Taught by Prof. Benjamin Vilhauer.
Starting from Descartes to Kant.
Resources: Jonathan Bennett's collection.
Bennett compared translations to original texts and presented the works in simplicity.
Calendar
Categories
Recent Comments
- timlyg on Bible Study: 1 Peter
- timlyg on Bible Study: Exodus
- timlyg on Bible Study: Exodus
- timlyg on Bible Study: Exodus
- timlyg on Bible Study: Exodus
Meta
Reading: Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy.
2 editions in Latin.
2nd edition is said to have included a defense against Gisbertus Voetius. Faith seeking understanding (Voetius) vs. Rejection of faith lacking understanding (Descartes).
First philosophy = Metaphysics.
First Meditation: On What can be called into Doubt
02/03/2015
Descartes (1596 - 1650)'s Meditations (1641)
Goal:
To doubt everything that can possibly be doubted.
1) Doubt of the senses
2) Dreaming doubt
3) Demonic deceiver doubt
Bedrock belief that can't be doubted:
I exist (even if I am always deceived, I must exist to be deceived)
What am I? A thinking thing.
====
Vocab: Mereology: The theory of relationships between parts and whole.
====
I find it disturbing, despite being fully aware of it for a long time, that modern Western education has greatly deteriorate the minds of the young as well as those teaching the young.
The professor encouraged group discussion, for whatever reason I could doubt or give him the benefit of doubt, I am not too interested.
Two prominent questions raised in class:
One Asian student attempted to emphasize physics (parallel universes, etc.) over philosophy. I think the key answer here is: Metaphysics or First Philosophy.
The other whom I believe to be a Buddhist judging from his wrist band, called for the realization of the "non-self" (even though he didn't use the term in order to be subtle).
I think the whole point of the first two meditations is simply about the starting point of understanding truth: I exist.
I felt that a lot of discussions missed the points. Going about dreams and all that.
====
My review:
Descartes' Meditations 1
On what can be called into Doubt
---------------------------------
Demolish everything to start sciences. But how would Descartes be sure he was "old enough to be sure" to start the sciences now?
Descartes would consider mirrored-self misidentification as a madmen syndrome. [p1]
It is not possible to invent natures that are entirely new. [p2]
Arithmetic, geometry -> simple
Physics, astronomy, medicine, etc. -> complex -> doubtful properties.
Descartes defined God as supremely good. (awaiting to read the third meditation)
Here, Descartes appeared to be proving the existence of God by stating how much more imperfect one would be, should the original cause be made less powerful. This enforces his "right" to raise doubts further. I think one needs not entertain the idea of Atheism in order to doubt more. Perhaps Descartes was illustrating that the Atheists are by no means in any better place for denying God.
He recognized noticing is not enough, but one must make an effort to remember it. [3]. There is a fear, that the old habits will haunt one with struggle and lazy temptation, so that one rather dream than being awake.
Second Meditation
=================
The nature of the human mind, and how it is better known than the body
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think therefore I am [p4] - However, the Cartesian phrase originated from an earlier work: "The Discourse on the Method" (1637).
Definition from "rational animal" to "animal" exhaust time.
Mind-body dichotomy is seen in page 5.
"My knowledge of it can't depend on things of whose existence I am still unaware" [pg 5]
Here Descartes spoke of creator as one to deceive. [6]
Sensing = seeming.
Mind likes to wander freely...therefore, let it run free for a while...mind bribe?
The more we know of others, the more we know of ourselves. Understanding is key [8]. Therefore, it is easier to start with the mind, start with thinking.
### In Class Discussion ###
In my small group someone claimed that a course he took last semester "Philosophy of the Mind" destroyed the Cogito Ergo Sum notion. I've been wondering about that course since. Was he pro-monist? Or that class didn't do justice in balancing dualism and monism? Peter Jones noted the rise of monism today. Dr. Tong noted that Descartes' dualism is a kind of devolution from Augustine's "God exists, therefore I think" (I wish I could find the citation), the closest thing I could find, which I think was referenced by Tong was Augustine's Cogito, ergo Deus est (I think, therefore God exists). Then, one wonders if Descartes ever plagiarized from Augustine.
Descartes' Third Meditation: God
Refuting Solipsism.
Representative vs. intrinsic reality
### In Class Discussion ###
I think there was a Muslim girl in the class. I know not anyone else who would be a likely theist. Thus far, those who love to discuss have apparent atheistic view, if not agnostic. Many argued that Descartes did not put the same doubt from his premise on God's existence. I think they somehow missed Descartes point. Their argument was something too obvious to be ignored and it never was ignored. Descartes and great minds that followed have passed that issue as one wouldn't doubt doubt. Thus, the summary of Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum: One can doubt anything save one's own doubt.
02/10/2015
By Prof.:
Recap: Meditation II: Wax discussion -> Rationalism
Meditation IV: My will is the cause of error
If I suspend judgment when I lack "clear", "vivid" understanding (through the "natural light") then I won't err.
Meditation V: New argument for the existence of God - God's existence is part of his essence.
Meditation VI: New explanation of perceptual error: Non-extended mind + extended nervous system.
Hume & Locke -> major antagonists of Descartes
** Late insert 3/10/2015 **
I may have missed the prof's notes on Spinoza.
The prof. didn't seem to want to spend too much time on him. I'm not sure if he'd agree Spinoza was a pantheist. But generally, despite debates, many feel that Baruch Spinoza's description of God and everything else are of the same thing, the same infinite substance.
Here's my summary of his Ethics which we read parts of it:
Part I: God. Definitions were given from substance to eternity. The axioms are listed based on his definitions. From there he had his propositions.
One thing that puzzles me is the word "intellect" Spinoza used - "...So there is nothing outside the intellect (sanity?) through which things can be distinguished..."
Then Spinoza assigned finiteness as partly negative and infinite as unqualifiedly positive.
According to Spinoza, those who worship God, ascribe "human character-traits" to God, are confused of the qualities of substances from the substances themselves.
Spinoza's terminology:
qualities = states
reality (=perfection?) = being
In Proposition 11, Spinoza strongly related God's existence to that of Anselm's ontological argument. Calling God's essence not involving existence absurd. But I supposed one must be cautious of Spinoza's pantheistic view. Here is also the famous "square circle" contradiction. Then, he attempted to show God's existence a posteriori while admitting a priori as well. Imperfection takes away the existence of a thing.
His pantheism is once again obvious in Proposition 15, where he denied creation but appeared to illustrate a confusion between monotheism and pantheism: ...corporeal world...being part of God's nature... Spinoza's challenge to creationists: by what divine power could it be created...(My answer shall begin with ex nihilo).
At the Appendix, Spinoza confirmed the pantheistic god while contrasting the notion of God wh odirects all things to some definite end. He despised the notion of God making all things for man as man centeredness.
Therefore, Spinoza's god is passive, neutral. confusing cause and effect, perfection and imperfection. He argued against teleology, that if God acts for the sake of an end, then God lacks something and therefore is imperfect. I reply God is meta-temporal.
It seems that we can trace the mockery against believers' resoluting everything unknowable to God's will to Spinoza as well. He called this take as the haven of unacknowledge ignorance. All forms of prejudices (except for his own): praise, blame, sin, merit, are essentially meaningless for Spinoza. This is perhaps closer to Tao De Jing. So he stressed understanding in the end and call everyone he opposed as not understanding but merely imagining things.
His theodicy (Why is there evil in the world): a perfect God concieves every possible things. Since Spinoza has removed moral absolute and similar qualities, I supposed it was an easy conclusion for him. Pantheism, nonetheless.
###########
02/18/2015
John Locke (1632-1704)
Father of classical liberalism
Empiricism
Prof's notes:
No Innate Speculative Principles -
Speculative: logical/metaphysical/scientific
No Innate Practical Principles -
Action guiding (including ethics)
Arguments for Innateness:
1. Universal Consent
2. Known upon use of reason
3. Assent as soon as proposed
Prenatal influence on babies discussed.
Primary/Secondary Disctinction: Essence vs. Senses
Prof. commented that Essence cannot change but the primary quality can change.
2/24/2015
Locke's Primary/Secondary != essential vs. Accidental/Contingent
Ligonier:
Sproul from Philosophy II, Lesson 09 Berkeley: Truth is defined by that which corresponds to reality.
03/03/2015
Locke's Identity & Diversity (Essay II)
Professor's note:
Identity:
of substance - determined by point of origin in spacetime.
of organism (e.g. human) preservation of life, orgainzation.
of person - continuity of consciousness. i.e. memory.
Problems about immaterial substances/Cartesian souls. Sect. 10-13
If we can't remember a crime, we're not guilty of it. Sect. 22-29
Prof. suspect whether Locke was a materialist in disguise when speaking on souls.
===
My note: There seems to be central argument about the nature of memory in relation to personal identity. I want to say that instead of Locke's memory identity, personal identity is more concerned with the change of memory than the memory itself. The evolution of memory defines a person to some extend while the memory itself is non-trivial in the person's idenity.
Review on Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Book I: Innate Notions
Chapter I: Introduction (discerning things we can and cannot understand)
1-3: Locke revealed that his teleology of discourse is to understand understanding.
However, he seemed to hint that if there's a stubborn debate, then both parties do not know the truth. A subtle way to start a false premise.
7: Akin to the knoetic effect of sin. Locke emphasized on the distinction between things we can and things we can't understand in order to honestly avoid ignorant.
Locke's terminology:
idea: phantasm, notion, species, etc. Object of understanding.
primary notions: first thoughts, innate (not Locke's cup of tea)
Soul = mind
Speculative: what is.
Practical: what ought to be.
maxims = basic axioms
Chapter II: No innate speculative principles in the mind (the source of knowledge)
8-13: Locke accused the rationalists blurr the line between maxims and theorems. And that there's no way to install reason before any of these, therefore there's no way to have maxim prior to reason.
14-23: Locke attacks different notions of innate truth, reason, propositions, etc. Ridiculing the futile attempt at the notion of less general coming from more general self-evident propositions (19). In (23), he opposed the idea that if there is nothing new learned, then the proposition must not be taught. But it must be taught, Locke argued, just as names are learned as well.
24: On Universal consent - Locke agreed that universal assent is derived from innate principles, if they exist. "I can no more make sense of a truth's being innate and yet not asssented to than I can of a man's knowing a truth while being ignorant of it" - Locke. But it is not innate, because there is no universal assent.
25-27: Locke challenged the innatists' idea that the innate truths implanted in our minds don't aways present themselves to our consciousness, intellectual possessions being corrupted by other opinions and all. But Locke showed that if the truths are now smudged over, then it should appear the fairest and clearest in the minds of children, etc., which is false.
28: Locke attempted to prove his humility.
Chapter III: No innate practical principles (e.g. ethics)
1. Interesting how he used "self-evident" (speculative maxims) to debunk self-evident principles. But Locke was not against their truth. It's our fault to not seek after morality. Practical principles are harder to be universally assented to.
2-3. Moral principle is not innate, but as rules of convenience. Locke thought it was strange and unreasonable to suppose innate practical principles that don't affect the behavior. I'd propose that there could exist a certain will that acts on its own which could go against the innate principles. But obviously, Locke would conveniently refute that by saying practical principle has to do with action. I think that's too far fetch of a definition. Ethics does not require action, if by action we mean anything more than the thinking mind. But merely a lust in the mind involves moral. Again, Locke cleverly checked it off by admitting "natural tendencies imprinted on the minds of men". Making it some bestial utility instinct which should be investigated further for innateness, Locke conveniently skipped a crucial point.
4. If moral were self-evident, then there's no need to reason it.
5. example of different moral cause: why men should keep their promises.
6. So where does moral comes from? God. Existence of God is here confirmed by Locke.
7-8. Another example being hypocrisy. Then Locke decided to attack on the notion of conscience being innate. That it's all about education, company and culture, which all "activate" the conscience, which is but opinion or judgment. But I can definitely agree with Locke,ironically ,that "contraries" would also be innate if conscience is. Which Locke thought absurd. It is the lust of the flesh.
9. Locke started with the false assertion that innate moral rules cannot be broken and listed many "disgusting" examples.
10. Here the different "morals" of different cultures are pointed out. Unless it has to do with holding a society together, but Locke was sceptical of its similarities as well.
11. Now Locke realized that he should refute the idea that innate moral rules can be broken (from 9). But he failed by saying that it must now be universally assented to, or else it cannot be innate. I would argue from the definition of Christian sin, that there could be universal dissent, but sin resides in everyone. Or, to the secular or pagan world, that evil things do not need to act in the same manner, because of the notion of variety.
12. Locke focused on "Parents, preserve and cherish your children". Based on section 9, since it can be broken, hence not innate. Then, he pointed out that it is a "command", which is different from "proposition", thus it cannot make a truth claim. The solution: call it a duty. But duty requires the ideas of God, law, obligation, punishment, and the after life. Lastly, he notified that his next chapter (which is not in the syllabus) that the idea of God is not innate, against a few contemporaries above and against Romans 1. But I should read that chapter to clarify.
13. Locke summarized the previous few points with emphasize that everyone would have feared God enough to not commit a crime. I think he may be very confused of what faith is. Disbelief not necessarily comes from an absent of innate godliness, but a desire to go against the impossible. Like a smoker must smokes in spite of the knowledge of the harm it will cause. This is a free will problem for Locke. He seems to have a lesser definition for it. Free will against what's natural. As a follow up, I wonder how Locke view those mentally retarded, he must anticipate some miracle on them with his blank slate theory, but then I would too - I've always wondered if I could raise the limit everyone expects of the retards. Then Locke moved on distinguish himself rejecting "innate law" and accepting "law of nature (revelation)", and calling those who disagree with him extremes of either of the two, that they are both far from the truth.
14. Now Locke erroneously defined freedom as the absence of innate principles, calling those who accept innate principles as deniers of freedom, making men as machines. I can believe in innateness as well as reconcile morality with "mechanism". Free will is more than what Locke thought.
15-19: Lord Herbert of Cherbury gave a list of innate principles (predates Locke), which Locke refuted as vague.
20: Well, I'd argue that innateness is not by universal consent, but by self-evidence as well as revelation. Dr. Tong's "Children are without blank slate, but "they know good is better than bad; bad is worse than good". Now Locke just called universal consent as the proud kind of "men of reason" who think everyone else are unreasonable. But first, I would say again that not everyone would argue for innateness with universal consent, as I would do it by self-evidence and revelation. Secondly, the same attack Locke used, could be used against himself.
21-27: Locke called innateness by God's revelation fake, that it was merely from early education that they cannot remember and thus calling it innate. As he would probably not consider faith as an innate ability (23). Locke appeared to be despising the notion of innate faith as blind faith. It seems that the next chapter, which we did not cover, deals with God and faith.
Book II: Primary and Secondary Qualities, Perception, and substance
Chapter 8: Some further points about our simple ideas
Terminologies:
Privation, Privative: absence, negative.
1-7: Locke: There's a difference between the perception of something and the thing perceived.
8-9: "...the power to produce an idea in our mind I call a quality of the thing that has that power..." Primary qualities: permanent (solidity, extension, shape, motion or rest, and number.); vs. Secondary qualities: From primary (colours, sounds, tastes, and so on)
10: Lock argued for using "quality" instead of "power" in an object.
11: Bodies produce ideas in us by impact.
12: "animal spirits": an old view about human physiology (the body's hydraulic system) A means of sending sensations to the mind.
13-24: more examples. Associating primary qualities with real qualities (17), secondary qualities with sensible qualities (23). (21) has clearer illustration. (23) there is a third quality or rather, power, that modifies the primary of others. The latter two sorts of qualities are merely powers (24).
25-26: People are more apt to accept the third quality than the secondary quality (25), "...the second sort of qualities ‘may be called secondary qualities, immediately perceivable’, and the third sort ‘secondary qualities, mediately perceivable’." (26) Explained by Locke, but Jonathan Bennett skipped it. I supposed that the second and the third qualities actually belong to the secondary qualities, after all.
Chapter 9: Perception
1-4: Perception is passive. Thinking is active.
5-6: Some ideas are received in the womb before birth (i.e. hunger & warmth). They are not innate.
7: My question for Locke would be: Is the greediness of the mind then, an innate thing?
8: How much do we know what we see? Virtual thought experiment by Mr. Molineux about a blind man identifying objects with his new found sight. Their answer is the blind man cannot do it.
9: Explanation of (8).
10: The speed of "substitution (of ideas perceived or speed of translation)" - so fast it's no time. I beg to differ, just because one could argue thought takes up no space, doesn't mean that its actions require no time. For example: God applies his works in history.
11: Distinction between animals and plants (some sensitive plants compared). But even when certain plant could move perceptibly, Locke argued that it has no ideas, but merely out of physical laws.
12. Types of animals focused.
13. Example on one simple animal: oysters. Keenness of sensation is waste or inconvenient for oysters have very low mobility.
14. But maybe there's more to the oysters, like old man who'd lost most sensation.
15. Conclusion: perception is the first step towards knowledge, the only way into the mind. Locke theorized that the number of senses is directly proportional to the dullness and the knowledge a man has. But there could be unknown levels perceptions such that we cannot be sure due to its complexity, Locke admitted.
Chapter 23: Complex ideas of substances
1-2. Combination of ideas become "name" of the subject, substance (substratum = what underlies), from substantia. Qualities = accidents.
3. It's all relative because it's only an idea that relates to something else, not an idea of what it is itself.
5-6. No such thing as body because no clear idea of it. It is merely a combination of ideas, with certain level of accuracy.
7. "Most Perfect"...hmmm. I recall something my wife said "How can perfect be more or most perfect". Perhaps "most perfect" is used to indicate something beyond what satisfied to be mere perfect. Locke discussed here the active powers and passive capacities of a substance. a). active - change the perceptible qualities of others, b). produce ideas in us immediately. Hence, active power causes mediate effects.
9. 3 sorts of complex ideas of bodily substances. Primary (size, shape, number, position, motion), Secondary (perceptible, depending on the primary qualities) qualities, & active-passive powers.
12. God is brought into the picture and it is where this class skipped. Last but not least, it is clear that Locke saw God as the creator. He then attempted to justify why God did not make us perfectly perceptible to things. That God has given us enough ability to provide for the conveniences of living. I would wonder how Locke saw sins in terms of the Bible.
Chapter 27 Identity and Diversity
1. To distinguish that which is the same thing and that which is not (diversity).
2. Only 3 sorts of substances: God, finite intelligences (spirits), and bodies. Moes and relations mentioned.
3. Principle of individuation = existence itself. A horse is still a horse regardless of how it grew up to be (fat, lean, etc.) A mass of matter and a living body aren't the same thing.
4-7. Living things (lower animals, plants) whose life comes from within - same continued life, compared to that like a watch which can be repaired, upgraded, etc. from external source. The search for identity. If identity of man is tied to soul, then anyone can be the same man.
8. On Same Man: "The time-hallowed definition of 'man' as 'rational animal' is wrong. A rational parrot is still a parrot, and a unintelligent animal that looks like a man is is called a dull "man".
9-10. On Same Person: Can reason, reflecting itself, having consciousness. But same person is not the same identical substance, due to forgetfulness. And because our consciousness is interrupted this way, Locke questioned whether or not "we are the same thinking thing, i.e. the same substance", which lose sight of our past selves. I think it is a contradiction of Locke against himself, since in the end of point #2, he rejected the arbitrarily contingent events: "...and therefore no motion or thought can be the same as any earlier motion or thought." Locke claimed at the end here that a man is the same person so long that his consciousness can "extend to actions past or to come", or so long as he can remember. Present consciousness: Self to himself now. Past memories: same self. Time nor change of substance turns him two or more persons.
11. Against change of substance: Even though one of its limbs has been cut off, he is no doubt the same person.
12. "...animal identity is preserved in identity of life, not of substance..." I didn't quite get the last part Locke was trying to make...it was as if he was saying that men and animals are the same, but yet he was aware that the Cartesians knew the difference. But I say that animal souls are different from human souls, the creation proves that very fact.
13. Can it be the same person if the substance changes? Ans: In our present state of knowledge, we had better assume "...such changes...never do in fact happen..." Why? "Basing...on the goodness of God." "...a present consciousness of a past event...is a present representation of a past action..."
14. Can it be different persons if the same substance does the thinking throughout? Locke here attacked the pre-existence, reincarnation believers..."so can you conceive yourself as being the same person with either of them [Thersites or Nestor]?"
15. Same person at the resurrection. Locke actually believed in resurrection?
16. "Whatever has the consciousness of present and past actions is the same person to whom they both belong." Now, even if the substance changes (which he stated impossible according to present knowledge), "sameness of substance is irrelevant to sameness of self". Since I am accountable by actions within the self-consciousness, regardless of substance and time.
17. "Self is that conscious thinking thing that feels..."
18. "Personal identity is the basis for all the right and justice of reward and punishment." This I think is a separation from Biblical sense of right and wrong. The beginning of utilitarianism.
19. "...Personal identity consists not in the identity of substance but in the identity of consciousness." Socrates and the present mayor of Queenborough could be the same person, according to Locke. But Socrates-awake cannot be culpable of crimes committed by Socrates-asleep, if Socrates-awake was not conscious of it - as if the twin brother of a criminal is to be punished for having the same appearance.
20. To those who object to using memory as a basis for determining the same person, Locke elevated the notion of "not himself", "beside himself" literally. Locke: They "that the same man is the same person" when they use "I", which isn't necessarily correct.
21. How there can be two persons in the man Socrates? Locke: By imagining that the possibility of the same man born in distant times but yet were two distinct persons.
22. Objection: Isn't a drunk man the same as a sober man? Lockean defense: Yes, human laws do not allow those who are ignorant of the law. But on the "great day" (Locke is obviously referring to the Judgment Day) - "...when the secrets of all hearts are laid open..." it is reasonable that 不知者无罪. That they will only receive their sentences with their conscience. But I will ask, wouldn't their conscience reveal to themselves, especially on the great day, that there are some which they claim knowing nothing of in all sincerity, that are actually against their conscience so much that they must admit that it was themselves that have fooled themselves. Unless, they were drugged by someone else, I do not see if anyone can honestly say "nobody will be held accountable for actions of which he knows nothing". And to say that and also to say "accountable according to his conscience" may become a contradiction.
23. Again the emphasis on consciousness - unite remote existences into the same person. "without consciousness there is no person." Just as a carcass cannot be a person.
25. Locke basically agreed that consciousness is contained in a single immaterial substance, which is allowed to be changed (broken: e.g. lost of finger=lost of pain).
26. Finally, he defines person = self. e.g. myself. A forensic term (a term designed for use in legal proceedings). Applies only to active thinking beings that are capable of a law, of happiness and misery. I guess he really is focused against the reincarnation believers (was Buddhism flourishing in his neighborhood?) - "Suppose a man were punished now for what he had done in another life of which he cannot have any consciousness, how does that so-called punishment differ from simply being created miserable?
27. Thinking thing or soul of a man = immaterial substance. Locke specified the unknown which he apparently hoped to have an answer in the future regarding "this thinking thing": what it is, how it is tied to spirits, can it perform thinking/operation of memory outside of our bodies, has God decided that such spirit must be united to only one such body? I think, this is why many filmmakers love to fantasize about transference of souls/consciousness.
28. Everything that exists must during its existence necessarily be the same. The certainty of all these conclusions can only be objected by "poor use of words" rather than anything else. Something that Socrates also said? according to Pak Tong.
03/12/2015
Leibniz, rationalist
Leibniz's The Principles of Philosophy known as Monadology
Monad(s) - simplest substance, true atoms, prof: not anywhere in space
Every monad is unique, able to change.
8: no absolutely empty space.
Prof: will = Leibniz's appetite (appetition or conatus)
From Ligonier, R.C. Sproul:
Not Occasionalist such as the Cartesians. Other works: Pre-established Harmony, Theodicy.
Theodicy: 3 types of evils (metaphysical => physical => moral), because God cannot create a metaphysical God. Hence God created the best (ideal) world of all imperfections. Thus, it is in conflict with the Bible. Christians do not view moral evil a necessity of finitude.
My Summary (Chinese translation of 莱布尼茨：《单子论》), a summarized version might help in understanding as well:
==========
6. Monads begin or end instantaneously, being created and annihilated all at once.
8. There are no empty space. The world is plenum.
9. No two monads are alike.
10. Created monads always change. Hence not referring to the divine Monad.
11. Internal force of monad.
12-13. There must be diversity in monads in states and of relationships. Multiplicity within Unity. But no parts.
14-15. Perceptions (states of monads) vs. Aperception (awareness). Cartesians couldn't tell the difference, hence they think only minds/spirits are monads, so animals have no souls/minds. Descartes' dualism is attacked here. Appetition/appetite is the internal force that changes perceptions.
16-17. Perceptions/varieties are produced by a simple substance. Proof: Supposed it is composite substance, then the perceptions are not found because all that are found are mechanical principles, not perceptions. Perceptions cannot be explained by mechanical principles.
18. Enthelechy - Greek word for monads. Also, for created monads.
19-20. Souls are more than "mere monads (with mere perception)".
21. Animals are sometimes "mere monads" temporarily.
22-23. Perceptions are linked consequentially.
24-28: Highly flavored perceptions vs. mere perception. Memory being a key causality in the appetites of perception changes.
29-30: We are different from animals because on top of memory we have reason.
31-32: Two principles of reasoning: contradiction & sufficient reason.
33-42: Two kinds of truth: reasoning & fact. Contingent truths = truths of fact, which cannot be sufficiently reasoned to the ultimate reason, which is why God is necessary. But unlike Spinoza's "substance", Leibniz's "eminently" description of God focuses more on containing the causality than property of things. The source of all things. Hence, God is perfect. All else are created and not perfect.
43-45: Reality of eternal truths proves God a priori; truth of facts proves God a posteriori as the only ultimate or sufficient reason.
03/17/2015
George Berkeley (an idealist & empiricist)
Ligonier Philosophy II:
Sproul: Berkeley coined "Esse Est Percipi" = To be is to be perceived. Berkeley would answer the falling tree problem in 2 ways: i) If no one perceives, then no sound, not even tree. Thus, no materialism, no atheism. But Berkeley wasn't talking about every is illusion. ii) If no one perceives, God the great perceiver still hears it.
Throwback to Plato, Augustine: Reality is in the mind of God. In Him we have our beings. Sproul: Continuity of God -> Consistent with providence of God: He sustains the world.
Sproul: Berkeley would ask Locke: Truth is defined by whose perception of (correspondence of) reality? All qualities are secondary!!! (Locke's 2 qualities distinction challenged). Therefore, we would never know of the true essence of things.
It is essentially the distinction between the (we don't directly perceive) metaphysics & (we perceived) physics.
Thus, since only one ultimate perceiver, God is a necessity for the existence of ideas, of matters, of anything. We can't perceive the substratum.
Berkeley: Truth is that which corresponds to reality as it is perceived by God!
According to Berkeley, all sciences without God is a fools' errand. All would end in illusion or scepticism.
(I think Berkeley sounds like a presuppositional guy)
Sproul: Though sceptic, Berkeley did not become as extreme as Hume.
Principles of Human Knowledge 1-39
"Spirits" are the only real things - ours and God's
God is the cause of our ideas of "real things" as opposed to imaginings.
Falling of the trees: If no one hears it, is there sound? (Schrodinger's cat?). Sproul: Is sound primary quality or secondary?
My summary:
1. The perceived
2. The perceiver
3.
03/19/2015
Hume attacks Induction (speculative rationalism) with high scepticism.
Substance vs. properties/accidents/attributes => subject - predicates
wittgenstein mentioned ~ Philosophy plagued by grammatical errors.
Ligonier on Hume (Philosophy II) by Sproul:
One of the most formidable critics the church had ever encountered.
2 main books: Inquiry concerning Human understanding (critique of causality) & Dialogue concerning natural religion (critique of miracle).
Individuation: uniqueness.
Ideas or sensation? Hume: Sensation is more powerful. Giving rise to thoughts, sensations give us the ability to remember.
We are always learning even if we don't want to.
Hume: Memory is inseparably related to the original sensations that you had dependent upon their liveliness: their intensity and vivacity. Jonathan Edwards used such methods to teach with graphics ideas.
Hume: Ordinary Relationship/Connection necessary? Occasionalism: It rains, God steps in to make grass wet. Leibniz(Pre-established harmony): It rains, God already arranged grass to get wet. The last two were dealing with the directness of God's involvement.
The expansion of knowledge, Sproul said is caused by the invention of telescope.
Hume: There must be distinction between: Customary & Causal relationships.
Sproul: Descartes used causality all the time: Doubt needs doubter needs thinker needs being.
Hume's illustration of Pool Ball -> Only Contiguous action/contiguity taking place: You don't perceive the actual cause taking place. Merely relative actions. A customary connection. We don't just let the mind fill in the missing details in music, art, etc., we do that with philosophy. We supply things with the mind that we don't perceive, causality being the big one we supply.
But Hume did not intend to destroy causality. He just doesn't know, being sceptical.
Concerning Religion: Extraordinary, astronomical, probability quotient (what are the odds).
Miracle is impossible because it would just simply be a unique event. All events are unique basically.
Section 4. Relations of ideas (geometry, algebra, arithmetic) vs. Matters of fact (everything else: content of experimental science + everything we would "common sense" about the natural world).
03/24/2015
Hume's Liberty and Necessity
Prof's notes:
Free will vs. Determinism
Hume said there's no incompatibility.
Compatibilism = free will and Determinism are compatible
Determinism - The facts about the past at any one time & the facts about the laws of nature entail all the facts about the world at all times.
In terminology, determinism is not fatalism. Determinism may imply fatalism, but not the other way around. Fatalism thus makes assumptions where determinism does not.
Hard determinism (rejects free will as compatible with determinism, prof.'s stand) vs. soft determinism (compatibilism)
My take:
Hume is first in this study to abandon miracles: "The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one." ~ David Hume
03/26/2015
Kant: Transcendental Aesthetic
Prof. notes:
Kant an idealist: 唯心主义, Everything is of the mind.
a priori: prior to experience
a postereiori: posterior to (after) experience
First to come up with cosmology of galaxy
Analytic knowledge: pure logic (predicate contained in subject)
Synthetic knowledge: a posteriori (predicate not contained in subject)
Obtaining knowledge: Receptivity (taking in) => spontaneity
After Kant: Analytical vs. continental philosophy
My notes on Kant, including Brian Magee's "The Story of Philosophy":
Kant never left his hometown (Konigsberg)
Very routine guy: neighbors set their watches by the time of his daily walk.
Rationalism + Empiricism
Phenomena world (perception, possible knowledge, subject dependent) vs. Noumenal world (transcendental, cannot be accessed, the perceived, and beyond.)
Kant's Christianity: "It is thoroughly necessary to be convinced of God's existence, it is not quite so necessary that one should demonstrate it."
In his Critique of Practical Reason: though denied proofs of God (to make room for faith), Kant argued for moral evidence of God's existence.
Especially since Kant, existence of God is accepted as not something that can be proven or disproved.
Free will, which is proven by morality, resides in the noumenal world.
On moral judgment:The reason we argue shows that there is universal validity in a good reason.. Thus, morality is founded on reason, as science is. => Categorical Imperative (the voice of conscience ~ Dr. Tong): Act only according to maxims which you can will also to be universal laws.
My review:
1. Terms defined here: intuition, sensibility, concepts, empirical, appearance, matter (a posteriori), form (a priori).
Sensible intuition: passive; intellectual intuition: active. Non-sensible intuition not seen, but Kant thought it possible.
Side study: Hegel
Summary from Magee's book:
Similar to Heraclitus: Reality (not nature, as believed by his student Schelling who predates Charles Darwin) is always changing. Dialectic process (The law of change). For a teleological mean: self-awareness of Geist => Absolute Idealism. Zeit-Geist comes from Hegel.
3 stages of change:
1. thesis (initial state, consists of conflicting elements which cause the next stage)
2. antithesis
3. synthesis (which can be a new thesis, hence, ever changing)
Only when a conflict-free state is achieved, will the change be unnecessary and ended.
Hegel considered Prussia (then part of Germany) has already embodied a conflict-free state, as a result, state-worship, nationalism emerged => Right Hegelians.
Hegel is the grandfather of Nazism (right Hegelians) and Communism (left Hegelians).
Hegel's Christianity: we and God are one. All will come to the self-awareness of oneness reality.
Thomas Reid, contemporary of David Hume and Hume's earliest and fiercest critic. I first heard of him from Church History in 5 Mins podcast. He could be one of the first in early presuppositional argument.
04/23/2015
Hume again...regarding ethics this time. Hume -> Eudemonistic?
Interestingly, there's talk about the validity of personhood in apes, particularly, chimps. They have made an orangutan a person in Argentina, why not the rest? As for New York, it is a very recent case where chimps are being evaluated in the same way but with volatile uncertainty. As of now, the judge has struck down the habeas corpus ruling before. Habeas corpus is the mean that the Non-human Rights Project use to free those animals.
This is naturally the cause of the belief in evolution. We humans are merely "advance" animals. So, personhood does not just apply to us. And since, slaves were being treated as "things" in the past, we should question animal things in being things or persons. Answer in Genesis stressed on the removal of evolution theory to justify their case. Thus far, by motive, I would agree with the latter, that all these mess is simply to justify a anthropocentric desire: Revoking any kind of authority. They see authority was exercised over the chimps, and they don't like it, not because how the chimps were being treated, not really, but that there was this authority, that just like ALL authorities, should be wiped off the face of the Earth.
Unfortunately, from what I could ascertain in the class, I am aware that there were genuine humble persons mixed on the wrong side of the fence in this battle.
Hume's The influencing motive of the will (From Treatise of Human Nature, Book II: The Passions, Part III, Section 3) Chinese version.
My Review:
It appears from the first paragraph that Hume was arguing against reason as the cause of virtue. Was he trying to imply that if reason was so "divinely original" (Note that Hume was striving to be an atheist with his scepticism) cause of everything, there would be no individuation?
Reasoning only directs/steers our judgment, not (or not produces) our action. Hence, emotion is the one dealing with our actions.
Reason is the slave of passions.
Passion is only contrary to reason when it is based on false belief.
Hume cautioned against blurring the line between reason and calm passions. Calm does not mean non-passion.
Passions affect will. Philosophers wrongly ascribe reason, not passion, to affect will.
Hume refute Locke (Locke once said that subjective greater good determines the will, then, he change it to subjective present uneasiness as the determinant). Hume said violent passions are sometimes overcome, as does calm passions. General character or present disposition of a person determines the outcome of which passion overcomes the other. But no one can predict it due to contrariety of motives and passions.
04/28/2015
Hume: Why Morals are not Derived from Reason (Treatise Bk3 Pt3 S1)
Two kinds of philosophy [reasoning]: Speculative(theoretical) vs. Practical (pg. 235)
Speculative: Beliefs about what is the case (what is true).
Practical: Beliefs about what ought to be the case (what ought to be true). Or beliefs about what one desires to be the case/true.
My Review:
Hume: Since reason does not influence action, it is not related to morality at all.
Praiseworthy and blameworthy are not the same as reasonable or unreasonable.
04/30/2015
Hume's Why Utility Pleases (Enquiry on Morals, Sect 5)
Hume's Utility not clearly defined.
Hume's Sympathy = empathy?
Empathy is a later term coined in the 1800s from the contemporary German term: Einfühlung. It emphasizes on shared feelings while sympathy already meant more than just compassion.
Seems like the class ended with debates on ethics.
My Summary:
Part 1: Utility is key here. Morality's basis is nature, not indoctrination.
Moral cannot be taught because language does not contain the words for it.
This is where Hume showed that he finds homosexuality is "extremely perverted" (in his footnote). I think if he's for real in his liberal view, social discipline at his time shouldn't influence his view here.
Social virtues have a natural beauty.
Self-interest theory
Using the connection one has with society, Hume argued that the cause of morality is more than just self-interest. In his footnote, he referred to Polybius' work. Polybius had already noted a sense and force of duty before Kant did with his good-will-duty-categorical-imperative theory.
Chief example given regarding two opposing statesmen (Eschines & Demosthenes in real life). The one who lost was still being treated generously by his adversary and he praised it.
- What which mainly forms associations of ideas is experience.
- Our approval frequently extends beyond our own interests (But why?), however far away they are in time or space.
Bacon's "crucial experiment" mentioned -> It follows that anything that contributes to the happiness of society recommends itself directly to our approval and good-will.
- We needn't push to ask "why do we have humanity" - our examination of causes must stop somewhere. [Try God, Hume].
Sympathy: Hume's attempt to explain the extended interest (beyond self interest). But he's still presupposing a natural instinct to those extended interest, nothing new here.
Sympathy and the arts: Passion is key here. Sounds like Kant's categorical imperative here. Styles of boring Suetonius and masterful Tacitus compared here.
Beauty is tightly linked to utility. Consequences of others' actions should be considered. Thus, sympathy is active again.
Sympathy and Morality: No one is entirely indifferent to the interests of others. Hume thinks it is not possible to not care for others even at the slightest level.
Principles of humanity must always have some authority over our sentiments.
Hume uses "indifferent" many times in this paper.
- self-interest or revenge or envy pervert our disposition.
- general interest (fainter) vs. self-interest. Besides art, the closer the connection, the strong the general interest becomes.
- Hume actually said "isn't the tree known by the fruit" (pg.33), this goes to show that while many reject God, yet they inevitably steal lines from God.
Then in his footnote, Hume explains that it is still good that "Nature" ordained private interest over universal ones, for the sake of maintaining our affections. Loosey goosey worldview, once you removed God from the picture, Hume.
- A priori conclusion: There is no way we have indifference towards anyone.
- A posteriori: the facts of utility. Utility is foundation of morality.
Ending: Hume, now you just want to promote to us of the mystical concern for others in us, after debunking all that you've called doubtful.
05/05/2015
Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals
Chapter 1:
Moral rationalism
The only absolutely good thing is a good will.
Goodness != utility or happiness
happiness is a conditional good.
A good will does the right thing for the right reason.
We identify the right reason through what Hume calls "relations of ideas" - in Kant's chapter 1, it's universal law.
My Summary:
Physik (German) 
Physics
Preface:
Ancient Greek Philosophy breakdowns:
1. Natural Science (Greek)
2. Ethics
3. Logic
Rational knowledge:
1. Material knowledge: concerning objects. => natural laws & laws of freedom (ethics).
2. Formal knowledge: logic, a priori principles
Logic can never be from experience.
Natural laws: how things work
Moral laws: how things ought to work
Pure philosophy = entirely formal (logic) & ...
I think it's better I draw a diagram for these
05/07/2015
Kant's Groundwork Chapter 2:
Prof's note:
Why does it matter if morality holds for all rational beings, rather than just humans?
What's an imperative? A command - a "must" or "ought" statement.
Hypothetical - If you want to do x (end), then you ought to do y (means)
Categorical - you ought to do z. (No if/then structure).
3 Formulas of the Categorical Imperative:
1. Universal Law
2. Others as ends
3. Autonomy
05/12/2015
Kant's Groundworks Chapter 3.
Prof.'s note:
categorical Imperative (synthetic)
Kant explains it by contrast w/ hypothetical imperatives (analytic).
The circular reasoning between freedom and moral is explained by the appearance of things (sensible world, phenomenal) vs. things in themselves/Kant's das Ding an sich(物自体) (intelligible world, noumenal).
The notion of soft determinism reminds me of Molina's middle knowledge.
My summary:
Kant's work on ethics is later explored beyond his Groundwork in The Metaphysics of Morals which forms The Philosophy of Law with the Doctrine of Right which is political.
05/14/2015
Kant's Groundwork III continuation...
Prof's. Notes: Heteronomy (other-law determined) vs. Autonomy (self-law determined)
We can't know if there is freewill, which is required in neumenal.
Pingback: Ligonier Class: Philosophy II | Timothy Law's Journal