"Does this blog post exist?" & "Permission for freedom to speak?"
Does this blog post exist? – on Descartes’ 1st and 2nd Meditations
First off, I would like to say the Meditations always have, and always will be confusing to me. I believe this is in some way the purpose of them, to have one question the whole entirety of one’s reality. Which brings me to my question, does this blog exist? For if I have no body, all my senses are being fooled by, as Descartes describes as, “a supremely powerful and cunning deceiver who deliberately deceives me at all times!” , then this blog post does not actually exist. It is just perhaps a figment of my imagination while I dream. But at last! If I can be deceived or am capable of dreaming, then surely, following the logic, I must indeed exist! But as Descartes soon realizes, if I do actually exist, what do I exist as? Even if I know for certain I exist, I am still incapable of knowing what is true and false. I have no idea if I have a body or soul but, at least I have thought to question these things. As Descartes says, “Still, I am a real, existing thing. What kind of thing? I have answered that: a thinking thing.” So that is where I will leave off, with knowing I am a thinking thing and might eternally be stuck with questions that might never be answered. But I will ask anyways, does this blog exist?
Permission for freedom to speak? – on Kant’s “What is Enlightenment”
“Have courage to use your own understanding” is what Kant describes as the “motto” of enlightenment. However, using Kant’s own logic in this short essay, he proves this to be quite difficult. In fact, he himself says at one point that we are “incapable of using his own logic” because we have in a sense been babied our whole lives and thought only to think in certain ways for others and not for ourselves and our own understanding. Kant believes that “the public use of one’s reason must be free at all.” I interpret this as meaning we must free ourselves to think for ourselves and Kant seems to support that with his underlying suggestion to always question everything.
There is one line though that puzzles me and I would like some other thoughts on it. A little over halfway on page two of our handout Kant says, “He speaks as one who is employed to speak in the name and under the orders of others.” I understand this as him saying that, most of the time we are speaking for or from other people and not from our own or personal free will. How do you all feel about this? Is he saying that almost everything we say is just repeating or benefiting someone else and not from our own understanding? Thank you in advance for helping me to understand.
P.S I commented on Natalie and Sophia's post
P.S I commented on Natalie and Sophia's post
When Kant said that line, he was describing the job of the preacher. The preacher must answer to some sort of authority, such as his church. Kant is saying that a preacher is employed to say what the church believes, not necessarily what he personally believes. This means he is not free to say whatever he wants. Kant does not us to apply this line to ourselves. He is just giving an example.
ReplyDeleteThis blog does because I have to grade some of them haha. All joking aside, I've always found this way of thinking interesting. This path Descartes takes goes so far to the point we question our logic and the reality that we exist in which forms our logic, it is a hard thing to take in for me when I first confront it. I've never really given it time, and while it is cool to explore, I honestly can't. Too lofty in my opinion.
ReplyDelete"I have to grade it, therefore it exists." welcome to the Honors Council, friend. (Don't worry this isn't one of my official comments; I just couldn't resist.
Delete)
DeleteConsider this: when I agreed to work for Student Success, I had to sign a document saying I agreed with the beliefs of University of Mobile. Would the University want someone influencing freshman who was expressing beliefs contrary to the beliefs represented by the University? No, and for good reason. Although they would have to admit that I had a right to hold those beliefs, it wouldn't be what they wanted expressed as the face of the college. Kant is saying the same thing about preachers.
ReplyDeleteThis blog post does AND doesn't exist. I love how big Descartes' questions are because I wonder about the same things (it used to drive my old therapist nuts). Consider this: even if nothing is actually "real" you still, for whatever reason, have put enough importance on this blog post to dedicate time to writing it. So, what if you are only a thing that thinks and you have no body and there is no world or sky or computer in front of you? What else is your thinking thing-ness going to do? It's not like you can just stop thinking (without dying). What does "real" mean? Maybe everything around you IS just a figment of your imagination and you're really dreaming or in a coma somewhere or living in a pod in the matrix. It's not about whether you take the red or blue pill, it's about what you accept as reality. We call some people insane, when really they're just holding true to what they see as "real". Maybe we're all insane? Maybe I'm just sitting at a table somewhere tapping a table with my hands and not actually sitting in my dorm room typing on my laptop? WHO KNOWS. Sorry, I don't think I'm even answering your question anymore, I'm just going down my own little rabbit hole at this point.
ReplyDeleteRabbit holes, indeed. That is a good thing. Descartes is chasing several rabbits in his meditations. That, I think, was his point. We must think to know.
DeleteFreedom only goes as far as we take it. In life we have choices to make. Kant's talk about being under the employ of someone is one of these realities. We do have freedom to think and act as we will. Yet, we also have responsibilities to which we are constrained. Under those restrictions we have a duty to which we resign some of our freedom.
ReplyDelete