Hume believes that the self is an illusion or a fiction. What is his argument? Do you find it convincing? Why or why not?

Hume argues that there is no self. Many former philosophers before him argued that there has always been this idea of self. The idea of self is well known in the Western teachings of philosophy. Hume however takes the approach practiced by buddhists. Hume comes across many great arguments as to why he believes that there is no self rather just illusions or fiction. One example is when he states, “When I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some articular perception or other. . . I never catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception“. This argument alone states in short that when Hume tries to look deep within to the core of “himself” he is clouded by images, illusions and perceptions. In other words all a person really is a collection of their perceptions. Hume then goes on to state that, “The mind is a kind of theatre.” “Where several perceptions successively make their appearance.” This depicts again that all the mind does is display or illuminate what we perceive and based upon that perception it creates an illusion. This analogy or comparison of the mind being similar to a theater also could be argued that it is fiction.

Im not really sure i believe that all we are is what we perceive. In a way it kind of reminds me of that saying “you are what you eat”. Its a very bold statement. To me i’d like to think that i am more than just what i’ve seen or what i’ve experienced. This also brings back some psychology teachings of nature vs nurture for some odd reason. I think its due to the fact that in a way what you see and what you surround yourself like you environment can make a person who they are. However, a person can also have the ability to change on their own based upon their willingness to.

• What does Descartes demonstrate with the wax example? How does it fit into his main argument for dualism? In short Descartes portrays that the wax can take on many different shapes and or forms however it will still remain as the same identity, which is wax. Therefore, during the class discussion we had mentioned the example of a child. As the child grows does the child change or remain the same? Other than the physical change we conclude the child is still the child.
• According to Descartes, how do we know the mind is separate from the body? Do you agree? Explain. “What then did I know so distinctly in this piece of wax? It could certainly be nothing of all that the senses brought to my notice, since all these things which fall under taste, smell, sight, touch, and hearing, are found to be changed, and yet the same wax remains”. This quote in my opinion answers the question on how the mind and body are different. senses can be deceptive while your mind can think more logically about things. When he gave the example of men passing his window. He had connected figures to machines that were just draped with a coat and hat. Therefore, stating that his senses that his body has are different than the mind. Taking the example we had previously stated in class about a child remaining the same. We can see how the mind is continuously still the same no matter what the appearance may be of the person (throughout age).

• What problem does Princess Elisabeth ask Descartes to explain? Does he respond to her objections to your satisfaction? Princess Elisabeth in short asked how (Insert summary of what she asked). Princess Elisabeth stated, “Given that the soul of a human being is only a thinking substance, how can it affect the bodily spirits, in order to bring about voluntary actions?” In all honesty the letter between Descartes and Princess Elisabeth was a little strange, in my opinion. You have the Princess asking a question and seeking knowledge. While Descartes is so “enlightened” its hard to really comprehend and digest exactly all the things he is saying. I thought it was funny when he stated, “If I make this explanation any longer I’ll be doing an injustice to your incomparable mind, whereas if I let myself think that what I have written so far will be entirely satisfactory to you I’ll be guilty of egotism”. This comment made me feel as though he was trying to nicely state that he couldn’t explain it to her because she would basically not be able to comprehend what he has to share. Even if he was to try he’d basically be doing it out of ego. I’m sorry but geez talk about being mansplained.

• Descartes finally arrives at something he takes to be known with absolute certainty. What is it? How does he claim to know it? Do you think he has proven anything?

What was the reading about:

In my opinion, I feel as though Descartes decided to go over all of his beliefs and question them. He did so by remaining skeptical and open-minded to the truth. He then went on to state that he isn’t necessarily trying to prove everything he knows as false but rather just establish a basis of just “pure” knowledge. This idea of having knowledge that can support all of his former beliefs, can be referenced back to the idea of foundationalism. At the very end of the passage Descartes mentions, ” ..I shall remain obstinately attached to this idea, and if by this means it is not in my power to arrive at the knowledge of any truth, I may at least do what is in my power [i.e. suspend my judgment], and with firm purpose avoid giving credence to any false thing, or being imposed upon by this arch deceiver, however powerful and deceptive he may be.” I think what he mentions here is important. To me, he basically states that if and when we can’t find the solid truth to something the least we can do is be and remain cautious towards the things that we perceive/ receive as truth. He then goes on and states three arguments that pertains to the idea of deceptions/illusions.

His last sentence mentioned, ” however powerful and deceptive he may be”. This wraps around one of his three arguments that there is an Evil God. Therefore No matter how good something may sound or seem as being the truth that is just the “evil God” being deceptive to us. He then suggests that we have to remain solid in only what we now as true. This argument is kind of hard for me to come to terms with because i’m Christian. Therefore, believing that God himself is evil is just absurd because i believe that God in my eyes is pure so to put evil next to his name just seems a little absurd to me. However his other two arguments are more sound in my eyes.

Descartes Second point is his Illusion Argument, in short this argument is founded on the idea that our senses are not always accurate. This argument is based on the premise that even our own senses can deceive us.

Descartes last argument is the idea that everything could literally be just a Dream. This arguments is actually my favorite argument. He states that we all could be just dreaming right now and everything that we see is an illusion. However, even though we may be in a dream when we do actually dream certain things still remain true. The biggest example he gave in his passage is that of mathematics. If we were to do simple addition in our dreams that 3 +2= 5. The reason i think i found this argument more favorable is based upon the fact that in a way he plays the devils advocate and shows another side.

Overall, I think Descartes sought out this idea of knowledge in order to support all beliefs but while doing so he realized that somethings in life we really can’t find actual truth to it. Therefore, the only things that we can believe is our skepticism. While remaining skeptical our “job” is to figure out if what we are taking as truth is actually the truth and not an illusion such as deception by an evil God, and illusion or a dream. I personally believe that having skepticism, and being doubtful is the best knowledge to have so in a way yes i do believe that Descartes proved something.

The reading states that there are a group of men held in shackles in a cave. Being that they are restrained, they are only allowed to see the wall in front of them. The fire that is behind them allows for the individuals to see shadows. Since they have been born and raised this way they take the shadows as reality. They come up with names for certain figures etc. One day one individual was freed from his shackles, he then went outside the cave and was basically exposed to a new world. A world that was no longer filled with only shadows. He was able to actually see the “things” that made the shadows. But being that he was only shown a part of reality he finds it troubling to adjust to this so called new world. When he went back to tell his former group about what he experienced and what he has seen the men basically shut him down. So the question remains what is reality? It is important to note that this cave is a metaphor for what we know as the “physical world”. Furthermore, the world that we are in right now, the one based off of senses is the world that everyone currently lives in. The only way “out” of that world is through the mind and by using the mind we would rely heavily on logic and reason. When we are able to do that we will then reach the world of form, which is the only “real world”.

I personally feel as though media projects a false reality. In a way media depicts what is beautiful. For example, with “instagram models” we see people with lavish lifestyles and all of those things make a person appear to be super happy. Yet one can find that a majority of them are actually unhappy. I personally used to admire instagram models and in all honesty envy them a bit. However, when i focused all my time and energy into trying to appear as one i felt as though i was tearing myself apart, in order to look the part. It wasn’t until i took a step back and really realized that i’m so much more than my insecurities and there are so much more to life than social media. So i “cleansed” myself from social media for 3 months and found that i was actually a lot more happier and at peace with myself. In the reading Plato stated, “Well then, if he recalled to mind his first habitation and what passed for wisdom there, and his fellow bondsmen, do you not think that he would count himself happy in the change and pity them?” This new recollection that i felt while escaping one reality in order to view another allowed me to feel pity for who i once was and who others’ continue to be.

I think that we do mistake fiction for reality, being that people do buy consumer goods in order to look a certain way in order to fulfill societies expectations as beautiful. That proves that we do attempt to live in this false reality.

I do believe that our physical world is a reality to whom the world is being viewed by.

To summarize, The Will to Believe by James Williams he describes beliefs as options. With that bing said he described three different types of options. The three options are live, forced or momentous.

To briefly describe a live option one can view it as subjective. Meaning that the person has to be able to connect to whatever is being proposed. In the text James described the different types of religion but if you are an atheist then neither options would matter because you don’t connect to it. My personal live option is being asked to decide between being a football fan or a hockey fan. This is a live option because i personally feel very passionate about football.

A forced option in my mind is not being able to wiggle your way out of something. In other words, its very black or white. The example given in the text was to “either take this as truth or go without it”. In this particular example one can’t stay in that moment and avoid making the decision between the two options. My personal example of a forced option would be to decide wether you die or your best-friend dies. You would have to choose between these options theres no “wiggle room”.

A momentous option could be viewed as an opportunity that if left being untaken can be viewed as a loss. For example if one were to be asked to dance with Jennifer Lopez. So many people like myself that option would be a “no brainer”. I would be willing to risk my job, all of my money in the bank in order to have that shot at potential success. Most people, especially dancers would jump at that specific opportunity to dance with Jennifer Lopez because if one were to pass on it that could/would be viewed as a “loss”. As the passage had mentioned, “Better risk loss of truth than chance of error,—that is your faith-vetoer’s exact position.” This quote was taken from the passage and i believe it was touching on the idea that its better to try at something that poses a risk than to play it safe.

I personally find it hard to find in favor of Clifford. Although I can see what he is saying i still think there is more in life than just being labeled or categorized as right or wrong. He is very critical of people as well. In short he basically believes that if a person believes the words of men then he is a waste of a human. People should only believe things that they have constructed and proven evidence for. Although i agree that everyone should form their opinions based upon facts or evidence its hard for us to go about our lives constantly finding evidence for every single thing we believe in. if we spend our life proving every single things as fact things can become very redundant. For example, am i suppose to live my life finding evidence for every small thing i believe in? Like why and how electricity exists? How my body is considered alive because of my heartbeat? there are some things that people should be able to take as facts or “evidence” based upon other peoples experiences. By doing that we can advance our thoughts to things of relevance of todays issues. By doing so we can advance our technology into other complex things. I do’t think that by believing other peoples evidence as my own should make me a waste of a human?

When reading Clifford’s position on Ethics of Beliefs i thought to myself two things. The first thought that came to mind was, “how is Clifford making his argument” or and recognizing his arguments. The second thought I had was how to relate the reading to our previous teachings on fallacies.

Well first i’d like to break down one of his arguments in standard form. I think one of Clifford’s biggest argument that was presented in the article was:

Premise 1: Unjust belief causes harm

Premise 2: All beliefs lead to action

Conclusion: a man should never take things as true based on having no evidence. A person who believes in “unjustified things” is All beliefs lead to action and an unjust belief causes harm.

“But,” says one, “I am a busy man; I have no time for the long course of study which would be necessary to make me in any degree a competent judge of certain questions, or even able to understand the nature of the arguments. “ Then he should have no time to believe. This quote literally shocked me he basically mocks a man (or woman) who is unwilling to put in the effort to do research on a topic that the individuals so called chose to believe. He then stated that the individual should basically not believe.

I personally remember when i was a kid, i was gullible and believed everything my parents told me. When I was a kid i always wanted to go swimming. It didn’t matter if it was raining or a little chilly out i wanted to be in the water. My dad would always call me a fish. With that being said i remember going on vacation and asking my dad if i could go to the pool. I believe at the time i was around 3-4 years old and my dad had told me “no”. I of course couldn’t just take no for an answer so i then proceeded by asking him “why?” He then went on and said that the resort was filling the pool with sharks. I remember i was completely shocked and curious. I took what my father said and believed it. To me it was “sound” a shark swims in water and a pool is water therefore the shark was going in the pool. Now looking back i can clearly distinguish the fact that a shark would have no business being in a pool at a resort. Unless of course, it was Tiger Kings pool then maybe, lol.

My overall thought of Clifford’s argument is that yes people should not take everything a person says as truth. Yes, we should conduct our own research, so to speak. However, i also believe that there are certain things that people should be willing to believe without having to do the research. By doing so i believe it can prevent an individual from having to seek the repercussions of certain situations.

The Class Activity:

On the first day of Philosophy class we were given a prompt. The prompt, in short, stated for us (the students) to think of a time of when we, ourselves, had faced injustice. After thinking long and hard i finally decided to mention the time that I was raped. Without getting into to much details i’ll fast forward to when i was urged to come forward.

My Story of Injustice:

In short, it all started when i was found on the bathroom floor in my rom at my former college campus. I was found with a blade to my wrist. Tears streaming down my face, I was truly ready to end it all. With mixed emotions and feelings I remember distinctly feeling dirty, hurt, naked, stupid and overall disgusted with myself. I had felt so torn, my mind literally felt like it was split in two. One side of me was trying to have compassion for myself. However, the other side was much louder of course. To my surprise the Dean to my dorm had busted in. While she was ultimately shocked and confused she pulled me in and just held me. As the morning came she had me talk to the schools title IX person and they both had urged me to come forward. The title IX individual had mentioned going to a weave program for women, in Napa (close to my school). It is key to note that at the time i didn’t want to go, i didn’t want to seek help. I just wanted it to be over. I knew that if i go i would of had to file a police report. This brought a lot of fear and anxiety because the individual who had raped me was in the Marine Corps. I figured that no one would really care. Sure enough i went, It was there when the Social worker had tried to convince me to talk to a police officer. When the Police Officer came in i remember the feeling of being made out to be the suspect. I was being interrogated i felt like i was asked a million questions. The same questions over and over again. Having to go over the details of what occurred. I felt vulnerable and “naked” again. I was made to feel like everything that happened was all in my head. He asked me if i had lover’s remorse.. I thought to myself first of all what in the hell does that even mean? How in the hell (excuse my language) could i have lover’s remorse over someone i didn’t even know? It was at that point in time I realized nothing was going to happen. The only thing that was occurring was being traumatized again. Once by the perpetrator and then by the officer. I was denied a rape kit, there was no further investigation that had taken place. This was when I had personally faced injustice with the police department. The individuals who are suppose to “protect and serve” failed to do so with me.

The Class Activity Part 2:

The next part of class my Professor had asked for everyone to think of some commonalities of injustice. What exactly does injustice mean to you and to your neighbor. When speaking to my partner we had came up with one sentence each. We then had to merge the two sentences together. By doing those three things we formed “our conclusion” of what injustice meant. Here is what we came up with.

1(Mine): When faced with injustice higher authority tends to dismiss people

2(My Neighbor): Injustice is when higher authority doesn’t support people leaving them feeling unheard.

Our Conclusion: When faced with injustice higher authority tends to dismiss and not support people thus leaving them unheard.