. All of these perceptions would add up to the proofs of our knowledge, like how you know the taste of lemonade is sweet and sometimes sour, because you tasted it for yourself. So back to the existance of god, I feel Locke completely shoots down the theory of god, we have no percetption of god its just a made up concept for people to believe in something, Hume seems to do the same exact thing. He might not link perception and the disbelief in god, but his arguments are similar to Lockes. I feel Hume is less convincing with his support. Locke makes more contemporary sense.

Hume: Existence of God

robinsonm1@student.wpunj.edu (Mark) — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:04:00 +0000

Hume mentions God, and how we think of one as perfect. If I read correctly, it seems Hume is disproving god because the world is imprefect. This quality of the world is something god cannot posess, therefore he does not exist? The thought of a god, or the concept of a god is a useless matter according to Hume. I beleive he brings up a good point, we do not need a god, if there is no god present. Challenging this problem more, Hume argues that we can infer a whole lot, for example one footprint in the sand infers that a whole man walked this path, not just some random human foot. So what proof do we have to infer today that there is some infinite being or god out there? Certainly nothing appearing to me. Unless you take into the account of the world, it might have been created by god, its his work in progress, science could be running the earth, his own creation, until it collapses and it needs to be started all over agian. Is god running a puppet show via the world? David Hume, you confuse me.

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Thu, 08 May 2008 01:19:00 +0000

Unlike many philosophers, Kant believed that synthetic judgments could either be a posteriori or a priori, stating that however, analytic judgments are always a priori which holds the principle of contradiction. Kant uses the example, “all bodies are extended.” On the other hand, “all bodies have weight” would be counted as a synthetic judgment. To say all bodies do not have weight is not necessarily contradictory, although, it may be false.

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Thu, 08 May 2008 01:02:00 +0000

Descartes and Kant are very similar. Descartes' cogito (think therefore I am) relates to Kant, in that we think with our minds, therefore we must exist. If we did not exist, there would be no way we could think, breath, or live with our minds. Kant also has a similar opinion. For example, we clearly know that 2+2=4 and willl always equal four no matter how you look at it. Mathematics and our minds would both appear to be existent, innate objects that we have.

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:38:00 +0000

Kant made a bold statement in believing that both rationalists and empiricists are mistaken, which would include our old buddies Hume, Descartes, and Locke . We already know that Kant believes in synthetic a priori knowledge, which ironically would be most likely challenged by the likes of Hume, Descartes, and Locke. Kant goes on to argue that geometry, science, arithmetic, and metaphysics are all synthetic a priori. He example 7 + 5 = 12 to demonstrate why arithmetic is synthetic a priori (there are no properties of 12 in 7 or 5). The empiricists on the other hand, which include Locke and Hume, would argue that the basis of all knowledge is a posteriori, but would agree that the basis of all knowledge is also synthetic, hence they believe knowledge is only obtained by observation and that the idea that synthetic knowledge is innate or a priori. Now, the rationalists, whom Descartes happens to be, would concur that the basis of all knowledge is a priori, but would dispute that synthetic knowledge is priori.

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:24:00 +0000

As cazy as it sounds, Kant believes the basis of all knowledge is synthetic a priori. Aren’t we taught all academic knowledge in school and all other knowledge by observation? Kant seems to think that teachers almost serve as guides and that they help bring out the knowledge that you already have. Kant also argues that natural sciences, namely physics, are synthetic a priori. However, I must bring up how Hume points out the pool ball example, which contradicts this statement. Hume claims we do not know a priorily which angle the ball will move at until we observe the action, thus deeming this knowledge to be synthetic a posteriori.

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Wed, 07 May 2008 22:13:00 +0000

Kant believes that arithmetic and numbers hold no meaning. He points out that numbers can be replaced by any other sign or symbols, to which as long as there is a set, known pattern, one can calculate an answer. The action of addition is the succession of items. Kant argues that a similar operation occurs when one talks about time. Time is the succession of items as well, hence knowing what occurred chronologically. Kant goes on to argue that geometry is the relation of items, such as the concept of space. Time and space are not a posteriori but rather are a priori. If time relates to arithmetic and space relates to geometry, would that then mean geometry and arithmetic are also be a priori knowledge? Knowledge of time and space is clearly not analytic but instead is synthetic.

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:59:00 +0000

Kant claims that there are 2 different styles of judgements, which happen to be polarities. There are judgments caused by one's perception and judgments caused by one's experience. Judgments from perception are simple impressions usually brought on by the senses and are synthetic a posteriori. Hume feels these certain judgments act as the centerpiece of one's knowledge as they do not do any further investigative research. This would mean that a perceptive judgment is noncontroversial to the empiricist while judgments brought on through experience are controversial. Kant states that judgments through experience is the separation of sensory information into categories, which also is synthetic a priori.

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:45:00 +0000

Hume points out a few similarities between animals and us humans, such as the concept of blood circulation and the ability to learn by experience. He points out one method of experience: the reward and punishment system. As far as rewards go, a child may get money for good grades on a report card, or a dog may get a treat if it performs a trick correctly. But as far as punishment goes, a child might get grounded if he gets bad grades, and a dog may be sent to it's crate if it misbehaves. Both species learn by experience that if they do something good, they will be rewarded. Hume goes on to say humans and animals alike also contain instinctive traits. This includes the ability to judge whether something is right or wrong such as a gut feeling before an iffy act. Whereas an example of an instinctive trait for an animal could be how Husky's have the natural instinct to run away, or a dog has a natural instinct to howl when it hears others. I think what Hume is trying to get at here is that we are more closely bonded to animals than we think we are. What do you think?

Probability and Chance

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:45:00 +0000

Section 6 of Hume's Enquiry goes over chance and probability. Hume claims that the concept of chance does not even exist. It is our ignorance of the real cause of any event that has similar influence on the understanding. On the other side of the spectrum, he does claim that probability is existant. But I see the subject a little differently. There is chance in probability. If something is in fact probably, it has a chance of occuring. Therefore chance does in fact exist, but chance relies on probability. But then we can look at it from a different angle and say that they are almost the same thing. This is really really confusing so please comment on this!

Of Miracles

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:48:00 +0000

Hume infers that miracles are violations of nature, seeing as when you pray to God, you are asking him to violate the natural pattern of something. According to Hume, evidence favoring that a miracle is in fact a miracle will always be proven wrong by evidence of a natural law which has supposedly been violated. This is a very controversial statement seeing the multiple medical "miracles" that have been witnessed over the years (Malignant brain tumors suddenly disappearing, terminal illnesses letting people live years longer than they've been expected to, etc.). Then again, one could say all of those are explainable if examined scientifically, so that statement Hume makes is truly up in the air.

Of the Association of Ideas

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:16:00 +0000

Hume attempts to distinguish between relative ideas and matters of fact. Relative ideas are in a sense mathematical truths, so we cannot count them out without contradicting ourselves. Matters of fact are the truths we learn through experience. We comprehend matters of fact through cause and effect, seeing that an experience leads us to assume a cause unbenknownst to us yet. Hume argues that cause and effect assumptions involving two events aren't necessarily true. It is possible for a simple connection to be contradictory seeing that a simple connect is usually an assumption most likely without reason.

Of the Origin of Ideas

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:09:00 +0000

Hume points out that there is a the difference between impressions and ideas. Impressions start outside us and travel through our senses, our emotions, and other mental sense we may contain. On the other hand, our thoughts or ideas, beliefs and convictions, or any memories that we may have connect to or derive from our impressions. He claims that we construct our ideas from basic impressions either through effect, resemblance, or continuation.

Hume: Miracles

robinsonm1@student.wpunj.edu (Mark) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:36:00 +0000

Hume defines a miracle as: "a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent."

Hume's definition means, that God can break his own rules in nature. But why would God break his own rules that he created himself? Why would he let something slide and make an exception, it would make him just as human as anyone else then. Simply, miracles don't exist, the believer most likely experienced something overwhelming, or storytelling a miracle severely mutilated down along the lines of communication. Furthermore some of the miracles, actually all of them are scientifically impossible or have some sort of thorn in the side of the story that seems far from ever being true.

Hume: Sceptical Ideas?

robinsonm1@student.wpunj.edu (Mark) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:29:00 +0000

"that causes and effects are discoverable, not by reason but by experience" (p.17)

Probably one of the most given and used quotes ever, Hume lays it out simply: you need experience to know what the cause and effect are. Cause and effect can be predicted with sciences, evaluated with mathematical equations in some cases and theorized by many people; however you will never know the true outcome of the effect or even cause for that matter unless you preform an experiment and achieve the experience. Is Hume insecure? Does he think sciences and math can't prove a point? Does one really need to see it to believe it? In contemporary times, we believe some things we are told and never actually see proof. We are taught based on facts and built up data that makes logical sense.

Hume: Ideas

robinsonm1@student.wpunj.edu (Mark) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:14:00 +0000

"All ideas, especially abstract ones, are naturally faint and obscure: the mind has but a slender hold of them: they are apt to be confounded with other resembling ideas; and when we have often employed any term, though without a distinct meaning, we are apt to imagine it has a determinate idea annexed to it. On the contrary, all impressions, that is, all sensations, either outward or inward, are strong and vivid: the limits between them are more exactly determined: nor is it easy to fall into any error or mistake with regard to them." (p.13)

After reading this segment in the origin of ideas section in Hume's book, I re-read it and analyzed it some more. I believe he is trying to point out that abstract ideas are suppose to be unclear and hazy. He seems to make it clear that it's okay for abstract thoughts to exist, it's a part of understanding. However, these abstract thoughts don't have many connections and memories in our minds, so we find come common connections to associate them with. By associating them with another concept, idea or object we can understand the abstract concept, even clarify it to the point of breaking free of the abstract unclear feeling of a thought.

Impressions and sensations, internal or external and definite and present. You know they exist and there is no unclear feeling about an impression because its your own opinion. Sensations are clear because there needs no clarifying about what you feel. You cannot mistake being nervous for being happy, I believe thats what Hume is trying to get across. Your view on someone is your own opinion and feelings towards them, therefore it is definite and has to exist because you are the creator.

book 2, chapter 33

robinsonm1@student.wpunj.edu (Mark) — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:38:00 +0000

"Something unreasonable in most men. There is scarce any one that does not observe something that seems odd to him, and is in itself really extravagant, in the opinions, reasonings, and actions of other men. The least flaw of this kind, if at all different from his own, every one is quick-sighted enough to espy in another, and will by the authority of reason forwardly condemn; though he be guilty of much greater unreasonableness in his own tenets and conduct, which he never perceives, and will very hardly, if at all, be convinced of."

Locke seems like he's trying to expalain that men have a flaw in picking apart themselves. At least how i percieved it. Women seem to pick apart themselves and over analyze their actions, personalities and apperance. Men however seem to give little attention when compared to women.

"Another instance. A man receives a sensible injury from another, thinks on the man and that action over and over, and by ruminating on them strongly, or much, in his mind, so cements those two ideas together, that he makes them almost one; never thinks on the man, but the pain and displeasure he suffered comes into his mind with it, so that he scarce distinguishes them, but has as much an aversion for the one as the other. Thus hatreds are often begotten from slight and innocent occasions, and quarrels propagated and continued in the world."

Another concept of men and their thought process, men seem to combine a tragic event and the person whom inflicted the harm as one. Feelings and emotions are later on ruptured when the thought or sight of the same person who previously inflicted the emotion or pain.

A third instance. A man has suffered pain or sickness in any place; he saw his friend die in such a room: though these have in nature nothing to do one with another, yet when the idea of the place occurs to his mind, it brings (the impression being once made) that of the pain and displeasure with it: he confounds them in his mind, and can as little bear the one as the other.

This seems to be a common issue in contemporary times, people are scared of rooms or places where people have died.

Locke. book 2, chapter 31

robinsonm1@student.wpunj.edu (Mark) — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:23:00 +0000

I don't quite understand Locke's definition of adequate. He breaks ideas into two groups. One seems to be "simple" depending on archtype and the other "a partial or incomplete representation of those archetypes". What is the difference between ideas being adequate or ideas of substances. I believe all educated ideas have substance to them simple or not. I feel Descartes was a little more clear when it came to concepts and ideas that were new to a reader.

Ideas referred to anything my be true or falsea

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:37:00 +0000

"Whenever the mind refers any of its ideas to anything extraneous to them, they are then capable to be called true or false." This is true, but only to a certain extent. Locked doesn't take into account the state of being unsure. There are obviously times in life when you cannot deem something to be true or false, therefore the in between marker would be uncertainty. To deem something either true or false everytime your mind analyzes something is a ridiculous concept because sometimes we are not presented with enough evidence to ascertain a conclusion.

Birds

noreply@blogger.com (JMorris) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:02:00 +0000

Chapter 10 Section 10
He believes that birds have no idea how to retain or repeat song. However, that is exactly how most birds will learn to sing. By listening to the birds around them and repeat it as well as they can. Some birds even pick up new notes and add them year after year. He also says that it is a mechanism for self preservation and protection, the song is actually a sign to female birds of how "fit" the male bird is and how good its genes may be. Females will then choose a male bird with the best song to mate. Nice try Locke

Animals can't think??

noreply@blogger.com (JMorris) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:55:00 +0000

Chapter 11
Locke talks about how animals do not have the ability to analyze ideas, or to put many ideas together as well as humans do. This is true, but he underestimates how smart animals can be. He says that maybe with some senses they will put some ideas together and grasp a semi large picture overall. But there are animals that have abilities to work together and form life long relationships as in the case with some apes. They stay with there mate all throughout their lives. They also become very protective and are able to bring together ideas of an enemy and protect what they need to protect. Prairie dogs have the ability to yelp when they see an enemy flying over head. However, when a young prairie dog yelps they will look up and determine for themselves if this is truly an enemy or just a young mistake. Even bees do waggle dances and release pheromones to point the rest of the colony in the direction of food. Although he is right that animals aren't as smart as humans, I believe he is horribly underestimating them. Then again the research and observations that had been done at his day in age are must less numersome than the info we have today.

Locke: Memory, Recalling Ideas

noreply@blogger.com (JMorris) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:40:00 +0000

Book II Chapter 10
Locke talks about the mind retaining (retention he calls it) and recalling ideas, objects, and experiences, such as heat, light, yellow, sweet. He says there are two ways that the mind can bring these things to the front of the mind in the current time. One is by actually keep what you are retaining in your sight. The other he says, is the minds ability to pull it from "memory" which he calls the storehouse for ideas. The aability to recall an idea or experience is dependent on a couple things. He says that repetition has a significant effect, which is now the bases for teaching at all levels, so he was right on with that one. Furthermore, he says those events or sensations that have the strongest affect on us. For instance he believes the things that hit deepest are things that have to do with pleasure or pain. Which is true to some point but there may also be events that don't cause either that will make a lasting impression on our memories, so he has the right idea but that will not always be the case.
He also says that the reason infants do not remember any of that time of there life is because none of the events are repeated. However, I think it may be the fact that a childs brain is not able to assess all the information that is actually presented and there for does not possess the ability to store and recall all this information.