Kant's argument on Metaphysics

He believe that metaphysical cognition must consist obly apriori judgment.

According to the standford encyclopedia of philosophy, "one of Kant's main complaints is that metaphysicians seek to deduce a priori synthetic knowledge simply from the unschematized (pure) concepts of the understanding. The effort to acquire metaphysical knowledge through concepts alone, however, is doomed to fail, according to Kant, because (in its simplest formulation) “concepts without intuitions are empty”"

Kant's judgemnt on experience.

Kant said," ......we can know more of any object than belongs to the possible experience of it or lay claim to the least knowledge of how anything not assumed to be an object of possible experience is determined according to the constitution that it has in itself. For how could we determine anything in this way, simce time, space, and all the concepts formed by empirical intuition in the sensible would have an d could have no other use than to make experience possibly?"
(page 85)
Kant is saying that if something that happened once doesn't mean it's going to happen again the same way because the second time all factor will change that can effect the event.

Kant's concept on how Mathematic is a priori!

According to Kant, "all mathematical cognition has this peculiarity: it must first exhibit its concept in intuition, and do so a priori, in an intuition that is not empirical but pure."

I think i disagree with Kant, I believe that math is not A Pirori which means that knowledge that is independent of observation. If math is A Pirori than that much mean that math is inate!

A critical examination of the nature of the thinking and perceiving mind!

Kant tells us that reality is a joint creation of external reality and the human mind and that it is only regarding the latter that we can acquire any certain knowledge. Kant challenges the assumption that the mind is a blank slate or a neutral receptor of stimuli from the surrounding world. The mind does not simply receive information, according to Kant, it also gives that information shape. Knowledge, is not something that exists in the outside world! knowledge is something created by the mind by filtering sensations through our various mental faculties. These faculties determine the shape that all knowledge takes, we can only grasp what knowledge, and learn truth.

On the Determination of the bounds of pure reason

Kant( The Clearest arguments having been adduced, it would be absurb for us to hope that we can know more of any object than belongs to the possible experience of it or lay claim to the least knowledge of how anything not assumed to be an object of possible experinece is determine according to the consitution that it has in itself) pg 85 I believe that kant means by that everything is base on expereince that with experinece you gain knowledge and more experience. I agree with him, without experincwe we think we have knowledge but its wrong because you need to go through experiences in order to gain knowledge.

What is a Normal good sense?

Kant( It is the faculty of the knowledge and use of rules in concreto, as distinguished from the speculative unsderstanding, which faculty of knowing rules in abstracto. Common sense can hardly unsderstand the rule that every event is determine by means of its cause and can never comprehends it thus generally. It therefore demands an example from experience; and when it hears that this rules means nothing but what it always thought pg 103) What he means is that true knowledge is something sure and distinguishesd. Now common sense you could hardly understand it, and that it comes from a cause that can never be understand it. For example with common sense you could confirm by experience.

Rationalism and Empiricism

Kant and Hume agree on something and that is when kant draws the idea that pure reason is capable of significant knowledge but rejects the idea that pure reason can tell us anything about things in themselves. From empiricism, he draws the idea that knowledge is essentially knowledge from experience but rejects the idea that we can have no necessary and universal truths from experience.

Time And Space

Kant arguesin here, are pure intuitions of our faculty of sensibility, and concepts of physics such as causation and inertia are pure intuitions of our faculty of understanding. Supposely our Sensory experience only makes sense because our faculty of sensibility processes it. How do we do that? is by organizing it according to our intuitions of time and space. These intuitions are the source of mathematics. Our number sense comes from moments in time, and geometry comes from our intuition of space. Events that take place in space and time would still be a meaningless if it were not for our faculty of understanding, which organizes experience according to the concepts, like causation, which form the principles of natural science.

Kant And Math

Kant argues that mathematics and the principles of science contain synthetic a prior knowledge. Math is a priori because it is a necessary and universal truth we know independent of experience, and it is synthetic because the concept of the results of the problem. Is not contained in the concept of the problem itself. Kant argues that the same is true for scientific principles such as, “for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction.

perceiving experience

also when we experience something we do so because we have senses if we didnt have those senses then we would feel at all. we wouldnt be able to experience and in turn perceive or guess what would happen on certain occasions.

perceiving experience

Well kant regarding this topic of perception and experience he basically said that without experience there is no way we can perceive what will happen again when we go through that same experience. for example when we get touch a hot object and get burned we learn not to do it,.we try to teach our kids not to do because we perceive the same will happen.

Kant and conclusion of pure reason

on page 85
KAnt explains in a way how one can not know what will happen unless experienced for themselves.
lets just say if a ball is thrown on the floor and it bounces back up they can say that if they do it again it will occur yet again. however these ideas are only guesses. they cant really prove that the ball will bounce exactly the same way back up.

KAnt and math

KAnt in regards to math basically said that in order for math to make sense and exist is must be in steps otherwise it wont work. the problem will not work or make sense unless there are more then one step it cant be completed in a single step.
however if these steps dont work then the problem cant work also. its like a puzzle if the pieces are alike in color, but are not really the same then those pieces wont fit.

kant 2

Kant and the geometry of the triangle.

Kant is basically tring to say that even though two things may seem similar in ever aspect that there will be a difference and that one thing cannot take the other ones place.

KAnt

Kant and the science of metaphysics

according to kant critique and critique alone, contains in itself the whole well-proved and well-tested plan, and even all the means required to accomplish metaphysics, as a science; by other ways and means it is impossible. so basically by studying it and trying to prove it and explaining and really looking into it can it be made into science.

Kant's view on Judgment being a piori

"Former judgment is merely a judgment of perception and is of subjective validity only: it is merely a connection of perceptions in my mental state, without reference to the object."

Kant said that when you first make a judgment of something or someone, you merely just judgment them, it's a natural response of being human. so he think it is a piori.

Kant's view on Synthetic judgment!

Kant think that denying an analytic truth leads to contradiction, but denying a synthetic truth is strange but not contradicting, He use the judgements of experience as an example of synthetic.

he said," Judgment of experience are always synthetic. For it would be absurd to base an analytic judgment on experience, as our concept suffices for the purpose without requiring any testimony from experience."

he's right though because in class we talked about how an Analytic truth about all bachelors are unmarried, and the sythetic part is that if the bachelor are sport center. All bachelors are unmarried is the truth because being a bachelor means that u have to be unmarried, but being a bachelor don't necessarly means that u have to be sport center, even though most of them are.

Kant's view on Analytic Judgement

Kant believe that analytic judgments depend on priciple of contradiction,

He said, "For the predicate of an affirmative analytic judgment is already thought in the concept of the subjct, of which it cannot be denied without contradiction....such is the case of the judgements: "All bodies are extended," and "No bodies are unextended""

It is true through denying an Analytic truth leads to contradiction, but denying the synthetic truth is strange but not contracdicting.

Pool ball

When Hume talks about the white ball rolling smoothly toward the other ball we can assume that it will stop. but if someone that never played pool can't really tell whats going to happen. another thing that come into play is the way the ball was hit and where the white ball hits the other ball. for example if u scratch the other ball with the white ball then it wont stop but instead keep going in a slower moving in another direction. so then hume is wrong in saying that the ball will stop.

Memory regarding feeling pain.

Hume believes that even though memory of pain is stored in the mind there will never be another one that equal the same pain because the mind stores but is unable to calculate the same amount of pain. so basically you can't feel the same amount of pain again.

Hume Probability

( thought there be no such thing as a chance in the world , our ignorance of the real cause of any event has the same influence on the understanding, and begest a like species of belief or opinion pg 37) What i think hume is talking about is that there are always chances that something will turn into something else. We always have probabilities and if a human understand them then it will be easier to undertand the human beliefs.

Hume (Senses)

Hume believes that Senses that immediately turns the though to another person. He puts them to the present with the same qualities and relations of which he formerly possess. Senses are very different feelings and have much greater influence of every kind either to give plesure or pain, joy or sorrow. Do you believe with Hume thought of senses?

Hume Doubt

( Why no philosopher who is rational and modest has ever pretended to assign the ultimate cause of any natural operation or to show distinctly the action of power which produces any single effect in the universe pg 19) Hume in this part he is doubting the philosopher understandings.

Hume part 2 Cause and Effect

(A person/philosopher who is brought up with strongest traits of reasoning , that person would be succesful on understanding but beside that he wont be able to reach other conclusions or use the idea of cause and Effect pg 27 )Hume believes that a greter philosopher will always reach a certain level but than it willl not go any farther , for example he would not understand the fact of cause and effect.

Hume!

"A Philosopher may live a remote from business, the genius of philosophy , if carefully cultivated by several most gradually diffuse itself throughout the whole society and bestow a similar corretness on every art and calling" What Hume means is that no matter what a philosopher will always live through his writtings and it will alwasy inmcrease with a lot wisdom. Than he talk about politicians, lawyers, and government that all them will be put together with philosophy.

The Special Doubts concerning The operation of the Understanding

What Hume is trying to say in understanign the doubts would be Matter. Matters of fact are seen as objects of human reasoning. The evidence of truth is greater. The facts of matter is still possible it can never be contradicted and and bring or mind with easy and distinctiness thoughts!! Do you believe that evidence of truth could be greater?

miracles

MIRACLES i believe do not exist and the thing that happens is that evolution make a stand. for example birds just we see a bird that cant fly doesnt mean that they never could. it was just that evolution made that bird more suitable for its environment. so miracles dont really exist.

violation of natural law 2

but then again the cause and effect factor might be compromised as well because since we see trees growing upward we expect all of them to do the same, but yet if the tree structure is deformed then we cant say that all trees grow upwards.

violation of natural law

I think that there can be violation of natural laws. for example miracle i believe are example of this type of violation. lets just say trees always grow upward well there might be per say a specific time or day in which a tree might just have its structure deformed and start growing in the opposite directions.

Hume

Cause and effect

i think that if something is produce and then reproduced that we can expect that the outcome will be the same as the one before. however Hume mentions that we can expect that. but if we throw a ball at a window once and then again it will break once and again. the outcome will be the same with the only exception that the way the window will shatter would be different.

Hume's Probability

he belief that there is no such thing as Chance in this world, but he do belief in probability.

He said, "if a die were marked with one figure or number of spots on four sides, and with another figure or number of spots on the two remaining sides, it would be more probable, that the former would turn up than the latter"

Hume's idea on Miracles

Hume simply don't believe in miracles. he think that miracle is due to laws of nature and simply is experience and it can't never be proved!

He said that, "It is experience only, which gives authority to human testimony: and it is the same experience, which assures us of the laws of nature.........no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any such system of religion."

Hume's orgin of ideas!

Hume think that our memory have a way of fading ideas that is once there. We can't never recall the same ideas back from the orginal state.

" every one will readily allow, that there is a considerable difference between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the pain of excessive heat, or the pleasure of moderate warmth, and when he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation, or anticipates it by his imagination. These faculties may mimic or copy the perceptions of senses;but they never can entirely reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment."

and i agree with what he is saying. When you touch something that is really hot at that moment, it's really painful, but once one hour pass, when you try to recall the pain, it's really hard to recall the same pain.

Hume's pool example!

Hume think that cause and effect is based on our own experience. He used the pool example to prove his thought.

He said," We fancy, that were we brought, on a sudden, into this worl, we could at first have inferred, that one Billiard-ball would communicate motion to another upon impulse, and tht we needed not to have waited for the event, in order to pornounce with certaintconcernignit. Such is the influence of custom, that conceals itself, and seems not to take place, merely because it is found in the highest degree."

You can't tell what is the result without relevant factor.

Hume

Hume's believe in a priori theory!

Hume don't believed in "a priori theory" where knowledge which is independent of observation. He believed in " a posteriori theory" which knowledge which is gained in virtue of observation.

he said," who will assert, that he can give the ultimate reason, why milk and bread is proper nourishment for a man, not for a lion or a tiger?"

Hume's idea on cause and effect!

"This propostion, that causes and effects are discoverable, not by reason, but by experience,"

Hume think that the cause and effect relationship can only be discovered by experience, without experience, then how would we know what might happen to the two things. I agree with him through, if i never saw someone playing basketball before. I would never know that if u shoot toward the board in a certain degree, then ball will go in the net.

IDEAS

why our ideas are not capable of infinity. pg 147

locke is this passage is explaining how our ideas have no real way of reaching infinity so to an extent we cant reach the truth by adding ideas upon ideas, because as he said if we have a white color and add a whiter color it will be whiter, and if we add the whitest color it will be even more whiter, but what other color is whiter then the whitest color??? so there is a flaw in search of the truth by adding to the truth so then can we reach the truth???

collective ideas

one idea.pg 232

throughout this passage Locke discusses that ideas are formed from adding on to older ideas and if this is how ideas come to be, who is to say that truth does not work the same way. if a slight truth is found say The book is heavy, why is the book heavy, because it has alot of pages, why does it have many pages because its full of information. why is it full of information because locke is in search for knowledge because he want to get to the truth. by doing this we can arrive at some truth and keep on adding it until we get to the truth of why the book is heavy.

(Appearance in the mind true or false)

Locke in here is trying to say that since we make our own truth we tend to judge, but he also says that if we doubt our ideas that are true or false , we always going to think that we are right . Our mind is tricky and lead us to believe that we are saying the truth even though is not . Locke believes that if our mind is mental or verbal, our ideas are not capable of being false. Locke has a different thought than Decartes. Locke says that since we make our own truths we might tend judge it wrong. Decartes says to his readers just to believe and trust their selfs not others. Seems to me that Locke belives too much in himself. What do you think?

Mode of Thinking !!!

(Hence it is probable that thinking is the action note essence of the soul!!!!!)Pg 159 What Locke is trying to say in here is that we believed that our mind is tired but even when we are sleeping our senses produce very vivid and sensible ideas. You could actually relate this with Decartes. I remember reading about his dreams . He did not understand why did they seem so real! I guess Locke made it clear for us that our mind is always working even when we are sleeping. Things that might look real are actually just dreams and things that are real we tend to put it as dreams!! I believe we all experience those kind of dreams.

Body and Mind Continues!!! pg 92

(Fire may burn our bodies with no other effect than it does a billet unless the motion continued to the brain, and there the sense of heat or idea of pain be produce in the mind , where in consist actual perception)pg 92 What Locke in trying to say here is that our bodies dont feel pain unless our brain instructs them to. Seems like he is tryng to say that our body wont follow , everything depends on what the mind says!!!

Body and Mind (when only the mind receives the impression)

"Whoever reflects the passes in his own what mind cannot make him have any notion of it) Changes that are made in the body if they are not capable of reaching the mind , watever changes will not work. If a person does not find within themselves than is worthless. Humans are capable of reaching beyond the expectations of other, but one of teh human mistakes is not believing in our self. We are not capable of working with our mind. The mind says something but you start to doubt yourself , that when everything becomes worthless!!

Truth!!! (not on the mind)

(Childrens and idiots have souls, mind with those impression upon them, they must unavoidable perceive them and necessary know and assent to these truths , which since they do not , it is evident that there are no such impressions)
In this passage Locke says that if the truth is to be said and if they baby and idiots have souls and minds , they must not be blind by false opinions. As we all know we get blind by false opinions instead of the truth. Seems like that typical human mistake. When we have the truth right in out faces we still dont see it or act as if it was never there. In Locke opinion the truth doesnt exist and our mind is ignorant...Do you agree with Locke?

Body and Mind

Locke seems to believe that men are capapble of having greater knowledge. If they put their mind and go for it. Locke and Decartes are too different philosophers they think too diferently. Decartes has been always confused on thought and his writting. Seems Like Locke knows and trust his own thought and that is why he belives in his writtings. Locke also seem ti believe its not good to show false thoughts to his readers , he tries to be as truthgul as he cant be. He has put his mind and thoughts together.

Mind: method of ideas

Locke think that our mind is obstracts, denominates, compares, and exercises it's operations about simple ideas.


I think he's right about that, becuase who's to know if there is such a thing called "truth" in the world. The only thing we know is that we use our sensation and reflection in our mind to judge. "what one know to be truth, might not be true to everyone"

mind: existence and unity

According to locke: "When ideas are in our minds, we consider them as actually being there, as well as we consider things to be actually without us: which is, that they exist, or have existence: and what ever we can consider ass one thing, whether a real being or idea, suggests to the understanding the idea of unity."

I kind of agree with Locke, because if there is an idea in our mind then it must exist, but if u don't see it right now, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!

Is only when the mind receives he impressions!

According to Locke the answer is "yes"

He said that "everyone will know better by reflecting on what he does himself, when he sees, hears, fees,& etc, or thinks, than by any discourse of mine."

He think that what ever that passes in the mind, cannot be missed, but if the person didn't not reflect on the word then the word cannot make him have any notion of it.

The mind can neither make nor destroy them!

The simple ideas are suggested and funuished to the mind with sensation and reflection. Once the simple idea is stored , it has the power to repeat, compare, and unite them to infinite variety and can also make new complem ideas. So Locke is saying that once the simple idea is stored in our mind, their is no way to invent or frame one new simple idea in the mind, nor any force of the understanding to destroy those that are there.

The steps by which the mind attains several truths

Locke said that mind fist let in a particular idea, grow familiar to that idea, lodged it in the memory and name them. But he doesn't think that knowledge in the mind is not innate, but acquired, which are imprinted by external things. He purpose the idea of an infant having earliest to do, which make the most frequent impressions on their senses.


he said that, "For a child knows a certainly, before it can speak, the difference between the ideas of sweet and bitter, as it knows afterwards, when it comes to speak, that wormwood and suga-plums are not the same thing."

Gods truth...

Does god really exist. from what I've been reading of Locke and Descartes they both seem to denounce god. one does it by saying that if god exists why does he not reveal the truth to his disciples and the other mentions that god can be an abstract idea made up by people who shared the same smaller idea. and they got together and made up the story. so the questions still stands is there an all powerful being??

Truth...in ideas

Ideas referred to anything may be true or false...pg307

Locke is suggesting that since we make our own truths that we tend to judge it to be true or false because we perceive it to be true or false according to our judgment. Say god is one of the things that men believe in he will be true and will exist only because we want to make it exist , but not because he really does. this in an obscure way denounces god. he also mentions that if two men share the same idea without communicating to each other then it must be true. however Descartes always said never to trust another mans judgment because we all think differently. so who is right???

the truth can be made up.

Made Voluntarily...pg 108

throughout this section Locke mentions how ideas are made of smaller simpler ideas put together and can only reach what the mind can allow it to reach. Basically going back to Descartes thought that truth is in us but since our minds have a limit of thought we can't access it. Locke is saying that our minds have limits as well however, the truth is made up by us from simpler thoughts. and these thoughts are improved again and again. again going back to Descartes when he would say that he took his ideas and just improved on them because our first ideas would not make sense. so i believe that Locke is telling us that because we are free to improve on our old ideas we can make up our own truths, which in turn allows man kind to not have a truth.

truth...

useful to know the extent of our comprehension.


in this passage Locke tries to explain how far our minds power can reach. at what point do we understand things and until what point do we lose knowledge of what is being thought of. so he thinks that our minds have a limit. and therefore we can not comprehend truth because our minds cant reach that level of intellect or in this case that level of thought. we can not understand truth. in a way he seems to be sending Descartes's work into a garbage can . because of our minds cant reach that point of understanding then how can we see the truth??

Locke's: Truth innate in ouur mind and soul

'not on tbe mind naturally imprinted, because not known to children, idiots, ..."


in this passage, Locke had commented that it is contradicting to him that truth can be imprinted on the soul, if there is such thing as the truth being innate in our human mind than there won't be perceiption in certain things. He said that if the truth us imprinted in humand mind and is babies and idiots have souls, minds, they must not be perceived by false opinion. But everyone knows that we all get perceived by certain things. So According to Locke the innate of truth don't exist in our mind or soul.

Descartes i think is to much of a unique thinker even for this time. his work is very confusing to everyone because he tends to contradict himself. but what i wonder is who decided to make Descartes work so important. how can anyone really make sense of his work if the meaning of ideas changes because of peoples individualism?

Locke's: body and mind!

In class, we discuss how locke think that our body and our mind is not innate with each other. I disagree with it, because a new born baby do not know what a 3 sided triangle is when it sees one. We are all babies at one point of our lives, all of us learn from our senses, which we use our body to help us. sure we can figure out problems in our head without the help of our body, but with out our body's sensory fuction, we won't even know what is it in the beginning!

Is he agreeing with people judgments ?Decartes you are CONFUSING!!!!!

( I cannot say whether i have been successful in this , and i do not at all want to prejudice the judgements of anyone in speaking for myself about my writings ; but i shall be very happy if they are examined, and, in order to have more of an apportunity to do this, i am imploring all who have any objections to make against them to take the trouble to send them to my publisher and be advised about them by him)
He also says that he will reply back , because readers will judge the truth all the more easily. What does he mean with this? Is he trying to tell us that he does not want criticism but honesty to him? I know as a reader we look at it in different perspectives. In these sentence i guess his fair enought to say that sometimes what he rights does not make any sense. I have a question doesnt a judgements means honesty?. Sometimes people judges us for our own good and than we become better. I am probably wrong and confused again.

I Dont know What to believe anymore!!!!

In meditation Decartes is talking about believing in god , but in a way he does not think it exists. He believes what is not ordinary, nothing real , but something real he think is not possible. In one of the writting he says ( As if i did not recall having been decieved on other occasions even by similar thoughts in my dream! As i consider these matters more carefully, i see so plainly that there are no definitive sign by which to distinguish being awake from being sleep. As a result, i am becoming quite dizzy, and this dizziness nearly convinces me that i am sleep. ) How can someone feel that the dizziness means the person is sleeping? Confusing right? Imagine reading what he says? Right now i might even confuse you, but i guess i am just trying to make a point that Decartes is one confusing person!!!

Meditation: my doubt

One way to deal with not writing the wrong information down in Decartes book is to not write anything that he doubt on. Decarte purpose to reject anything that he finds with doubt. But I was wondering how he's going to do that because not everything is without doubt


"..........i should withhold my assent no less carefully from opinions that are not completely certain and indubitable than I would from those that are patently false..............it will suffice for the rejection of all of these opinions, if I find in each of them some reason for doubt."

according to our senses

"For in the beginning it is better to make use only of those observations which present themselves of their own accord to our senses and which we could not ignore, provided we reflect, however so little, on them,rather thanto search for unusual and contrived experiments."

According to Decarte, it is more simple to make observation according to things that are there according to our senses, than finding and experimenting something that is completely new! and the experiments might deceive you because you are uncertain of their environments.

back to descartes

... iam extremely prone to err and that i almost never rely on the first thoughts that come to me, still the experience i have of the objections that can be made against me prevents me from expecting any profit from them. for i have already often put to the test the judgment of those i took to be my friends, as well as of some other whom i took to be indifferent, and even of those too whose maliciousness and envy i knew would try hard enough to discover what affection would hide from my friends.
Descartes i believe in some previous parts mentions how he does not trust anyones else's ideas but his own and yet here he is trying to perform a controlled experiment. trying to figure out a scientific method by which to arrive at truth of being. however he also mentions that not everyone thinks alike and the idea that he may develop might be distorted in someone else's mind. in other words not everyone is going to see things the same way.

Why are certain things doubtful and not doubtful?

(Thus is not improper to conclude from this that phisics, astronomy, medicine, and all other desciplines that are dependant upon the consideration of composite things that are doubtful, and that, on the other hand, arithmetic, geometry, and other such disciplines, which treat of nothing but the simplest and most general things and which are indifferent as to wether these things do or do not in fact exist, contain something certain or indubitable.) the Meditator concludes, though he can doubt composite things like medicine, phisics and astronomy. The meditator cannot doubt the simple and universal parts from which they are constructed like shape, quantity, size, (arithmetic and geometry). The Meditator says weather his sleep or awake you can't doubt the arithmetic or geometry. It can't be possible that such facts can be a dream. In this part the meditator is trying to prove that not all is a dream, there are things that are real and that you cannot be decieve and be doubtful. That is probably why the meditator puts his dreams as dreams and than says certains things are not made to be dreams. This part is very confusing, many readers probably are confuse just like me.

What can be called real and what not?

( This would be all be well and good, were i not a man who is accustomed to sleeping at night , and to experiencing in my dreams the very same tthings , or now and then even be less plausible as these insane people do when they are awake. Neverthless, it surely must be admitted that the things seen during slumber are, as it were, like painted images, which could only had been produced in the likeliness of true things, and that therefore t least these genaeral things eyes, head hands and the whole body are not imaginary. ) The Meditator acknowledges that insane people might be more deceived, but that he is clearly not one of them. The Meditator has accepted that certain things are real and some are not. All of these things, he has learn through his senses. He acknowledges that sometimes the senses can deceive, but only with respect to objects that are very small or far away. The senses that we knowledge are quite real. The Meditator knows when his dreaming, he senses real objects. He has dreams that look real, because even if the person is dreaming, in real life the dreams that we experince we could make it true and real. In my opinion dreams are very decieving, they make the person think that they are actually awake. You could notice that when you see the person sweating, screaming, talking, jumping and many other more while they sleep. Have you ever had a dream that you thought it was not a dream?

a realization

after reading a little further into the meditation. i began to think and came to a sort of conclusion. it might be that Descartes is afraid or scared of questioning god, its as if he doesn't believe in him but at the same time does and is trying to seem respectful to his belief by calling his work "fictitious". "let us grant that everything said here about god is fictitious".

meditation part 1

if it were repugnant to his goodness to have created me such that i be deceived all the time, it would also seem foreign to that same goodness to permit me to be deceived even occasionally. But we cannot make this last assertion.

in this excerpt Descartes questions gods goodness. saying if he as god is so god why do people get deceived. Descartes questions if he himself at this very moment as he is writing is being deceived. is he a tool put to lie to his readers, maybe god is using him to question his existence.

Meditation 1

"But perhaps, even thought the senses do sometimes deceive us when it is a question of very small and distant things, still there are many other matters concerning which one simply cannot doubt, even though they are derived from the very same senses."

Decartes believe that everything that he had written are mostly true that he received from his senses or through the senses. He think that senses are sometimes deceptive, but if it is a question of very small and distant things than one can't be fooled.

Meditation part 1

Decartes had realized that he had been taken false opinions that is in his youth to be truth. He wanted to establish a firm and lasting foundation but that require him to start from the beginning. But all this time, he had be procrastinating.

"At last I will apply myself earnestly and unreservedly to this general demolition of my opionions. Yet to bring this about I will not need to show that all my opinions are false, which is perhaps something I could never accomplish. But resaon now persuades me that I should with hold my assent no less carefully from opinions that are not completely certain and indubitable than I would from those that are patently false. For this reason, it will suffice for the rejection of all these opinions, if I find in each of them some reason for doubt."

Decartes doesn't want to hide any of his opinions to the people, but he is also have thoughts that he wanted to express to them, but also afraid of their reaction of it being false. He knows that it is not completely accurate and will lead the readers to a completely different view.

descartes

...one cannot conceive a thing so well and make it ones own when one learns if from someone else as one can when one discovers it from one self. this is so true in this matter that although i have often explained some of my opinions to people with good minds, who , while i spoke to them, seemed to understand them quite distinctly, nevertheless, when they repeated them, i noticed that they had almost always changed them in such a way that i could no longer acknowledge them as mine.

Descartes is basically trying to say that even though some human being might be smarter them him. when he tries to convey his knowledge to them, they only get an idea from it, but not his full meaning, which in turn changes as that other person tries to pass it on.

Decartes part six the ending

In conclusion Decartes simply want to spend the rest of his life in acquiring knowledge. His success has put him somewhere beyond other accomplishments. Something that can be useful can also be harmful to others, If they were circumstances that puts the person into the position of not believing of successs. The achievements, that he has accomplish he is proud of, but not the awards he recieve, he has no desire of those. His always going to feel gratitute to those who appprecites , are open and have demands of his work. . These are the kind of people who are truthful and he always feel gratitute. In conclusion he basically wants people to be honest about his work, if there were something to criticize he would like that. This will show him that people have read his work and if he has to improve on something he would like the readers to tell him.

Decartes beginning of Part 6

This is the summary of part 6, page 1 ( One man cannot do everything on his own . There are some exceptions, like there are people who could get paid and believe in gaining more than he achieve. There are also some volunteers who desire to succed and offer to help, but there are some who make more promises than helping.The people with the desire meaninig the volunteers, they would like to get appreciate it, but they dont even get that. The other kind people are fully ungrateful and find the volunteers(craftsman) as wrong. They judge before getting to know them. Thats why if there is someone who knows how to appreciate, is capable of finding greater things. There will be other man who will join, but there have to be one who sets the example for the others to follow. That is why, you cannot make any promises or say something that you don't believe you are capable of doing.)

Decartes six 1

Decartes believe that it is possible to arrive at a knowledge of practical philosophy, that would be useful in life. We might be able to use these knowledges for a lot of other purposes.
In order to live carefree, you must maintain the principal for good health. It is the first good and fundation of all other goods of this life. Your mind and organs can't function properly without a good health. The key to good health according to Decartes is based on medical discovery. But Decartes believe that the study of medicine is so ranged that even the professionals today can't know it all. Certain people spend their entire life trying to figure out medicine, but end up dying of old age. That's why Decartes urge people to study science and pass the information down and continue the study with the next generation.

Decartes six

Decartes never demonstrated and never written anything that can turn to anyone's disadvantage. He believes that everyone have their own wiewpoint. Even though he might think that his point is the best, but the points that the others suggested probably will please them the most.

combination of part six of Decartes

Decartes believe that the principal of maintaining a good health is base on medicine. He believe that not even professionals know everything about medicines. Certain people might spend their entire life researching and still would come to the end of their finding.
by Ally Jiang
I once had to have certain writings published could imagine the reasons for which i am abstaining from doing so were more to my disadvantag than they are. For although i do not love glory excessively , if i dare say so, i hate it, in as much as i judge it to be contrary to the tranquility i esteem above all the things...still have i also never tried to hide my actions as if they were crimes, nor have taken many precautions so as not to known.(p. 42 line 72)I believe this means that the writer could write so many things that will make him succeed but yet he does not like the glory , but he has also never tried to be someone else , or tried to hide its actions, or that he never tried to becareful on the things that he is doing.
by Liz Meza
for it is truly to engage in battle when one tries to overcome all the difficulties and errors that prevent us from arriving at the knowledge of the truth, and it is truly to lose a battle when one accepts a false opinion touching on a matter that is at all general and important.i think that descartes is trying to say that it is hard to come to the truth and that if you want the truth you have to really search for it. Even though the truth is hard to find you cant just accept a false truth.
by Watler