1. It was interesting to read how Hobbes argued for sense perception of the train of thought. Stating that we have sensory impulses that are caused from the outside world pressing against our sensory organs -- the brain and the nerves -- which sets up a causal train that Hobbes calls the train of imagination. First, the body has a sense that is caused by some motion acted upon it from the outside world, then this sense decays into what he calls imagination. Imagination then in turn eventually decays into memories. In this way, Hobbes argues for a perpetual and coherent structure to our mental capacities in what he deems our train of imagination.
2. In Spinoza, I found it interesting how, in his 2nd letter, he argued for the cause of what someone wills to be the result of some sort of external force moving on the will, somewhat like what Hobbes suggests. This goes directly against Descartes notion of ideas having an innate quality and cuts right at is argument.
1) In chapter 3 of Leviathan 1 on page 9, I thought that Hobbes had an interesting thought of the past present and future. I had not thought of it in that way but he explains that the present is the only thing that exists while the past exists but only by memory and the future doesn't exist at all and we can only speculate. What I got from this is that I do not exist in the future or the past, but only in the present moment. 2) I also thought that Hobbes had an interesting insight on page 5 in chapter 2 where he differentiates imagination and memory. He says that they are both the same thing, but they both have different purposes which is why they have different names. Where they are both 'appearances or fancies' but imagination has to do with the obstruction while memory has to do with the recall.
The "external bodies" that Hobbes had imagined is very close to what we know in modern physics as matter and the countless atoms, molecules, particles, etc. He's on to something! He is very astute for thinking that these external bodies continuously move and bump into one another.
I also like how Hobbes describes two types of trains of thought: the "unguided" train, which are our dreams; and the "regulated" train, where we have directed our thoughts in a particular direction so that it is not aimless.
1. Hobbes is a materialist that contradicts Descartes beliefs about the innate ideas, as he believes that our knowledge comes from external bodies. I noticed that when he talks about prophesying and guessing what will come next, he defends the idea that God is infinite, and that he is the cause of our ideas, just as Descartes did. Nevertheless, Hobbes believes that the cause of our ideas is not internal, but come from the external bodies we sense. 2. Hobbes believes that matter interacts with the human mind through our senses. We perceive the world because the motion passes from matter to our material body, reaching our brain and causing an idea. He argues that when the sensory motion starts to decay, we experience what we call imagination, as the idea that appears on our minds while we imagine is a persistent vision of what we sensed. Moreover, that imagination over time leads to memory, which can be divided to experience or dream.
Hobbes, I have noticed is very against the grain. In the first chapter he talks about how ideas come from sense, all sense comes from motion and all perception and sensation will come from physical motion.That the physical world will enduce sensation. I also find it very interesting that he says the artifical man is bigger and stronger than a natural man. It is very interesting that it almost seems as Hobbes does think that human beings anthropmorphize. Projecting human characteristics onto inanimate objects. I do agree that humans make mistakes and can not understand motion or just interpret in the light of reason of what science tells us, however we as human beings focus very much in our own experiences and what we know about ourselves that the judgement is very distorted and not accurate.
Maybe I am reading too much into Hobbes, but I worry that objections to his arguments may cause people to react the way I feel about Descartes later meditations. By this I mean, if one objects to a single one of his conclusions they cannot follow him to the next argument because it necessarily clings to the conclusion of the previous argument. Although I think the sort of pragmatic perspective of arguing from shared experience lends him some more leeway in this regard than I would grant Descartes. In Spinoza’s first letter, he appears to be denouncing free will when he suggests that will to volition is like whiteness to a white object. If I understand him correctly, he seems to be saying that will is not only not suitable to be a necessary cause. But he goes on to say that it is not suitable as the cause at all (including a sufficient cause.) If I am understanding this correctly, and action is only a response to the external world, then I am concerned for Spinoza’s replies to religious concerns of God and will and evil.
Bonus: I appreciate the artistic similarities in Hobbes’ introduction to Plato’s republic. They each discuss the parts of the commonwealth or city respectively, as they relate to the individual. Plato talks about the parts of the city as they pertain to the parts of the human soul. Hobbes talks about how the parts of the body, mind, AND soul map to the Commonwealth.
1) Hobes argument does have a logical train of thought, but it would undermine what it would mean to be a human. If our minds worked like how he belives (from what I understand) then our realities are not constant. If our imagination becomes memories then we could miss remember events for what they were. If this happened on a mass scale no one would ever hold the truth about mass events.
2) I like Hobbs's idea better when he goes into details about emperisiom, that we take in ideas and combined them to make imagination. Not the fact that our memories fade into imagination.
1.) In chapter one, I found interesting Hobbes’ use of the term “fancy” from the Greeks to describe all of our senses. He later states that this “fancy” is our imagination and what we call memory is when our senses begin to “decay” or fade away. Hobbes also describes how our memory is based on our past and present experiences which explains his emphasis on the importance of the influence of the external world and environment on our senses.
2.) I also found interesting how Hobbes discusses our dreams which is the imaginations or images individuals have while asleep that our senses previously perceived. I never thought that our dreams are initiated due to the “agitation of the inner parts of the person’s body” as Hobbes states and how temperature can affect the nature of our dreams. I’m curious if Hobbes also believes an inner agitation of our body is what causes us to wake up every morning.
Hobbes view of the senses and imagination is a very different than Descartes. Hobbes approach in general is the exact opposite of Descartes. Hobbes notes that even though it may be hard to decipher if you are in a dream or if you are awake it is not impossible to know the difference. When you are sleep it is very hard to know whether you are awake or not. Hobbes writes "In dreams I don't often or constantly think of the same persons, places, objects, and actions that I do waking..." Hobbes is aware of the difference in between the dream state and being awake.
1 I deeply enjoyed the reading of Hobbes. The first statement Hobbes states in the Introduction, "Nature is the art through which God made the world and still governs it". This statement really moved me. To me, I have always believe nature as an art. All of the different types of flowers and trees and when they change throughout the seasons always memorize me. To me, its like nature wants to speak to us with the different types of colors that it displays. If all of nature looked the same, you couldn't say that nature is an art.
2. Hobbes's idea about our dreams and imagination made some interesting points. When Hobbes states, "For being cold in one's sleep breeds dreams of fear, and raises the thought and image of some fearful object". I can count the endless times that I have had nightmares and now that I recall them, I was cold. My nightmares, obviously, was my imagination displaying something terrifying therefore awaking me from my sleep. Hobbes states, "Our dreams are the reverse of our waking imaginations. The motion when we are awake starts at one end, and when we dream it starts at the other". When Hobbes begins Chapter 3, our imagination is something that is created from our senses. When we have dreams, we didn't imagine them. They actually happened.
1.In the train of thought chapter, I found Hobbes take on human though interesting. I agree on the claim that people cannot conceive things that we haven't experienced before. So it is impossible for people to imagine or have clear thoughts of God because he cannot be perceived. 2. In the reason and science chapter, It was interesting when Hobbes says that children are unable to reason, until they learn to talk. I understand how he defines science as knowing the names all the consequences of an action. But children do show signs of reasoning when they reach for a bottle, they don't know what is called but they know it is there to feed them. I think they do not need speech, by looking at actions too, you can see if the person is able to reason.
Hobbes had me laughing a few times during the reading. I have a soft spot for the bluntness of the language used in describing the thinkers of the Aristotelian school. Despite my immense enjoyment of 'call outs' in intellectual discourse my favorite part of the reading had to be chapter 3, when I noticed the actual phenomenon being described as I was reading the discourse. I was in the process of zoning out and thinking about getting a cup of water when I read the distinction between the two train of thoughts, and then had to center my mind by imagining the end that I am working towards by studying philosophy.
From the Spinoza piece I hope that I am not mistaken in that I walked away from the reading with the impression that he was some sort of idealistic substance monist who believed that duality can be understood not on the level of substance but on the grounds of the mode of reality? I like the concept, and the clarity with which he articulates it I am just so confused about how he deals with temporal and material things with out claiming that they are some how illusory.
When Hobbs talks about the imagination and how it relates to a decaying sense of memory I thought that was pretty interesting. It makes sense though too because some people say that dreams are just the mind "reawakening" places that you've already been and uses people you already have seen but might not remember them. So when you dream of something really crazy it's like the mind is taking an old memory and trying to recreate it.
1. It was interesting to read how Hobbes argued for sense perception of the train of thought. Stating that we have sensory impulses that are caused from the outside world pressing against our sensory organs -- the brain and the nerves -- which sets up a causal train that Hobbes calls the train of imagination. First, the body has a sense that is caused by some motion acted upon it from the outside world, then this sense decays into what he calls imagination. Imagination then in turn eventually decays into memories. In this way, Hobbes argues for a perpetual and coherent structure to our mental capacities in what he deems our train of imagination.
ReplyDelete2. In Spinoza, I found it interesting how, in his 2nd letter, he argued for the cause of what someone wills to be the result of some sort of external force moving on the will, somewhat like what Hobbes suggests. This goes directly against Descartes notion of ideas having an innate quality and cuts right at is argument.
1) In chapter 3 of Leviathan 1 on page 9, I thought that Hobbes had an interesting thought of the past present and future. I had not thought of it in that way but he explains that the present is the only thing that exists while the past exists but only by memory and the future doesn't exist at all and we can only speculate. What I got from this is that I do not exist in the future or the past, but only in the present moment.
ReplyDelete2) I also thought that Hobbes had an interesting insight on page 5 in chapter 2 where he differentiates imagination and memory. He says that they are both the same thing, but they both have different purposes which is why they have different names. Where they are both 'appearances or fancies' but imagination has to do with the obstruction while memory has to do with the recall.
The "external bodies" that Hobbes had imagined is very close to what we know in modern physics as matter and the countless atoms, molecules, particles, etc. He's on to something! He is very astute for thinking that these external bodies continuously move and bump into one another.
ReplyDeleteI also like how Hobbes describes two types of trains of thought: the "unguided" train, which are our dreams; and the "regulated" train, where we have directed our thoughts in a particular direction so that it is not aimless.
1. Hobbes is a materialist that contradicts Descartes beliefs about the innate ideas, as he believes that our knowledge comes from external bodies. I noticed that when he talks about prophesying and guessing what will come next, he defends the idea that God is infinite, and that he is the cause of our ideas, just as Descartes did. Nevertheless, Hobbes believes that the cause of our ideas is not internal, but come from the external bodies we sense.
ReplyDelete2. Hobbes believes that matter interacts with the human mind through our senses. We perceive the world because the motion passes from matter to our material body, reaching our brain and causing an idea. He argues that when the sensory motion starts to decay, we experience what we call imagination, as the idea that appears on our minds while we imagine is a persistent vision of what we sensed. Moreover, that imagination over time leads to memory, which can be divided to experience or dream.
Hobbes, I have noticed is very against the grain. In the first chapter he talks about how ideas come from sense, all sense comes from motion and all perception and sensation will come from physical motion.That the physical world will enduce sensation. I also find it very interesting that he says the artifical man is bigger and stronger than a natural man.
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting that it almost seems as Hobbes does think that human beings anthropmorphize. Projecting human characteristics onto inanimate objects. I do agree that humans make mistakes and can not understand motion or just interpret in the light of reason of what science tells us, however we as human beings focus very much in our own experiences and what we know about ourselves that the judgement is very distorted and not accurate.
Maybe I am reading too much into Hobbes, but I worry that objections to his arguments may cause people to react the way I feel about Descartes later meditations. By this I mean, if one objects to a single one of his conclusions they cannot follow him to the next argument because it necessarily clings to the conclusion of the previous argument. Although I think the sort of pragmatic perspective of arguing from shared experience lends him some more leeway in this regard than I would grant Descartes.
ReplyDeleteIn Spinoza’s first letter, he appears to be denouncing free will when he suggests that will to volition is like whiteness to a white object. If I understand him correctly, he seems to be saying that will is not only not suitable to be a necessary cause. But he goes on to say that it is not suitable as the cause at all (including a sufficient cause.) If I am understanding this correctly, and action is only a response to the external world, then I am concerned for Spinoza’s replies to religious concerns of God and will and evil.
Bonus:
I appreciate the artistic similarities in Hobbes’ introduction to Plato’s republic. They each discuss the parts of the commonwealth or city respectively, as they relate to the individual. Plato talks about the parts of the city as they pertain to the parts of the human soul. Hobbes talks about how the parts of the body, mind, AND soul map to the Commonwealth.
1) Hobes argument does have a logical train of thought, but it would undermine what it would mean to be a human. If our minds worked like how he belives (from what I understand) then our realities are not constant. If our imagination becomes memories then we could miss remember events for what they were. If this happened on a mass scale no one would ever hold the truth about mass events.
ReplyDelete2) I like Hobbs's idea better when he goes into details about emperisiom, that we take in ideas and combined them to make imagination. Not the fact that our memories fade into imagination.
1.) In chapter one, I found interesting Hobbes’ use of the term “fancy” from the Greeks to describe all of our senses. He later states that this “fancy” is our imagination and what we call memory is when our senses begin to “decay” or fade away. Hobbes also describes how our memory is based on our past and present experiences which explains his emphasis on the importance of the influence of the external world and environment on our senses.
ReplyDelete2.) I also found interesting how Hobbes discusses our dreams which is the imaginations or images individuals have while asleep that our senses previously perceived. I never thought that our dreams are initiated due to the “agitation of the inner parts of the person’s body” as Hobbes states and how temperature can affect the nature of our dreams. I’m curious if Hobbes also believes an inner agitation of our body is what causes us to wake up every morning.
Hobbes view of the senses and imagination is a very different than Descartes. Hobbes approach in general is the exact opposite of Descartes. Hobbes notes that even though it may be hard to decipher if you are in a dream or if you are awake it is not impossible to know the difference. When you are sleep it is very hard to know whether you are awake or not. Hobbes writes "In dreams I don't often or constantly think of the same persons, places, objects, and actions that I do waking..." Hobbes is aware of the difference in between the dream state and being awake.
ReplyDelete1 I deeply enjoyed the reading of Hobbes. The first statement Hobbes states in the Introduction, "Nature is the art through which God made the world and still governs it". This statement really moved me. To me, I have always believe nature as an art. All of the different types of flowers and trees and when they change throughout the seasons always memorize me. To me, its like nature wants to speak to us with the different types of colors that it displays. If all of nature looked the same, you couldn't say that nature is an art.
ReplyDelete2. Hobbes's idea about our dreams and imagination made some interesting points. When Hobbes states, "For being cold in one's sleep breeds dreams of fear, and raises the thought and image of some fearful object". I can count the endless times that I have had nightmares and now that I recall them, I was cold. My nightmares, obviously, was my imagination displaying something terrifying therefore awaking me from my sleep. Hobbes states, "Our dreams are the reverse of our waking imaginations. The motion when we are awake starts at one end, and when we dream it starts at the other". When Hobbes begins Chapter 3, our imagination is something that is created from our senses. When we have dreams, we didn't imagine them. They actually happened.
1.In the train of thought chapter, I found Hobbes take on human though interesting. I agree on the claim that people cannot conceive things that we haven't experienced before. So it is impossible for people to imagine or have clear thoughts of God because he cannot be perceived.
ReplyDelete2. In the reason and science chapter, It was interesting when Hobbes says that children are unable to reason, until they learn to talk. I understand how he defines science as knowing the names all the consequences of an action. But children do show signs of reasoning when they reach for a bottle, they don't know what is called but they know it is there to feed them. I think they do not need speech, by looking at actions too, you can see if the person is able to reason.
Hobbes had me laughing a few times during the reading. I have a soft spot for the bluntness of the language used in describing the thinkers of the Aristotelian school. Despite my immense enjoyment of 'call outs' in intellectual discourse my favorite part of the reading had to be chapter 3, when I noticed the actual phenomenon being described as I was reading the discourse. I was in the process of zoning out and thinking about getting a cup of water when I read the distinction between the two train of thoughts, and then had to center my mind by imagining the end that I am working towards by studying philosophy.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Spinoza piece I hope that I am not mistaken in that I walked away from the reading with the impression that he was some sort of idealistic substance monist who believed that duality can be understood not on the level of substance but on the grounds of the mode of reality? I like the concept, and the clarity with which he articulates it I am just so confused about how he deals with temporal and material things with out claiming that they are some how illusory.
When Hobbs talks about the imagination and how it relates to a decaying sense of memory I thought that was pretty interesting. It makes sense though too because some people say that dreams are just the mind "reawakening" places that you've already been and uses people you already have seen but might not remember them. So when you dream of something really crazy it's like the mind is taking an old memory and trying to recreate it.
ReplyDelete