Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Leibniz, a favorite
It's sad that I haven't checked this blog for some time. However, I will be sure to check it more frequently. Brian, Leibniz is my favorite philosopher. Without checking notes or textbook (I'm going to look at these more tomorrow (and I'll probably add or change what I am saying now)), some of his contributions have been 1) Monadology, 2) Best possible world (of course, this does link with the monadology), 3) calculus, 4) attempt to establish a perfect language. Spinoza was a Jewish-Dutch philosopher who argued for a pantheistic concept, but I can't get my thoughts concrete enough to make a bullet point. Interestingly, H. G. Well's book World of the Wars demonstrates a Spinozian atonement (I realized this as I watched the movie and did some research to verify that this theory is plausible, and it is. H. G. Well's new Spinoza and his theories..., now to read that book some time soon). Voltaire was Leibniz's nemesis. His Candide is a refutation and satire of Leibniz's philosophy. Hobbes' argued for man's natural state to be a base nature, and I believe he had something to do with the social contract. Well, ultimately, I know what I'll be reading on the train to work tomorrow. On another note, I argue that Leibniz's best possible world offers valuable insight into man's relation to God and God's omniscience (but that's for another time).
On the note of Atlas Shrugged, I am reading Dostoevsky's Devils right now, and he offers some interesting refutations to Ayn Rand's philosophy; however, I need to finish this book before I speak too soon. Perhaps, when the Atlas Shrugged discussion begins, I'll be done with it.
On the note of Atlas Shrugged, I am reading Dostoevsky's Devils right now, and he offers some interesting refutations to Ayn Rand's philosophy; however, I need to finish this book before I speak too soon. Perhaps, when the Atlas Shrugged discussion begins, I'll be done with it.
12(b)(1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
Thanks to Brian for posting after a long silence. As far as those philosophers go, I know very little. I always get Liebniz and Spinoza mixed up. I know that Spinoza lived in Holland, but his parents were Jews from Portugal. I know that one of them did a lot of logic stuff and tried to prove God's existence with it. I know the Hobbes was Enligsh and his big work was the Leviathan, which I think is all about politics. He has a theory about where we get our morality from, stuff like giving up out rights to the sovereign because he protects us. At least that is what I can get right now. All I know about Voltaire is that he is French and did politics. Good luck with them. I would be more interested in Spinoza and Liebniz than the other two, so if you find anything cool out, let me know.
As far as philosophical thoughts that I have had recently, you could probably guess that they mostly have to do with the law. My favorite class right now is my criminal law class. Brian I know you mentioned once that you have libertarian leanings, which I think means that you think that we should stick to the constitution pretty strictly or something? Well, I think I was going to try and say something smart about laws, but my thoughts are too jumbled. Maybe next time.
Instead, I had a funny ethical problem the other day. I was walking on campus here, in a part where not a lot of people walk, and I saw a $20 bill crumpled up on the ground. I was shocked. I picked it up and all of the hypothetical ethical situations came to my mind that we talked about in my phil classes at BYU. I thought about the categorical imperative, I thought about different types of duty, I thought about the utility of my actions, I thought about what the average greek man would do (a la Aristotle), then I looked around, saw that nobody was coming to claim it, put it in my pocket and walked away.
I could go into all the justifications that went through my head, there were many, but I think that the choice I made was fine. I mean, maybe it was even the best decision to make. It will make for some nice ice cream.
As far as philosophical thoughts that I have had recently, you could probably guess that they mostly have to do with the law. My favorite class right now is my criminal law class. Brian I know you mentioned once that you have libertarian leanings, which I think means that you think that we should stick to the constitution pretty strictly or something? Well, I think I was going to try and say something smart about laws, but my thoughts are too jumbled. Maybe next time.
Instead, I had a funny ethical problem the other day. I was walking on campus here, in a part where not a lot of people walk, and I saw a $20 bill crumpled up on the ground. I was shocked. I picked it up and all of the hypothetical ethical situations came to my mind that we talked about in my phil classes at BYU. I thought about the categorical imperative, I thought about different types of duty, I thought about the utility of my actions, I thought about what the average greek man would do (a la Aristotle), then I looked around, saw that nobody was coming to claim it, put it in my pocket and walked away.
I could go into all the justifications that went through my head, there were many, but I think that the choice I made was fine. I mean, maybe it was even the best decision to make. It will make for some nice ice cream.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Monads?
So I am sorry that I apparently killed the conversation. It has been a long while since anyone posted, so I figured I should say something.
To kick things off, I am working on a little fun project in which I need a quick summary of some of the philosophical ideas of a few thinkers that I never really studied. Without going into wikipedia, what would you say are the 3 major contributions of:
1. Liebniz
2. Hobbes
3. Spinoza
4.Voltaire
Summaries or bullet points will do.
-Brian
PS, I am in the middle of Atlas Shrugged, and am excited to get into some discussions about it when I am done.
To kick things off, I am working on a little fun project in which I need a quick summary of some of the philosophical ideas of a few thinkers that I never really studied. Without going into wikipedia, what would you say are the 3 major contributions of:
1. Liebniz
2. Hobbes
3. Spinoza
4.Voltaire
Summaries or bullet points will do.
-Brian
PS, I am in the middle of Atlas Shrugged, and am excited to get into some discussions about it when I am done.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
last thought and new topic(s)
I'm going to quickly throw in my last two cents on logic and thought. I think an important part is that the human mind is capable of learning logic. This is something that has frustrated me with psychology; many times they study how the human mind is in its "most natural" setting, but they do not look enough at its capabilities. While people might not talk or think according any logic system, people are capable of learning logic systems and confining their minds and language to the system's rules.
On a different note, how about a new topic. My mind is slightly scattered right now, but here are some thoughts on the top of my head. We could discuss the different meanings of snakes or serpents in scriptures and literature. I realize this is not technically a philosophical topic, but it could be interesting. Perhaps this fits in the comparative literature category. I have always been fascinated with the fact that the lifted brazen serpent is symbolic of Christ and the atonement, and yet, the serpent is also a symbol of the devil. Why? Then, there is the abstract serpent in The Little Prince, which offers another meaning. The serpent appears to represent two extremes.
Another fun topic could be a discussion on how far is it right to interpret or place intention on a writer. In other words, with philosophy, poetry, and literature, people so frequently argue that a writer intended some meaning or other that may not be explicit. I've heard people argue that we should not even try to interpret beyond obvious meaning the writer intended (I find this boring), and others argue that we can interpret as much as the text will permit.
With Ayn Rand, what are the similarities and differences between the United Order, the 21st Century Motor Factor order, and John Galt's valley order?
Should we consider states of the mind as states or acts?
Is there a proof or argument for an objective truth? A truth beyond accepted social constructs?
I'll stop there. I think I'm going to think about something for the final question. Of course, I accept that there is an objective truth, but is there are proof for it. Of course, I am open to any other debate, too.
On a different note, how about a new topic. My mind is slightly scattered right now, but here are some thoughts on the top of my head. We could discuss the different meanings of snakes or serpents in scriptures and literature. I realize this is not technically a philosophical topic, but it could be interesting. Perhaps this fits in the comparative literature category. I have always been fascinated with the fact that the lifted brazen serpent is symbolic of Christ and the atonement, and yet, the serpent is also a symbol of the devil. Why? Then, there is the abstract serpent in The Little Prince, which offers another meaning. The serpent appears to represent two extremes.
Another fun topic could be a discussion on how far is it right to interpret or place intention on a writer. In other words, with philosophy, poetry, and literature, people so frequently argue that a writer intended some meaning or other that may not be explicit. I've heard people argue that we should not even try to interpret beyond obvious meaning the writer intended (I find this boring), and others argue that we can interpret as much as the text will permit.
With Ayn Rand, what are the similarities and differences between the United Order, the 21st Century Motor Factor order, and John Galt's valley order?
Should we consider states of the mind as states or acts?
Is there a proof or argument for an objective truth? A truth beyond accepted social constructs?
I'll stop there. I think I'm going to think about something for the final question. Of course, I accept that there is an objective truth, but is there are proof for it. Of course, I am open to any other debate, too.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Time
It is time for something new, at least a new post. I don't know if I am excited enough to write something about logic any more. I don't think language has an exact logic, and...human thought might have some type of most basic logic, and I think that Frege/Russell logic comes pretty close to that. I think when you start adding different variables (modal logic, cognitive logic, second-order logic) that things become too big and crazy for them to truly represent basic reasoning.
As far as mathematics finding its roots in logic, I am pretty skeptical. I think numbers exist, just as modus ponens does, but I don't think that numbers come from modus ponens. Logic+set theory creates problems that I don't know, at least I haven't been told in the 4 logic classes that I have had, how the problems with set theory can be resolved. Ok, I better get back to work now. I wasn't planning on talking about logic, but I did. I promise something else next time.
As far as mathematics finding its roots in logic, I am pretty skeptical. I think numbers exist, just as modus ponens does, but I don't think that numbers come from modus ponens. Logic+set theory creates problems that I don't know, at least I haven't been told in the 4 logic classes that I have had, how the problems with set theory can be resolved. Ok, I better get back to work now. I wasn't planning on talking about logic, but I did. I promise something else next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)