Kant- Appearance and Judgements

"When an appearance is given us, we are still quite free as to how we should judge the matter.  The appearance depends upon the senses, but the judgement upon the understanding; and the only question is whether in the determination of the object is there is truth or not."

When we first see something or even a person, our minds make up a judgement about them or it.  Whether it is true or not we still do it.  Sometimes in the end it can be completely wrong or right.  We can never know about something until we observe them and learn about them.  In the end, we never really can know the full truth about something no matter what.  There is always more to someone or something.

Kant- How is nature possible

On page 56 Kant asks how nature is possible.  Nature is possible because we are able to touch things, see things, hear things, taste things, and smell them.  Everyone else is able to do the same things too.  We are able to share what things look and taste like.  How can nature not be possible?  How could we all be seeing the same things?  I don't understand how you can argue with that.  

Kant- Perception and Judgement

On pages 39 and 40, Kant talks about perception and judgement.  He says that judgements of experience are more valid then perception.  I don't really see the difference between the two.  Perception is your awareness of something by your senses or to understand something.  But isn't a judgement just a guess? So why would that be more valid then perception.

Kant- External Experience and internal experience

On pages 72 and 73 Kant talks about external experiences and internal experiences.  If I'm reading this right when he says external he means our bodies (takes of space) and internal is our soul.  I think this subject goes back to something I learned in Psychology.  Some people believe the mind and brain work together and are aware of each other but others think one works and not the other.  I think they both work together.  Our mind thinks what were gonna do or has thoughts and judgements and the brain is what actually does it.  They both have a connection to each other.

Kant- Nature and Experience

"But experience teaches us what exists and how it exists, but never that it must necessarily exist so and not otherwise...Experience therefore can never teach us the nature of things in themselves."-35

Experience teaches about everything around us.  By seeing and observing things in life, we learn about them and why things are certain ways.  We see other people and we understand why they exist.  By Kant saying experience can never teach us the nature of things in themselves, I believe he is saying just by going about our day to day life seeing different things we won't just learn about everything beyond the picture that is in front of us.  I agree with this; we have to go beyond just the experience to know the truth in things.  

Kant- Math

"I shall confine my assertion to pure mathematics, they very concept of which implies that it contains pure a priori and not empirical cognition." -pg. 11

If I am reading this right, I think Kant is saying that math is a priori and if priori means not learning from experience.  I would have to disagree with Kant on this one.  We learn math from others.  We learn it by someone teaching us how to add and subtract.  By going to school and listening to our teachers we are learning by experience.  I'm not sure if that was what he was getting at but that's what I got out of it.

Please tell me what you think.

Kant- mathematics

Kant talks about the normalness of mathematics and everything about math is the way it is just because it is the way it is. There is defintely talking about skepticism when they realize math is the way it is. It is just a natural way of lie that 2 +2 = 4 and that 90 degrees is straight. It is just the way that it is. Alot of rationalists will always have some kind of doubt but hey, it will always be like this no matter what.

Kant - science of nature

Kant starts to talk about the synthetic a priori which means the science of nature and the science of mathmatics which is the apllication of space and time. Of course, the science of nature is talking about physics. Kant asks how is physics possible? he answeres his own question because it is a synthetic. It argues with Hume when he talks about the science of nature is synthetic and informative and observable.

Kants rebuttle to Hume

Kants rebuttle to Hume is all about distinction. It is all about distinction between judgements of perception. It is all about how we percieve and judge what we see in nature all over. The way you perceive and accept to the science of nature itself. It is also a distinction between judgements of experience.The judgements can be subjectively valid or they can be very objective to experience.

Kant- empiricism

Empiricism is when there is skepticism about the patterns of nature. It is when people wonder why are these things the way they are. Why is there a thunder storm here and not there? or why is there certain kind of areas that have these kind of flowers and trees. Why is climate control so different. It is just the weird patterns nature is all about. I think its a very interesting question but, i dont think there really is such an answer for questions like those. Empiricism is a very moderate way when it comes down to asking questions and truly not being satisfied with the way things are.

Kant- rationalism

Kant also talks about rationalism. Rationalism is when Kant talks about skepticism about the exterior world. Kant thinks to himself that we cannot know about everything we must leave it to nature itself. The fact that we dont always know something is fine according to Kant. I agree with him on that one, anyone who thinks they know everything about everything is just an idiot. Some things are better yet unknown when it comes right down to it.

Kant

Kant talks about Kant skepticism about cause and effect generalize. He also wonders about our judgement and he talks about how nature is truly just us and only us. He speaks about analytic synthetic distinction. When kant talks about a prior he seems to talk about just a natural role of observation that we all seem to go through.

Hume Billiard Ball effect

"If I see a billiard ball moving towards another, on a smooth table, I can easily conceive to stop upon contact." - Hume

This is the perfect example of you never know what could happen. If you are someone who has never played pool in their lives you have no idea that that one white ball could make all of the other balls move the way it is. To someone playing pool for the first time it is a complete mystery. Sometimes it is a complete mystery to figure out where the other balls go in such.

Hume-origin of ideas

Hume argues that ideas differ from impressions only by being less lively, and that all ideas are copied from impressions. I believe that Hume argues a good point because we only think of things from previous knowledge. As humans, we make judgments based on what we already know. If we didn't, then we wouldn't judge or hold beliefs.

Hume-cause and effect

"our reason, unassisted by experience, can never draw any inference concerning real existence and matter of fact"

Hume thinks that it is not possible to know cause and effect a priori. To prove this, he uses the example of bread and how it nourishes our bodies. There is no connection between bread and the nourishment it provides for us. From looking at the bread, you cannot tell that if you eat it it will nourish your body, unless you already knew of it nourishing your body. I agree with Hume because if you think about it, you wouldn't know anything unless you gained that knowledge from experience.

Hume Imagination

Hume about talks about our visual imagination. When people talk about people we already know we usually can picture them right away in our mind because of our favorite memory with them. When we think of something spectacular, it takes us a little longer to make up the image in our head. We usually revert to TV or a magazine source we saw. When something is real, we can picture it faster than something that is fiction.

Hume Cause and Effect

I totally believe in HUmes cause and effect beliefs. Hume says that there is a effect for everything caused..If you hear a sound your mind cant help to respond. Even if you dont physically show it your body has mentally responded by not physically acting on the cause. It is pretty much instinct on how this works

Hume- Animals

Hume talks about in one section of his book that we are like animals and we pick up from them and we are exactly like the animals of today. I happen to agree, so what if we can operate a computer or an airplane or learn calculus. It just so happens we have some traits that make us no better than the animals we look down upon. We have taken enjoyment in watching violence and i think thats the same as the animals. I think if we didnt have the laws people would be killing people all the time. I think that Hume is on point when he compares us to the animals

Hume- Miracles

Hume says that he does not believe in miracles. He says that they are from experience and they arent really miracles at all. I happen to disagree. A few years ago my grandma was suppose to die at age 91 she got sick.....she then lived another 10years and died at age 101. I dont think that was from experience. I think Hume is full of it when it comes to this topic.

Hume- Math Sciences

Hume is trying to say when he thinks of mathematical sciences that he enjoys these kind of sciences because there is no telling you if your wrong or right.

"All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, relations of ideas, and matters of fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of geometry, algebra, and arithmetic, and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. That the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the square of the two sides, is a proposition which expresses a relation between these figures. That three times five is equal to the half of thirty, expresses a relation between these numbers"

he is saying well this is the way it is.... 15 is half of 30 and no one can tell you any different. It is just the way of human understanding.

Mathematical Sciences and Truth - Hume

"The great advantage of the mathematical sciences above the moral consists in this, that the ideas of the former, being sensible, are always clear and determinate, the smallest distinction between them is immediately perceptible, and the same terms are still expressive of the same ideas, without ambiguity or variation. An oval is never mistaken for a circle, nor an hyperbola for an ellipsis."

This makes me think of Descartes and how he talked about the same thing.  Math has one answer and we know that is the truth.  In geometry an acute angle is always less then 90 degrees.  One day it will not suddenly change, it will always be that way.  Descartes and Hume's are very similar throughout the book.  They both need the full truth in order to believe it.  Math has steps in how they get the solution.  It shows the evidence and there is a way you can check your answer at the end.  Math is like what Hume was talking about with cause and effect.

Cause and Effect - Hume

We learn from experience when we do certain things the same thing will come right after it.  Hume calls it cause and effect.   If you don't have the cause then the effect does not exist.  We talked about this in class a little bit.  When you snap your fingers you get a sound.  But sometimes it doesn't make the same sound or a sound at all if you don't know how to do it.  I think this theory is right to extent but not all the time.  There is always a cause but there isn't always the same effect.  

Miracles- Hume

When reading the section about Hume's views on miracles it made me really think about it.  He talks about how we shouldn't believe in miracles because there is no proof to actually say they're miracles.  Miracles is learned from experience.  You hear people talking about miracles happening all the time.  For example, my grandpa was supposed to die and all the doctors even said there was no chance of him living.  He is now living a healthy life; he is perfectly fine.  Even though he was on his death bed.  Is that a miracle or is that nature?  Maybe that was just supposed to happen, he wasn't meant to die then.  No one can really believe a miracle happened by hearing it from someone else according to Hume.  How are we supposed to know if it is really true?

In the beginning of the passage in this section he brings up how we can assume that there would be better weather in June then December because we know this by experience.  But we can sometimes be wrong.  This goes back to being a part of nature not a miracle.

Animals- Hume

In the section "Of the Reason of Animals" Hume is comparing how we are alike animals and so are children and philosophers.  Usually when we observe animals we see them do a lot of things we can't explain.  We say that they do these things because of "instinct" or innateness.  From what I read Hume is saying we are like animals and we have sort of the same connection.  I really don't agree with this.  I think as humans we usually learn from others more then instinct and innateness.  Animals are just born with knowing what to do in certain situations.  I think we are very different then animals.

Visualizing - Hume

"I hear a present, for instance, a person's voice, with whom I am acquainted; and the sound comes as from the next room.  This impression of my senses immediately conveys my through to the person, together with all the surrounding objects.  I paint them out to myself as existing at present, with the same qualities and relations of which I formerly knew them possessed.  These ideas take faster hold on my mind, than ideas of an enchanted castle."- Hume

What I got out of this passage is Hume is talking about our visual imagination.  When people talk about people we already know we usually can picture them right away in our mind of either the last time we saw them or a favorite memory with them.  When we think of an enchanted castle like Hume said, it takes us a little longer to make up the image in our head.  We usually think of one from TV or a book we saw.  When something is real, we can picture it faster than something that is fiction.  

Hume- Billiard Balls

"If I see a billiard ball moving towards another, on a smooth table, I can easily conceive to stop upon contact." - Hume

"...we should endeavour to define the feeling of cold or passion of anger, to a creature who never had an experience of these sentiments." -Hume

Both of these passages seem to explain what I'm about to get at.  Of course we all have played pool before and know what usually happens when you hit the cue ball into another ball.  The cue ball usually stops once it hits the other ball. But looking at the second passage, what if a person who hasn't played or seen anyone else play think?  Would you think the ball would stop or keep going with the other ball?  Or does it matter what way you hit the ball or on what angle?

Same thing with the second passage, if we explained these type of feelings to someone would they how to distinguish the difference between the two of them if they experienced it?  Or the other week we talked about if someone who was born blind, only knew the feeling of a circular object but would they know it if they all of a sudden could see without feeling it?  I'm not sure if they could.  Eventually I think they would learn what it was but not right away.  The same goes for explaining the feelings.

Locke- Innate Ideas

On the discussion of innate "unlearned" ideas, Locke talks about moral knowledge. I feel that the basis of life is innate. No one told the world how to reproduce themselves until our populations are over populated. No one tells mothers that if there baby is in trouble to come fierce at whoever is making the trouble. No one tells the childrens minds how to automaticaaly do certain things for themselves. I feel that it ties into who we are as people from our self identity.

Locke- Self Identity Book 2

"Another occasion the mind often takes of comparing, is, the very being of things, when considering anything as existing at any determined time and place, we compare it with itself existing at another time, and thereon form the ideas of identity and diversity."

Basically i feel Locke is trying to explain how memory works. He says we use all our memories when within place, time, and what you are doing. I feel that its like this, basically our mind id a little more tricky, Memories happen in the mind, all the events in our head are scrambled all over your head and you have to try and figure all the memories that are scrambled and put them into a story. This is what i think a modern translation would be to Lockes statement on page 241

Locke - Book 2 Self Identity

"Another occasion the mind often takes of comparing, is, the very being of things, when considering anything as existing at any determined time and place, we compare it with itself existing at another time, and thereon form the ideas of identity and diversity." (Locke 241)

I remember a couple weeks ago we talked about this exact thing in class.  How do we really know our memories our real?  Or how we know what person we are?  Locke is trying to say when we remember things we did 30 minutes ago and see us in that memory, we assume, well that is me, so that is my identity.  Sometimes our older memories get confused with stories other people tell us or we see old pictures.  Our memories are always getting tampered with.  Personally, I believe I am me because I can remember exactly what I was doing 5 seconds ago, typing this blog and the proof is right before me.  So therefore, this is my identity.    

Locke - Book 2 Innateness

"That if a child were kept in a place where he never saw any other but black and white till he were a man, he would have no more ideas of scarlet or green, than he that from his childhood never tasted an oyster or a pine-apple has of those particular senses." (Locke 61)

Of course the person would have no memory of the colors because he never had saw them.  But when you place him in a world full of color he would realize something was different.  He wouldn't know what to call them but he would know that they weren't black or white.  Eventually, he would learn what the colors were.  I guess this would have to prove that colors aren't innate.  They are taught to us by others and stored in our memories.  If we never learned anything, how could we remember it again?

Locke- Truth and Self Identity

"..in the despair of knowing anything; nor, on the other side, question everything and disclaim all knowledge, because some things are not to be understood."


i think Locke is trying to state that no matter what we ask there are things you wont know. Basically like things that are just a certain way because they are. why is the sky actually blue? who controls the nuerons in the brain? he is saying things are better yet not figured out.

Locke - Innateness 2

In Chapter 2, going on about innateness, Locke starts talking about how children and "idiots" don't show that they have any "impressions" in their mind by innateness.

"If therefore children and idiots have souls, have minds, with those impressions upon them, they must unavoidably perceive them, and necessarily know and assent to those truths; which since they do not, it is evident that there are no such impressions."

When someone is mentally challenged, which I'm assuming that is what Locke meant by saying "idiot", they might have some innateness in them but they're capable of showing it because their mental disability.  When a baby is drinking their bottle.  They automatically know they have to suck for the milk to come out of the bottle.  No one can teach them that.  They just know and I think that is a form of innateness.

Locke - Innateness

In chapter 2, Locke talks about innateness and how God gave us the gift to see.  But is seeing colors on objects apart of innateness?

"For I imagine, anyone will easily grant, that it would be impertinent to suppose the ides of colours innate in a creature to whom God have given sight, and a power to receive them by the eyes from external objects: and no less unreasonable would it be to attribute several truths to the impressions of nature and innate characters, when we may observe in ourselves faculties fit to attain as easy and certain knowledge of them as if they were originally imprinted on the mind."

How do we really know the colors we see is what everyone else sees?  Is my red your red?  I think Colors had to be imprinted on the mind at one point.  When we were little our parents would point to things and say this is red, the ball is blue, the grass is green, etc.  We learned what the colors looked like by the first object our parents showed us.  But then again in Psychology I learned that we don't actually see colors.  They're wavelengths bouncing off lighting and other things.  I'm not sure on this one, it can go many ways.  

Locke - Self Identity and Truth

In the beginning of Chapter 1, Locke talks about knowledge and understanding it.

"..in the despair of knowing anything; nor, on the other side, question everything and disclaim all knowledge, because some things are not to be understood."

"Our business here is not to know all things, but whose which concern our conduct."

Everyone always wants to know the answers to everything.  They want to know what is truth and what is not.  But are some things really that important to know?  Do we really NEED to know everything.  Back when we read Descartes he wanted all his knowledge he had was true but in Locke he understands that we don't really need to know everything.  Somethings are just not supposed to be found or explained.

Locke- Self Identity

In chapter 27

Locke says that we are the same person that we are conscious of our past and future thoughts and actions in the same way as we are conscious of our present thoughts and actions. If consciousness is this "thought" which doubles all thoughts, then personal identity is only founded on the repeated act of consciousness:

It means you are who you are...your memories reflect who you are in everyday life...this is what it means when you are conscious in our present thoughts. Its how you refelct from the past use for the present and future.

Locke- Self Identity

Locke says that identity is that he claims comes from consciousness........

Hdee is trying to say that you are dealing with the current thoughts in your head at any given time.He is trying to say when there is a specific idea in your head you think about it and you relate to past moments in your life and then you also use it with every day current life. That makes your identity yours..only you have that idea and can relate it with those specific memories...

Locke-Truth

In the beginning of the first book Locke talks about rules of a method to search the bounds between knowledge and opinion. This brings me back Descartes Discourse 2. It is almost similar. Descartes was trying to find the truth behind everything. Well, isn't that the same as opinion verses knowledge? Locke also did steps to do this like Descartes did.

"First. I shall inquire into the original of those ideas, notions, or whatever else you please to call them, which a man observes, and is conscious to himself he was in his mind, and the ways whereby the understanding comes to be furnished with them."

"Secondly. I Shall endeavor to show what knowledge the understanding hath by those ideas, and the certainty, evidence, and extent of it."

"Thirdly. I shall make some inquiry into the nature and grounds of faith or opinion; whereby I mean. that assent which we give to any proposition as true, of whose truth yet we have no certain knowledge: and here we shall have occasion to examine the reasons and degrees of assent"

Locke- the problem of self identity

Locke is discussing the problem of self identity as we dont actually start off with a self identity of our own. Locke is saying that we were born with a clean slate and that as we grow up society starts to mold you into the person you are.

Ruosso says something describing Locke as well. I cant remember the quote exactly but it says "man seems to be free but we are still in chains"

It basically means that we al start off as a clean slate and that self identity develops as you develop in society.

any objections?

Meditations 6-senses

"For I knew by experience that these ideas came upon me utterly without my consent, to the extent that, which as I may, I could not sense any object unless it was present to a sense organ. Nor could I fail to sense it when it was present. And since the ideas perceived by sense were much more vivid and explicit and even, in their own way, more distinct than any of those that I deliberately and knowingly formed through meditation or that I found impressed on my memory, it seemed impossible that they came from myself. Thus the remaining alternative was that they came from other things. Since I had no knowledge of such things except from those same ideas themselves, I could not help entertaining the thought that they were similar to those ideas."

Here Descartes clearly realizes that mind and body (senses) are two separate things. He doesn't know how but he knows that he alone does not think of certain things that come into his head, and thats where the mind plays a role. They are different, but one needs the other to work. I don't think the mind could work without the body, and the body could work without the mind.

Meditations VI

The issue of mind and body in Med 6 is controversial. There is an unexplainable connection between the two, however, they are very different. Will the mind outlive the body because the mind is something that is always existing and we cannot see it? Or will the body outlive the mind because the mind is not capable of doing anything without the body? Descartes kind of goes back and forth with this one because going back to his previous ideas in discourse, he believes there is no doubt in truth.

meditation 6 - Nature/Enstinct

"I call hunger, warn me to have something to eat, or why should dryness in the the throat warn me to take something to drink, and so on? I plainly had no explanation other than that I had been taught this way be nature." - (Descartes 95)

This i think, is truly Descartes talking about raw enstinct. Even when we are babies we dont know how to talk or read or even walk. But when we were hungry or had to poop we made it known by ensticnt. The enstinct told Descartes that his throat hurt and he needed some water. In reality enstinct is nature....

any objections?

Discourse 2-Poor Knowledge of Science

the reason why descarte had a bad knowledge of science is because he had different people telling him otherwise.

I dont blame him for not believing anything someone else said. I feel like it could be compared to a more modern situation. If your trying to buy a present for someone you will usually get a laundry list of opinions telling you what they think. I think D is really smart for not litstening at all. By chucking all their opinions out the window, he became a true philospopher and proved it on his own which is also apart of his four rules that he discussed in Discourse 2...any objections?

Discourse Part 2

"And as for myself, I would unquestionably have been counted among these latter persons if I had always had only one master or if I had not known at all the differences that have always existed among the opinions of the most learned.....And I considered how one and the same man with the very same mind, were he brought up from infancy among the French or the Germans, would become different from what he would be had he always lived among the Chinese or the cannibals, and how, even down to the styles of our clothing, the same thing that pleased us ten years ago, and that perhaps will again please us ten years, hence, now seems to us extravagant and ridiculous.

Here Descartes makes a very valuable point. I agree that the ideas of one single person are more understandable and as close to the truth as you can possibly get, over the ideas of many people. If you think about it, one persons ideas are right to the point, so you don't have multiple views on a certain subject, but with the point of view of more than one person, it leaves room for doubt and less truth.

meditation 6 - dreams

"dreams are never joined by the memory with all the other actions of life, as is the case with those actions that occur when one is awake," (Descartes, 103)

I think that D is making it known that he feels like dreams dont come from your memories. I happen to believe that dreams come from various parts of the brain being stimulated. Back in descartes day these guys didn't have the type of knowledge that we have know about our mind.

Meditation 6 "Dreams"

"...dreams are never joined by the memory with all the other actions of life, as is the case with those actions that occur when one is awake," (Descartes 103).

I'm not sure if I'm understanding what he is saying here but to me "D" is saying that our dreams are never caused by memories. How can that be true? We all have dreams that have something in it that we have seen in the past or present. Yes, sometimes we have dreams about things we have never seen but I think our dreams are somewhat our memories.

Meditation 6 "Senses"

"The first was that everything I ever thought I sensed while awake I could believe I also sometimes senses while asleep, and since I do not believe that what I seem to sense in my dreams comes to come from things external to me, I saw no reason why I should hold this belief about those things I seem to be sensing while awake," (Descartes 95).

This is really interesting. It also goes with my previous post for "Body and Mind." When you're dreaming your senses come from your mind like when you're awake, not external things. Even though you're sleeping you still sense the pain you're having. Your dreams come from your mind and imagination not things external from you.

Meditations Six

I find it interesting how Descartes jumps around in this section. He begins by completely relying on his senses and believing they just came with him as a natural part of life, to completely losing faith in his senses, and back to relying on them again. He's somewhat contradicting himself based on his previous ideas on truth and doubt. That's where the issue of God comes in. I don't quite understand Descartes true position on God yet because he's so inconsistent with his thoughts, but it is almost as if he is using God as the basis for everything he has doubt it. By that I mean whatever he doesn't understand or he can't completely prove true, he uses God almost as a backup for his doubt. He wants to believe certain things are attainable, but really has no way to make sure of it. So his belief in God allows him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure if thats going to make complete sense to anyone else or not.

Meditations Part VI

In Part VI, i feel like a main obsession of Des Cartes is believing that mind and body begin to exist as one.

"D" begins to feel many things such as his apetite and excitement,and pleasure. He also begins to sense things such as light ,colors,odors, What i feel is happening is that D doesnot know what we know in todays times.... We know that the brain is made up of sections that have electrical impulsesthroughout to tell us what to do and when to do it. The brain tells how sense things and how to touch and what to feel.
"D" thinks that these things that he is feeling have something to with God. He thinks God has something to do with all these senses and feelings. "D" doesnt realize about the functions of the brain yet.

please comment if you feel like i misintreperted this passage or if you have anything to add.

Meditation 6 "Mind and Body"

"But I had sometimes heard it said by people whose leg or arm had been amputated that it seemed to them that they still occasionally sensed pain in the very limb they had lost." -(Descartes 95)

I think this goes back to whether are we a mind, brain or both. In my psychology class I learned that Descartes believed in Dualism. A Dualist is believing that we have a mind and brain and they work together. I think when people lose limbs, their brain thinks there should be something there but your mind knows that there isn't. The brain senses something is wrong and that is where the pain comes from.

Meditation 6 "Nature"

"I call hunger, warn me to have something to eat, or why should dryness in the the throat warn me to take something to drink, and so on? I plainly had no explanation other than that I had been taught this way be nature." - (Descartes 95)


This is an interesting thing "D" talks about. It made me think of when we are babies and how we cried when we were hungry. How did we know how to do that at a such a young age, is it instinct? But then I started thinking our parents were taught that when we cried to feed us. So maybe we put them together and then learned that is how we got fed.

Discourse 2

"I thought that it was necessary for me first of all to try to establish some there and that, this being the most important thing in the world, and the thing in which hasty judgment and prejudice were most to feared, I should not try to accomplish that objective until I had reached a much more mature age than that of merely twenty three..."

I think this goes for a lot of things in life. We shouldn't start to try and figure out things at a immature age. At a young age our minds are still developing our full opinions and judgments on any matter. Think about it, is your mindset still the same as it was in your middle school days? Same goes for "D" trying to figure out the truth in all the information he has put into his mind over the years.

Rob Blank- part Dos

Descartes believed in four very disntinctive ideas. I saw him as kind of a stubborn man but he was honest.

He never believed anything unless he was the one who could prove it on his own. He also learned how to reduce anything he faced to the simplest of parts. He would use those ideas in simplest to hardest as he created a chain of reasoning and based his theories on that.

He said that his learning of science was terrible because of his understanding that many different men created the ideas he was ssuppose to follow.

Part 2 - Jen Bea

• Going off what Rosie had said above, Descartes believes that your own opinions alone are better then combining thoughts with others. When you start to bring your thoughts together with other people, your opinions get changed. When you work with others you have to compromise and twist your opinions around. At the end of coming to an agreement with everyone, your original idea is probably only a little part of the end result.
  
• He then talks about how all our opinions are off of others. We have learned off our parents, teachers, elders and so on. If you think about it, all of our thoughts have come from other people. We hear someone's opinion and then we break off of it. We add our own opinions and make it our own. If we did start off with just our own thoughts and weren't influenced by others, I do believe we would be different people.
• The four rules he made up to follow by are essential to his new way of thinking. He didn't want to throw out everything he learned in the past because some of it had truth behind it.
  

Part Two

• Descartes questions the concept of truth. He thinks that people confide so much in what they are told that they don't actually see the truth in any of it, so he believes that you shouldn't believe anything you cannot prove to be true for yourself.
• Descartes uses architecture as a metaphor on his ideas of thinking for himself. He states, "Thus one sees that buildings undertaken and completed by a single architect are usually more attractive and better ordered than those which many architects have tried to patch up by using old walls that had been built for other purposes." This means that Descartes believes that the ideas of one person are closer to the truth than the collected ideas of many people. I agree with this and think of it as it being easier to comprehend one idea compared to multiple ideas.
• Descartes believes very strongly that our "foundations" or parents and teachers are much to blame for the lack of truth in our lives. He thinks that if we were to grow up thinking for ourselves and not what we were taught, our judgements would be "pure" and "solid" because that was the only way we would know how to think.
• As Descartes became more knowledgable, he realized there are four main rules to guide him through a truthful (or as close to the truth as you could possibly get) life and he found that it was a good way to organize his thoughts: 1.) Never accept anything as true that you cannot prove to be true yourself. Don't judge anything unless you know in your mind it is so clear that there is no doubt about it. 2.) To work better to resolve issues, cut things into small pieces and little by little it will all make sense. 3.) Conduct your thoughts in an orderly fashion from simplest to most difficult. 4.) Always solve problems completely and leave nothing out. He found these rules to be very sufficient in all aspects of life.