Foundations

In the first chapter of Part I of Leviathan, Hobbes paves the way for the rest of his discussion by explaining the way in which we sense things. "The cause of sense is the external body," he claims, contrary to what Aristotle any many others may have thought. Although, later developments in the study of how humans "sense" things eventually undermine our ability to causally relate the external object to our senses at all.

Essentially, what I'm wondering is this: if his thoughts on sense become obviously flawed and dated, what can we still take away from Hobbes' ideas? Is his entire point then undermined, or does this even concern what he's really trying to communicate?

Hobbes: Imagination and Memory

In Hobbes Leviathan, he makes the statement in chapter ii, subsection 3, that "imagination and memory are but one thing, which for diverse considerations hath diverse names." This statement is interesting because it implies that all memories are decaying or imperfect imaginations of past events, but this also implies that all imaginations are forms of memories, twisted, combined, or lacking perfect accuracy. Is Hobbes claiming it is outside of human ability to imagine anything not already contained in a memory or combination of memories?

Spinoza & Descartes

Is Spinoza intentionally calling Descartes to mind when he discusses dreaming and thinking? Is it a criticism of Descartes, or is it simply a coincidence?

Is Existence Weakness?

Spinoza writes, "To be able to not exist is weakness; on the other hand, to be able to exist is power, as is self-evident." I am not sure that this is actually self-evident. If one looks at God from the perspective that He does not exist one could still argue that God is very powerful for wars have been waged and societies shaken by Him regardless of whether or not he actually exists.

Additionally, if something is infinite- how can we know it? For do we not know things by our ability to distinguish them from one another? Could I know white if it weren't for black? I say that if God exists there would have to be an absence of Him in order for us to be able to know Him.

More Bacon

Earlier in the week, we discussed and made comparisons between Descartes and Bacon’s view on Christianity. The question was raised as to which of the two made more of an effort to defend and express their Christian beliefs. In the context of Bacon’s New Atlantis, the patron’s of his perfect society are all under the same beliefs and truth of Christianity. However, because they have received this information as a definite “Truth” (Saint Bartholomew), the society of New Atlantis, no longer questions the existence of the one God and his word. In this, the society has been able to focus on discovering scientific causes and effects of “God’s creations” and in essence has been able to dismiss religion. In contrast, in Part 4 of Descartes Meditations, he makes an ontological argument for the existence of God. Through his argument, he delves deep into defending God’s existence similar to that of Saint Anselm’s idea of “that which nothing greater can be thought.” Where Bacon is dismissive, Descartes is offensive in his belief in God.  

Deus sive Natura

 Spinoza writes in 13, that there is a certain character to strive for, if one is to be truly happy, and that is, "knowledge of the union existing being the mind and the whole of nature. god is essentially Nature itself; it is the universe and the mechanisms of the universe. 

 With this in mind, to strive to create a union of the mind and nature, one is studying god. And he writes in 16:2, "Thus it is apparent to everyone that I wish to direct all science to one end. . . so that we may attain to the supreme human perfection which we have named." And then in endnote E, he writes, "There is for the sciences but one end, to which all should be directed." 

 Could one then say that by studying the sciences, by studying Nature itself, studying Spinoza's god, one comes closer to true happiness as they are creating a union between the mind and that of nature? He does write in the end of 16 that those sciences that do not promote his object should be cast aside, and so all science is up to debate in it's usefulness. However, one is, by doing this, finding what is "false," casting it aside and continuing the search in the study of nature. 

Descartes on Immortality

After leaving class today, I still had a linger question regarding a statement Descartes makes at the end of part 5. After proving the existence of a soul separate from the mechanical body, he asserts that because "our soul is of a nature entirely independent of the body... that it is not subject to dying with it... As we see no other causes that destroy it, we are naturally led thereby to judge that it is immortal." This seems to me to be drawing unbased conclusions that lack evidence and explanation. I don't think it is as simple as infering the immortality of the soul because of the seperation of soul and body. Is there other evidence for this claim? Am I missing some explanation or arguement?