1) On page 2 section 5, in Locke's essay I think what he was saying was incredibly inspirational if I'm reading it right. His main argument is that truth/ knowledge is not innate but that God has to a certain extent, bestowed truth and information on all of creation. In this section I was inspired by Locke saying that God has given us everything we need which is "the conveniences of life and the forming of virtuous characters-... everything they need to discover how to thrive in this life and how to find their way to a better one..." I really like the word 'thrive' since it means not just living or being, but being (in my opinion) the best being you could possibly become where you are at one with God (or the idea of). 2) I especially liked this same section on page 2 section because it also emphasized that everybody has a different 'constitution' and specific abilities that they are able to grasp better than other beings. By appreciating our own specific capabilities and letting go of the idea that we can do more than what our minds allow- "if they don't presumptuously complain about their own constitution and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with because their hands are not big enough to grasp everything" we can be more at peace with our own nature allowing us to 'thrive'. I especially like when philosophers use analogies/ metaphors because it allows me to grasp the concept better by visualizing the idea as well as understanding it through a different perspective.
The Third Point that Boyle makes is really intriguing: "We can’t conceive any principles more basic than matter and motion. Either both of them were immediately created by God or, if matter is eternal and thus was never created (as some hold to be the case) it must be the case that motion was produced by some immaterial supernatural agent, or motion is something that the moving matter just naturally produces itself." I wonder if this is possibly dark matter or dark energy? To me, it may be "supernatural" in the sense that, to this day, modern science still can't put a finger on it. But would this mysteriousness be "supernatural" in the sense of a deity? Is the "immaterial supernatural agent" another deity besides the Abrahamic god, or some other new, unknown agent in physics, perhaps? Or is it something else that is mystical and spiritual, rather than scientific?
1. Contrarily to the idea of the philosophers we read before, Locke is an empiricist that believes that we do not have innate ideas, but obtain our knowledge through experience. Locke states, “none of our intellectual possessions are innate” (3). I learned a little bit about Locke in another philosophy class, and I actually liked his empiricism. In page 4, Locke writes, “People who are in the grip of a prejudice don’t bother to look carefully at what they say; and so they will say things that are suspect—indeed almost meaningless—and pass them off as clear reasons,” and I completely agree with this idea! 2. Locke cannot consent the idea that we possess innate ideas, for he does not believe we can have innate ideas and not be conscious of those ideas. He mentions children when talking about this, and I can clearly understand his point. It is nearly impossible to know at what stage our ideas come to our minds by ourselves. When do we notice we exist? First, we need to have an idea of what existence means, knowledge that we will most likely acquire by someone else. Does this mean that children do not know they exist because they do not understand existence? It makes me think about modeling, as kids, just as some animals, can be trained during early development to behave according to the standards; it also makes me think about certain things a kid says that are most likely just words they heard from adults and they repeat them sometimes even without understanding them.
1. The introduction to Boyle's "Excellence of Mechanism" was of particular interest, especially as we are addressing and evaluating the metaphysical claims of Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. On these first few pages Boyle is addressing why his mechanism serves as a good metaphysical explanation. He outline 4 distinct points, but for my understanding, in summary he is asserting that mechanism does the job best because it is clear and easy to understand. Meaning that while concentrating his concerns on the existence of corporeal objects alone, Boyle is eliminating the need to explain the existence of the mind. Furthermore, as he states, the mechanical nature of matter and motion is simpler than the abstract nature of the mind.
2. It is interesting how Locke, in his introduction and first section of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding turns the rationalist principle of innate ideas on its head. He says that it is ridiculous to hold that certain principle's are held innately, yet somehow we still need to use reason to access them. Because if these so called innate truths were really held in an innate way, then it would not be the case that one would need to rationalize about them. Instead they are learned principles that one is able to access outside of themselves using this reason.
I think it is refreshing to read a philosopher like Locke, whose tendency toward a more straightforward metaphysics and epistemology more closely resembles my own. I don't now for sure that I would consider myself a mechanist, but I certainly prefer it over Leibniz's monads and Descartes' innate ideas.
I actually enjoy how Locke approaches his arguments against innate ideas. I think his examples are simple and clear, as well as technical in terms of their logic. His criticism of universal consent really made me pause to wonder why I had never questioned that feature when I encountered it, because when Locke brings it to one's attention, it is hard to ignore the fact that anything could be justified in such a way, even if it were characteristically not true.
I find it very interesting that Boyle states the mechanical principles of the world are clear and have no fault, yet we humans perceive these principles and we can always have errors in our perceptions and judgements. This is just a thought I was having whilst reading.
I find it very interesting that Locke is not supporting the innate ideas being built in concept. That the knowledge and experience has to be there in order to almost “mold” a person and their values? So are we just empty brains that need this habitual process of knowledge and experience to be built into ourselves?
1. What caught my eye in Boyle’s essay was his comparison of art and nature. He writes, “nature (or rather its Divine Author) usually works with much finer materials, and employs more intricate contrivances than art (so that the structure of even the most complex watch is incomparably inferior to that of a human body),” and “a human artist can make pieces of work of the general kind as nature’s though very different in size, and in these works we can see skill and complexity like nature’s though not equal to it,” (Boyle, page 4). I thought this was interesting when thinking about creation from my own perspective as an artist. I think about sculpting a model of the human body and incorporating every detail as it is in nature—still, we can’t create the same kind of human body as God did, with each part of the body working together to keep said human alive, in motion, and thinking... Boyle illustrates the difference in the complexity and intricacy of what God created versus what humans might create. A major difference in this is scale; obviously a human could not create something with the same scale as the universe or the world. This then makes me think of world building. We can create worlds but we are limited in the size of them, the amount of matter that is tangible to us, etc. These ideas seem obvious at surface level but are still interesting to think about and apply to our understanding of other ideas.
2. Lock makes some inevitable points about innate knowledge, particularly when he says “children or idiots have no thought—not an inkling—of these [universally accepted] principles, and that fact alone is enough to destroy the universal assent that any truth that was genuinely innate would have to have,” (Locke, page 4). I agree with this— how can one claim an idea is universal without actually knowing everyone is the universe shared that idea? How would we ever know what ideas are innate and which are not? If a child or an “idiot” were left alone with nothing to experience or learn from, would they be able to obtain their innate ideas? If not, are they really innate? Like Locke says, “to imprint anything on the mind without the mind’s perceiving it seems to me hardly intelligible,” (4)
1. While reading Robert Boyle about the excellence of mechanism, I thought it was interesting when he states chemists can analyzed the body into 5 simple elements. On page 9, Boyle states "Regarding more than three: some chemist claim that the right number is five: all mixed bodies can be analyzed into exactly five simple elements" (Boyle 9). I agreed with him when he stated that he does agree with the chemists. It is not stated what are the five simple elements that make up the body.
2. During the reading of John Locke, he brought up a very interesting point. He states, "Perhaps then we shall stop pretending that we know everything, and shall be less bold in raising questions and getting into confusing disputes with others about things to which our understandings are not suited" (Locke 2). There are countless arguments that can be resolved if we as people accept this philosophy. People should stop arguing without understanding facts.
1. "All that is left for these innatists to claim is this·: Maxims or innate truths are never known or noticed before the use of reason, and may be assented to at some time after that, but there is no saying when. But that is true of all other knowable truths; so it doesn’t help to mark off innately known truths from others" (13). Locke makes a good point here that I'm sure he helps to elaborate later, namely that where does the demarcation lay for for innate properties if there are, and how to distinguish them from empirically-learned observations? 2. Also, his repeated assertion of railing against the universal assent of innate ideas is redundant and narrow-minded, precisely because the multifarious variations of language may not be generally agreed upon by all cultures, but the basic functions formed at birth may be acknowledged as being there. Some objections to his examples of children and illiterate savages: could children or savages have this capacity to recognize ideas already formed inside themselves? There a lot of complications with Lockes' insistence of No Innate ideas and I am curious to see how he executes this promise to rebut it.
1) On page 2 section 5, in Locke's essay I think what he was saying was incredibly inspirational if I'm reading it right. His main argument is that truth/ knowledge is not innate but that God has to a certain extent, bestowed truth and information on all of creation. In this section I was inspired by Locke saying that God has given us everything we need which is "the conveniences of life and the forming of virtuous characters-... everything they need to discover how to thrive in this life and how to find their way to a better one..." I really like the word 'thrive' since it means not just living or being, but being (in my opinion) the best being you could possibly become where you are at one with God (or the idea of).
ReplyDelete2) I especially liked this same section on page 2 section because it also emphasized that everybody has a different 'constitution' and specific abilities that they are able to grasp better than other beings. By appreciating our own specific capabilities and letting go of the idea that we can do more than what our minds allow- "if they don't presumptuously complain about their own constitution and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with because their hands are not big enough to grasp everything" we can be more at peace with our own nature allowing us to 'thrive'. I especially like when philosophers use analogies/ metaphors because it allows me to grasp the concept better by visualizing the idea as well as understanding it through a different perspective.
The Third Point that Boyle makes is really intriguing: "We can’t conceive any principles more basic than matter and motion. Either both of them were immediately created by God or, if matter is eternal and thus was never created (as some hold to be the case) it must be the case that motion was produced by some immaterial supernatural agent, or motion is something that the moving matter just naturally produces itself." I wonder if this is possibly dark matter or dark energy? To me, it may be "supernatural" in the sense that, to this day, modern science still can't put a finger on it. But would this mysteriousness be "supernatural" in the sense of a deity? Is the "immaterial supernatural agent" another deity besides the Abrahamic god, or some other new, unknown agent in physics, perhaps? Or is it something else that is mystical and spiritual, rather than scientific?
ReplyDelete1. Contrarily to the idea of the philosophers we read before, Locke is an empiricist that believes that we do not have innate ideas, but obtain our knowledge through experience. Locke states, “none of our intellectual possessions are innate” (3). I learned a little bit about Locke in another philosophy class, and I actually liked his empiricism. In page 4, Locke writes, “People who are in the grip of a prejudice don’t bother to look carefully at what they say; and so they will say things that are suspect—indeed almost meaningless—and pass them off as clear reasons,” and I completely agree with this idea!
ReplyDelete2. Locke cannot consent the idea that we possess innate ideas, for he does not believe we can have innate ideas and not be conscious of those ideas. He mentions children when talking about this, and I can clearly understand his point. It is nearly impossible to know at what stage our ideas come to our minds by ourselves. When do we notice we exist? First, we need to have an idea of what existence means, knowledge that we will most likely acquire by someone else. Does this mean that children do not know they exist because they do not understand existence? It makes me think about modeling, as kids, just as some animals, can be trained during early development to behave according to the standards; it also makes me think about certain things a kid says that are most likely just words they heard from adults and they repeat them sometimes even without understanding them.
1. The introduction to Boyle's "Excellence of Mechanism" was of particular interest, especially as we are addressing and evaluating the metaphysical claims of Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. On these first few pages Boyle is addressing why his mechanism serves as a good metaphysical explanation. He outline 4 distinct points, but for my understanding, in summary he is asserting that mechanism does the job best because it is clear and easy to understand. Meaning that while concentrating his concerns on the existence of corporeal objects alone, Boyle is eliminating the need to explain the existence of the mind. Furthermore, as he states, the mechanical nature of matter and motion is simpler than the abstract nature of the mind.
ReplyDelete2. It is interesting how Locke, in his introduction and first section of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding turns the rationalist principle of innate ideas on its head. He says that it is ridiculous to hold that certain principle's are held innately, yet somehow we still need to use reason to access them. Because if these so called innate truths were really held in an innate way, then it would not be the case that one would need to rationalize about them. Instead they are learned principles that one is able to access outside of themselves using this reason.
I think it is refreshing to read a philosopher like Locke, whose tendency toward a more straightforward metaphysics and epistemology more closely resembles my own. I don't now for sure that I would consider myself a mechanist, but I certainly prefer it over Leibniz's monads and Descartes' innate ideas.
ReplyDeleteI actually enjoy how Locke approaches his arguments against innate ideas. I think his examples are simple and clear, as well as technical in terms of their logic. His criticism of universal consent really made me pause to wonder why I had never questioned that feature when I encountered it, because when Locke brings it to one's attention, it is hard to ignore the fact that anything could be justified in such a way, even if it were characteristically not true.
I find it very interesting that Boyle states the mechanical principles of the world are clear and have no fault, yet we humans perceive these principles and we can always have errors in our perceptions and judgements. This is just a thought I was having whilst reading.
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting that Locke is not supporting the innate ideas being built in concept. That the knowledge and experience has to be there in order to almost “mold” a person and their values? So are we just empty brains that need this habitual process of knowledge and experience to be built into ourselves?
1. What caught my eye in Boyle’s essay was his comparison of art and nature. He writes, “nature (or rather its Divine Author) usually works with much finer materials, and employs more intricate contrivances than art (so that the structure of even the most complex watch is incomparably inferior to that of a human body),” and “a human artist can make pieces of work of the general kind as nature’s though very different in size, and in these works we can see skill and complexity like nature’s though not equal to it,” (Boyle, page 4). I thought this was interesting when thinking about creation from my own perspective as an artist. I think about sculpting a model of the human body and incorporating every detail as it is in nature—still, we can’t create the same kind of human body as God did, with each part of the body working together to keep said human alive, in motion, and thinking... Boyle illustrates the difference in the complexity and intricacy of what God created versus what humans might create. A major difference in this is scale; obviously a human could not create something with the same scale as the universe or the world. This then makes me think of world building. We can create worlds but we are limited in the size of them, the amount of matter that is tangible to us, etc. These ideas seem obvious at surface level but are still interesting to think about and apply to our understanding of other ideas.
ReplyDelete2. Lock makes some inevitable points about innate knowledge, particularly when he says “children or idiots have no thought—not an inkling—of these [universally accepted] principles, and that fact alone is enough to destroy the universal assent that any truth that was genuinely innate would have to have,” (Locke, page 4). I agree with this— how can one claim an idea is universal without actually knowing everyone is the universe shared that idea? How would we ever know what ideas are innate and which are not? If a child or an “idiot” were left alone with nothing to experience or learn from, would they be able to obtain their innate ideas? If not, are they really innate? Like Locke says, “to imprint anything on the mind without the mind’s perceiving it seems to me hardly intelligible,” (4)
1. While reading Robert Boyle about the excellence of mechanism, I thought it was interesting when he states chemists can analyzed the body into 5 simple elements. On page 9, Boyle states "Regarding more than three: some chemist claim that the right number is five: all mixed bodies can be analyzed into exactly five simple elements" (Boyle 9). I agreed with him when he stated that he does agree with the chemists. It is not stated what are the five simple elements that make up the body.
ReplyDelete2. During the reading of John Locke, he brought up a very interesting point. He states, "Perhaps then we shall stop pretending that we know everything, and shall be less bold in raising questions and getting into confusing disputes with others about things to which our understandings are not suited" (Locke 2). There are countless arguments that can be resolved if we as people accept this philosophy. People should stop arguing without understanding facts.
1. "All that is left for these innatists to claim is this·: Maxims or innate truths are never known or noticed before the use of reason, and may be assented to at some time after that, but there is no saying when. But that is true of all other knowable truths; so it doesn’t help to mark off innately known truths from others" (13). Locke makes a good point here that I'm sure he helps to elaborate later, namely that where does the demarcation lay for for innate properties if there are, and how to distinguish them from empirically-learned observations?
ReplyDelete2. Also, his repeated assertion of railing against the universal assent of innate ideas is redundant and narrow-minded, precisely because the multifarious variations of language may not be generally agreed upon by all cultures, but the basic functions formed at birth may be acknowledged as being there. Some objections to his examples of children and illiterate savages: could children or savages have this capacity to recognize ideas already formed inside themselves? There a lot of complications with Lockes' insistence of No Innate ideas and I am curious to see how he executes this promise to rebut it.