1. The Wikipedia article unfortunately fails to correctly interpret the quotation in which Descartes says "I firmly believed that in this way I should much better succeed in the conduct of my life, that if I build only upon the old foundations, and leaned upon principles which, in my youth, I had taken on trust." How does Wikipedia interpret this quote? What is the correct interpretation of this quote, based on a close reading of what it actually says? (This is a hit-or-miss kind of question, so I won't mind if you skip it.)
- Since this is a hit or miss question, i dont mind taking a crack at it: Wiki seems like they reinterpreted it verbatim, it seems with your use of "fails to correctly interpret.." that this is not a correct interpretation of this quote. The correct interpretation may be, It would better serve him to doubt everything and all the training he had had was built on "swampy" foundation. So he took elements of his own education and tested them till they were undoubtable. i dunno if this is correct, but i took a crack at it...
2. Explain the four precepts by which Descartes seeks to discover true knowledge. (Just FYI, Descartes does not mean to suggest anything to do with the senses by the term "clear and distinct.")
- The four precepts are:
a. Accept only that which you are sure of
b. Divide into as small parts as necessary
c. Solve the simplest problems first
d. Make as complete lists as posible
I guess all of these four precepts are needed to discover true knowlege. Without one, your knowledge would be incomplete. This first one, Accept only that which you are sure of, is pretty straightforward, dont take something that you havent researched yourself as fact. Second, Divide into as small parts as necessary, this enables a person to examine an issue from all angles and down to the minute detail. Third, Solve the simplest problem first, this is smart becuase you'll save tons of time, and it would serve as an appetizer for your brain to get started witht he meat of the problem. Fourth, Make as complete lists as possible, this helps you organize your thoughts so that you dont confuse yourself. My interpretation maybe false but i think that its pretty straightforward.
3. According to Shorto, what is the relationship between religion and the scientific method?
- Shorto believes that the scientific method was created in order to overthrow the religious method.
4. According to Shorto, what great controversy continues to the present day?
- The controversy that ignited by Descartes and continues today is, along the lines of: Islamic terrorists spurn the modern world and pine for a culture based on unquestioning faith; where scientists write bestsellers that passionately make the case for atheism; where others struggle to find a balance between faith and reason."
5. What was threatened by Descartes' method, and how was it threatened?
- The Church was threatened by Descartes' method (Cartesianism). I think that it was threatend because of democracy and science when the Church represented the opposite of that.
6. The Book Lady talks about a conflict between modernity and traditionalism. As best you can come up explain what you think she means by "modernity." If your idea of modernity is different from hers, explain your idea as well.
- I think that by modernity she means reason and by tradition she means religtion. I guess she referes to reason as modernity because of the way people thought during modern times as opposed to the conservative closed minded tradtionalists. I suppose i can agree with her reffering to modernity as reason because the modern era is more openminded and reasonable than the conservatives who believe in something with absolute faith, no matter what reason points at.
7. What does Shorto think is the proposal contained in "The Discourse on the Method for Rightly Conducting the Reason?"
- Shorto thinks that it is a "modest" proposal ground knowledge not on received wisdom from the Bible or kingly power but on human reason.
8. Although Shorto does not mention it in the article, the Discourse was written in French, a language spoken by pretty much everyone in France, and not in Latin, a language spoken by scholars, a very small proportion of the population who almost never discuss their work with people who were not scholars. What do you think the social effect might have been of writing this book in French rather than Latin?
- Well with any language, things are lost in translation, and i think that was probably the biggest thing back then. And as for social effect, i guess the scholars might have considered it a slap in the face, that this book was translated into French. I dunno, its the best i could come up with.
9. What is Shorto's own interpretation of Descartes' importance in forming the modern world? What, if anything, is Shorto's argument for his interpretation?
- Shorto's own interpretation of Descartes' importance in forming the world was that he was creating a world in which you could understand things without faith.
10. Based on all the reading you have done for this unit, what is your opinion of Shorto's view of Descartes, and of Shorto's argument, if any?
- Shorto's view of Descarte is an accurate one, i think. Some of his ideas may be compromised because he is only looking at it from one angle: to write his book. I think that in order to fully understand descarte one has to disect his beliefs and look at the without any sort of bias or end game.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Hobbes - "Blogging Questions
61. Explain Hobbes's view of human nature as completely as you can. What was Hobbes's model of a human being? For Hobbes, how did human motivation work? Given this model of motivation, what kind of behaviors should we expect from unregulated human beings?
- Hobbes believed that human nature was based upon our needs, if we were cold, our reaction would be to warm ourselves up.. if we were hungry, our action would be to eat. Our entire nature is based up on pleasure and pain, we do things mainly to get rid of a physical discomfort we may have. Its almost as if we are motivated by our next meal or motivated to satisfy our next need. We are built that way. Our actions are almost "mechanical" in the way we go about things, so very predictable.
62. For Hobbes, how is human nature related to human behavior in the state of nature? Given his model of human nature and motivation, how would we expect human beings to behave if there is no sovereign authority regulating our actions?
- The first thing that came to my mind when I read this was, "Survival of the fittest." Hobbes' belief of "competition, defiance, and glory" seem to fit the bill. We are a self interested being, and we will do whatever is necessary to appease our desires. It would be one big "war."
63. For Hobbes, what is the fundamental justification for the founding of a commonwealth? What would people give up, and what would they gain in the founding of the commonwealth? What overriding reason would human beings have to hand over absolute power to a sovereign authority?
- Hobbes believes that people are unable to rely independently to secure "livelihood and contentment." Therefore, human beings form commonwealths. This enables them to better rely on each other using social contracts and etc. They would have to give up the idea of living in the state nature and govern over themselves freely. They would gain peace of mind. An overriding authority would be elected in order to maintain control and make sure social contracts were honored and not ignored. One problem with "absolute power" is that it absolutely corrupts, this elected official would succumb to the same pressures that any other human would fall to.
64. In Hobbes's model, who are the contracting parties in the social contract? Is the sovereign involved in the contract? Why or why not?
- The contracting parties in the social contract would be those individuals that want order. the sovereign is not involved in this contract. I think that one is elected just to be elected and they do not have absolute power.
65. Explain Hobbes's model of political legitimacy. For Hobbes, under what circumstances is a political authority legitimate? Under what circumstances is it not legitimate? Explain your views on Hobbes's reasoning in your answer.
- Hobbes believes that "political obligation ends when protection ceases. Also, Legitimacy doesn't depend on how a
a sovereign came to power, but rather on how well it can effectively protect those who obey it. I tend to agree with this answer because, what good is a government that cant protect its constituents. I think that the safety and protection of its constituents should be the main priority.
66. For Hobbes, should power be divided in a commonwealth? What does Hobbes think would happen if power was divided? Does Hobbes think this would be a good or a bad thing? Explain your answer.
- Hobbes view is that there should only be one ruler in the commonwealth. If power was divided, he thinks that the government would be rendered powerless if one branch of government contradicted the other. Therefore, it would be most efficient if there was one ruler. I dont think that this is a good idea because earlier, when we talked about only one person having power, it would maybe bring about corruption, its weird how he seems to ignore that with his reasoning for having one powerful leader.
67. For Hobbes, should power be limited in a commonwealth? What does Hobbes think would happen if the power of the sovereign was limited? Does Hobbes think this would be a good or a bad thing? Explain your answer.
- Hobbes believes that if power were limited it compromises the idea of a commonwealth. I guess the patriot act would fall under this question. We want our government to protect us from the dangers of the world. The government thinks that buy using the patriot act it can protect us more thoroughly, we believe the patriot act to be an invasion of privacy. In this way, Hobbes believes, that it just makes the job of the commonwealth much more difficult if power were limited.
- Hobbes believed that human nature was based upon our needs, if we were cold, our reaction would be to warm ourselves up.. if we were hungry, our action would be to eat. Our entire nature is based up on pleasure and pain, we do things mainly to get rid of a physical discomfort we may have. Its almost as if we are motivated by our next meal or motivated to satisfy our next need. We are built that way. Our actions are almost "mechanical" in the way we go about things, so very predictable.
62. For Hobbes, how is human nature related to human behavior in the state of nature? Given his model of human nature and motivation, how would we expect human beings to behave if there is no sovereign authority regulating our actions?
- The first thing that came to my mind when I read this was, "Survival of the fittest." Hobbes' belief of "competition, defiance, and glory" seem to fit the bill. We are a self interested being, and we will do whatever is necessary to appease our desires. It would be one big "war."
63. For Hobbes, what is the fundamental justification for the founding of a commonwealth? What would people give up, and what would they gain in the founding of the commonwealth? What overriding reason would human beings have to hand over absolute power to a sovereign authority?
- Hobbes believes that people are unable to rely independently to secure "livelihood and contentment." Therefore, human beings form commonwealths. This enables them to better rely on each other using social contracts and etc. They would have to give up the idea of living in the state nature and govern over themselves freely. They would gain peace of mind. An overriding authority would be elected in order to maintain control and make sure social contracts were honored and not ignored. One problem with "absolute power" is that it absolutely corrupts, this elected official would succumb to the same pressures that any other human would fall to.
64. In Hobbes's model, who are the contracting parties in the social contract? Is the sovereign involved in the contract? Why or why not?
- The contracting parties in the social contract would be those individuals that want order. the sovereign is not involved in this contract. I think that one is elected just to be elected and they do not have absolute power.
65. Explain Hobbes's model of political legitimacy. For Hobbes, under what circumstances is a political authority legitimate? Under what circumstances is it not legitimate? Explain your views on Hobbes's reasoning in your answer.
- Hobbes believes that "political obligation ends when protection ceases. Also, Legitimacy doesn't depend on how a
a sovereign came to power, but rather on how well it can effectively protect those who obey it. I tend to agree with this answer because, what good is a government that cant protect its constituents. I think that the safety and protection of its constituents should be the main priority.
66. For Hobbes, should power be divided in a commonwealth? What does Hobbes think would happen if power was divided? Does Hobbes think this would be a good or a bad thing? Explain your answer.
- Hobbes view is that there should only be one ruler in the commonwealth. If power was divided, he thinks that the government would be rendered powerless if one branch of government contradicted the other. Therefore, it would be most efficient if there was one ruler. I dont think that this is a good idea because earlier, when we talked about only one person having power, it would maybe bring about corruption, its weird how he seems to ignore that with his reasoning for having one powerful leader.
67. For Hobbes, should power be limited in a commonwealth? What does Hobbes think would happen if the power of the sovereign was limited? Does Hobbes think this would be a good or a bad thing? Explain your answer.
- Hobbes believes that if power were limited it compromises the idea of a commonwealth. I guess the patriot act would fall under this question. We want our government to protect us from the dangers of the world. The government thinks that buy using the patriot act it can protect us more thoroughly, we believe the patriot act to be an invasion of privacy. In this way, Hobbes believes, that it just makes the job of the commonwealth much more difficult if power were limited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)