Response to Aly's Post: "Conception"

I agree with Aly, that the idea of creating the world is interesting, if problematic. If nothing exists until we create it, then how do we know if anything really exists? What are the parameters of  existence? Do you have to be able to see it for it to exists? That doesn't make sense when you think about mirages, you can see them, but they are not real. They are the mind playing tricks, so sight cannot be the determining factor, or if it is, it can only be a part of the whole determination process. So there are five more senses, is smelling something enough to make it exist? Maybe, maybe not, it is possible to catch a whiff of something based on imagination and memory rather than on an actual scent. Taste could be a good indicator, but then again not everyone can taste the same range of things, so in that case, it could be considered real for one person and not for another. What about hearing? People hear voices that are not connected to bodies a good amount of the time, I know I do. If I am upstairs, I can hear my mother calling me, even when she didn't or the storm door opening when it didn't (that I might attribute to the wind, or I could be crazy). So I will rule hearing alone out. That leaves touch. I think being able to touch something would be the most important factor in determining whether or not something exists. Knowing that you could put your hand on it and physically feel it, in my opinion, is more powerful than seeing, hearing, tasting, or smelling something, though I would not rule them entirely out in the overall consensus. 

(Link to Aly's Blog: http://aboughton.blogspot.com/)

A Priori or A Posteriori?

"But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out if experience." How is it possible to know things before you know things? In terms of sight, I understand that you can know you are seeing before knowing the word for the action. But how does this work with things like math and other such subjects you are not inherently knowledgeable about? Is this statement in favor of the idea of a priori knowledge or is it observations of actions and everyday events that we experience before the introduction of teaching, similar to that of learning the word for seeing? In this case, when you are taught something, you end up learning to associate words with things that you indeed already know, but previously did not have words for. So how does this explain math or science? How do we already know scientific and mathematical things before being taught? Then again when you think about it, if you were to already know things, but learn the words, is it really a priori or is it a posteriori? The whole idea of knowing before knowing is confusing---how is it possible?

Response to Siearra's Post: "The Importance of Science"

I agree that science, in some way or other, should be considered in the evaluation of human nature. With science the "how's" and some "why's" can be answered in terms of how and why humans do the things they do. Science explains how humans came about and the impacts of the environments they developed in. Science is also there to explain the physical differences between human appearances and is unbiased in doing so (or at least it should be).






(Link to Siearra's Blog: http://siearrasviewsnhn.blogspot.com/)

What is the Most Prominent Factor in the Human’s Annihilation of Themselves and Other Sentient Beings?

I would think that the human mind is the biggest factor in the annihilation that Darwin saw humans heading toward. They have much more thought capacity than any other animal, which leads to superiority and inferiority between races and ethnicities, body types and hair, and facial features. Humans always want to improve this or improve that, advance this, make that easier. In the process though, humans have destroyed a good portion of the planet's plant and animal life. Humans have created harmful chemicals, genetically modified animals and plants, and polluted the earth in the process.

Response to Elizabeth's Post: Sartre's Rejection of the Unconscious- relating to dreams

I believe that your dreams are merely memories of things you've already seen or experienced, though they don't always make sense when portrayed in the dream, often times jumbled or mixed together, but don't quote me on that. I would say that Sartre's idea that dreams are controlled by the conscious mind could come from the state of sleep where you are somewhere between unconscious and conscious of what you are dreaming about; essentially that state between awake and asleep where you do have a certain amount of control over what it is you are dreaming about. Or he could be thinking that the thoughts you have before falling asleep affect the dreams you have during the course of the night, but again I would say you have to be in the state of being between fully asleep and partially awake in order to remember any dream you have if you're trying to make sense of it in terms of Sartre's ideas.





(Link to Elizabeth's Blog: http://elizabethpitroff.blogspot.com/)

Is There a Set Purpose to Life that Must be Discovered or is it Something that is Personally Given to Life by Each Individual?

I don't think that there is a set purpose to life. I think that each individual is free to create their life's purpose or change it at their own will. If there were a set purpose to life, I feel people would go mad trying to figure it out; asking questions on one can or could ever know the answer to. I would speculate that if there were a set purpose to life, life would be boring. You would already know what you were meant to do, which in my opinion, takes the choice and imagination out of your thoughts for the future. Another argument against a set purpose is the idea of free will, if humans have free will, their purpose cannot be set. If it were to be set, free will would be an illusion because everything they do, though it seems to be their own thoughts and ideas, would really just be part of a purpose that was already planned out for them before they were even aware of it. All of this, I suppose, plays right along with Sartre's claim that "we are condemned to be free," since I am suggesting that our purpose is our own to create.

I'm Not Sure Where I'm Going With This

I have the strangest feeling that religion is the main driving force behind most of the philosophers we have read/talked about so far. Each and every one of them, save maybe one or two---maybe---has brought up religion in what ever topic it is they are discussing. What does religion have to do with how moral someone is or can be? How does religion prove or disprove the idea of free will? What does religion have to do with being patriotic? I don't believe that a higher power or being can make you do something you don't want to or control if you do something you want to. If anything the constraints of society or your own personal judgement are what stop or prompt you.  You don't have to have morals to believe a religion, just like you don't have to believe any particular religion to have morals; the two don't go hand in hand. In some cases I don't even see where religion fits into the questions they ask. As with the current topic existentialism. In this theory each person is essentially responsible for what they make of them self, so where does or would religion fit in here? I don't really think it does.