A Gnostic Version of Descartes: The Matrix

By
Through everything we have read so far, a two things remain constant. Russell continually repeats the same points of epistemology that he stated in the first section and he sounds like a gnostic version of Descartes. Over and over we hear the "If I turn my back to the table, does it exist then or am I imagining it" talk. Does matter really exist? Do I even exist? Descartes settled that in the Meditations. I think therefore I am. He does give us the idea of systematic doubt, which has been a foundation for science to organize itself self into the system it is now; but Russell takes this to a whole new, and what I see, wrong extreme.

I'm being a little facetious here, but following Russell's logic everything around us, even the things we have known for our entire lives could very well be a dream. The things we clearly perceive before us could be nothing more than nerve impulses. In fact, we could be part of an elaborate bio-electrical farm for machines like in the Matrix. Who knows?

P.S. I commented on Ethan and Sophia's posts.

 

Comments

  1. Will BradyFebruary 5, 2018 at 11:07 PM

    If your whole life is a dream, what reality does your sleeping mind exist in? And what happens when you fall asleep and dream? Could we take Poe’s “dream within a dream” literally? The biggest question of all is, of course, what does it matter? If you live in a fanciful dream world, is there a point to philosophizing or looking for truth?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brenna StringfellowFebruary 5, 2018 at 11:35 PM

    See I love Descartes, in fact I became really excited when Russell brought him up in several chapters because I enjoyed his whole concept of "I think therefore I am." I soon realized after reading I just got really confused and just simply wanted to understand because he took it to a whole different level.

    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