This begets a very natural question; What is meant by a skeptic? And how far it is possible to push these philosophical principles of doubt and uncertainty?
... I must confess that a man is guilty of unpardonable arrogance who concludes, because an argument has escaped his own investigation, that therefore it does not really exist. I must also confess that, though all the learned, for several ages, should have employed themselves in fruitless search upon any subject, it may still, perhaps, be rash to conclude positively that the subject must, therefore, pass all human comprehension.
... There is a species of scepticism, antecedent to all study and philosophy, which is much inculcated by Descartes and others, as a sovereign preservative against error and precipitate judgement. It recommends an universal doubt, not only of all our former opinions and principles, but also of our very faculties; of whose veracity, say they, we must assure ourselves, by a chain of reasoning, deduced from some original principle, which cannot possibly be fallacious or deceitful.
(David Hume, 1737)

Who do we trust

I realize Descartes only gave a person one chance to gain his trust.But I feel there are circumstance sometimes beyond our control that would interfere with the person's ability to follow through.

As a youngster I was fortunate to have adult models who were always trustworthy. My parents and siblings and grandparents always followed through with anything they said they would do. They gave me the support and guidance I needed to become a young adult.

My grandmother would always say," Keep your word. Your word is your bond and don't say something you do not mean or will not do. It is the only way another person can trust you."

As I got older I realized what she meant. I had peers who did not have integrity. They would say one thing and then blow it off as unimportant. I am an optimistic person and would give the person a second chance. When the same thing happened again, I knew they could not be trusted to follow through on what they promised. When that happens you lose respect for them.

I see politicians get elected into a public office and conveniently forget to do what they promised the people who voted for them. Would you vote for them again-I wouldn't. Honesty gives a man self worth and gains the respect of his family, friends, colleagues and community.

Science Fiction and Philosophy

I love reading science fiction and fantasy and have been doing so since I learned to read. I realized recently the effect these kinds of stories have on the way I look at philosophic questions, and so I was surprised that we actually talked about a scifi story in class today.

The genre, otherwise known as speculative fiction, is based entirely on the question "what if?". By always asking this question, I can theoretically look at every possibility in every situation I come across. I don't feel any particular need to settle on one possibility as The Truth, but instead, am interested in these different perspectives in themselves as ways to define reality. When asked the question what is more certain, that you exist or that the sun will rise tomorrow, I think of the different ways that either of these things may not be certain: that I may be a programed artificial intelligence in some giant virtual world, that there may be a malfunction in this virtual world and the sun will not rise, that my mind and my thoughts are all illusions created by something much greater than me, and that I as an individual entity do not exist, that an asteroid will hit the earth, knocking it out of orbit, therefore it will not be rotating to create the illusion of the sun rising, etc. After imagining all those possibilities, (which essentially is what Decartes did, so I don't understand why he goes back and says that imagining things is a bad method from which to reason out knowledge), I decide that whether I exist or not objectively, I exist subjectively to myself, and that is good enough for me. Also, not being sure the sun will rise tomorrow is probably a bad excuse for not doing my philosophy homework so I will continue to operate as if it will.

Decartes uses a similar method for studying the question of reality and what we can know about it, by doubting everything, but his and my opinions differ because he assumes he is thinking and that there is nothing that can construct these thoughts but himself. He also assumes there must be perfection, one form of truth in any situation, and that deception is a form of imperfection. I assume no such things, and thus can be certain of nothing. I guess that allies me with Shakespeare, Montaigne, and the skeptics. Well, Shakespeare did write fantasy.

Discisions and sources

We are influenced by people around us everyday i dont think Descartes took that in account. If we continuously look inside to much for answers and have internal conflict with every dicsion we become detached from other resources around us in the physical world. I believe it is important to use as many sources an influences as possible, but ultamently it is our decision on any topic in our head that should suggest we forget about the world and people around us to help find the answers we seek.

Dreaming

In class today we had a paper rating how sure we are of these things:
This is what I personally thought

1. I am thinking
2. I exist
3. I am now not dreaming
4. My mother is female
5. The ground feels hard
6. 9+6=15
7. The ground is hard
8. I am older then 15
9. Their is Oxygen in Water
10. Paris is the Capital of France
11. All Humans are Mortal
12. The Sun will rise tommorow

I thought it was really interesting how most put "I am now not dreaming" near the bottom because it is somthing we have to believe ourselves and no one can tell us this. I definately put this near the top because its not somthing I have to trust the knowlege of someone else for, I know I'm not dreaming because of what's happening around me and my awareness and knowledge of whats going on. In my dreams I let my imagination take over and I know I'm dreaming for you can move through time whenever you want and look in different views unlike reality. I'm told this isn't the same for others but the idea of dreaming is a very interesting concept and i guess other people view it differently as if mind cannot control or know whats going on in the time of sleep.

Des Cartes's idea of knowledge

In class we talked about Des Cartes's beliefs and theories. One of Des Cartes's points was that knowledge is accesable to everyone in the same way and that man has the capacity to come up with truth. This is a major point I'm going to make in my paper so I won't elaborate on it to much in this blog but I disagree with Des Cartes's theory. I don't think everyone can comprehend knowledge in the same way. Not everyone can reach to the same level of knowledge as others can. I don't think I could ever reach the level of knowledge as Albert Einstein could no matter how hard and how long I tried - its just not possible. I also disagree with the idea that we have the capacity to come up with truth. Although humans have the capacity to comprehend obvious truths like 2+2=4 and my mother is female. Man will never come up with an answer such as "Is their a God" and "How Earth was created" - Man can come up with a truth they believe in such as christianity or the big bang theory but this is not truth because it cannot be proven. This is only a small basis of what I will cover in my paper

Knowledge & Authority

The first two exercises we did in class today dealt with the idea of knowledge and authority -- on what basis do we accept things as truth? Descartes argues that reason is the only authority, but in practice we frequently appeal to authorities other than ourselves -- and this is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, part of thinking for oneself could include deciding whom to trust in which situations. Which authorities do you trust, outside yourself? On what grounds do you trust them?

Science of Sleep

While reading Shakespeare's A Midsummer's Night Dream, I kept thinking about the movie The Science of Sleep. In this movie, the main character is in a constant struggle to determine his dreams from reality. The movie depicts his dream state as a cardboard television set from which he crosses in and out of while dreaming. He often sleep walks, and so sometimes what he thinks he did while dreaming, he actually did in reality. At one point he even writes a love note to his neighbor and slips it under her door, complicating their real-life relationship.

This made me think that whether or not Shakespeare's characters were in a dream or reality, the night still had real effects on their waking lives. Their relationships were definitely altered after the night. The subconscious can often reveal truths about myself; things I was not aware I was feeling are often brought out through dreams. Reading into my dreams often lets me make connections and become more introspective.

It is one of my favorite movies and I recommend it if you are interested in sleep or the subconscious. Or you want to see something really beautiful. Here is a clip of one of the main character's dreams.