Thinking About Thinking

By
In this week’s reading of Descartes’s meditation on First Philosophy, I was blown away with his ability to think about his own mind, without taking into account everything his mind had previously thought. Taking up the process of reasoning by writing with pen and paper, as well as to not be led astray by the arduous process of choosing words to write while trying to UNBIASEDLY think is difficult (that’s going to need explaining), and I just want to commend him. Concerning the questions he raises, his breakdown of what can be perceived as true and unshakeable is extremely reasonable, and I agree with him in the sense that in order to understand what is reality, we have to also attack what we believe so that we might reason its realness better. If we only understand our side of an argument, how vulnerable are we to accept falsehoods as truth, rather than understand where doubt lies within our arguments and beliefs, study them, reason with and against them, and reach a better conclusion? Kant almost presents an opposite idea, stating that possibly it would be good to allow all of mankind to create and believe in their own opinions, but I feel as though the point Descartes is making helps provide a more sound way to think about the world in general.

 Commented on Michael's and Carmen's 

Comments

  1. Nathanael C. CarrollSeptember 18, 2017 at 11:20 PM

    Kant is not necessarily against Descartes. If anything, he is encouraging more people to dare to know, to dare to actually think for themselves, which is where Descartes' emphasis for himself is. So, though I agree with what you said about Descartes, I think Kant is more in line with him than you implied.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Honest Reaction to Reading "Honest to God"

By
Originally I said in my last blog post that I liked this book, but I have sort of changed my mind. It is not that I hate it or anything, it is just weird and I don’t really agree with what John Robinson is saying most of the time. I appreciate that he is trying to write something different and new, but my problem is that some of the ideas are just a little too radical for my taste, and I disagree with him a lot. In the seventh and last chapter of the book, Robinson himself acknowledges his radicalness and writes about how he knows that this type of thought on religion is controversial. He goes on to write how all great thinkers were seen as controversial when they first started and says, “Every new religious truth comes as the destroyer of some other god”. To further prove this point, he uses the example of how Socrates was condemned as an atheist for not believing in multiple gods, and while it is true that Socrates was a great philosopher who was not seen as so when he was alive, I ...
Read more

Raphael and a man walk into Eden...

By
I'll just start off by saying Raphael is one of the three named archangels in Scripture we hear the least about, and I thoroughly enjoy just reading and seeing his name pop up. Regardless, I want to touch on Adam's recounting of his own..."birth". Take that with a grain of salt as Adam was not physically born, but rather he simply became. In truth, we should all be able to give a similar account to their first memory of consciousness and fully aware. Adam was created, but he realized he could walk, talk, and speak without first learning. Imagine being able to think clear thoughts in your native language and be a functioning individual right out of the womb. It's an incredible thought, and Adam can give a recall of this like it were yesterday...which it might have been, who knows? Aside from that, Adam could even give an account to Eve's creation. The Bible says nothing pertaining to this matter so this is where Milton does a bit of adlibbing and writes around ...
Read more

Extra blog

By
OK so, honors project! Honestly I really loved it as a whole. I said this already in the video, but I feel like I personally could've done better. I just feel like I didn't have enough time to completely process some questions and be able to give my best responses. I really enjoyed reading the O'Connor piece, which I think was everyone's favorite anyway. I love narrative stories like that, but honestly I'm glad I got to be in the Russell group. I feel like that group was the easiest to argue and answer from, honestly. As a whole, I would love to do a project like this again in later semesters. It was a lot of fun and time FLEW by.
Read more