Discussion of Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self Part II

Discussion of Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self Part II.mp3

Discussion of Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self Part I

Discussion of Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self Part I.mp3

Discussion of David Hume's Section VIII of Liberty and Necessity Part II

Discussion of David Hume's Section VIII of Liberty and Necessity Part II.mp3

Discussion of David Hume's Section VIII of Liberty and Necessity Part I

Discussion of David Hume's Section VIII of Liberty and Necessity Part I.mp3

Disucssion of Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Controversy Part II

Disucssion of Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Controversy Part II.mp3

Disucssion of Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Controversy Part I

Discussion of Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Controversy Part I.mp3

Funny philosophy related sites...

http://eserver.org/philosophy/chicken.txt (hilarious philosopher answers (don't know if they're real) for the universal question - why did the chicken cross the road?

http://bertc.com/subfour/truth/warninglabels.htm

-Philosopher warning labels

In response to Descartes' Mediation I

I thought it was pretty funny :)

Ownership

Although I can't come up with a proper answer to my original question about Body and Mind, I would like to pose another question.

Does our minds belong to us?

Discussion of Rene Descartes' Meditation I Part II

Part II of the recording of the discussion from Friday, November 7. We discussed Rene Descartes' Meditation I.

Discussion of Rene Descartes' Meditation I Part II.mp3

Discussion of Rene Descartes' Meditation I Part I

The recording of the discussion from Friday, November 7. We discussed Rene Descartes' Meditation I.

Discussion of Rene Descartes' Meditation I Part I.mp3

"dialectic, then, need have nothing to do with truth"

In The Art of Controversy by Arthur Schopenhauer, he wrote that "if we take purely objective truth as our aim, we are reduced to mere Logic" (10). I disagree. In the search for purely objective truth, it is not just Logic used but also Dialectic is used to help determine what is true and what is not. Schopenhauer writes that Dialectic "has no other aim but to reduce to a regular system and collect and exhibit the arts which most men employ when they observe, in a dispute, that truth is not on their side, and still attempt to gain the day" (10). The way he writes this makes it seem as if people are just stubborn, rigid and just want to win "acceptance of propositions" (9) even when they are "in the wrong" (4). I think Dialectic is used to find a personal truth on a subject by validating an opinion under the scrutiny of another.

Should Philosphy be divided into categories?

Should Philosphy be divided into categories? What I mean is that should there be a divsion in philisophy why or why not?

Body and Mind

Does the body rule the mind 

or

does the mind rule the body?

Kinda Off Topic Requests

Hey guys, do you remember at Friday's session when Ms.Darby said she would take us to debate with private school kids. Correct me if I'm wrong Miss but did you say we can get a dress code for the Republic for when we compete? If you did say this, then can we go on a shopping field trip so we can choose? If I misunderstood...can we get a special dress-code?

Also, remember that Holiday party we were talking about Friday too? Can we do something where we pick another member of the Republic's name out of a hat and give them a gift (I think it's called Secret Santa).

I'm really excited about this guys (I know...I'm a loser lol) Let me know what you think.

Devotion

I think if one was to devote themselves to an idea and try to reach a goal, they can accomplish that with whatever means necessary by keeping in mind that they are human and they have limits. From my understanding Descartes did this. He restarted his life following his principles. If he did not have pervious experience relating to life, how was he suppose to come up his theories? 

Confused@#$%!?

I am a bit confused as to how I can take philosophy and implement it into my life. I do not mean to be ignorant, but how does one use philosophy as a tool? I read through the papers, and I am amazed by the ideas though quite frankly I don't know how to store all that information and use it to my advantage. Please do enlighten me on this topic.

Part II of the Nicomachean Ethics Discussion

Part two of the Aristotle discussion from last Friday.

Discussion of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics Part II.mp3

Discussion of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

This is the recording of last weeks meeting when we discussed Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

Discussion of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics Part I.mp3

Part II of The Allegory of the Cave Discussion

Here is part II of the Plato's The Allegory of the Cave discussion.

Discussion of Plato's The Allegory of the Cave Part II.mp3

Discussion of Plato's The Allegory of the Cave

This is the recording from our third meeting when we discussed Plato's The Allegory of the Cave. It is only the first half of the recording.

Discussion of Plato's The Allegory of the Cave Part I.mp3

THE AUDIO FILES ARE AWESOME

You Rock!

Part II of Discussion of Plato's The Republic Book VI

I had to spilt the recording into 2 files.

Discussion of Plato's The Republic Book VI Part II.mp3

Discussion of Plato's The Republic Book VI

Finally, I have figured out (with the help of evil siblings) how to post audio files. It took a lot of struggling because, frankly, I am technologically challenged. Therefore, after the long wait, here is the recording of out second meeting. Many people were away that day but you can catch up now with the recording. The recording starts with us being a little off topic because I only started recording part way through the discussion. It is a good discussion but try to ignore the random cracklings of people reaching for candy.

Discussion of Plato's The Republic Book VI Part I.mp3

My Ramblings on Descartes' Meditation I

I finished reading Descartes’ Meditation: Concerning Those Things That Can Be Called into Doubt and I find it a little strange that he comes to the decision that it is better to “fall back into the train of [his] former beliefs” in fear of it all being an “agreeable illusion” (12) with “imaginary liberty” (12). After our discussion on Bertrand’s The Value of Philosophy, I thought the point to philosophy was to “enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind to speculation” (Bertrand) but Descartes questions than reverts back to his former opinions out of fear of what he could find. The whole ordeal reminds me of The Allegory of the Cave. The idealized individual that Socrates and Glaucon are discussing “would rather suffer anything then entertain these false notions and live in the miserable manner” (Plato 4). Descartes is fearful of the unknown and therefore decides not to further question the topic of truths and reality. Is it not the objective of a philosophy to question everything in an attempt to broaden the spectrum of possibility despite the outcome? Frankly, I just found the whole ending a little contradictory to everything we have previously discussed.

On another note, Descartes questioning of whether the “perception of all…objects” (9) does “not exist otherwise than as [we] perceive” (9). It is an interesting concept. For instance, if somehow, my eyesight changed and I started seeing the sky as green, most people would tell me that I am wrong and that the sky is blue. Yet, how can anyone tell me that what I see is false? The idea that the sky is blue is a fact imposed on all by the majority who can see the sky as blue and anyone who does not fall in that category has flawed vision. I had a conversation with a strange boy once about colours. The conversation was about whether the colour that I see as green is the same shade or even colour that he sees as green. In the end, how can anyone ever describe colour without using another colour for comparison? I am not sure if my train of thought is clear but during the time when I was discussing this, it made perfect sense. For example, more likely than not, two people do not share the same vision when it comes to colour. So two people could be looking at the same object but are seeing two different shades or colours but they would never know the difference because their whole lives they have been told that the colour they see is, for instance, red. It is impossible to ever know the difference. It is the idea that there is not one reality but realities based on perception. Simply put, my reality verses let us say Muna’s reality or Robin’s reality.

Once again on to another topic, which is actually a little off-topic but I am going to bring it up anyways. While I was reading Meditation I, the portion on dreams verses perceived reality reminded of a conversation I had several months ago with the previously-mentioned boy. The topic up for debate was whether dreams were just the activeness of our subconscious mind seeping into to the conscious mind or another reality in which we exist when we are sleep. His theory was that we exist in multiple realities but we are only aware of the reality when we are in it. He said that when we sleep, we might just be leaving the physical being of one reality and transporting to a physical being in another. In the separate realities, things that we may conclude as impossibilities in one reality may be truths in another. At the time, I said that the theory was completely unrealistic and he said that I could doubt it but I could never prove the theory to be wrong. That little anecdotal story all spawned from Descartes’ idea “that there exist no certain marks by which the state of waking can ever be distinguished from sleep” (5).

In conclusion, that is what I thought about Descartes’ Meditation I. I am completely unsure if any of that made sense or was even relevant but I am posting none-the-less.