1) This reading from Locke reminded me a lot of Descartes ideas of what we can know. Locke is arguing that we intuitively know that we exist, can know God exists through reasoning, and that every other thing that we come to know we know by sensation (247). Descartes thinks that the only thing that we can know for sure (clearly and distinctly) is that we exist/ have thoughts. 2) One question that I've had throughout the class and that this reading from Locke has raised even more for me is that if God, or something must exist from eternity (page 243), than how did things get started in the first place? He argues that something can't come from nothing (243), so I am kind of baffled at what he thinks the original 'something' was? It sounds like a circular argument because something has to be made of/ caused by something and so on to infinity.
When Locke says, "To imagine that pure nothing, the perfect negation and absence of all beings, should ever produce any real existence—this is the greatest of all absurdities (pp. 243)," I really wonder what he would think of the Big Bang theory proposed several centuries after his time.
"I have to admit that men’s sticking to their past judgments and adhering firmly to conclusions formerly made often leads them to be obstinate in maintaining errors and mistakes. But their fault is not that they rely on their memories for what they previously judged well, but that they judged before they had examined well. (pp. 263)" Even to this day, many schools stress critical and objective thinking. It's true that we shouldn't jump to conclusions and should also be conscious of our biases. The scientific method is another great way to ensure a thorough examination/experiment.
1. A quote I found of importance in Locke's writing is when he states, "There is no truth more evident than that something must be from eternity." (Locke 243) Locke mentions that he never heard of someone believing that there was once a time were nothing existed. This kind of reminds me of Descartes discussion 'something must come from something.' 2. Following Locke's quote I mentioned above, Locke states: "Just as it is evident that something must exist from eternity, it is equally evident that this ‘something’ must be a cogitative being." (Locke 244) Locke makes this statement because he believes that a cogitative being could not have came from an incogitative being.
Locke states that we know of our own existence by intuition, could our intuition ever be wrong? Perception for everyone is varied based on the individual, so is it possible for our inner intuition to ever be wrong which could possibly lead to "wrong" knowledge?
"I have to admit that men’s sticking to their past judgments and adhering firmly to conclusions formerly made often leads them to be obstinate in maintaining errors and mistakes. But their fault is not that they rely on their memories for what they previously judged well, but that they judged before they had examined well"(263), does this indicate that one must go out and experience whatever it is, before making judgments? I feel as it is difficult to have absolutely no prior judgments.
1. Locke's argument in chapter 10 for God's existence is interesting. He start's out by stating that we cannot have any internal knowledge of God's existence but instead that we are capable of knowing that God's exists through reason. He states that by logical deduction we can conclude that from eternity it is evident that there was a cogitative being first and not noncogiative matter (243-244).
2. At the end of chapter 10 Locke makes a stunning statement to me. He claims that it is possible that God came from nothing. The reason why I am so shocked by this is because it is a generally highly held truism that something cannot come from nothing. However, Locke argues that just because we cannot reason how God came to be from nothing, that is not sufficient to deny that this may have been the case. Namely because as humans we have a limited capability to reason about God, and just because we can't fathom how God could do this, does not mean that he can't.
1. "...but that construct of particles isn’t you, it doesn’t constitute the thinking thing that you are." (p.246, sec. 18). Locke raises a very interesting point here, anticipating what is deemed now the hard problem of consciousness. How does inanimate matter give rise to things like qualitative experience? Locke uses this to refute a materialist notion that considers matter to be the thing that holds reality together and he also objects to a primitive atom that 'thinks'.
2. His subsequent discussions on how the senses communicate and "report" with one another depart themselves from Descartes' radical doubt. Locke finds the existence outside objects influencing minds and bodies already as a given. He seems to put trust in the senses and develops a theory on the conformity of objects to our perceptions and senses therein (p.250-251)
1. unlike other philosophers, Locke is very upfront with his ideas. Some philosophers believe that everything is uncertain and we have no proof that we actually exist. But Locke he explains that there is no argument of the existence of man. He is sure that he actually exist. Outside forces such as hunger and other discomfort will force one to realize they are a living thing. 2. Locke has a similar argument to many others in number 8. the idea that there was a point in time where nothing existed and then suddenly things did exist. Locke argues that something has always existed, that something being God.
1)I feel the fact that Locke shut down any discussion of whether it can be known that we exist with, “I have nothing to say to you” as pretty weak, especially from a philosopher. Just because we have an intuitive sense of our existence doesn't mean we can prove that it is true. 2)Is number 5 in chapter 11 giving a case for revelations? I do not know, but it seems like a mute point know that we have a better understanding of how the brain functions.
Locke reminds me of Aristotle when he discusses the kinds of knowledge and to what levels that we can know something. I feel like he believes in his senses more than other philosophers we have talked about but his claims make sense to me. When he talked about revelations I got kind of confused so I would love it if we went over this more in class.
1.) I enjoyed Locke’s argument against Descartes’ notion of God’s existence from an idea in our mind. Locke makes several valid points that challenge this innate idea such as people having different characters and different ways of thinking. Also, he states that some individuals may have no idea of God while other people may have two different conceptions of God where no census is ever reached. I agree with Locke that using this as a foundation for the existence of God is a mistake.
2.) I found interesting Locke’s comments about those who consider life nothing but a dream which is still a popular theory today. What makes this view nonsense for Locke is that our senses allow us to experience reality and preserve us and serve us in day to day life. Our senses are able to tell us what things helps us and what hurts us such as when we feel pleasure and pain. From this experience, it allows us to interact with objects in ways that will not harm us but aid us. For instance, Locke uses the example of a burning candle and we know from past sense experience not to touch the flame because it will burn us making the flame real and not some imaginary substance.
1.) Locke seems to be invoking the ol' cosmological argument here, which is a shame because his theory is so revolutionary and full of life. I guess it shows how the scope of ones imagination is limited to the time that they live in. I would wonder how he would deal with the argument that the universe goes through infinite cycles of creation and destruction. 2.) when he says the following " So If we suppose that •nothing is first or eternal, matter can never begin to be. If we suppose motionless matter to be first or eternal, motion can never begin to be. If we suppose •matter and motion to be first or eternal, thought can never begin to be" (243). I find myself wondering if this can be refuted with the notion that matter and consciousness are sort of two sides of the same coin that came into existence not through a process of creation but instead through a process of expansion from an infinitely dense point of space time.
1. Locke’s argument for God’s existence makes sense to me, as he thoroughly argues exactly what I believe. When Locke says, “If we suppose that nothing is first or eternal, matter can never begin to be. If we suppose motionless matter to be first or eternal, motion can never begin to be. If we suppose matter and motion to be first or eternal, thought can never begin to be.” (243) From the idea that nothing is first or eternal, it certainly follows that matter can never begin to be. Nevertheless, the world is packed with material (and immaterial) things. The same idea comes from his argument that motionless matter cannot be first or eternal, for otherwise motion can never begin to be. Nevertheless, we are certain about motion, as we can sense it and study it daily! I particularly liked his idea that matter and motion are not what is first or eternal, for thought can never begin to be if that was the case. I believe thinking goes beyond matter and motion. It is fascinating to me the distinct minds that exist, as every person has its own independent thoughts. Moreover, if matter and motion were first or eternal, and we link thought to that reality, does it not follow that everything that has/is made of matter and contains motion is able to think?
2. I liked the example that Locke gives on page 249 about our senses confirming each other’s reports concerning the existence of perceptible things outside us. Locke mentions the white paper and the ideas he is writing in it, and he explains, “the letters were made as a result of my mental decision to make them, so they were made at the bidding of my own thoughts; but once they have come into existence, they don’t then obey my thoughts: they don’t cease to exist whenever I shall fancy it, but instead continue to affect my senses constantly and regularly according to the shapes that I put down on the page.” Those words exist outside of ourselves when they are written in paper, and they do not cease to exist, but rather can be sensed by our sight, as we can read them; by our sense of sound, as we can hear them if someone reads them aloud; so although those words came from his mind, they are now a part of the external world and they can be senses by himself or other people just as other things outside us do.
1. Locke's argument for God's existence is similar to Descartes in that he believes our ability to conceptualize God is enough evidence to prove that he exists. He links this to the fact that we have knowledge of our own existence, too. He also claims that something cannot come from nothing when he states "from eternity there has been something; for what didn’t exist from eternity had a beginning, and what had a beginning ·wasn’t produced by •nothing, and so· must be produced by •something other than itself," (241) which is similar to Descartes' reasoning. 2. What is interesting to me is that Locke and Descartes deduct that since something can't come from nothing, everything must have come from God. This makes me question what they might say of the possibility of other life in other galaxies. Would God have created every planet with life? Could there be more than one God? How do we know that there is only one God involved in the creation of Earth? How do they know that something must come from another thing greater than itself, rather than something growing into something greater?
1. In Section 2 of Chapter X, Locke talks about the clear idea of man and his existence. What i thought was interesting was Locke goes on to state that you cannot be skeptical to deny your existence. Locke states "I think I may take for truth, which everyone's certain knowledge assures him of and will not let him doubt, namely that he is something that actually exist" (Locke 241). I thought of this statement as if someone has depression. They are constantly questioning their existence.
2. In Chapter XV section 1, I liked how Locke explained the definition of demonstration
Its not something that I had considered before but in reading Locke’s assumptions about what is “beyond question” I think that maybe the assumption of the self might even be too far if, like Locke, you are pursuing absolute truth.
I’m also intrigued by Locke’s distinction between propositions that explain the existence of things and those that explain the relationships between existent things. I wonder how closely this distinction relates to his focus on nominalism and linguistics.
1) This reading from Locke reminded me a lot of Descartes ideas of what we can know. Locke is arguing that we intuitively know that we exist, can know God exists through reasoning, and that every other thing that we come to know we know by sensation (247). Descartes thinks that the only thing that we can know for sure (clearly and distinctly) is that we exist/ have thoughts.
ReplyDelete2) One question that I've had throughout the class and that this reading from Locke has raised even more for me is that if God, or something must exist from eternity (page 243), than how did things get started in the first place? He argues that something can't come from nothing (243), so I am kind of baffled at what he thinks the original 'something' was? It sounds like a circular argument because something has to be made of/ caused by something and so on to infinity.
When Locke says, "To imagine that pure nothing, the perfect negation and absence of all beings, should ever produce any real existence—this is the greatest of all absurdities (pp. 243)," I really wonder what he would think of the Big Bang theory proposed several centuries after his time.
ReplyDelete"I have to admit that men’s sticking to their past judgments
and adhering firmly to conclusions formerly made often leads
them to be obstinate in maintaining errors and mistakes. But
their fault is not that they rely on their memories for what
they previously judged well, but that they judged before they
had examined well. (pp. 263)" Even to this day, many schools stress critical and objective thinking. It's true that we shouldn't jump to conclusions and should also be conscious of our biases. The scientific method is another great way to ensure a thorough examination/experiment.
1. A quote I found of importance in Locke's writing is when he states, "There is no truth more evident than that something must be from eternity." (Locke 243) Locke mentions that he never heard of someone believing that there was once a time were nothing existed. This kind of reminds me of Descartes discussion 'something must come from something.'
ReplyDelete2. Following Locke's quote I mentioned above, Locke states: "Just as it is evident that something must exist from eternity, it is equally evident that this ‘something’ must be a cogitative being." (Locke 244) Locke makes this statement because he believes that a cogitative being could not have came from an incogitative being.
Locke states that we know of our own existence by intuition, could our intuition ever be wrong? Perception for everyone is varied based on the individual, so is it possible for our inner intuition to ever be wrong which could possibly lead to "wrong" knowledge?
ReplyDelete"I have to admit that men’s sticking to their past judgments
and adhering firmly to conclusions formerly made often leads
them to be obstinate in maintaining errors and mistakes. But
their fault is not that they rely on their memories for what
they previously judged well, but that they judged before they
had examined well"(263), does this indicate that one must go out and experience whatever it is, before making judgments? I feel as it is difficult to have absolutely no prior judgments.
1. Locke's argument in chapter 10 for God's existence is interesting. He start's out by stating that we cannot have any internal knowledge of God's existence but instead that we are capable of knowing that God's exists through reason. He states that by logical deduction we can conclude that from eternity it is evident that there was a cogitative being first and not noncogiative matter (243-244).
ReplyDelete2. At the end of chapter 10 Locke makes a stunning statement to me. He claims that it is possible that God came from nothing. The reason why I am so shocked by this is because it is a generally highly held truism that something cannot come from nothing. However, Locke argues that just because we cannot reason how God came to be from nothing, that is not sufficient to deny that this may have been the case. Namely because as humans we have a limited capability to reason about God, and just because we can't fathom how God could do this, does not mean that he can't.
1. "...but that construct of particles isn’t you, it doesn’t
ReplyDeleteconstitute the thinking thing that you are." (p.246, sec. 18). Locke raises a very interesting point here, anticipating what is deemed now the hard problem of consciousness. How does inanimate matter give rise to things like qualitative experience? Locke uses this to refute a materialist notion that considers matter to be the thing that holds reality together and he also objects to a primitive atom that 'thinks'.
2. His subsequent discussions on how the senses communicate and "report" with one another depart themselves from Descartes' radical doubt. Locke finds the existence outside objects influencing minds and bodies already as a given. He seems to put trust in the senses and develops a theory on the conformity of objects to our perceptions and senses therein (p.250-251)
1. unlike other philosophers, Locke is very upfront with his ideas. Some philosophers believe that everything is uncertain and we have no proof that we actually exist. But Locke he explains that there is no argument of the existence of man. He is sure that he actually exist. Outside forces such as hunger and other discomfort will force one to realize they are a living thing.
ReplyDelete2. Locke has a similar argument to many others in number 8. the idea that there was a point in time where nothing existed and then suddenly things did exist. Locke argues that something has always existed, that something being God.
1)I feel the fact that Locke shut down any discussion of whether it can be known that we exist with, “I have nothing to say to you” as pretty weak, especially from a philosopher. Just because we have an intuitive sense of our existence doesn't mean we can prove that it is true.
ReplyDelete2)Is number 5 in chapter 11 giving a case for revelations? I do not know, but it seems like a mute point know that we have a better understanding of how the brain functions.
Locke reminds me of Aristotle when he discusses the kinds of knowledge and to what levels that we can know something. I feel like he believes in his senses more than other philosophers we have talked about but his claims make sense to me. When he talked about revelations I got kind of confused so I would love it if we went over this more in class.
ReplyDelete1.) I enjoyed Locke’s argument against Descartes’ notion of God’s existence from an idea in our mind. Locke makes several valid points that challenge this innate idea such as people having different characters and different ways of thinking. Also, he states that some individuals may have no idea of God while other people may have two different conceptions of God where no census is ever reached. I agree with Locke that using this as a foundation for the existence of God is a mistake.
ReplyDelete2.) I found interesting Locke’s comments about those who consider life nothing but a dream which is still a popular theory today. What makes this view nonsense for Locke is that our senses allow us to experience reality and preserve us and serve us in day to day life. Our senses are able to tell us what things helps us and what hurts us such as when we feel pleasure and pain. From this experience, it allows us to interact with objects in ways that will not harm us but aid us. For instance, Locke uses the example of a burning candle and we know from past sense experience not to touch the flame because it will burn us making the flame real and not some imaginary substance.
1.) Locke seems to be invoking the ol' cosmological argument here, which is a shame because his theory is so revolutionary and full of life. I guess it shows how the scope of ones imagination is limited to the time that they live in. I would wonder how he would deal with the argument that the universe goes through infinite cycles of creation and destruction.
ReplyDelete2.) when he says the following " So If we suppose that •nothing is first or eternal, matter can never begin to be. If we suppose motionless matter to be first or eternal, motion can never begin to be. If we suppose •matter and motion to be first or eternal,
thought can never begin to be" (243). I find myself wondering if this can be refuted with the notion that matter and consciousness are sort of two sides of the same coin that came into existence not through a process of creation but instead through a process of expansion from an infinitely dense point of space time.
1. Locke’s argument for God’s existence makes sense to me, as he thoroughly argues exactly what I believe. When Locke says, “If we suppose that nothing is first or eternal, matter can never begin to be. If we suppose motionless matter to be first or eternal, motion can never begin to be. If we suppose matter and motion to be first or eternal, thought can never begin to be.” (243) From the idea that nothing is first or eternal, it certainly follows that matter can never begin to be. Nevertheless, the world is packed with material (and immaterial) things. The same idea comes from his argument that motionless matter cannot be first or eternal, for otherwise motion can never begin to be. Nevertheless, we are certain about motion, as we can sense it and study it daily! I particularly liked his idea that matter and motion are not what is first or eternal, for thought can never begin to be if that was the case. I believe thinking goes beyond matter and motion. It is fascinating to me the distinct minds that exist, as every person has its own independent thoughts. Moreover, if matter and motion were first or eternal, and we link thought to that reality, does it not follow that everything that has/is made of matter and contains motion is able to think?
ReplyDelete2. I liked the example that Locke gives on page 249 about our senses confirming each other’s reports concerning the existence of perceptible things outside us. Locke mentions the white paper and the ideas he is writing in it, and he explains, “the letters were made as a result of my mental decision to make them, so they were made at the bidding of my own thoughts; but once they have come into existence, they don’t then obey my thoughts: they don’t cease to exist whenever I shall fancy it, but instead continue to affect my senses constantly and regularly according to the shapes that I put down on the page.” Those words exist outside of ourselves when they are written in paper, and they do not cease to exist, but rather can be sensed by our sight, as we can read them; by our sense of sound, as we can hear them if someone reads them aloud; so although those words came from his mind, they are now a part of the external world and they can be senses by himself or other people just as other things outside us do.
1. Locke's argument for God's existence is similar to Descartes in that he believes our ability to conceptualize God is enough evidence to prove that he exists. He links this to the fact that we have knowledge of our own existence, too. He also claims that something cannot come from nothing when he states "from eternity there has
ReplyDeletebeen something; for what didn’t exist from eternity had a
beginning, and what had a beginning ·wasn’t produced by
•nothing, and so· must be produced by •something other
than itself," (241) which is similar to Descartes' reasoning.
2. What is interesting to me is that Locke and Descartes deduct that since something can't come from nothing, everything must have come from God. This makes me question what they might say of the possibility of other life in other galaxies. Would God have created every planet with life? Could there be more than one God? How do we know that there is only one God involved in the creation of Earth? How do they know that something must come from another thing greater than itself, rather than something growing into something greater?
1. In Section 2 of Chapter X, Locke talks about the clear idea of man and his existence. What i thought was interesting was Locke goes on to state that you cannot be skeptical to deny your existence. Locke states "I think I may take for truth, which everyone's certain knowledge assures him of and will not let him doubt, namely that he is something that actually exist" (Locke 241). I thought of this statement as if someone has depression. They are constantly questioning their existence.
ReplyDelete2. In Chapter XV section 1, I liked how Locke explained the definition of demonstration
Its not something that I had considered before but in reading Locke’s assumptions about what is “beyond question” I think that maybe the assumption of the self might even be too far if, like Locke, you are pursuing absolute truth.
ReplyDeleteI’m also intrigued by Locke’s distinction between propositions that explain the existence of things and those that explain the relationships between existent things. I wonder how closely this distinction relates to his focus on nominalism and linguistics.