Estelle's Blog

“According to Hegel, history is the story of the “world  spirit” gradually coming to consciousness of itself. Although the world have always existed, human culture and human development have made the world spirit increaingly conscious of its instrinsic value.” This theory seems highly relevant to all of theories of every philosopher we have learned about. “As soon as one though is proposed, it will be eradicated by another. Tensions arise between these two opposite ways of thinking. But the tension is resolved by the proposal of a third thought which accommodates the best of both points of view. Hegel calls this a dialectic process”(360). Alberto himself connects this to every philosopher we’ve learned about as he explains all of the times one philosopher proposed one theory and then as soon as that theory was proposed, a new one disagreeing comes to the surface as well. “But whenever such an extreme claim is proposed, a contradictory claim will arise. Hegel called this a negation”, and whenever another theory is proposed ontop of the first disagreeing theory “Hegel called this the negation of a negation”. We have seen this theory play out over and over again, as philosophers constantly agree and disagree and propose new theories.

He even outlines the most interesting part about Hegel for me as well: “But it is a striking example of how people’s views of what is rational change all the time. It shows that Hegel was a child of his time. And so are we. Our ‘obvious’ views will not stand the test of time either.” I find this interesting because it is undeniably true. We have mentioned over and over again that the ideas of right and wrong, or any philosophical view of one time, will not be the same of one of another time in history. There will always be negations of theories, and negations of negations. I think Hegel’s theories about negations will be the only ones that withstand the change of times!

This chapter was a bit dull as it has a lot of discussion of Hilde and Sophie rather than a long on philosophers. However, I found that the most important ideas were all found on a few specific pages. The first connection that I made when reading about the Enlightenment philosophers were to the idea that humans make ideas based on what will guarantee happiness. Alberto describes this similar idea as “It was observed that the so-called primitive peoples were frequently both healthier and happier than Europeans, and this, it was said was because they had not been civilized. Rousseau proposed the catchphrase, ‘We should return  to nature.’ For nature is good and man is ‘by nature’ good; it is civilization that ruins him” (312). While I know that Rousseau believed that we should return to nature because it will make us more just and righteous, I can’t help but think that he also wanted to return to nature because primitive people were happier when they were not ‘civilized’, and that by returning to nature, people would be happy again.

I enjoyed reading about how the enlightenment philosophers appreciated new discoveries during their time. Alberto tells Sophie, “The enlightenment philosophers thought that once reason and knowledge became widespread, humanity would make great progress”. I completely agree to this idea, because I strongly believe that humanity always progresses no matter what kind of knowledge is discovered-good or bad. I find it interesting that today our world is described as “Today we are no longer so convinced that all ‘developments’ are to the good” (Page 312). Even when developments are made that promote something bad, we can learn from them and more developments can be made because of it. I strongly believe that we always make progress from any development, and feel like I myself would have made a great enlightenment philosopher as I always support the idea of turning back to nature in order to find happiness, and making progress based off of the spread of knowledge and reason.

Even though this was a rather short chapter, there was a lot of confusing information jam packed into these four pages. The obvious thing that I connected Berkeley to was Anselm and Aristotle. This is because he is very much into the believe that we live per alliud, as well as that everything had a cause. “Everything we see and feel is ‘an effect of God’s power” (Page 280) and that “God is intimately present in our consciousness, causing to exist for us the profusion of ideas and perceptions that are constantly subject to. The whole world around us and our whole life exists in god. Is is the one cause of everything that exists, we only exists in the mind of God.”

However the rest of Berkeley’s theories seem rather odd to me. The idea that “only things that exist are those we percieve. But we do not perceive ‘material or ‘matter’. We do not perceive things as tangible objects. To assume that what we perceive has its own underlying ‘substance’ is jumping to conclusions” (Page 279) seems so confusing. Why can we not perceive tangible objects? I feel like I definitely fee the matter or substance of any table that I touch.

I do, on the other hand, agree with his theory of all ideas having a cause behind our consciousness, but that is not of a material nature. It is spiritual (280). I agree that all ideas do have a cause behind what we can assign in our consciousness, and that it is not a material one. I am still debating on whether or not a “spirit” handles creating this cause, but, it seems quite probable.

The first thing that caught my eye when reading this chapter about Hume was that “His family wanted him to take up law but he felt ‘an insurance mountable resistance to everything but philosophy and learning.’” (Page 263) What I find interesting about this is the fact that law and philosophy seem to go hand in hand, and yet he still did not have an interest in the law. My mother is a lawyer, and she majored in philosophy before she went on to law school. When I work at her office, all I ever hear her talking about is what is right and what is wrong, and who can decide the answer to this. Like my mother, we have argued this question many times in philosophy. I’m not saying that Hume would have had a better life that he been a Lawyer or taken up something dealing with the law, but I feel like he would have eventually been able to argue his philosophical ideas when defending or protecting the law.

One obvious connection that always stands out about Hume for me is related to his whole idea of impressions and ideas, in which impressions are the immediate sensation of external reality, and by ideas he means the recollective of such impressions (Page 265). This reminds me a lot of Aristotle, who believed in the idea of matter and form, in which things exist first, and then our minds form concepts from similarities in things. These two theories are similar in the fact that there is an original substance exists once and once we experience it, our minds form ideas or similarities from that original substance.

However, there is really only one way for me to characterize Hume, and that would be as a vary particular man, based on reading this chapter about him. Knowing that he already turned down going into law, I feel like he was pretty picky in what he likes and what he doesn’t like. My suspicion about him being quite picky continues with his ways of questioning things, as described on page 265. “‘Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?’ No. ‘Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter or fact and existence?’ No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.’” This too shows that he is very particular in what he decides believe.

In trying to decipher the questions “Who am I?” and “What is real?”, I’m trying to review on what each philosopher that we have discussed and read about believed. Like we have said many times before in class, since philosophers lived in different ages, they were all interested in different things that applied to when they were living. Over the year, it has been quite interesting to see how differently each era and group of philosophers are, and how their beliefs changed throughout the years and how they built on one another’s theories.

For instance, when rereading about Thales, I was quite excited when I read “Thales is also supposed to have said that “all things are full of gods.”" How similar to the idea of per aliud! Since we are full of gods according to Thales, what did he think the gods were made of?

But more importantly, throughout this chapter the idea of change came up, and the ideas of these natural philosophers will definitely come in handy when I start writing about “What is real?”. However, there are many theories that I will have to decide if I accept them as my own or not. While Parmenides thought everything that exists had always existed, Heraclitus pointed out that the world is characterized by opposites, and that “something” was the source of these changes between opposites. Heraclitus believed that this something was God, and that God can be seen most clearly in the constant transformations and contrasts of nature. However, as a human being that definitely feels change, I will have to side with Heraclitus right now, as I agree to his idea that we can not feel being full until we have felt hunger.

Yet again, Alberto’s writings to Sophie faintly remind me of our dear friend Hume. On page 28, Alberto discusses when Greek mythology was first written down, around 700 B.C. by Homer and Hesiod. He explains to Sophie that this was very important because “Now that the myths existed in written form, it was possible to discuss them” (Page 28). While this seems obvious and logical, I know that Hume sometimes wished that other things were written down in a solid depiction, such as a clear definition of what humans can understand in order to answer key philosophical questions, so that they could become possible to discuss. I find it very interesting that just having them simply written down established a basis for all mythological discussions, and could lead to so many other questions such as if they are true stories, or if the gods were just made up by the people and that’s why they have such human like qualities. Either way, I’m sure Homer would be proud to know that his documentations of these myths established a clear definition on what the mythological stories were and enabled many philosophers to discuss them and learn from them.

I am currently re-reading most of Sophie’s world that can apply to my two questions. While this early chapter is quite vague, I believe that it relates to any of the the philosphers we have discussed this year. However, I think our good friend Hume would have really enjoyed this chapter, as it frequently points out who is a philosopher and who is not, much like how Hume points out the two different types of philosophers in the first chapter of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. While Alberto does not split up his descriptions of people into the two categories of rationalists and materialists quite this early on like Hume does, he still explains to Sophie how even though we all contemplate metaphysical ideas, we are not all philosphers as “for various reasons most people get so caught up in everyday affairs that their astonishment at the world gets pushed into the background” (Page 19).

More importantly in re-reading this chapter, I found a very interesting quote that I will probably plan most of my essay around. On page 14 and 15, Alberto tells Sophie through her first readings, “Yes, dear sophie, there are questions that certainly should interest everyone… Being interested in why we are here is not a “casual” interest… So it is easier to ask philosphical questions than to answer them… Each individual has to discover his own answer to the same question” (14-15). Quite similarly to how Alberto has asked Sophie “who am I?”, sophies response, like mine for the final essay, will be my own answer to the same question.

I find it particularly interesting that these same questions that we each have to answer individually, that almost everyone has pondered, still always have a changing answer from person to person. But much like how the answers vary from person to person, I also am beginning to be able to justify that the questions that arise in searching for the answer from the original question vary too from person to person. With all of these different questions arising from the same original question, shouldn’t there be one concrete answer by now? I guess you could say that I am just an inpatient philosopher.

When reading this meditation, and the beginning of Descartes quest for truth, my ideas of proslogion did not fall far behind in terms of similarity. However, from reading proslogion, I felt that at some times my brain kind of jumped the gun before Descartes could even get out his ideas and I knew how he had come to terms with his conclusions on things. For example, in section 5 and 6 when Descartes discusses the difference between dreams and reality, and says that some “times [he] has been decieved in sleep by similar illusions” (Page 3), that he witnesses or acts out when he is not sleeping. Right at this point, I knew something about the mind and how things in the intellect connect to things in reality would come up in the next couple of pages. Then, Descartes says “It must be admitted at least that the objects which appear to us in sleep are, as it were, painted representations which could not have been formed unless in the likeness of realities. And therefore, that those general objects at all events, namely eyes, a head, hands, and an entire body, are not simply imaginary, but really existent” (page 4), reminding me of when Anselm tries to prove what we know in our mind must really exist, but really bringing it home when saying that these things appear in our consciousness (cognitatio) which seems very similar to our intellectus mentioned by Anselm!

The one thing I really found interesting about this meditation was how Descartes is determined that the only way he can find truth is by separating from everything he currently believes to be truth. No matter how hard he tries, he falls back on something he currently believes, and truthfully can not forget everything that be currently believes to be true. I find it crazy that all of these philosophers find it necessary to separate themselves from society, whether physically (like Anselm, who locked himself in his solitude to ponder his thoughts) or in terms of believes, like Descartes. Good thing these guys didn’t have to work together with anyone else, or they would have never gotten anything done!

In the final chapter of the first movie, many challenges come into play as always. Without Gandalf, the group has to trek on without their wizardly-aid, and face things at their own risk and with only their man power. When they are out of the mines, and continue their journey through the forrest with the elves, and then venture through the water ways before pulling ashore to hide out for the night. When they stop, Frodo journey’s through the woods by himself, and comes across  in the forrest. He asks to take the ring, and frodo does not let him. Frodo tries to run away, but in the midst of the chase, he decides to put the ring on. In doing so, he is locatable, and soon the orcs venture towards him. As a massive orc battle attacks, frodo has to leave the fellowship in order to destroy the ring and keep it out of the wrong hands. As he is leaving, he begins to tear up, and wish that he never had gotten the ring. In doing so, he receives flash backs to wise words Gandalf once told him, about it being his fate to be the one who brings the ring to its end. Here, he faces the idea of fate and destiny, and whether or not he ever had a choice in being the one to have the ring. He considers the fact that bilbo found the ring on purpose, and it was bilbos fate to be the one to pass it on to frodo for him to destroy it. With his realization of his fate and destiny to be the one to end the ring and its evils, he puts the ring back on his chest, and starts to load up and head out.

This comes to Heraclitus’ philosophy that a man’s character is his fate. In this case, it is Frodo’s happy but troubled hobbit character that proves it is his fate to be the one to destroy the ring; that according tho Heraclitus’ philosophy, he was destined to do this task of bring the ring to Mordor on account that his character is the only one who can handle it. This could be easily proven true, as it appears that every other man, like Boromir, is too greedy to destroy the ring rather than keeping it, while Frodo does not want the ring (because he knows it does not bring happiness (as mentioned in blog pt. I)). In the end, you could say that Boromir like Frodo, had a destined fate because of his character. Seeing that his father died because of the ring, and he lived his whole life reflecting on that, and that made his character as greedy and needy for the ring, he was destined to be destroyed by the ring one way or another. In his case, it was not the actual ownership of the ring that destroyed him, it was his quest to get closer to the ring in joining the fellowship that landed him a spot in the battle with the orcs.

As the movie continues, and the fellowship of the ring is gathered and formed, and they set out on their journey, the group faces many challenges along the way due the the overseeing of ring and people trying to wreck the journey of the fellowship in order to lead them into the paths of giving up the ring. While traveling, Frodo decides to go into the dark of the mines to get to Mordor.

There, Frodo notices odd movements in the dark, which were actually Smeagol/Gollum wondering the cave. He learns about how bilbo found the ring and took it from Gollum, and the reason why Gollum is the way he is is because he obsessed over the ring for so long, and that it prolonged his life. This is when the philosophical idea of pity and who decides what is right and wrong comes into play for Frodo Baggins, as he questions why Bilbo didn’t just kill Gollum. In response, the disagreeing Gandalf says, “for even the wise can not see all ends”, in respect that even the wisest man can not decide who should be killed or who should die when.

This idea is quite similar to when Socrates and Euthyphro discuss whether or not Euthyphro’s father should be punished for what he did, and in the same respect, question why Euthyphro’s father would have the right to end the murder’s live, like why it would have/would not have been okay for Bilbo to kill Gollum. With this idea, the mind set that no one man can decided what is right or wrong comes into play, and is another lesson that Frodo will learn throughout his journey to destroy the ring. Later on in the trilogy, as Gollum becomes a more important role, Sam and Frodo will face this same question (why hasn’t someone killed gollum?) when they start to see more of his personality and faults.

While this initial discussion does not seem that significant in the first part of the movie, it does, just like many smaller philosophical questions, do come into play with larger problems and questions later on in the other movies!