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?

Atheism in the Leviathan

While reading Leviathan, I picked up on some themes that would be considered atheistic in Hobbes’ era. He certainly writes about different opinions on the concept of Christianity than his time generally accepted. Leviathan rejects the authority of the Church, the concept of spirit, and challenged the classical interpretation of scriptures. Hobbes also eliminates all Christian dogma including clergymen, theologians, popes and monks. The only thing that remains over from the faith of the time is that Jesus is the Christ. Is that enough, though, to classify Hobbes and his work as Christian? In his time, being an atheist was a high offense  but I do not think that quite defines Hobbes' thinking. If you consider his Prime Mover as the Christian God, a figure from which all authority comes from, then Hobbes' Leviathan is a Christian society. Especially since it has a central deity that set the whole world in motion.

Descartes states that because we were all once children we needed instruction(pt. 2, pg 22), whereby we were taught differing 'truths' that do not always reconcile. He sees this as a downfall in their teachings because they do not offer coherency, but conflict. His solution is his method, whereby he can explore that which is around him and be "punished" by any error that results from that method (pt.1, pg 20). Perhaps being taught differing ideas and methods as children forces one to reconcile those ideas through self study. Even further, perhaps those conflicts are what spurred Descartes to attempt a new method. I posit that it is not the varied teachings that inhibit access to truth, but lack of mental dexterity applied to reconciling/exploring information in regards to truth. For instance, Descartes opened the Discourse asserting that it is not the 'goodness' of the mind, but the application of it that is of most import (pt.1, pg 16).

Descartes: Religion

In part five of Descartes' Discourse on Method, within his discussion of creation, he makes the statement "their nature is much easier to conceive when we see them begin to grow little by little in this way than when we only consider them as fully complete." This is in reference to the origin of things now in existence. To me, this statement has profound implications towards the justification of evolution within the bounds of Christianity. If he is making the claim that creation began with nothing other than the "form of chaos" within the bounds of the God-created laws of nature, than evolution from that beginning seems to be a plausible explanation.

Descartes, Discourse on Method

Descartes comments, "But that which causes many to be persuaded that it is difficult to know God, and even to know what their soul is...that whatever is not imaginable seems to them unintelligible." p 35

Throughout Discourse on Method, Descartes emphasizes the importance of conducting one's thoughts in a progressive and solitary fashion.  He argues that people don't believe in God because they don't think "insensibly" - but how could one find truth if thinking insensibly?   Is this what makes God/religion an exception in philosophical thinking?  If one can imagine all that is tangible, what is intangible can't be properly imagined.

Descartes' Intentions

After mentioning the shortfalls of rhetoric and mathematics, Descartes (on page 19 of our edition) gently critiques theology, pointing out that “the way to heaven is open to the most ignorant no less than to the most learned,” and “in order to undertake to examine [theology] and to succeed, I would need to have some extraordinary assistance from heaven.”

Considering the cultural context in which Descartes is writing, how seriously is this passage to be read? How seriously, or charitably, would his peers have read it? Is this a subtle (or overt) jab at religious methodology, at religious “knowledge” even, or perhaps an honest account of his personal convictions concerning what we can know about God?

Descrates third maxim

In Descrates Discourse on the Method, Part 3 he talks about his third maxim. Is it better to change desires rather than change the world around us? According to Descrates this is a better option. What are possible consequences to this approach? We may not push ourselves to achieve desires that we have, but we may also get rid of desires that are destructive.

Thoughts on Bacon

The fact that Bacon does not want to be a founder of a new sect in philosophy but rather wants to"begin anew from the very foundations" (PG. 94 Aphorism 31) is refreshing to me. Though some may say he goes to unnecssary measures at times, i.e. the heat table, I think there is still something that can be said for his attention to detail. While other philosophers take certain elements for granted, Bacon does not and I think a lot can be said about that.

However, that being said, I do struggle with Bacon's motives behind "The New Atlantis." I just don't see the purpose of illustrating religion and science in such an unrealistic way.

The Senses

Bacon spent quite a bit of time expressing his opinion that the senses are deceptive and a hindrance to the pursuit of truth. In book one, aphorism 50 he writes, “But by far the greatest hindrance and aberration of the human understanding proceeds from the dullness, incompetency, and deceptions of the sense...”. Although I agree that the senses have a tendency to deceive, in the case of a ship that appears to be falling off of the earth as it travels beyond the horizon, I am inclined to think that experimentation is merely on step away from the senses and still falls short of completely transcending the problems of the senses.

Additionally, I struggle to think that reason is something that is totally separate from the senses because it seems to me that our reason is informed by our senses and our sub-conscious is formed by our sensory experience. I mean to say that the use of reason and the discovery of experimentation are all founded on the senses in one way or another and despite the fact that reason and experimentation help us to see through the illusions that our senses perceive, experimentation and reason themselves would not have been formulated had it not been for sensory input.

Are ye Christian?

When the seafarers first arrive at Bensalem they are denied entrance, although help would be provided if asked for, but they could not come ashore. Soon after they are approach by the Governor who asks, “Are ye Christians?” (242). The seafarers answer yes and then are allowed ashore, and then allowed to learn of Bensalem. I feel it must be asked, what if they answered negatively? This island is based on the “pure” tenants and ideals of Christianity, which if this were the case then the people would help regardless of the faith of those asking help. 

One need only look at Mathew 25: 34-36 to see that those seeking help must be given it, without question of who they are. Yet, the nature and degree of the help given rests upon the seafarers being Christian. Why does Bacon do this, if he seeks to idealize Christianity? 

In New Atlantis, Bacon conceives of a Utopian society with an interesting moral foundation. I say interesting because many of the activities that the society condemns (or frowns upon), Bacon himself would have been guilty of (accepting bribes, living extravagantly). Is this an admission of guilt/regret?

Words of Perception

Beginning at aphorism 14, Bacon presents the notion that human language simplifies our understanding by reducing many actions and conditions into singular words. In his example, he uses the word humid to demonstrate the idea that it is “nothing else than a mark loosely and confusedly applied to denote a variety of actions which will not bear to be reduced to any constant meaning” (Aphorism 59). This shows that our process of reasoning is flawed at the very basis because the definition of words are dependent on the perception of the individual using them. Reason is formed from propositions, and, at the very root, these propositions consist of words (Aphorism 14). If words inadequately express the specificity needed to create sound propositions, then all our of notions fail to be legitimized.