All In good Taste

At first, I had a small fear of trying to read Hume. i thought that Hume was the man who decided to jumble up everything and make everything sound confusing. However, in reality, he's very clear and I understood him more than I thought I would. (Not to mention that my roommate who read Hume first semester who boosting about his cool he supposedly is.)

I felt myself nodding a lot to what Hume was saying regarding taste. A lot of what he says are ideas that I've tried to implement in my life, especially looking at artwork as unbiased as I possibly can and to not think as something solely 'good' or 'bad', but really what the characteristics of the object are. I really enjoyed one of the first things Hume mention, how what we're not accustomed to is considered barbaric. I like to imagine that in our modern world, the idea of other cultures being barbaric has nearly been erased from our minds (which the exception of the tribes in Africa or hidden deep in the Amazon or even the more simplistic lifestyles of some of those in the Middle East). I think that as a modern society we're beginning to experience more of Hume's ideas. We do look at stuff in a biased nature and may think that art from other countries might be different, but we don't normally lower ourselves to considering is barbaric. Or is it that modern society has simply thought ourselves too high for that term so we call it something else?

I also found it interesting how the standard of taste comes closest in poetry, with the idea that good works or art won't alter at all throughout the ages. I, again, found myself nodding to this idea, but I also found myself shaking my head too. Some art wasn't accepted during the time of its creation while others were heavily accepted and not so much nowadays. I just find the contrast interesting.

Ok I have another one...

Here's another quote I like, by the same author (her name is Ursula K. Le Guin in case anyone is curious) in an introduction to one of her books:

"...[T]ruth is a matter of the imagination."

She wrote that as a commentary on fiction, but it applies to everything we've been talking about. The last few classes have really made me wonder about things. Not necessarily in a new way that hasn't already occurred to me, but in a way that simply furthered what I already believe in... or think I believe in, anyway. Le Guin wrote a book called The Lathe of Heaven, about a man whose dreams directly affected the reality of the entire universe. You should all read it, it's not too long and would probably only take up a day or two of your time.

Personally, I believe in the idea that the reality we all experience from day to day could possibly be an all-encompassing dream by one person, or maybe all of us. How do we know that yesterday it wasn't true that human beings lived underwater, or that dogs could talk? Only because that's what our memories tell us. But how do we know that we can even trust our own memories? Perhaps we're just in a new dream where everything is and always has been the way it is at this moment.

That's all I have to say for now.

A Little Pop Culture

I wanted to bring up a little section from my favorite book that I think definitely relates to Decartes. You don't need to know anything about the story to understand the conversation, but I decided I'll fill you on just two facts. The first speaker, Faxe, is a seer or prophet, who looks into the future to find answers for people. The second speaker is a man who seeks an answer.

"'The unknown,' said Faxe's soft voice in the forest, 'the unforetold, the unproven, that is what life is based on. Ignorance is the ground of thought. Unproof is the ground of action. If it were proven that there is no God there would be no religion. ... But also if it were proven that there is a God, there would be no religion.... Tell me, Genry, what is known? What is sure, predictable, inevitable–the one certain thing you know concerning your future, and mine?'

'That we shall die.'

'Yes. There's really only one question that can be answered, Genry, and we already know the answer.... The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty: not knowing what comes next.'"

Anyway, I had marked this page weeks ago, and I was just flipping through and re-read it, and it made think about what we have been discussing in class recently. About reality being a dream or a collective dream, the existence of God, or the idea that thought proves the existence of the body/the self/ or whatever. I found it interesting that this conversation talks about the only certain thing being death, rather than the mind, because how could we realize how important the mind is if it doesn't have a limit, or an end? Or maybe it really can exist without the body, and therefore doesn't have an end. Hmm, before I started writing this I was thinking that this quote had confirmed some idea I had about all this, but now I either can't remember what that was, or it just doesn't make sense anymore. I think, therefore I exist... or I die, therefore I must have existed in the first place? I'm wondering what you guys think of this.

Descartes is speaking to my soul...serioulsy

Lately, I've begun to realize that everything I know, think what is right versus wrong, and believe all coincide with Christianity. Never once have I doubted, because I thought I genuinely believed it and presented the ideas to myself. It was what I grew up with. Now I'm here in college, out of my house, not forced to go to church and I'm really wondering and exploring for myself. Descartes is simply helping the process. The first line in his first meditation is a summary of everything that I have been feeling. It's so nice to have some kind of reference or different type of guidance other than what I think. The deeper I delve, it's true that I don't know why I believe in the things I do or even if I did truly believe them, why? What makes the belief mine?
Like Descartes says, I must start from nothing and work my way towards certainty.

So far, maybe because Descarates is one of the most opened minded philosophers, he is my favorite. Forcing me not to believe in something is good to me it keeps my mind open weather i want to choose or not. Yes i agree that sometimes there needs to be proven facts to believe in something but, when your parents tell you something (as i have noticed in my family members) you tend to actually believe it. So maybe certain people in my or your life are able to tell you what to believe. And to me sometimes are my parents.

I have a hard time conceiving the mind as freely functioning from the body. So much of my rationale, intellect, morals, ethics, beliefs, fears, instincts, preferences are based on the way my mind digests my physical senses. I believe that the body and mind are co-dependent on one another so that if one were segregated from the other we would not qualify as the creatures we question ourselves to be. I believe that in order to exist you must be aware that there is something outside of you (other than yourself) which is ultimately what makes you aware initially.

Nature Doesn't Know Everything

I titled the blog an interesting an amusing sentence from today's selection of Descartes. One of his many interesting points. I read this over the course of two days and allowed myself time to digest some of the information presented to me.

What I enjoyed most were the conversations between Doubtful and Hopeful. I enjoyed the juxtaposition of the two extremes by one another. Then, to simply dive head first into doubting everything, it was a fascinating process to see how he dealt with his surroundings and how he tried to reason what everything was. This whole selection by him was food for thought and I found myself nodding or shaking my head to his arguments. I even stopped a few times to debate with myself if I agreed with his statements or not.

I felt like I was reading Shakespeare again with the mentioning of being in a dream or being awake. The back and forth arguments of if we're awake or if we're asleep has me perplexed as well as intrigued. How do we perceive if we're awake or asleep? Do we rely solely on our senses? But, as Descartes states, we perceive generally the same when awake and asleep, so it's up to our mind and rational thought to know that we're awake or asleep. The division between the mind and body, natural world, and everything else is vast and easily noted when looking correctly. Descartes has very different views that have me thinking...

Descartes defines reality in a very selective way. The things that we take in with our senses are not truly real to his way of thinking, and he instead puts the mind before the body. They way I think of truth and reality is very different from this, because I believe that there is the possibility for individual realities. Personal views and perspectives shape the world around us to a certain extent, and what we touch, smell, taste, feel, and hear, are all real to me. I don't think that the self can exist without a body, at least not in the way that we perceive 'self''. If there is no input, there is nothing to be thought, and without a mind to think, there senses of the body have no recording. One cannot exist without the other.
I trust not only my senses and reason, but also my closest family. I don't think that I trust them because I believe them to be entirely honest 100% of the time, but because I trust that they love me, and don't intend to harm me. I trust their intentions. To a degree, I also trust the people that have proven over time that they are honest; past actions speak loudly to me. The sun has risen millions of times in the past, I begin to think that it will probably rise again tomorrow.
Occasionally, there is the kind of trust that requires a leap of faith. In a way, I view this as a kind of naivety. But I still do it. This is the kind of trust that may in some cases be the strongest, because it does not come from reason, it comes from faith. It's not logical in anyway, so it really can't be argued against.

I decided to pretend that everything that had ever entered my mind was no more true than the illusions of my dreams, because all the mental states we are in while awake can also occur while we sleep ·and dream·, without having any truth in them. 

In this statement, Descartes makes his Shakespeare and Plato influence very evident. It shows me that philosophy builds upon other philosophy. Even though some philosophers credit only themselves with the thinking, it is not always entirely true. Take Descartes for example, he is the father of modern thought, the statement above is not fully his own, but it does lead to his declaration, " I think, therefore I exist." Half of the process was done for him. 

This statement has also very recently started applying to me. When I read it, I couldn't believe it's truth. For most of my life, dreams were never a big deal to me. I was never the kid who showed up to school with a crazy dream story to tell, or have one to compare to. No, my dreams are normally just reenactments of memories that haunt me. Upon reading Shakespeare it has been quite the opposite. My dreams feel so real and I am able to remember every detail. In some of them, I have even woken up in the dream, told a friend I had a bizarre dream, and have then gone back to sleep. The last week has been filled with deja vu and flashbacks of visions of the previous night. What's even worse is that they are actually plausible. I've been having trouble deciphering what has really happened or if it was only part of my dream the night before. Descartes took the words right out of my mouth. The only way I've been able to sift through dreams and reality, is to pretend for the moment I don't know anything. Slowly, I place all the puzzle pieces together. It almost coincides with his rules of logic. 

I don't know what's happening, but I ultimately feel like my mind has somehow been opened up to something new.

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?

Descarte

As for today's reading, I really enjoyed the personal nature of it. It was interesting to sort of imagine him sitting next to me telling me these stories and experiences. Some of the topics he touches on I would agree with. The whole initial first part about good sense and how people have it, or don't and how they just need to use it more. This is what separates us from animals, so don't be an animal and use your good sense brain. I also agree with him when he talks about researching history and it seeming like traveling. There are people that become so focused and engulfed in their work, that they loose touch with their friends, family and the world in general. Their sense of time and priorities become blurry and unfocused and it's important to keep a nice balance. This actually makes me think about my studio work actually. Being here all day Monday-Monday, practically 10 to 20 hours a day. It's ridiculous and tough to know what's going on around the community and the world without loosing focus on design and projects that need to be finished the next class period. Friends outside of art school just don't understand sometimes...ha

ok so I have sometimes a hard time understanding the readings, but i still give it a good try. Descartes, i enjoyed reading some of his stuff i think it is very difrent from others because i dont think he is really trying to tell you do this because its the only way. he has his own beliefs and his own experiences i think that him only saying what he thinks is really good. i also think it was much easier to understand and that is why i wrote more than usual.