This chapter it's the most interesting I have found. Because it asks the hardest question for a philosopher. What is the universe? This question leads to more questions which makes it even more interesting. For example, if the world is infinite or is it finite because we don't know if it has an end. Then if we don't know if it has an end than we can say it is infinite.
It is very confusing but after you read deeply, you can understand all this statements by the philosophers. There is this story about the elephant with his back to a turtle, and the turtle over a spider and a spider over a lot of rocks. Bertrand Russell says this story in a different and an easier way to understand, he only says that a lot of turtles over more turtles. This story talks about how the universe is over many layers and many layers.
I didn't understand this part, but it is still interesting how you can say our universe is over many layers. I think it is infinite because we will never know if this has an end. So it means that the universe is infinite and that this chapter shouldn't have many confusing questions.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Finite and Infinite
This has been by far the most complicated chapter we have studied so far, the topics adressed on this chapter arent easy to understand.
Im going to focus on the topic of the universe and the definition of finite and infinite. Savater proposes uses 2 definitions of the universe, the light one ( the universe is the clearly OUTLINED totality, distinct for the sum of its different part) and a heavy one ( the universe is the name we give to the INDERTEMINED collection or sum of all that exists, a semantic abbreviation, a placeholder)
the light definition seems to be pretty digerible, however theres no way we can prove if the universe is outlined or not as we cannot prove the universe is indetermined or not.
as a friend told me once, humanity has a problem with the definition of finite and infinite things, if an object is finite, theres something outside of it, but what if that outside is part of it? what if the universe is finite, in the sense that what is outside the universe is also part of the universe? it would be like a country, where the land mass is the country but the sea close to it is also considered part of the country, even when is different from what makes up the land mass of the country ( and heres comes the &%$& questions, how to define whats the outside of something? and in my metaphor, what about the outside of the outside? what about the sea that isnt part of any country?)
if we define the universe as infinite, there are no arguments to claim this and it would be like trying to win a debate with no arguments. Why? because as we havent encouenter any infinite object( or whatever other word for it) we cant really know how it is. In the finite option, we at least can imagine a finite object ( we die, our limit is our body, the earth has an area of 510 072 000 km^2 etc) but have we encountered an infinite one? In order for something to be infinite, we would have to be infinite if we want to prove its infinity.
a theory to end this topic i heard is that the universe is in an cycle, where after x time, the universe gets "reseted" and starts over again. even when in this theory it would seem that the universe would be infinite as it never ends , now we must focus on the fact of if the cycle gets degraded or not If when reseted the universe is degraded by 0.000000000000001 of its whole, then it would be really loooong, but not eternal, the infinity of the universe in this theory would depend on another infinity, the infinity of the cycle
Im going to focus on the topic of the universe and the definition of finite and infinite. Savater proposes uses 2 definitions of the universe, the light one ( the universe is the clearly OUTLINED totality, distinct for the sum of its different part) and a heavy one ( the universe is the name we give to the INDERTEMINED collection or sum of all that exists, a semantic abbreviation, a placeholder)
the light definition seems to be pretty digerible, however theres no way we can prove if the universe is outlined or not as we cannot prove the universe is indetermined or not.
as a friend told me once, humanity has a problem with the definition of finite and infinite things, if an object is finite, theres something outside of it, but what if that outside is part of it? what if the universe is finite, in the sense that what is outside the universe is also part of the universe? it would be like a country, where the land mass is the country but the sea close to it is also considered part of the country, even when is different from what makes up the land mass of the country ( and heres comes the &%$& questions, how to define whats the outside of something? and in my metaphor, what about the outside of the outside? what about the sea that isnt part of any country?)
if we define the universe as infinite, there are no arguments to claim this and it would be like trying to win a debate with no arguments. Why? because as we havent encouenter any infinite object( or whatever other word for it) we cant really know how it is. In the finite option, we at least can imagine a finite object ( we die, our limit is our body, the earth has an area of 510 072 000 km^2 etc) but have we encountered an infinite one? In order for something to be infinite, we would have to be infinite if we want to prove its infinity.
a theory to end this topic i heard is that the universe is in an cycle, where after x time, the universe gets "reseted" and starts over again. even when in this theory it would seem that the universe would be infinite as it never ends , now we must focus on the fact of if the cycle gets degraded or not If when reseted the universe is degraded by 0.000000000000001 of its whole, then it would be really loooong, but not eternal, the infinity of the universe in this theory would depend on another infinity, the infinity of the cycle
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The human "animal"
In this chapter there is an interesting proposition about whats the role that mankind has on life, and it is that the life of mankind is open and has "no fixed seat". by this it means we are in control of our own destiny, as we can make wonders in life like no other animal can do.
However as this role is open we can either become the wildest of the beast or the most ilumminated of the group of virtous people. We are like water. we can be relaxing and peaceful ( a calm day in a beach) or become a mounstrosity and be a destructive beast( a tsunami for example).
In my opinion we are really open persons, but theres also behaviors that no other animals do (As far as i know there are no bears that become serial killers of their own specie or fish that get jealous of one fish mating with the female fish he wanted). It seems the price we pay for being the specie that can trascend more in this life is to be equilibrated by twisted minds that compared to rats the rats are virtous (abusers, serial killers, terrorists etc).
We arent more or less than animals, we are just an animal that can trascend to eternity or go down to be dominated by his most brutal desires.
However as this role is open we can either become the wildest of the beast or the most ilumminated of the group of virtous people. We are like water. we can be relaxing and peaceful ( a calm day in a beach) or become a mounstrosity and be a destructive beast( a tsunami for example).
In my opinion we are really open persons, but theres also behaviors that no other animals do (As far as i know there are no bears that become serial killers of their own specie or fish that get jealous of one fish mating with the female fish he wanted). It seems the price we pay for being the specie that can trascend more in this life is to be equilibrated by twisted minds that compared to rats the rats are virtous (abusers, serial killers, terrorists etc).
We arent more or less than animals, we are just an animal that can trascend to eternity or go down to be dominated by his most brutal desires.
Our Habitat
Now Savater is talking about how humans are like animals and all the similarities we have. You must be thinking that this guy is crazy, just like last time. But again i have to agree with him for the following reasons. He talks about how when Darwin wrote his book of the theory of evolution, all philosophers went crazy and started talking about it, and how we all accepted it that way, only religious people were having some trouble with that theory.
Savater also talks how there were three great discoveries, involving great people, like Copernicus, Darwin and Sigmun Freud. But I going straight to the hole just by talking about how we are greatly to animals. We do have a lot in common but how we have more similarities if looked deeply. Starting with the habitat of the animals, they all have their own place where they live. Unlike us human we can adapt and live wherever we want. Just like the theory of Darwin, he said that the primates evolved and ended up just like us.
If this theory is real then the primates that are in the wild or in the zoo are going to evolve in some thousand years and our going to look just like us. Maybe I am going too much into science but this is what Savater talks about and all of our animalistic features.
Savater also talks how there were three great discoveries, involving great people, like Copernicus, Darwin and Sigmun Freud. But I going straight to the hole just by talking about how we are greatly to animals. We do have a lot in common but how we have more similarities if looked deeply. Starting with the habitat of the animals, they all have their own place where they live. Unlike us human we can adapt and live wherever we want. Just like the theory of Darwin, he said that the primates evolved and ended up just like us.
If this theory is real then the primates that are in the wild or in the zoo are going to evolve in some thousand years and our going to look just like us. Maybe I am going too much into science but this is what Savater talks about and all of our animalistic features.
Me, Myself, and I
I'm starting to dislike this guy more and more.
Who am I? What am I? Where am I? What's happening? These are the kind of questions that come to your mind after reading Savater's third chapter called I Inside, I Outside.
According to our friend, there exists a possibility of not being human at all. We may be just a bunch of brains just flying around in some laboratory for researching purposes. Maybe our reality is just an illusion created by someone or something else. Well that would just suck. I don't like questioning my existence. But hey, this can't be an illusion because...I already know what an illusion is. I've seen it before, I might have felt it before. I know other people have had illusions before. There can't be an illusion inside of another illusion...can it?
"Cogito, ergo sum" - René Descartes
Yay! Now I am sure that I exist, and that I can't be possibly part of an illusion or some kind of computer program that is just creating everything and everyone that surrounds me.
Now hold it right there. What if I AM an illusion? What if whatever created me is making me THINK I'm thinking? What if I feel because I was created to make myself THINK I feel? What if whatever created me is making me feel like I exist? Am I just a bunch of bytes in an internal memory?
I rather not question myself about whether my life has been just a complete waste of time, because I must admit I'll never have an answer that completely satisfies me, and I know I'll keep making myself questions until I give it up. It kind of relates to the question "What's the meaning of life?" Since I don't have access to the creator of life, for now, I'm just gonna have to settle with this:
I know what I've done and felt in my life is real. If not, I'm sure I much rather spend my life actually LIVING it and doing something with it, than spend it surrounded of hypotheses that may never be solved and make a complete waste of time out of it.
The Truth
The truth is there is no absolute truth...but then again, I might be lying to you, right? I mean, after all, there is no absolute truth. :D Interesting points of view Savater has in his second chapter. He does make a very important statement, however. Fire can and WILL burn you, no matter how you call it. You might as well call it water, knowing that actual water doesn't burn you (unless it's boiling), and it will most definitely burn you.
So according to Savater, there may be an infinity of points of view and so called truths, but the final result, the "real thing", is supposed to be the same in every channel...no matter how you call it. So if there's an infinity of truths, one in each mind, who are we meant to trust? Is skepticism the way to go? Should we question every single person and law in the world, just to feel safer? Will it even do any good to question everything else, if you're gonna end up questioning yourself? It just goes on and on.
I say we should just trust ourselves; trust our own instincts. Yes, even if that leads us to mistakes, because human beings learn from mistakes. Well, most of them. Do whatever you think is right, but DO IT. Do whatever has worked best for you in the past. Nice and simple.
As we already know, the world is full of brains. Each brain with a very unique point of view. There are brains that are "right", brains that are "wrong", and brains that are just seeking benefits for themselves or want to harm you when it comes to asking their opinion.
A very simple example is asking for a street address. Remember, fire BURNS whether you call it fuego or feu. So in this case, you're gonna get DIRECTIONS, different kind of directions, but directions nonetheless. Not to be mistaken with the fact that you are going to end up in the same place with any kind of directions. Here's how it works:
Let's say you're in a city you don't really know much about. So you ask person number one. He tells you to go right on the first street, then walk 3 blocks, and left again. Person number 2 instead, tells you to walk 1 block, and then 3 blocks to the right. You're supposed to end up on the same location. 2 different truths, but with the same result. Person number 3 doesn't know what he/she is talking about and sends you in a whole different direction. Weird enough, there are more than one place that are known by the same name. So there are 3 different truths, but just 2 lead you where you want to go. Person number 4 feels like being funny and sends you to a whole different town. 4 different truths now. So like I said, you want to choose the safest, most reliable option, so you do what's always worked before. You take a taxi. :D
Monday, September 21, 2009
Myself
Savater says that I might be an illusion, or something like that. He also gives an example if we were just brains in a pool controlled by martians. So we could say that he is crazy, but that is not the thing. He is a philosopher and he is saying this for the following reasons.
He is saying that if the conscious exists than that means that we are real, it doesn't have to be physically real to know that we exist. "I think therefore I am" is the quote that explains all this chapter. Realizing that you are real and as I said before, with your conscious you are alive.
I have to say I like the point of view of Savater because it is like if you were dreaming. But when you dream you think its real. In this case it is like dreaming knowing that this is real and it is happening, because your conscious is alive. I'm not saying that just by having your brain, it means that you are real. We know we are real because our conscious exists, so you have to realize that you exist and that you are not just a rat in an experiment lab being tested. Savater explains this perfectly along with other things that concern "I think therefore I am".
He is saying that if the conscious exists than that means that we are real, it doesn't have to be physically real to know that we exist. "I think therefore I am" is the quote that explains all this chapter. Realizing that you are real and as I said before, with your conscious you are alive.
I have to say I like the point of view of Savater because it is like if you were dreaming. But when you dream you think its real. In this case it is like dreaming knowing that this is real and it is happening, because your conscious is alive. I'm not saying that just by having your brain, it means that you are real. We know we are real because our conscious exists, so you have to realize that you exist and that you are not just a rat in an experiment lab being tested. Savater explains this perfectly along with other things that concern "I think therefore I am".
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
The "I"
Who am I? who hasnt ever being busy in one task and all of the sudden ask yourself this question? W ho has answered this question? or even more complex, how to answer this question? How to know who am I?
As always we are here upon the Infinite-headed dragon that is philosophy (Hydra?). We must use the always-handy weapon called reason to answer this.
How to define who am I? Savater proposes us to define ourselves by the inside and the outside. In the inside by our thinking, our reasoning, our soul, what makes us ourselves. And the outside, by the body, by the body we control. My definition of who am I is "The soul which lives in this period of time within a body".
And here comes the dragon again, Are you in a body or a body? Well, this question is like an explosion (BLAM!) to everyone´s head. Savater talks about a theory called reductionism, where they propose that the soul is a mere "mode" of the body. And well, I reverse this situation and think "What if the body is a mere 'mode' of the soul?, a manifestation of the soul in this 4 dimensional universe we live in?". Its a nice theory to think that the soul is really trascendental and that this life is just one stage, one manisfestation of it.
As always we are here upon the Infinite-headed dragon that is philosophy (Hydra?). We must use the always-handy weapon called reason to answer this.
How to define who am I? Savater proposes us to define ourselves by the inside and the outside. In the inside by our thinking, our reasoning, our soul, what makes us ourselves. And the outside, by the body, by the body we control. My definition of who am I is "The soul which lives in this period of time within a body".
And here comes the dragon again, Are you in a body or a body? Well, this question is like an explosion (BLAM!) to everyone´s head. Savater talks about a theory called reductionism, where they propose that the soul is a mere "mode" of the body. And well, I reverse this situation and think "What if the body is a mere 'mode' of the soul?, a manifestation of the soul in this 4 dimensional universe we live in?". Its a nice theory to think that the soul is really trascendental and that this life is just one stage, one manisfestation of it.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Truth
"All I know is that I know nothing" Socrates
Here Socrates actually says one truth and that is that he knows nothing. I didn't know that until I read this chapter, which is actually confusing. But after you analyze the different "fields truth" you realize that as the term says, there are different types of truths.
Savater is right when he talks about skepticism, relativism and revelations. This are different types of truths. Like Ortega said that about ideas and beliefs that are very different things. Ideas are something we get by experience and knowledge and beliefs are our personal truths. I have to agree with this, first because this guy is a philosopher and second because he is saying the truth.
All I have to say is that after reading this chapter I can't agree with all things, but the're are a lot of reasonable statements that he makes.
Here Socrates actually says one truth and that is that he knows nothing. I didn't know that until I read this chapter, which is actually confusing. But after you analyze the different "fields truth" you realize that as the term says, there are different types of truths.
Savater is right when he talks about skepticism, relativism and revelations. This are different types of truths. Like Ortega said that about ideas and beliefs that are very different things. Ideas are something we get by experience and knowledge and beliefs are our personal truths. I have to agree with this, first because this guy is a philosopher and second because he is saying the truth.
All I have to say is that after reading this chapter I can't agree with all things, but the're are a lot of reasonable statements that he makes.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Truths...
Knowledge, or at least the knowledge we think we know, is like the stock market. our knowledge of the world changes everydays, no one can predict it and nothing is really "safe knowledge".
While our visions of some points like Savater said ( Fire burns) wont ever change, most of our knowledge is not 100% reliable, times goes and things change.
So what to trust? in my opinion, we should trust our own experience. Our experience will tell us if eating certain things is good, or if skipping classes is worthy of it. However we wont probably know if Mount Everest is the highest mountain by experience. We must trust some sources in what our experience cant reach. The knowledge we get from another sources is the one we must question over and over.
For example, Ifa friend tells me that HP computers are the best of them. I may take his opinion if i want to buy a computer. However as this is knowledge not from my experience there are hundreds of factors that can affect it. ,Maybe he works for HP and for every hp computer sold he gets a commision, or maybe he really likes HP but hasnt tried other computers that could be even better. or maybe he isnt a real friend and knows that HP computers are bad but wants me to buy a bad computer. As you see there hundreds of factors, other person could tell me that HP computers are the worst and hundreds of factors affect it too.
So in my conclusion, trust your own experience, and hear what others say but always "filtering" this information
While our visions of some points like Savater said ( Fire burns) wont ever change, most of our knowledge is not 100% reliable, times goes and things change.
So what to trust? in my opinion, we should trust our own experience. Our experience will tell us if eating certain things is good, or if skipping classes is worthy of it. However we wont probably know if Mount Everest is the highest mountain by experience. We must trust some sources in what our experience cant reach. The knowledge we get from another sources is the one we must question over and over.
For example, Ifa friend tells me that HP computers are the best of them. I may take his opinion if i want to buy a computer. However as this is knowledge not from my experience there are hundreds of factors that can affect it. ,Maybe he works for HP and for every hp computer sold he gets a commision, or maybe he really likes HP but hasnt tried other computers that could be even better. or maybe he isnt a real friend and knows that HP computers are bad but wants me to buy a bad computer. As you see there hundreds of factors, other person could tell me that HP computers are the worst and hundreds of factors affect it too.
So in my conclusion, trust your own experience, and hear what others say but always "filtering" this information
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)