Hume and Smith

David Hume and Adam Smith were known for the incredible correspondence they exchanged until the death of David Hume in 1776.

Locke, Jefferson, and Everyman

John Locke’s writing was designed to engage rulers of governments such as magistrates, princes, and others adjudicators who act outside and within accordance to the state of nature. In similar fashion, Thomas Jefferson demanded the audience of a ruler, the King of Britain, and its governing Parliaments. Another similarity in both of the writer’s texts refers to individuals outside of the ruling class, to the common man. Jefferson’s label of “all men” is comparable if not inseparable in relation to Locke’s “mankind;” however these labels are not the audience, but whom the audience, those in charge of judgment and government of all men (and women), are to be concerned with. Also, both texts are not intended solely for those who are named explicitly, we can also include peers, scholars, rivals, and even enemies of Locke and Jefferson.

As mentioned earlier, an important difference in the two texts is that Jefferson refers to a specific ruler, the King of Great Britain. Locke’s audience of would-be and current governors is a more broad and generalized audience. Jefferson’s enclosed focus is not limited only to governors, but of states as well, as the thirteen colonies are the primary subject. Locke cites many nations including England, France, and Holland, as well as Americans, Indians and the Swiss in his text, which in theory, leaves much more potential for an extensive consideration of the masses.

Declaration of Independence and The Second Treatise of Government

The Declaration of Independence is just as its title states; a paper which states the intentions of the United States of America to become independent from Britain in governing its people. The Declaration of Independence states the British government has committed “abuses and usurpations” to the people and states that when a government does so it should be overruled. This is followed by a long list of injustices the current British government has performed on the people. It is then signed by several representatives of the United States of America.

The Second Treatise on Government by John Locke is a theory of government. John Locke explains that humans are born with rights, as does the Declaration of Independence when it states “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Locke believes that god is the ultimate ruler, he states this several times in his attempt to detail each and every freedom and law humans live by. Locke also explains that humans come together to make a social contract known as government since they are unhappy with the current state of existence and in doing so give up a few rights born with.



References

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 27, 2007 from: http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&bhcp=1

Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 27, 2007 from: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Locke and Jefferson

While reading the Second Treatise on Government and the Declaration of Independence I noticed many similarties between the two writings. Even though one was written before the other they both focused on the injustices that they were seeing by the British. The two writters were drawing attention to these and showing how to make a difference. While the Declaration of Independence focused a lot on what the government was going to do to make the US a better place to live for it's people. Locke discussed there were many aspects of the new world that were unequal. He talked about the state of nature and that without this there is no state at all. The Declaration also talks about the state of nature and how that effects the government. Both have a clear view of how the nature of things effects the government.

References:

Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise on Government. Retrieved on October 26, 2007, from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/2nd-contents.html.

Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html.

Locke and Jefferson

The Declaration of Independence and John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government are two writings that set the tone of modern American government. Both documents had the intention of explaining the characteristics of a fair and just republic. Both of these documents expressed a desire for the masses to become familiar with their rights as a governed body. Locke referred to the rights of “life, liberty, health, and property.” (Locke, 1690) Similarly, Jefferson wrote about citizens having the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in The Declaration of Independence (Jefferson, 1776).

One point of contrast between The Declaration of Independence and Second Treatise on Government is the audience each was intended to inspire. The Second Treatise on Government was meant for a general audience. Locke’s purpose was to educate people about the methods of civil government. He spoke about the historical aspects of government, specifically by talking about the affects of the introduction of money. Locke writes about a time “Before the desire of having more than one needed had altered the intrinsic value of things.” (Locke, 1690) Jefferson’s intention when executing his writing was much more specific. He was writing with the educated men of the American colonies in mind. His aim was to incite them to declare war on England and fight for freedom from colonization. He provides specific examples of how colonists had been wronged by the king. One of his arguments is, “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”(Jefferson, 1776)
Although these two documents were created as an end to different means, they have both served as models for our present government.

References:

Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved October 27, 2007 from <http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html>

Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise on Government. Retrieved October 27, 2007 from

John Locke and Thomas Jefferson

The two writings discussed this week, the Second Treatise on Government, written by John Locke, and The Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, were both written with the intentions of justifying revolutionary acts against their current government.

Both authors wrote with different audiences in mind; however they were both writing for Britain. Locke wrote to British people, encouraging them to stand up and demand their rights. Jefferson wrote to Britain to inform them that the colonies would stand up for their rights. The major difference between the two writings is that Locke originally wrote to Britain the reasons why it is important to stand up for rights and sometimes necessary to overthrow the current government. Jefferson used Locke’s reasoning to justify the need to stand up for the rights of the people in colonies, and also the need to overthrow (separate from) the British government.

John Locke’s work was intended for the people of Britain. It was written as a political stance against the autocratic rule of Charles II, during what is now referred to as the Exclusion crisis. Locke strongly disagreed with monarchy and believed that there are natural rights that all individuals are entitled to which monarchy takes away. Locke thought that government was created by the people and that when the government no longer acted for the good of the people, it was the their right to overthrow that government and reestablish one that would act in their best interest. Locke also believed that government’s actions should be justified through reason and scripture, and that the actions of Britain’s current government could not be justified.

Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence to let the world know how badly the colonies had been treated by Britain, also to inform the world that they were separating themselves from the crown. The Declaration of Independence parallels the works of John Locke, in that it cites that individuals have natural rights and when government does not work to protect those rights the people must make a stand. Discussed within the Declaration of Independence are the ways in which the people’s natural rights had been revoked. Thomas Jefferson did not believe that the actions of the king could be justified by reason, or scripture and that something had to be done to ensure people’s natural rights.


References:

Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&

Treatise Versus Speech

Both John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government and The Declaration of Independence agree upon man unalienable rights, such as liberty and equality. Both documents agree that the British government is in violation of those rights held by the citizens of the American colonies.
Locke approaches his treatise in the manner of a philosopher. He speaks to other learned men and so, seeks to fully explain and defend his positions. To that end his writing is in-depth and wordy. It was meant to be read in a slow deliberate fashion by a man capable of great contemplation. Given the similarity of views established in both Locke’s treatise may be viewed as a manual for the writers of The Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence was meant to be read by all men, and to elicit an emotional response. It was not only a statement of the Congresses views but a call to arms for the American public and a declaration of war to the British monarchy. Therefore it is written in an emotional language and with shorter more definite statements. This document was read aloud often to crowds and this precise, and inspiring style lent itself to moving public speeches.


References:

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&bhcp=1Jefferson, T. (1776).

Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

A Study and Comparison of The Delcaration and Second Treatise

From a brief overview Second Treatise on the Government written by John Locke and the Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson seem similar because they both describe the civil liberties of man in the new world; however, you quickly learn the differences in perception these authors had when discerning these rights.
It is obvious that the desire to state the given rights of man is what bonds the two documents the most. In the declaration it clearly states that all “men are given certain in amiable rights” (Jefferson), while in more detail, the Second Treatise lists these rights individually. Both documents also have an air of male dominance and tend to focus on the privileges the free men in America should have. Second Treatise explains certain rights, such as the power of authority. Locke continues to explain that in the order of authority and power, “men are God’s property” (Locke chapter 3).
Even within these similarities there are differences. The Second Treatise is very detailed in the rights of man, and even describes situations in which these rights apply best. A great example is Locke’s chapter on slavery when he states circumstances which slavery best works and what is expected of both parties in which he calls “ legitimate slavery” (Locke ch.4, section 22). One other important difference between the two is that Second Treatise focuses on what should be done to make sure that these rights are kept, and the Declaration largely discusses how England’s monarchy stripped the colonies of these rights.

References:

Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&

Critical Analysis of Two Historical Texts

The Declaration of Independence (Declaration) was written for the American people. The document clarified—to the American colonists—why the colonies were breaking-free of England’s rule. The Declaration also provided justification for self-governance. The Declaration states: “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having, in direct object, the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States” (Landy appendix I). This clarified why the United States broke free from the Crown. The justification was this: “…all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” (Landy appendix I).

John Locke’s The Second Treatise on Government (Treatise) was written for all humanity, regarding the issue of human rights, as governed under Natural law. Locke states in chapter II paragraph 7: “…law of Nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors” (Locke).

The strongest similarities between the two documents are the references to rights, under natural law, endowed by a Creator. The first sentence of the Declaration states: “…the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them…causes which impel them to separate” (Landy Appendix I). The last paragraph also has a reference to the Supreme Judge of the world—God—as the final authority for Americans seeking a free and independent state.
In the Treatise, chapter VII paragraph 77 Locke states: “GOD, having made man such a creature that, in His own judgment…(Locke) This statement ties into both the Creator theme and God as the ultimate Judge.

Another similarity is the famous phrase “all men are created equal”. This phrase appears almost verbatim in both texts.
In the Declaration, second paragraph: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal “(Landy appendix I).
In the Treatise Locke states: "That all men by nature are equal…"(Locke)

A big difference in the two texts involves the issue of slavery. Locke writes in chapter IV paragraph 22: “This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to…a man's preservation. For a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot by compact or his own consent enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another to take away his life when he pleases”( Locke). Locke made the compelling argument that a violation of Natural law on one man affects all of society in a negative way.

The Declaration talks about unalienable rights and freedom from oppression but falls short of actually using the word “slavery”. Jefferson, when drafting the Declaration, was conflicted by the slavery issue. In the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote a long paragraph called "the vehement philippic against Negro slavery" where he called the trade "a cruel war against human nature and a violation of the most sacred rights". Many states benefited from the slave trade and South Carolina and Georgia weren't going to sign the Declaration with that paragraph included, so Congress took out all discussion of the slave trade in the final draft (Landy 43).

Both documents bare many similarities. If the Declaration was not written with a copy of Locke’s work nearby, than America’s Founding Fathers had Treatise fresh in their memories as they drew inspiration for their own text.



Landy, Marc, and Sidney Milkis. American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights. Boston: McGraw Hill 2004.

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from:
http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&bhcp=1

Similar with Different Intentions

The audiences that both The Declaration and Second Treatises are intended to reach are different. The Declaration is intended for the people of the representatives that signed it and the current population at that time in America. Second Treatises intended audience is more for any people of any land that struggle with power and how we should use power. In short The Declaration is aimed at a very specific audience and the Second Treaties is more general.
The titles of the two writings also play a pivotal role in understanding what their respective intentions are. The Declration is just what it says it is, a declaration of many people that intend to start and become a new government. It does lay down a set of rules to an extent but it also proves the desires and intentions of the undersigned. In Locke’s Second Treaties he follows a more strict form of writing and desires to set out rules for any future set of people or government to follow.

References:

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from:
http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&bhcp=1


Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Similar Yet Different

The writings of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson are extremely similar yet different. This stems from the fact that Jefferson and the others who wrote the Declaration of Independence, based much of their ideas from Locke’s work. His work, the Second Treatise on Government, was also used in the writing of the American Constitution. The fundamental ideas of the Second Treatise, and the Declaration of Independence, are the same. Fundamental ideas include natural rights, and property. Differences between the Second Treatise and the Declaration include audience and purpose.

Similarities between both documents center around fundamental ideas. The concept of natural rights was what Locke built all his arguments upon. This idea states that in nature, there is no organized governing body, but everyone is equal, and are free to do as they please as long as they don’t infringe on anyone else’s rights (Locke 1690). Property is also an integral concept in Locke’s treatise. Locke defines property in the following manor, "labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property" (Section 27). Though the Declaration does not define or expound on these ideas; however they are present none the less in the wording and in the underlying premise of the piece.

Differences between the Second Treatise on Government and the Declaration of Independence exist despite the similarities between them. Both pieces were directed towards large audiences of the general population. However, in writing the Second Treatise, Locke specifically directed his writing towards the populace of England in hopes of moving them to overthrow the current king. The Declaration was written specifically to the King of England. Locke intended his piece, according to SparkNotes, to "justify the opposition to Charles II" (2006). The Declaration was intended to inform England of the Colonies’ intent "to dissolve the political bands which [had] connected them with another" (Declaration of Independence).

Though written for different purposes and audiences, both the Second Treatise on Government and the Declaration of Independence have much in common. This is because the authors of the Declaration used Locke’s ideas as their justifications.

References

Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise on Government. Retrieved on October 26, 2007, from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/2nd-contents.html.

Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 23, 2007 from http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html.

SparkNotes. (2006). Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government. Retrieved on October 24, 2007, from http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/locke/index.html.

Declaration of Denegation or was that Dependence?

There are only a couple of significant differences that stood out for me between these two similar documents. In the Declaration of Independence after the second paragraph is where a list of accusations that was directed at King George III, but was addressed as the current King of Britain. In contrast, Locke’s Second Treatise do not have any real persons mentioned for directed dissatisfactions.

The second difference is slavery. This is where Locke believed that it was a circumstantial occurence between a conqueror and their captive such as through the practice of war. However, this does not make much sense nor does it make it right for any man to force indigenous people into slavery regardless of any idea concerning causes and effects. (Locke, John. 1690).

Jefferson was against slavery and further claimed that he was not able to free them because of some of the state representatives would not sign the Declaration unless Jefferson agreed to change one part of the document concerning the British support that could affect a slave’s freedom. (Jefferson, Thomas). In addition he also knew that he as well as other slave owners had grown dependent on the financial gain resulting from slavery. The only resolution I have for these two different ideas is that both Locke and Jefferson being pillars in their society could have been more proactive about the situation by not owning any slaves or supporting the act of trade in the first place. It is a simple enough act that could have caused a trend of humanity much sooner than waiting for the Civil War to end a needless and cruel bondage, but instead pride and greed kept slavery stagnant.


References

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Chapter IV
http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=3700851&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Jefferson, Thomas. The Declaration of Independence. 1776. http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence: Right to Institute New Government. 1776 http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffdec.html

Who is responsible for upholding the people-government relationship?

Although both the Declaration of Independence (referred to as "the Declaration") and John Locke’s Second Treatises on Government are extremely similar in terms of ideas that compose the two writings, they differ in one fundamental way: which audience they view is more important to understand their writings. Both writings recognize “the people” (those who are governed) and the government; they agree on concepts of equality, social contract theory, usurping authority justifiably, that the government is for, or in service of, the people, and that the people want government (which is implied in the social contract). But, these concepts are used differently; while Locke seeks to explain his theory, the Declaration seeks to employ the theory. Locke explains the reason for government and how and why the people submit to it – he spends more time on how the people should or do behave than he does on government. Furthermore, he asserts what reasons or actions justify usurping a government. The Declaration, on the other hand, does not explain the reason for their government or why the people should submit to it, but instead names “inalienable rights” and jumps to why their current government (the king of England) is not a justifiable government. These differences are mainly due to the intended audience, or who the writings respectively view as those who need to understand and uphold the embedded concepts the most. For Locke, it is most important that the people are aware of their relationship with the government – and with the other people – and be critical of it; the people are keepers/monitors of the (ultimate) authority (the ultimate authority itself would be what is right and what is wrong). For the Declaration, the “keeper” of authority is government, which should monitor itself and uphold the authority. But, even the Declaration writers felt that the people should pay (at least) some attention to how the people-government relationship was being handled. Otherwise, they would not have taken it upon themselves to criticize the king and break away from England at all. Ultimately, both sides need to be critical of the relationship, though both writings seem to suggest that the people are the most important, since it is them who consent for government, and allow it to exist.

Between Beauty and Pride

Mary: "So typical a man of 'greatness' as you would speak such words."


David: "Such words? It's all based on pride, Mary. 'Pride must have a cause as well as an object.' If it is beauty in women that men desire, than this must be because it enhances his pride."

Mary: "But of course, God forbid (it MUST be a male deity for creating this monster) a woman's intelligence out weigh her beauty, after all 'if then women do not resign the arbitrary power of beauty—they will prove that they have less mind than man.'

David: "It must b the same for women. If man does hold beauty so valuably than a woman with out this beauty (being that a woman's whole being should revolve around the happiness of man) shall also be without pride. 'then our own beauty becomes an object of pride, and deformity of humility.' "

Mary: "It is a mistake to assume woman base their pride merely on face-value such as man for beauty was always a given for us and never a source of merit.’her first wish should be to make herself respectable.' "

Hume, D. (1898). A treatise of Human Nature: Of The Passions (book 2, section IV). Retrieved October 23, 2007, from http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/hume/treatise2.html

Wollstonecraft, M. (1792). A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2344898&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Can You Hume a few Bars?

H: It may be impossible through inductive reasoning to discover which gender of humankind is ultimately superior to another. We could observe or compare all males and females that have ever and will ever exist with each other. Furthermore, if we could know whether a woman is more than equal to a single man, or a group of women more than equal to a group of men, this is not a reason to conclude that one is better than the other ultimately, because the result, no matter how many times consistently achieved, is subject to change.

W: More importantly, how are we to know that the judge of the contest is unbiased, for all tests reflect their society’s rules. If all societies are based on inequalities, as most societies are with a hierarchy of classes, then the test is unequal to begin with, and thus invalid. Furthermore, every man and woman has stock in winning the contest, and how are we to decide what the test shall be based on? It is to be sure that women are treated unequal, though we are not.

H: Even if that is so now and forever has been true, it too is subject to change.

W: Hopefully it will.

Wollstonecraft and Hume.

I believe Mary Wollstonecraft and David Hume would have spoken about various topics. Both Wollstonecraft and Hume had a few things in common, they could reason and both of them were from Great Britain and lived in about the same time period. I believe the conversation could include the topic of humans as a species in terms of equality, not only man and woman but also to include different races. Also I believe the two would talk about free-will and moral responsibility. Including the cultural and societal expectation of their time. Hume would argue the psychological approach while Wollstonecraft would argue the rational. I believe the discussion between the two would become intense. The topic of Christianity would also be discussed since Hume was believed to be atheist and since Wollstonecraft speaks of Adam and Eve in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.

MW: Mr. Hume do you believe women are made inferior to men, since they are stated to be created from a mere rib of a man?

DH: Ms. Wollstonecraft I do not believe this could have possibly occurred.

MW: Do you mean the idea of women being inferior?

DH: No, Adam and Eve.

Bibliography

Wikipedia. David Hume. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

Wikipedia. Mary Wollstonecraft. Retrieved October22, 2007 from Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Wollstonecraft

Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.1792. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from http://www.bartleby.com/144/

Plagiarism anyone?

When Jefferson drew up the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence, he must have had access to, or at the very least knowledge of John Locke's work regarding government, formally known as the Second Treatise of Government (1690), in particular his work in Chapter Eight, 'Of the Beginning of Political Societies', and Chapter 17, 'Of Tyranny'. The ideas and in some parts the very language is 'borrowed' from John Locke.

The Declaration of Independence is, in essence, a letter of grievances that justify denouncing all affiliation with the British as a governing body. Along with the actual list of charges against the British Crown, the main body of this article is taken from John Locke (1632-1704) according to authors David Stewart and Gene Blocker in their work Fundamentals of Philosophy (1992). According to these authors, we can best see the paraphrasing of Locke's work if we compare the paragraphs beginning, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..." (Declaration of Independence, 1776) with Locke's work in Chapter Eight, Of the Beginning of Political Societies which states, "Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it..." (Stewart, Blocker, 1992, pp. 445, 450). The parallels between ideas in these statements is striking. Locke went into great detail regarding the justifications for and responsibilities of a governing body, as well as justifications for throwing over said government if it is demonstrated to be working against the best interests of it's people (Locke, 1690). Such was the case and the argument in the Declaration of Independence (1776).

Let us look at another example, relative to the two documents in question, in particular Locke's definitions of Tyranny in Chapter 17 and Jefferson's carefully crafted grievances based on claims of tyranny. The first impression one gets is that Jefferson's arguments seem based on Locke's definition of tyranny. In other words, the accusations in Jefferson's work against the monarchy fit neatly into Locke's definitions of tyranny. (Locke, 1690; The Declaration of Independence, 1776)

Interestingly, the Declaration of Independence is sometimes heralded as a 'unique' and groundbreaking document in political thought... How can this be? As Stewart and Blocker present the material (p. 445), and in reading the two separate bodies of writing for myself, Jefferson's draft and the resulting Declaration of Independence could be argued as plagiarism. These ideas regarding government had already been established in much greater detail by John Locke nearly one century before The Declaration of Independence was written.


REFERENCES

The Declaration of Independence. (1776). Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration.html

Locke, J. (1690). Second treatise on government. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Locke/second/second-frame.html

Stewart, D., Blocker, G. H. (1992). Fundamentals of Philosophy, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillon Publishing Company.

Contemporary Conversations

Wollstonecraft:
“Do you believe that women are silly and centrally incapable of understanding the world?”

Hume:
“No, I was raised by a “widowed mother” who was “devoted to the education” of my siblings and my self, exhibiting a strong character and will.”

Wollstonecraft:
“I have observed before in my book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman that society believes, ‘that women are formed for softness and sweet attractive grace’ remaining ignorant throughout life” why in your opinion has this continued?”

Hume:
“As I have said before in my essay An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ‘the easy and obvious philosophy will always, with the generality of mankind, have the preference above the accurate and abstruse; and by many will be recommended, not only as more agreeable, but more useful than the other.’”

Wollstonecraft:
“Too true I have often observed that it is natural for man to assume that the first plausible explanation or lesson they are given is all the truth regardless of new information. Your mother must have been a most sensible and organized woman.”


Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.Wollstonecraft,

M. (1792). A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.

Peter Landry
Landry, Peter. (2007). David Hume. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/humed/about.htm

A Point on Which Might be Agreeable (Or not...)

Both David Hume and Mary Wollstonecraft refer to experience and observance as a way in which knowledge is gained. Hume (1748) basis An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding on this principle, while Wollstonecraft only touches on the matter. In a conversation between the two, they discuss the subject.

“So Mary,” Hume says, “You are in agreement with me that human understanding is based on experience?”

“In some instances, I suppose I am,” Mary responds. “Why would you ask that particular question of me, David?”

“I was just thinking about a passage from your work.”

“What passage is that?”

“In Chapter Eight, paragraph nine, you state that ‘unless virtue, of any kind, is built on knowledge, it will only produce a kind of insipid decency,’ (1792)” Hume replied. “Following the logic in this statement, I would come to the conclusion that the knowledge you speak of comes from experience.”

“I would suppose that most knowledge comes from experience, if one looks at it that way.”

“However,” Mary sighs before continuing, “the way in which knowledge is gained was not the main focus of my writings. You have completely missed the points which I made in my work.”

Under her breath, Mary grumbles, “men…”


References Cited:

Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.

Wollstonecraft, M. (1792). A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Retrieved October 16, 2007, from http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.

The Risk of Progressive Thought

Mary Wollstonecraft(MW) and David Hume(DH) converse over the risks of progressive thought.

MW: David Hume—man of reason—you must, by nature, despise the durability of antiquated notions by church and state.

DH: No: “Tis impossible for the mind to fix itself steadily upon one idea for any considerable time; nor can it by its utmost efforts ever arrive at such a constancy. But however changeable our thoughts may be, they are not entirely without rule and method in their changes” (Mossner 402).

MW: Change, no, independence will come someday to all free thinkers. But, must we hide the power of our thoughts or risk becoming a refugee like Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Edmonds and Eidinow 3)? Do our words so threaten, they alone arouse such intense opposition?

DH: “We must, therefore, proceed like those, who being in search of anything which lies conceal’d from them… beat about all the neighboring fields, without any certain view or design, in hopes their good fortune will at last guide them to what they search for (Mossner 125).

MW: I long for a New Age where my work can and will overshadow my personal life. The paths I walked are less important than the inspiration they endowed my works to transcend (Brody 136).

Works Cited

Mossner, Earnest C., ed. A Treatise of Human Nature: David Hume. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1969.

Edmonds, David, and John Eidinow. Rousseau’s Dog: Two Great Thinkers at War in the Age of Enlightenment. New York: HarperCollins, 2006.

Brody, Miriam, ed. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: Mary Wollstonecraft. Ney York: Penguin Books, 1992.

Addition to last blog (regarding Home Improvement)...

MW: Notice that Jill is female, and a mother, and is still rational.


Wollstonecraft, M. (1792). A vindication of the rights of women. Retrieved October 22, 2007. http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.

Hume, D. (1748). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Retrieved October 22, 2007. http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.

David Hume and Mary Wollstonecraft discussing the t.v. program Home Improvement

DH: You'd think Tim would learn not to do such stupid things - he does them so often!

MW: How else can he expect things to work? What a moron! He understands his hot rod, but nothing else. He just needs to figure out cause and effect and not be hypocritical.

DH: Even without that, he should still learn from the things he does. He doesn't reason, forgets past mistakes, and he messes up simple things from Wilson that no on can figure out. It would be better for him if he didn't mention Wilson's teachings at all, but he has yet to learn this!

MW: Well that's men for you - at least the writers got the basis of the show right!

The Human Ability ot Reason

One day, Mary Wollstonecraft and David Hume were having an important discussion about the human ability to reason. Here is a little of their exchange:

David: “All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain.” (Hume, 1794)

Mary: Let’s not let us forget about things that are not empirically provable. “Men, in general, seem to employ their reason to justify prejudices, which they have imbibed, they cannot trace how, rather than to root them out.”(Wollstonecraft, 1792)

David: “The discovery of defects in the common philosophy, if any such there be, will not, I presume, be a discouragement, but rather an incitement, as is usual, to attempt something more full and satisfactory than has yet been proposed to the public.” (Hume, 1794)

Mary: That is why I call upon women to incite change, to prove that women are indeed rational beings capable of reason.

Deciding to ask the hard questions while I had these two people, of different views, together. The question I decided to find the answer to was one of why it is ok for men to do the same sinful act as a women, yet the man doesn't lose his reputation. In all truthfulness he is rewarded for such acts. Mary stated that " If an innocent girl become a prey to love, she is degraded forever, though her mind was not polluted by the arts which married women, under the convenient cloud of marriage, practise; nor has she violated and duty--but the duty of respecting herself." (Wollstonecraft, 1972) David then has the rebuttal of "But with regard to the present subject, there are some considerations which seem to remove all this accusation of arrogance or suspicion of mistake." (Hume, 1748). At this point they start to bicker over the rights of women or should I say the lack there of where Hume is concerned. Hume feels that the man is right and is the best creature on earth, where Mary feels that it is the opposite as women are the ones that take care of the house. So as I leave they are still there but now it has gotten to be words of anger directed below the belt. Hume's position will never change and Mary is still fighting for the rights of women.

References:
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. (1748)
Reviewed material http://infidels.org/library/hitorical/david_hume/human_understanding.html
Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Women. (1792)http://www.barteby.com/144/

Mary and Hume

"You speak of reasoning as falling into two distinct types, "Relations of Ideas," and "Matters of Fact.", of which matters of fact can be seen as cause and effect."... Mary said.
"Yes, and on matter of cause and effect, we cannot know the true origin of the cause of an effect." Stated Hume.
"So then, we cannot know the cause of women's inferior intelligence in comparison to her fellow man... Nor her modest, sensibilities?" Inquired Mary.
"Well... " Hume started...
".. And without knowing the cause we cannot know absolutely that women are, without question, inferior beings?" Mary continued blithely.
"Yes but the terms of logic and reasoning do not apply to the fairer sex, of such frail and weak disposition, who's service is unto God and unto men..." Hume chose his next words rather carefully.
"So then do you classify us creatures as nature, matter in your universe under God of cause and effect, a puzzle to be sorted out and reconstructed until your satisfied that you've conquered it simply through understanding it's operations?"... " and by the way, you didn't refute my first argument."
"Who are you to question me thus?!" Hume flared... "What vile sort of woman are you that you dare to question the logic of men!"...
Mary shot back, "The sort who can reason for herself". And sauntered off.

Johnson-Lewis, J. (n.d.) A vindication of the rights of woman: overview of the life and work of England's early feminist, Mary Wollstonecraft. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/bio/blwollstonecraft.htm

Stewart, D., Blocker, G. H., (1992). Fundamentals of philosophy 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

A Conversation Concerning the Construction of Ideas

David: Recalling a memory of what something smelled, tasted or even sounded like is based on the senses. Once these experiences are impressed into an idea the anticipation of those sensations become a part of someone’s imagination.
“These faculties may mimic or copy the perceptions of the senses; but they never can entirely reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment (Hume, 1748).

Mary: “Like the lightning’s flash are many recollections; one idea assimilating and explaining another, with astonishing rapidity” (Wollstonecraft 1792). I also believe that intuition is what gives us our instantaneous recollections of somewhat truths that have may be clouded by other perceptions.

David: Belief that the mind has two classes in which perception are divided. “The less forcible and lively are commonly denominated thought or ideas” (Hume, 1748). But the other class is concerned with the names of objects leaving me to believe it is natural.

Mary: I think we do group our thoughts in a retrospective manner that eventually reforms as new information or situations that intermingles with old information for new perceptions. “forcing them to a view with interest the objects reflected from the impassioned imagination, which they passed over in nature (Wollstonecraft, 1792).


References

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. (1748) A & S 3105 Reviewed material
http://infidels.org/library/hitorical/david_hume/human_understanding.html

Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Women. (1792)
http://www.barteby.com/144/

David Hume and Mary Wollstonecraft

Mary: “The perfection of our nature and capability of happiness, must be estimated by the degree of reason, virtue, and knowledge” (Wollstonecraft, 1792). But I wonder which of the three is most important?

David: Reason is the most important. Reason is how we obtain knowledge and through knowledge we are able to assess the meaning of virtue. I would go one step further to say that cause and effect is more important than reason. “All reasonings concerning matter of fact seem to be founded on the relation of Cause and Effect” (Hume, 1748). We can not count things as knowledge until we are certain they are a matter of fact; and without reason this would be impossible.

Mary: But I believe, “deeply rooted prejudices have clouded reason” (Wollstonecraft, 1792). How can one make decisions based on reason not prejudices?

David: Experience. “But to convince us that all the laws of nature, and all the operations of bodies without exception, are known only by experience” (Hume, 1748). Personal Experience is the only way one can truly understand the reason of something. If you take someone’s word instead of experiencing it yourself you are likely to make judgment based on prejudices and not by reason.

Bibliography:

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. (1748). Retrieved 21:07, October 15, 2007, from http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/david_hume/human_understanding.html

Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. (1792). Retrieved 21:10, October 18, 2007 from http://www.bartleby.com/144/

Motivational Thought

In the reading An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume, the author tries to define the human psyche. Hume tries to discover the process of human thought, through the means of experience, observation and the senses within every aspect of life including and not limited to: personality, education, morals, law, religion and fantasy. Hume is very thorough in detailing every thought a person may conceive and how each thought may be materialized. Hume touched on the basis for human motivation; why do humans do what they do. He explains that thinking by nature is innate but each thought is connected through experience.

Nature's Underlying Organization

Hume outlines the idea that nature has created within human beings the innate ability to learn through “experience” making us capable of living and behaving without having previously learned how we do so, behaving simply upon our minds ability to connect past results with future likelihoods. He points out that a child is able, after touching a flame to understand that it is dangerous, and later react by avoiding that danger without understanding what it is that makes fire dangerous. Much like we are aware of the smell and sight of rotten food without having to consume it and experience stomach upset every time. Hume believes this fact implies that much of our knowledge comes from the instinctual ability to learn from experience. This ability says Hume has been granted us by nature and is therefore ultimately unfathomable. Just as we are amazed by the ability of ancient Japanese blacksmiths to fathom out the necessary technique in creating a beautiful and perfect Samurai sword.

A Search For Knowledge

Since the dawn of mankind there has been a search for knowledge. Many great thinkers of the past have spent countless hours pondering the meaning of human existence. Hume’s writing in particular gives readers insight into his perspective on human existence. He believes that to acquire knowledge, we must be assisted by observation and experience. Even if we are certain an event will occur, we still must try to prove it false. The attempt at proving falsehood may seem like it is done in vain, but we can only presume cause and effect on the basis of observation. The search for knowledge will always be an essential part of human existence, and Hume’s original philosophies have helped expand our understanding.

The Human Need of Philosophy

Every culture has a need to base their human understanding on their own philosophies and David Hume eloquently argues this need. The variations of these philosophies are obvious from one society to the next and often vary drastically. The European Enlightenment opened the door to many philosophers, such as Descartes, and brought attention to human knowledge and thought. This serge of independent thinkers encouraged skepticism of their society and put them in search of a new way of thinking. This revolution was a far different philosophy than the ancient Chinese. Similar to Descartes, Confucius was in search of understanding; however, he was more concerned with restoring an older way of thinking as opposed to a new one. He taught of virtue and a return to ancient society in order to restore prosperity. The variety of philosophical thought and Hume’s argument convey this innate need for human understanding.

Somewhere in the Middle

The path to human understanding lies someplace between the extremes. On one end of the philosophical spectrum is Hume. At the other end is Hamann. Hume focuses on experience and observance as the ways in which humans reach understanding. Hume's approach is rational. Hamann's approach focuses on faith and belief instead--an irrational approach. After skeptically analyzing both approaches, it became clear to me that in order to find the answer to human understanding, both methods must be utilized. Some knowledge can be gained through observation and experience. This includes knowing that snow and ice are cold. While other knowledge is simply "known". Knowledge like this includes belief in God and faith in destiny. Humans are born with the capability to both learn from experience, but are also capable of believing that which cannot be scientifically proven. Therefore, the path to human understanding involves both experience and belief.

Reason Can't Replace Experience & Observation

Our minds can only learn about external objects, in the physical world, through experience and observation. Without any prior observation or experience of either the cause or the effect, the human mind cannot comprehend the relationship between the two. For example, if a person never experienced or observed fire he or she would not know the cause of fire has the effect of heat. The human mind, ignorant of observation and experience of the properties of fire, could never reason the powers and forces that connect the two events.

The Understanding of Life

We as human's will always be on the quest to find the meaning of life. As we read the writings of the past we find that even then they were trying to find what the meaning of life is. Some feel that they are the ones that have found the truth and that is the only meaning there can be. But me I feel that there are so many different options to follow how do you know which one is the right one. Maybe there is no right and wrong and maybe this is the meaning of life. I think it's ok to follow which ever meaning you want to.

Better Understanding

Descartes and Hume are both operating on the assumption that the world can be known because we exist outside of nature. They are assuming that there are laws that dictate nature and that we can in fact figure out the universe because there exists an objective and observable reality from ourselves, the observer. This is how they come to every conclusion that they make. An opposing or rather a complementing view to this thinking called irrationalism, assumes that we cannot know the world because the universe and reality are subjective and that we do not exist independently of nature. Thinkers such as Nietzsche and Bergson rejected rationalism and came to an understanding from this that world cannot be completely known. The two schools of thought, rational and irrational are complementary to each other, much like the ideas of logos and mythos in Ancient Greek philosophy. Joined together they would illustrate the rational and animal (irrational) and lead us to better understanding comprehensive human nature.

Sequential Thought

Is David Hume’s theory of sequential thought really based on resemblance or cause and effect? I believe so. If we look at a sequential pattern that has missing information we automatically fill in the gap because we expect it to be there even when it is not present. Hume’s missing shade theory in Section 2, paragraph 16 demonstrates how this missing shade phenomenon actual shows flaw within the human mind. The idea is that our mind has developed a habit of relying on visual stimulation and through that stimuli recognition, which then leaves an impression that is based from sequences of experiential memory. Being accustomed to this process we don’t realize that it is possible to have a missing color, shade, or even numbers in the middle. We assume the logical approach is to have a middle section be the bridge which joins the before and after in a sequence.

Human understanding

Human understanding of life and how we go about things will always be a complex topic. While Hume states "matters of fact" other people may want more scientific information and answers or even just information that is known. As Hume stated "We should in vain, therefore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood". If we think about this why would want to prove something that we just "know" as false? Must we constantly question everything that surrounds us? Or can we just take what we have learned and know as fact and continue on with our lives.

An Alternate Enquiry to Humes

"All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact.", a statement made by Hume that I do not believe to be true despite his evidence. My alternate enquiry would be that "human reason and inquiry is limitless and cannot be placed into only two categories." Although in our society today it seems that we either base our reason on scientific matters or religious beliefs due to philosophy and understanding our reasoning has become much more complicated than Hume makes it out be. The dictionary defines reason as: 1. To think or argue in a logical manner, 2. To form conclusions, judgements, or inferences from facts or premises, 3.to urge reasons which should determine belief or action. These definitions are like rules for reason. If we have learned anything from Descartes it is that our motives and ways for reasoning are taught to us from birth. In order to find an answer we may wish to rid ourselves of these notions and start with nothing. Therefore, there is a grey area with reasoning that Hume does not address.

Skepticism like Descartes

The idea I discovered using the skeptical approach by Descartes was that I believe in destiny. By reviewing all of my past activity and determining that not all of the outcomes were brought on by my own direct action or choice it stands to reason that I have a destiny rather just free will. Due to the time and place one action may occur that I would never have chosen for myself. For example, I met my husband to be at a party that I would not have gone to had a friend not invited me. Then found out that even though I had never met him before we crossed paths more than once, including him staying with my next door neighbor when we were in 3rd grade despite the fact that we grew up over 300 miles apart. Because our paths seemed to be so intertwined it seems that had we not met at that party we would have met eventually down the line. I do not call that free will. I call that destiny.

Week 5-y u shuld writ gud

It tis so ipotant that youz write well, cuz ozers need to undastand use. If u don write well, peeple will think ur a fool. Specialy if u don know how to use gramer. Noing how to spel is so impotent becuz if you writ a wurd wrong sum peeple will tink u meen sum thing udder than whut u meen. Bi lerning to writ gud u can help uthers understood u. then no 1 wil tink u a fool, dey will tink u so samarrt. Wit gud writen wurds u can focus on gud subjicts & ur writeng wil b eveen bitter.

Hume Thesis

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, written by David Hume argues in support of experience as a form of reasoning instead of relying on faith, religion, and “philosophical fantasies” to make sense of things. His work shows that he is skeptical of human understanding and believes that only through personal experience are we able to discover the truth of our existence and make sense of the world around us. He uses direct examples to prove cause and effect and to illustrate how we are unable to understand things without personal experience. The most common examples he uses are math and science. With his examples he also show that relying on faith, religion, and “philosophical fantasies” we are left with no answers. These philosophies also point out that experience can prove the realities of this world such as math and science, but cannot be used to prove abstract ideas such as faith and religion.

Sources:
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/History/18thC/?view=usa&ci=9780199266340

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_nov2000.htm

Absolutely

We cannot predict, absolutely, that matter's of fact as defined by Hume are a matter of cause and effect. This is true because cause and effect, in itself, is a matter of probability, not certainty. In other words; I am pretty sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. I am not 'absolutely certain' that it will though. How do I know? What if it doesn't? In a more realistic example, we could point out how this argument could be in err. One example would be to relate the effect of something to the wrong cause. How certain are we that the cause we identify is the real source of the effect? Since all we can experience is the effect from which to look for a cause, how do we know for certain the real cause? Therefore, we cannot know absolutely the cause of an effect.

Alternative to Human Understanding Through a Critique

Both Descartes and Hume insisted on an absolute either-or approach in terms of how true knowledge is acquired, though they failed to realize that they both used reasoning and experience to make their claims. Hume used reasoning within his assertions, saying that there is a problem due to an absence of reasoning. Without the use of reason, it would not matter if reason was used to justify something or not. One example includes an infant learning through experience; Hume then reasons that the infant would need to know something that the rest of “us” do not know if he/she learned from reasoning. Descartes, too, used experience; in an example of his, he asserted that his senses can and have deceived him, and therefore decided that he could not rely on experience (because it involves senses), even though it was experience that caused him to come to this conclusion. Obviously, both experience and reasoning are needed to “know” anything.

Skeptic Skepticism

By attempting to discard everything that he had believed to be true, Descartes was left with out a foundation to base any future principles on. This dilemma lead him to the conclusion, "I think, therefore I am." After reading Descartes, I find myself skeptical of all knowledge. Due mostly to the fact that knowledge derives from human observation and thought. Perceptions and "truths" vary widely between individuals. The "facts" that are accepted as true are constantly changing as knowledge advances. Therefore, I can really only know that "I am," but I cannot know for certain about anything else.

What Descartes Taught Me

I’ve spent most of my life arguing positions I arrived at in haste.

In order for me to truly question, I must move beyond a juvenile defiance of the social norms; questioning can’t be just to spite. Questioning needs to open every assumption up to doubt and not allow bias to corrupt what I will and won’t explore. If I allow bias and prejudice into my reasoning I become blind to many other critical parts of a solution.

My education, experiences, and this class have opened me up to more possibilities that exist if I only dare to question fully.

Perceive This

At first Descartes had to believe nothing to be true, as a philosopher of thought he needed to start with a blank mind. He needed to make sure his thoughts were unbiased in everyway possible. This is very hard to do, so to make it easier he assumed everything he has of yet experienced to be false. He can barely rely on his own perceptions so each idea or thought must be examined thoroughly. Each thought needs to be categorized for every detail. The thoughts then should be organized from simplistic to complex. He then made general reviews and made sure nothing was omitted. With this process Descartes did prove that he himself exists and that God exists as well as some other thoughts.

Question Everything

Descartes was a thinker that was definitely before his time. During a period when the masses were very religious and accepted most things as a matter of faith in God, his policy was to question everything. He believed that nothing could be absolutely proven except the existence of himself. I think this is a pretty good philosophy to have. Learning about Descartes has made me much more cautious of the information I hear. Now, I am even more likely to question the source of what I am hearing than before.

Authentic Living Through Descartes

It is necessary to question your assumptions and your beliefs about the world to live in an authentic way. One can not truly be present in the moment if they approach all situations with a preconceived idea. Descartes sought to know that all things he held to be true were true. Through this he lived authentically. Knowing that he had approached life is such an organized and skeptical fashion must have relieved much of the anxiety we feel today, since we are forced to move so fast that we have to rely on others to do our analyzing for us.

More Than What Meets the Eye

It is easy to just follow what you see. Seeing is, supposedly, believing, so what you see must be true, but what if there is more? People tend to accept their perception as reality. Descartes questioned what he was told and discovered there was more. When people open their minds, suddenly they perceive things that never seemed to exist before. For Descartes, it was a new way of thinking. Thought was not a new concept or discovery, but it had been simply accepted for what it was. Descartes questioned what knowledge he had about our thought process and discovered there was so much more to it. This just proves that we shouldn't always accept things for what they are, but take the risk to find something more.

Does God exist?

Reading through the discussion thread this week I saw many things that I really enjoyed reading but they all seemed to me to be related to Descartes assumption that God exists. The assumption that God exists is non important but rather the fact that to follow his argument through Descartes had to postulate a God. Everyone has to decide if they believe in an existence of a God based upon their own life experiences, to just decide on the existence of a God because you are told so is denying the fact that you are a rational thinking being.

Shakespeare is Extravagant

Descartes method of scrutiny aided me in reassuring that experience must precede judgment of an idea. I had not truly “known” that Shakespeare was a great writer. Certain circles always stressed that he was, and therefore I assumed it with out firsthand examination, and without scrutiny. Should I not doubt what I do not know to be firsthand truth! NO! Upon finishing "The Merchant of Venice" this week, I found Shakespeare an extravagant writer. Why did I assume so blindly before? No matter what opinion we have of something, we must examine why, and not blindly assume everything that we are told!

Asuumptions

In academia it is important to understand that often students in classes may approach a certain subject with assumptions that are not necessarily wrong but they may differ from other students assumptions. This seems to apply more in a online class because of the challenging learning environment in terms of not having face to face meetings with the students or the professors. When others assume things in the classroom it is important to be skeptical and even defensive about the assumptions made much like Descartes was because if we don’t we have the possibility to set ourselves up for the poor formulation of arguments and allow ourselves to be venerable just because the assumptions we made were not accurate. If we can get to the root of any given assumption and approach them in a careful way it is possible that we can then have a better grasp on the subject.

Descartes

Descartes wanted to seek out how someone acquires knowledge rather than knowledge in itself. If we were to sit back for a second and think about how did we learn about something, like space is made up of plants and stars. It isn't something that is just known, it must require some type of research and requires someone to become knowledgeable about it, but how could someone acquire knowledge that no one else knows about. Descartes thinking at times makes a lot of sense, while we go about life just assuming what we are taught is correct should we not stop for a moment and wonder how did that person acquire the knowledge that they have passed onto us....

How and Why We do it

I enjoy Descartes’s method of denying everything, and feel that people do not do it enough (at least within the US). Specifically, people today are very aware of subjective realities regarding the distinction between their opinions and other people’s opinions - how many times a day do you hear someone speak about a subject with the words “I think ______,” instead of stating their opinion as a fact? Sadly, though, people do not actually question themselves enough, specifically in regards to their culture. Instead of questioning their culture, they often validate what they do by saying “Well, it’s part of my culture” instead of questioning whether it’s worth doing (regardless of the cultural bias). Descartes realized the need to do this.

Descarte's believed for different reasons...

It is possible to believe in the same things as others, but for different reasons. Descarte believed in God, but chose to back up his belief with something other than faith. The Catholic Church, which he was devoted to, based much of their belief in God on faith alone. Descarte decided that faith was not enough for him and chose to validate his belief based on reason and truth. He did this by doubting and then rebuilding his belief based on what he knew to be certain. Just because he chose to believe in God based on reasons different than those of the church do not make his belief right... or wrong.

Everyone Wonders Different Things

I thik that we all have different things that we question in the world. From why people hate eachother for a reason of color, to why people feel the need to kill others. My question is why others have to hate. I just don't understand how you can hold all of one race responsible for what just one person has done. It's like you group everyone into one group. It's just like when women were unable to work. It was the oppression of an entire group based on the facts of gender. It has gotten better but in many cases it still happens. So how does it stop?

Life is A Puzzle

In making a conscious effort to distinguish what is significant or not can reveal specific conclusions on determining what kind of impacts, if any, may have on everyday life. But in the end it comes down to one’s personal opinion. One can go through life journeys to discover that in the end what they questioned, ridiculed, or discovered really did not matter once their own fabric of life was folded. However, it will give someone else insight to take that folded fabric and lay it out once again to rediscover if not solve the most mysterious puzzle of all—Life.

Reasoning

We all have beliefs. We make statements every day about issues and subjects that concern us. We don't often consider what we base our knowledge on and question our methods for coming to these conclusions. While some things are obvious to conclude, other's are not. Prejudice for example is a complex issue, a conclusion based on knowledge that is faulty, but if faulty, what makes it so? This is where our analytical capacity could do wonders. Knowing how to analyze an argument, strip away the emotion/decoration and find it's basic elements, is a way to find out whether a belief (or truth, conclusion ... etc.) is logical, or illogical.

St. Thomas Aquinas and Hammurabi in the Board Room

A few issues were raised in the past few weeks since St. Thomas and Hammurabi attended a board meeting, and one of them concerned the governing of people. Hammurabi was concerned with the punishment of the people, while recognizing the citizens need governing and rules in order to keep people in check. Through the course of the meeting, St. Thomas did not dispute this idea of governing the people, however, he was adament about God being a divine God. Because his God is divine, he should not be repsonsible for governing the people of the earth. With great discussion, the two influential men worked on the balance of punishment for crimes, as well as developing a system of government for the land.

Righting good is da bomb!

i really wanna right good but all my profs say i right bad. they say my spelling ain't no good and i dont punkshiate wright. one time i was like RIGHTINGS NOT HARD but then i was like MY BAD cuz i messed up some paper with sentences that were to long and i forgot to use commas and i wrote small letters and they said it dont make sense and all that stuff. it's like i loooooove riting to my friendz and stuff but not to much at skool cuz my profs just DONT LIKE ME but WHATEVER idk cuz wrightings not that cool n-e-wayz.

Why does wee need to writ good

Writng bestest is very impotant so thats the people thats wreed it can understnd what we are tryikng to say. It is good to have good spelling and to make sure that your sentence is good and that you stay on topic cuz if you dont then your person isnt going to wanna read it. It's like if you are talkin bout a person and then I start talkin bout my dog and that they got shots today and they were really good and I was very proud of them for being good at the vet cuz if they are good there then they will be good when I take them othe rplaces. I am so rpoud that they waz good dogs. But spelling is also improtant cause if you don't spell good then people aren't going to be able to read what you were trying to say. It is also good to make sure that you dont use slang and that you work real hard on making sure that you do the right punctuation If you dont then it is hard for people to read.

The Impotence of Riting

It is important to rite good, cuz if you don’t, can’t no one understand what you is tryin to say! Affective comminicatin is the only way to git peoples to take you seriously and you want peoples to take you seriously cuz if they don’t take you seriously then they might think you is dumm or something and you don’t want your perfessers to think you is dumm cuz then you can’t get no good grade and then your momma will be mad at you cuz you didn’t make her proud or nothing. That’s one of the most important things someone can learn you in college.

iTs DiFFicult tO wriTe hoRribly BAD wriTinG

well, ya see, bad writing, it is, the the zippo clear formulation of righting writng should usually flow the samely as a peoples talk except its’ more refined yet most importantly good writing had a good idea that other people who read should read and then possibly have something to think bad writing is opposite of good writing it is able too maybe have two many words mizzpelled words or run on sentences or none punctuation and iz repetitive writing that i have trouble reading is them that are unclear there words have not direction and ramble on and on and on and dont go anywhere and are lesss clear than they’re should bee

Rights of Riters

Their is alot for a righter to consider when making a statement such as proper punctuation spelling proper citation of sources and the list goes on and on and on they need to now how to spell sertain things that sound the same yet dont have the same letters a righter also has to right there work in a sertain way so that the reader can understand it that can be difficult to do at times however with some persistance and proper help an underdeveloped righter can improve the quality of they're work so the reader can get there point better and they are saying things better so they are clearer for their audience

how not to right

bad writing is hard to describe it contains the misuse of punctuation bad speeling & lots of abbr words for example u can tell some1 some advice but u cant make them use it another aspect of bad writing is the lack of direction it meanders all over the place but nvr gets to ne point bad writing is very hard to follow gramaticcaly as it suffers from no punctuation as u can c where does the sentence bgin & end thanku for taking the time to attmpt to follow this explor of bad writing and have fun with it