Kant Dotto

Aside from Kant's ability to word a sentence more complexly than a theoretical physicist ever could, I would consider Kant one of the world best salesman. I don't really buy into some of his logic such as his "breakthrough" of synthetic a priori knowledge (math). I feel as though he was able to convince people of his ideas and sell them. My theory of sales is if the products were any good, they would sell themselves so salesmen actually aren't convincing you to buy a product, but rather a product that you don't need or want. I understand the necessity to write down his ideas and logic, but in this particular case I think he jumped to a conclusion much too quickly. I dont think that there can be synthetic a priori knowledge because to me it sounds like an oxymoron.

Kant- autonomy Dotto

Kant thinks that being immoral goes against the rationality of human beings and lessens them to instinctual animals. He argues that by ignoring reason and logic, and tending to primal instincts, people lose their autonomy. Humans are the only creatures on earth that can willingly control passions and appetites and to ignore that capability is to animalistic

Kant- space and time Dotto

If people were to be unable to grasp the concept of space and time our world would be in chaos. Driving would be impossible because people would be unsure if their gas and brake pedals were in the same spot that they were a second ago. These imbasiles would jam on their brakes because they wouldnt know if they could drive past the path of someone that just walked across the street. The concept of space and time is as important and essential to our success as anything else.

Kant- synthetic a priori Dotto

For something to be analytic instead of synthetic is must be a priori knowledge, a general truth prior to an observation of it. I don't buy into Kant's "breakthrough" of synthetic a priori knowledge. Surely his logic is close but in order for someone to understand math, they must first grasp the concepts. Numbers are taught and learned so to overlook that we do not grasp numbers independent of observation is ridiculous.

Kant- synthetic knowledge Dotto

How much do we depend on synthetic knowledge? How much can we really rely on and trust our knowledge? If knowledge changes with new observations, does that mean the knowledge we take for granted could be wrong? If all of our knowledge is based on observation done by humans, who are largely imperfect themselves, that leads me to believe we could be living our lives with incorrect facts and misleading truths because the people who found them could have been wrong.

Kant- illusions Dotto

What I found very interesting about Kant's theory of illusions is that it is impossible for someone to know what anyone else is thinking or seeing in their mind. The general rule of greatness is to see if there is a superhero that has a certain ability. X-ray vision & flight- superman/ super strength- hulk/ etc... So if you look for a superhero with mind reading ability you'll find Prof. Xavier from Xmen. The thing that makes him so unique from regular humans is his supernatural ability to tap into the impossible and read the minds of others. Thus, proving that reading other people's minds is impossible in today's world.

call this shallow reasoning, but i'm willing to put this up for debate against the best of em :D

hume - section X

Miracles are a huge disbelief to this day. It does have a tie with religion in my opinion. Miracles are definately bending the laws of nature and seeming almost impossible at times. But there have been many past experiences of people surviving cancer or waking up from a coma. Events that have no explanation. Some people may call it luck but I believe in miracles. Hume argues that there is no reason to believe in such a thing. That most events that have taken place are in the testiment and are all told by word of mouth to this day. "Religion is based on faith, not reason." This statement is true in my eyes and I still see many people to believe in miracles even if most of them are in second hand experience.

Hume- natural law Dotto

The Empiricist view of natural law claims that patterns are based on observable events and findings. Such reasoning can only result in truth because such a method limits the holes of accountability in human understanding. Hume seems to doubt the existence of a god and thinks that miracles are merely violations of nature. However, Hume reasons that since natural law is based on observations, it is possible for there to be an unexperienced event appearing to be a miracle which could actually just be another outcome of an event, not necessarily the intervention of a supreme being.

hume - section IV

In this section, Hume talks about cause and effect but more detailed he talks about the relation of ideas and matter of fact. Matter of fact has to do with experience. Things that already happened or even happening as we speak. As for relation of ideas there is much more to it. It has a connection between cause and effect as well. Or better yet, more then one thought running through your brain at the same time. One idea probably relates to the other. In the end, we all use our past experiences to judge or predict the future. But how much can you rely on that?

hume - section V

Hume says that cause and effect had a big part to do with chained events, or events that are someone connected. Another example being that the movement of a pool ball encounters the other ball and the movement is predictable once understood and/or studied. He states that if a person was just placed into this world cause and effect would not be understood by that person. Therefore, many events that take place would not have any connection.

I think I would have to disagree with Hume here. If a person was just placed into the world today, and events that delt with cause and effect occured it would not be completely out of the ordinary. Maybe at first but eventually it becomes almost a second nature or common sense. For example, when you feel that you are hungry you will eat. When you feel tired you will rest.

Hume- miracles Dotto

Hume stated that the significance of miracles is the fact that the events are a direct violation of nature. Evident in biblical tales such as Jesus walking on water and turning water in wine, these largely unproven stories form the basis of faith and religion for millions around the world. Hume questioned if there could ever be a violation of a natural law/nature. Since we base our reality on observations, it is possible that there could be a violation of a natural law because natural laws are based on observed patterns. Since we only know what we have observed, it is possible that there could be a variation somewhere along the line that defies its general principle. although miracles imply a more supernatural occurance, Hume seems to ponder the physical occurance that a violation of natural law could produce.

Hume- pool ball Dotto

Hume says before you have an observation you can't rule out any conceivable outcomes. While that is reasonable I began to wonder the opposite and how people begin to venture into the unknown. I still do not understand how NASA knew that they could launch a rocketship not only off the ground, but also miles into the sky, through the atmosphere, through space, land on the moon, launch from the moon, fly though space again, fly back through the atmosphere, glide down to earth, and finally land. There were so many variables and one single miscalculation, or wrong estimate could have resulted in failure. How could NASA know that space wasn't so highly pressurized that it would crush the ship like a tin can? How did they know that their suits would hold up to the direct sunlight, temperature, and pressure? and most astoundingly, how did they know that their ship could not only land on the moon, but take off back to earth as well, especially when you consider the lack of oxygen in space which is needed for the combustion of an engine? Somehow NASA scientists were able to rule out these factors before they ever had any real-world data and experiments under their belts.

If Hume was correct, in that our knowledge is a posteriori, then how could astronauts know any of the necessary data for space travel, when there was no prior explorations in the 1960s for them to refer to? Perhaps this is a cingular example, but it may hold some deeper meaning.

Hume- cause and effect Dotto

Hume's proposal of cause and effect seems to be the most evident out of the methods of knowledge (induction, deduction, cause & effect) in our world today. By taking the three philosophers' methods of knowledge that we previously studied and applying it today's world, you can see where there the faults and strengths of the three lie.

in today's oil crisis, Descartes would use his method of deduction and deduce that we have to rely on bio-fuels, solar, wind, and nuclear power because that is all that is available today.

Locke's induction method, would employ logical reasoning and suggest that we immediately cut back on fuel consumption and increase production of ethanol. He may even suggest funding research for alternative energy.

However, with Hume's cause and effect method we have seen that cutting back on fuel consumption and increasing the production of ethanol has had practically no effect on gas prices due to speculators and maxed out refineries. There was no way to see that this particular case would go against the golden rule of business (supply and demand), until it had already happened. Also, no one forsaw the global food crisis arising due to the increase of biofuels and decrease of food production, yet again something only apparent in a cause and effect relationship.

Out of the three i think Hume had the most proven method (induction and cause & effect) although the others have their points as well.

Hume- problem of induction Dotto

The problem with induction is that is leaves room for error, as with most forms of knowledge. Although induction is exponentially better than Descartes' method of deduction, it is imperfect. The problem with deduction is that it leaves too much room for error to be a consistently conclusive method. Where in a game like Clue deducing may lead to the culprit, real world answers are rarely limited to four characters, four rooms, and four objects.

Hume and Locke's rebuttal to Descartes, induction, is based on logical reasoning and cause and effect. Through induction, logical reasoning after lots of particular cases and relevant feautres lead to a general principle. Although it still leaves room for error because there are always exceptions to the rule (referred to as cingular cases), it is much better than Descartes's deduction because deduction takes general principles and infers particular cases.

Hume- ideas & impressions Dotto

I found Hume's theory of ideas vs. impressions to be pretty interesting, yet somewhat obvious. Hume defines ideas as the least vivid copies of impressions. They are merely figments of our imagination and are sketches of reality at best. He then defines impressions as the most vivd experiences that include emotion and result from sensation and stimuli.

a simpler way of putting his theories is by defining it as thoughts vs. experiences. The thoughts (ideas) that we have are only known to us and are usually much more difficult to remember because they are much less formed to begin with and don't include physical sensation, thus making it even more difficult to remember. The experiences (impressions) we have were retained from real world experiences and sensations providing much more vivid images and information, which results in an easier mode of remembrance.

Hume- missing blue Dotto

even before this class, i was fascinated by the idea that there is an infinite number of in-between mixtures. meaning there's a a color in between lightblue and dark blue, and there's another color between that medium blue and dark blue, and other medium, and another medium and so on. i would say that he is spot on with this theory but the only time it becomes a problem is when it becomes impossible to see with the human eye, or if its impossible to create with current technology. ( ever try to match a color with a new can of paint? even the same formula produces a slightly different shade, nevermind trying to mix an infinitely divided color.

perception and ideas locke dotto

Locke thought that the world threw itself at its inhabitants, forcing people to acknowledge and reflect on those portrayals contrary to Descartes' idea that people focus, accept and reflect on the world. this got me thinking..

3D/optical illusions- locke said the world forces itself on us and descartes said we need to focus. Certain optical illusions force us to see one thing but when we focus we can see the reality or alternate image. these images or videos seem to be a synergy of descartes' and locke's theories but that still doesnt answer who is right?

perception locke dotto

if a tree falls in the woods it does make a sound despite Locke's reasoning. Just because a person is not there to confirm the event and its sensory stimuli. According to Locke's theory if we were not there if our spouse cheated on us then it never happened because you were not there to see the event. Also if you were to consider the fact that trees are living things and there was most likely a few animales in the area to hear the crash, it still happened because they heard it. What if we were to put a video camera in the forest? That isnt a person, merely a recording device. I would bet the tree would make a sound and would disprove Locke's theory. too bad he didn't have access to the technology we have today...

The Blank Slate dotto

Getting back to innateness, I do not agree with Locke on his idea of the blank slate, at least not 100%. There is too much proof that we are still in the process of evolution so I believe that we have instincts that are innate thus we are not 100% a blank slate. therefore I do not agree with locke entirely and it seems as though he was too distracted by disproving descartes that he overlooked simple reason.

Locke innateness Dotto

Okay well we talked a lot about innateness in class so let's keep it simple and break it down. Locke opposed Descartes and said innateness is not true. If we truly had an innate mind, we would not need education because we would already have everything we would need. I was thinking about animals and how they have instincts, which many consider to be innate. I dont think that Descartes or Locke were entirely correct because I think that we do have some innateness in us in the form of our instincts. At some point throughout evolution we were animals; animals that heavily relied on our instincts. Thousands of years later we have evolved but tens of thousands of years of these instincts being hard-wired into our brains has not completely vanished. I just saw an article the other day that stated the coccyx bone is evidence of us having tails pre-evolution and our goosebumps or arrector pili is a reactionary response we enployed to look bigger when we were threatened. We were much hairier then and stimulating the hairs to stand up enlarges you, much like cats and dogs use today for intimidation.

Bottom line: Studies have shown that education is both crucial and essential to a person's development and future, proving that we are not sufficiently innate enough to live on that alone.
however, evidence shows that we still have useless body parts which leads me to believe that there is probably innate instincts still in us.

Locke Cogito Dream Dotto

In the cogito argument, Descartes said,"I think, therefore, I am." In book II, Locke starts to talk about ideas, perception, and retention. He says we get these interpretations from our senses and experiences. He also says that there is nothing beyond the conscious mind, which I do not agree with. Although our dreams are based on actual occurances, how would Locke explain the events and abnormal occurances in our dreams if there was no unconscious part of our mind? For example, latent learning is unconsciously formed and can often show up in our dreams. However is imagination limited to our experiences?

locke god dotto

Locke's rejection of innate ideas brings up the question of whether he is afraid of accepting the ideas of "innateness" because he does not want people to think that we can just rely on ourselves to know what it right and wrong. Could it be possible that Locke wants us to leave the acceptance of moral principles and facts to God? Does he want us to think of God as responsible for our knowledge? Many people do not believe in God. For those who do, they consider God to be a fact. To many other people, God is the complete opposite, so wouldn't this idea of God be contradictory to his idea of God being the only thing that is innate? We are not born knowing that God exists. A baby would not say "God" as his first word unless his parents told him to, and even if he did, he does not know what it means. Could the desire of a child to stay with his or her mother at all times be an innate knowledge?

Locke 1 Dotto

Locke completely rejects the idea of innate principles because no matter what, there will always be one person who does not agree with, or a lacks a certain knowledge. If Locke says that there is no knowledge beyond the conscious mind and it is obtained through our experiences and nothing else, then how does he explain our memories? Locke basically says that there is no such thing as latent memories, or latent learning, which is defined as things(principles and ideas) we are unaware of. I disagree with his rejection of innate knowledge. I think that it's possible that these ideas do exist, and we choose to reject or accept them.Our memories come into the conscious mind when stimulated to do so. We cannot always be aware of every single memory we have had, our brain would overload with too much information. If there is nothing in our minds other than what we are aware of, as Locke says, then how do we remember or learn things?

Meditations 1- art

Descartes starts to believe that the basic eyes, head, hands, and body are true. This is because he finds that artists will paint many creatures and imaginary things but they will still contain eyes, head, hands, and a body. Whether it is from different animals or made up things there always seems to be these parts of the body. I find this kind of interesting because Descartes always seems to question himself and everything around. He is very doubtful and I think he is starting to find out some truths..

Meditations 1- paragraph 20

In paragraph 20 of meditations one, Descartes compares physics, astronomy, and medicine and says that they can have some kind of false. As for arithmetic and geometry there are no questions asked. It is almost common sense in some cases or just a "natural reaction" to these questions. I think this is because when we are you we are all taught the basics of arithmetic, geometry, etc. It just seems right that two plus three make five and a square has no more then four sides as Descartes says. Any comments?

Meditations 1

I think that Descartes finds himself to doubt some of the truths that he believed in the past. He says that over several years he had built more knowledge but everything always falls back to the beginning or foundation. In my opinion he is starting to reveal more truthes but at the same time he always questions himself in even the simplest things like his own body, hand, or head. I think that this all has to do with his experiencing throughout life and this will only take time to acknowledge more truthes..

Mediations Deja Vu Robert Dotto

I was just wondering as to what Descartes' ideas of Deja Vu would be? He says that if something exists in dreams it must in real life as well. But what about those rare cases when a completely random event happens and you saw it happen, days, weeks, months, or even years before it takes place. Many times these events are so random that there is no way someone could predict them. For example I remember in 5th grade I dreamt a girl i never talked to in school would give me 10 cents in the middle of class. Three weeks later that girl sat next to me in class, took out her purse and gave me a dime with no explanation for her generosity. Descartes didn't mention anything about Deja Vu but it would be interesting to see what his opinion would have been. Personally I think that he would say Deja Vu is a complex construction/guessing game that the brain creates through real life experiences.

I think that the mind is constantly trying to guess the future in order to keep you a step ahead. Certain things like walking, or moving out of the way of a car are so hard-wired into us that we don't realize our brains predicting future/oncoming events. While we dream, I think that our brains try to evaluate the days events and past experiences and attempts to create a vision of the future. Sometimes we remember these constructions and they come true, making us aware of our brain's attempt, which produces Deja Vu. Other times we remember those dreams subconsciously and when they come true in real life, we get a less intense feeling of Deja Vu. Finally, since our brain makes so many of these constructions, and we tend to forget our dreams, those that dont come true and those that we forget, are evetually lost and never become known to us.

Let's hear what you guys think regarding Deja Vu as it relates to the dream vs. reality theory of Descartes.

Descartes Meditiations 1 God Robert Dotto

Yet again Descartes brings up God only to be broad and contradictive. First he says he is unsure if God is trustworthy, and then later he says that God is good. It seems quite possible that Descartes feared persecution by the church for his nonconfromist ideas and decided to throw in a compliment to the "guy upstairs" in order to cover himself. How can you question someone's integrity, and trustoworthiness, yet say he is a good guy? I suppose you can, but in a "logical path to finding true knowledge" like he set out to do, it doesn't seem to add up.

Descartes Meditations 1 Robert Dotto

In Meditations 1 Descartes describes his thoughts on dreams as they pertain to reality. He claims that dreams are based on reality and if something exists in your dream it must exist in real life as well. Logically this theory appears to make sense but just as misleading as a dream can be, it is not always true. Personally I've had dreams of places, people, and events that I have have never seen anything in real life that even comes close to resembling them. I would agree that while most of the things in our dreams are complex combinations of simpler things we experience in real life, but I think that there is something much, much deeper than that in dreaming.

The afterlife and cogito connection Dotto

The cogito argument got me to thinking about matters concerning the afterlife. If the mind is truly metaphysically independent of the body then would that mean our mind is also our soul? or does our mind just die with our bodies?

Tiny loop hole in Discourse 3? Dotto

Descartes said that after he traveled around the world he retired and kept to himself in order to fully evaluate his thoughts regarding the pursuit of knowledge. If he were to do this, we would only see the finished product and not all of the ideas that went through his head. The Discourse is written in a stream of consciousness, but that seems odd due to the fact that he retired in order to more fully evaluate his findings. Wouldn't you think that he would have laid out his writing simpler if he intended it to be read by the general public? If he actually did write word for word like it appears in the translated version, could this have been a rough draft in which Descartes wrote down in order to preserve his ideas but never was able to construct his final draft?

Many aspects of his writings seem to imply that he didn't intend for most people to see it which leads me to believe that there may be some falsehoods in his book. The style he wrote in is very reader-unfriendly (stream of consciousness with many loops), his probable fear of persecution by the church for his ideas, and his involvement with numerous fields outside of philosophy(mathematics, geometry, calculus, anatomy/medicine) could add up to an unfinished or rushed version because his mind was all over the place.


It's extremely possible that I'm wrong, I'm just trying to think outside the box and question what most people would accept as truth. Please share what you think..

Philosophy lecture on South Park!- Robert Dotto

Came across a series of videos on Youtube in which a college professor is talking with a bunch of college students about South Park. It's more about their opinions on monitoring and censorship than relating South Park to Descartes or Locke, but it is still pretty interesting. South Park is a pretty deep show if you look at the underlying messages, topics, and concepts and is a very funny satirical spin on things. There are 8 or 9 installments but I posted the link to the first one below and I will update my findings when I get the chance to watch and evaluate the rest of them.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nc4IIeoVBnU&feature=related

Robert Dotto's Evaluation of Descartes 3

As Professor Thompson taught us, the main purpose of Philosophy can be summed up in one question. That question is "What is the author saying and is he right?" I summed up what Descartes was saying in my first post (descartes discourse 3) and in this post I would like to agree with Descarte's ideas and verify that he was right. If you were to follow the 4 maxims he outlined you would have a lot less stress than most people do.

Maxim 1: For the most part, laws and regulations are set in place in order to protect citizens. So, if you are breaking a law there is a good chance that you have a lot of stress in your life because you are invovled with illegal businesses, drugs, etc. Thus, staying within the limits of the law SHOULD help to reduce stress.

Maxim 2: Making a decision and sticking with it usually results in a better outcome than second guessing yourself, overanalyzing, and making a bad decision. Thus, following your gut feeling should reduce stress because you will have fewer regrets and more confidence in your decision making skills.

Maxim 3: Setting out to change the world is sure to be filled with stress and hostility. Take global warming for example. Environmentalists try to do their part in the world by getting a fuel-efficient car, car pooling, installing home-solar panels, and recycling and then get sit in traffic with full size SUV's with one person in them. If you try to convince people to change their lifestyle you are sure to be met with anger and closed minds. Descartes would say that by being a role model for your cause you have a better chance of getting something that you want to do. Again, a lot less stressful.

Maxim 4: By getting a rewarding career, you can cultivate self-esteem and confidence, especially if you provide a valuable service to others. Many people get stuck in a career that they hate and that stress finds its way into every other aspect of their lives. In his travels Descartes found that having a good career can be very rewarding and essential to a fulfilling life. He mentioned nothing about money, but seemed to imply that money does not equal happiness.

After a critical analysis and evaluation of Descartes and his methods I would have to say that he was absolutely correct in his findings.

Robert Dotto Discourse 3 Descartes

Our group was assigned the third discourse of Rene Decartes' Discourse on Method. After reading and analyzing the section we found that Descartes outlined 4 maxims(moral codes) of life.The four moral codes/maxims are as follows:
1. Comply with rules,laws, and guidelines of society, country, and religion, but never take an extreme opinion that is irrational.
2. Make a decision and stick with it. Avoid and ignore any and all doubts that you may have. 9/10 times when you go against your original gut feeling, you were right the first time and your reasoning mislead you to an incorrect answer.
3. Focus on smaller issues that you can actually change and control. Descartes recommended to change yourself first. In order to be a beacon of light for the world, you have to change yourself and fully comply with what you're preaching.
4. Think about every career option you have, evaluate them, and then pick the one that is best suited for you. It appears that Descartes knew that some people rushed into careers and weren't happy when they got stuck doing a job that they could not stand.

He goes on to say that a career consisting of reasoning and truth is the best that one can get.After making these points he goes on to say that he traveled around for the next 9 years critically testing and analyzing his proposed methods. After that, he retired in a city where people were too busy and self-involved to bother him so he was able to like a life of solidarity and ponder his thoughts completely undisturbed.