Logic puzzles

On Friday we were given a logic puzzle to figure out in class. My mind clicks with these sorts of puzzles. I don't know if this means I am linear or not but I thoroughly enjoyed it. It is a definite way to prove that reasoning is a form of knowledge because from the clues I had to think deeper and analyze to find the answers. You can't just perceive the answers unless the people who teach the reef not and the bowtie actually exist and you see them holding their favorite flower while they are doing it.

Secondly we watched a segment of the Hour with the author of the book Kluge. The idea behind the book was that the human body in particular the brain is not of perfect design. It was a huge political statement that supported evolution over creation. I was intrigued. I am on the fence with creation and evolution. But the ideas behind hte fact that our bodies are imperfect is not often brought up in society. We always seem to think we are the best of the best. We try to categorize things and explain all phenomenon but I don't think there is a good explanation supporting creation that explains why we are imperfect. All in all its confusing. I need to do other homework but I am going to ponder this.

Logical fallacy

Well I have yet to find an example of a logical fallacy as we were discussing in class on Monday but I thoroughly enjoyed the short film we watched on Here Be Dragons. Our teacher brought up why we should believe what we were told and how we can know its knowledge. I am not completely sure. I feel logically and that with my reason by considering what he said, it makes sense. He wasn't denouncing things completely or without cause. He was simply stating how there was no science to back it up and I love that because that works with my brain. Logical thinking and proof and science and math and rules all work in my mind. This film seemed to tell us to think my way. Thats a first in philosophy that keeps throwing new ideas to us left right and center. I do understand and agree with some of whats discussed but too often I don't agree with just one persons opinion. I follow parts of each one. For example I support Hume for his reasoning behind simple ideas and denouncing complex ideas(Hume and reasoning...ironic i think) but I also support Descartes for his ideas of reason and its benefits but i don't agree with either that either perception is the only tool of knowledge or that reasoning defeats all else. The four forms of knowledge rely on each other to function. Knowledge would be difficult to pass on or explain without language, perception often gives us ideas to reason about and Emotion helps us reason and perceive since it is a sense that can sometimes distinguish between right and wrong suboconsciously. Thats a broad statement.... hmm oh well its late. Ta ta for now.

Hume vxs Descartes

Well Hello there. I am really terrible at keeping up with this whole blog concept so please forgive me.

Now last week we had a discussion in class among students that was supposed to be a portrayal of a debate between Rene Descartes and David Hume. From this discussion I felt the students heavily preferred Rene Descartes view on philosophy rather than Hume's. Now a quick overview of the two men's ideas.

Rene Descartes had the opinion that true knowledge is only obtainable through reasoning and that we cannot trust our perception. David Hume on the other hand had the opinion that perception gave us knowledge. He however also had ideas of complex ideas and simple ideas and how to use whether we have perceived a complex idea in and of itself all at once or whether our mind has simply used various other simple ideas to form a false complex idea for example....

A person's ego. If I think about myself i would say I am open minded, pleasant, quiet, and responsible. This is my entire view of myself (well not quite but we will pretend it is) and it is a complex idea. However if I use Hume's idea of comparing simple and complex ideas I can realize that i have never been all of those qualities at one time. Therefore it is impossible for an ego to exist since it is actually many simple ideas that the mind has put together falsely.

Now in the debate with the students, i felt that this point was never given much attention by the students defending Hume. People were simply going back and forth saying Reason is better because... then saying Perception is better because..... I felt it was very to one side as those portraying Descartes were often very agressive and would call out how perception can mislead us. it overall seemed a very one sided debate.

I myself am a supporter of both I believe but I think I support Hume's theories more. His use of perception to distinguish between false ideas of the mind and not really intrigues me.