20th Century Phil. Blog

Final Blog

2005-05-08T20:26:00.000-07:00

'Tis the end of thy semester, and ye shalt go no more'

I think I have found and published most of my articles that I should have blogged weeks ago. Now, it is sunday night, the day prior to our last class meeting. I would like to end with one example that arose in class some time ago. A talk about language was brought up and the idea that at a time in the past (around 1900), the atom was thought to be the smallest unit of matter that existed and that it was unbreakable. For a long time, this belief was held by the scientific and academic communities. However, after 20 years or so, the atom was broken. Now the definition of the word had to be changed. The atom consisted of breakable material from which protons, neutrons, and electrons were discovered. All the talk of finding the smallest unit of matter was no longer valid or true. We had not, and never really did find the smallest unit of matter. We lied, or did we? We did not know any better. We can only account for what we know at the time. Thus, when the atom was discovered- it was the smallest unit of matter and it was truth. No lying. However, after it was broken, we needed to adapt to the new 'smallest units' of matter- the proton, neutron, and electron. Although the atom is really small, it is not the smallest unit. For now, it seems that the building material for atoms are the smallest units of matter. And until we find other evidence that they are not the smallest unit, it will be understood that they are the smallest units of matter, and that is truth.

Science and the humanities are both seperate entities and are interwoven. They can neither be seperated completely, nor can they be completely in agreement. 20 th centruy philosophy has both made me aware of this distinction as well as made it evident that they exist for each other. Language is continually evolving and adapting to remain valid. If language was not flexible, it would break away from useage. This is also true of the sciences and humanities. Both need to be flexible with each others existence. If one only sees one side to a two sided problem, he or she can never say that they truely understand. It is only after a person looks at both sides, that he or she can choose to accept one. Let the humanities exist, let the sciences exist, let them look away from each other, let them look towards each other. "Can't we all just get along?".

April 21, 2005

2005-05-07T20:16:00.000-07:00

Today we wrapped up professor Quine's book Ontological Relativity and other essays. The last few lectures on Quine were pretty difficult to grasp. Lots of talk of logic and math was discussed, in which I have little interest and skill. The key note from the lectures was that practical applications help science work better, whether we like them or not, they just work.

After some final Quine talk, Ian Hacking was introduced. Leading to Hacking's book, a discussion on how the book came about was given. Kuhn was the middle turning point of the debate of philosophy and science as either a combo or as distinct entities. Prior to Kuhn, it was understood that people studied the philosophy of science, and after Kuhn it was understood that people studied science studies apart from philosophy. All this debate between the two camps in the 1980's led to the book The Social Construction of What?, by Hacking.

Gavagai continued...

2005-05-07T16:33:00.000-07:00

Gavagai continued...
Professor Quine argues that one can never fully understand this by ostension – which he describes as “…repeatedly querying the expression ‘gavagai’ for the native’s assent or dissent in the presence of assorted stimulations” (Quine, 1969, p. 31). Thus, the native would never really be able to inform us of the exact definition because it would not be understood what exactly he/she meant by saying the word. The native would say gavagai, and we would question what is meant by it and try to get him/her to clarify what it means, but would never be absolutely certain. It could mean rabbit leg or rabbit soul. Or it could mean small animal with fur and not necessarily be limited to rabbit. “The linguist has to resolve the potential infinity of native sentences into a manageably limited list of grammatical constructions and constituent linguistic forms, and then show how the business of each can be approximated in English; and vice versa” (Quine, 1969, p. 3). This whole language thing really has some interest of mine.

Missed class

2005-05-06T13:33:00.000-07:00

March 15 was a horrible day. I was very sick and unable to attend the always interesting class of Twentieth Century Philosophy with the awe-inspiring professor, Dr. Bohan Broderick. Perhaps I was pushing myself too hard with all the writing intensive classes, and all the tests. Perhaps I was desperately in need of spring break. Well, whatever be the case, I had come down with a cold and felt incapable of attending class without making myself a burden to my peers.

Gava what?

2005-05-06T13:21:00.000-07:00

"Gavagai"

Professor Quine uses the native word ‘Gavagai’ to illustrate the difficulty in determining what the meaning of the word actually is. First, you must understand that the word 'Gavagai" is spoken or uttered from a native persons mouth when a rabbit is help up or pointed to. Is it a rabbit as a whole? Is it a part of a rabbit? Or is it a stage of a rabbit? One can never fully understand this by ostension – which he describes as “…repeatedly querying the expression ‘gavagai’ for the native’s assent or dissent in the presence of assorted stimulations” (Quine, 1969, p. 31). Thus, if we pointed to a rabbit and a native person whom spoke the language (that recognized the word gavagai) said, “Gavagai”, he or she would never really be able to inform us of the exact definition because it would not be understood what exactly he/she meant by saying the word. It could mean rabbit leg or rabbit soul. Or it could mean small animal with fur and not necessarily be limited only to rabbit. In any case, 'Gavagai' is a thing of some sort that involves something of essence to a rabbit.

Heidegger's things

2005-05-02T23:51:00.000-07:00

Martin Heidegger is still interesting to me. On March first, we discussed things. Particularaly, we looked at the history of things in relation to philosophical thought. Plato looked at the real world as not simply a perception or experience. We need to look and discover true objects. Descartes claimed that dualism or a two-fold view works. "I think, therefore, I am". Perhaps if i think I am a winner, I will be, even if I do not get the winning prize. Kant claimed that the real world exists, but that one does not first observe it. Things exist in themselves, then we perceive them. I guess I could argue on his behalf that the winning prize existed before I perceived it. Unless, it was only a figment of my imagination. Perhaps the prize existed only in my mind, and had no real world thingliness. Oh the things to ponder!

Crunch time!

2005-05-01T21:26:00.000-07:00

Okay, here it is. All semester I have put off typing my blogs. While taking notes and preparing new blogs, I found myself stopping without entering them into blogspot. Let us finish!

On Feb. 3, 2005, I found a blog entry that was titled, 'Confused today'. For the sake of another entry, I will list it. On that day, Dr. Bohan Broderick talked about the history of John Dewey's thought process. First was mentioned Georg Cantor and his fruthering away from an 'observed world' view. Then came mathematical induction and Gottlob Frege's first order logic. Here, my notes are a bit shallow and in need of much more attention. Next came Bertrand Russell and an example of a card catalog with either no titles of books in it or it lies about having no titles. This is way above my understanding. Finally came Kurt Godel and his understanding that there is no foundation for arithmatic and logic.

Basically, I am in need of more information on these intense philosophers and their beliefs. That particular day in class must have been ultra intense in which case, I zoned out. Or it was simply a day that I was particularly unamused and zoned out anyways. Feb. 3 was confusing, but it appears that it probably was my fault that it was.

Fourfold of what?

2005-03-11T11:40:00.000-08:00

Heidegger tells us a story of an old bridge at Heidelberg. This bridge he tells us is okay in the fact that it does not restrict the fourfold and in fact it preserves the fourfold. A bridge gathers. The bridge brings together the land (banks), the stream, and the land into the same neighborhood. It essentialy 'gathers'. It "... lets the stream run its course and at the same time grants their way to mortals so that they may come and go from shore to shore" (Heidegger, 1971, p. 150). Thus, the bridge gathers together people that cross it. People from all different styles cross.

The fourfold is a classification system that differentiates between mortals on one end and divinity on the other. Also, it differentiates between earth on one end and sky on the other. The bridge preserves the fourfold. It holds back the sky and the earth (stream) and the divine and mortal. When a woman crosses the bridge, she is aware of her presence among the divine. Also, she is aware of her being a mortal and above the land and below the sky. She is in the heart of the gathering fourfold. She is in balance!

Heidegger and Things

2005-03-10T11:24:00.000-08:00

I seem to have a problem. This is it- I write down notes to use for my blogs, and then I forget to transfer them into the blog. I'm going to post a few blogs in a few days in order to catch up.

Continuing with Martin Heidegger, let me share my understanding of his idea of 'things'. He classifies things into three categories 1) mere things, 2) equipment, and 3) works of art. Clearly distinguishable is a mere thing from an artwork. Van Gogh's paintings are obviously more than mere things. Or are they. To a person who sees a painting as a means of profit or monetary value, it is only a mere thing- not an artwork. The painting of Van Gogh's 'peasant shoes' is an artwork to a person who a world is revealed, but a thing to a person who sees a picture. This world idea is just the 'thing' Heidegger is trying to get us to understand. Each real piece of art speaks or provides us, the viewer, with a new world in which we can enter. However, the world is not optional to enter or to avoid. If upon looking at a piece of art you are drawn into the portrayed world, then you are capable and worthy of being an artist or at least understanding art and seeing art. If upon looking at a piece of art you only see the outside colors and shapes and designs- you are not capable of viewing artwork, rather you only see things.

Heidegger who?

2005-02-20T13:19:00.000-08:00

Martin Heidegger is difficult to understand! The first line of his book Poetry, Language, Thought even messes with your mind. "Origin here means that from and by which something is what it is and as it is" (Heidegger, 1971, p. 17). He then furthers with the idea that the origin of a thing is the source of its nature. Thus, all things (for now- considering that things are only one category) have an origin, and the origin is the 'source of its nature'. However, to understand this nature, we must "... go to the actual work and ask the work what and how it is" (p. 18). Sounds like Heidegger is nuts- talking to art? Anyhow, he claims that first we must look at the understanding that all works of art have a 'thingly' character. That is, all works are looked at by someone as simply a 'thing' and not a true 'work of art'. However, art work is not limited to this mundane nature, there is a greater place to understand works of art. First off- works of art are things that are made, however, it is not in the thingliness that makes them great- it is in the thing that is said by the art work. Pause! Now Heidegger is allowing the art work to talk? Hummm! It is not really a spoken voice that is understood, but a world in which the art itself lives. The viewer/observer has the option to enter into this world or not. By continually viewing art as a thing, one cannot enter the world of the work. It is only when the work is not looked at, but entered that one truely sees Heidegger's 'nature of the origin'. If you look at Van Gogh's painting of the peasants shoes and see a painting or a pair of shoes, you have not seen the origin or nature of the work- rather, you have seen a thing. If you see the work and are brought into the world of the peasant- you have seen the origin or nature of the work. And thus, Van Gogh truely is an artist, and you truely are an artist- not by seeing things, but by being transformed into worlds.

Continuing with Dewey!

2005-02-07T08:07:00.000-08:00

The greatest theme that I seem to be derriving from John Dewey's "Reconstruction in Philosophy" and from the lectures in class is simply that 'science conflicts with older philosophies'. An example of an older philosophy was one of the Aristotlean era where it was thought that women had less teeth than men. This idea carried on because it was the popular thought at the time. There was no scientific discovery, nor had anyone the idea to do an experiment: look into the mouths of women and men and count the number of teeth. Dewey argues that philosophy came about, such as this one, via leisure activities. An example would be sitting by a fire and sharing stories. Although not necessarily true and accurate, the stories eventually led to accepted thought patterns- such as women have fewer teeth than men. However, he also argues that this is not enough. Science needs to be involved! Science comes from improvements in practical activity. If this is true, then both need not be so seperated. The idea of a demarcation principle, or a seperation between the two, needs to be looked upon and re-evaluated. Philosophy may have been started via story telling and the person with the greatest influence was the person who told the story, but it is no longer good enough to tell stories unless they can be proven true. If the stick doesn't really bend when it is seen through the water, why should we think that it does? If science can prove it doesn't bend, and it is because of a reaction between the molecules of water and the reflection of light off the surface of water- we should accept it. It is not the fact that stories are not entertaining, it is simply the fact that women do have the same number of teeth as men and that many people were stupidly fooled, only for the fact that they did not do an experiment (science). Archaic philosophies need to be reconstructed to 'fit' with the knowledge of the era of science. Otherwise we will simply disregard them and file them in the records! Because, let's face it- we are goverened by scientific knowledge today!

First week/ New to this Blog thing!

2005-01-24T08:47:00.000-08:00

I guess I set up my first blog account! I hope to find this interesting and easy to use, as well as beneficial for readers (like the professor). Week one of classes is over, and without lack of challenge. Our first 20th Century Phil. class started out with a lecture on how to blog journals and which style to use to write. Along with other writing intensive classes, I am concerned that this will be a tough semester. Our second day went a little better with discussion on C. P. Snow and his idea of the "Two Cultures" regarding the division between the humanities and the sciences. It is easily noticible even in today's education. There are several colleges that seperate the two. However, they try to touch on both. I am a psychology major, primarily a humanity, and have only briefly touched the science realm. However, I must give credit that several hours were required in basic sciences. Although not evened out, it is beneficial to have touched the science realm eventhough I am a humanity major. I think the division between the 'nerds' and the 'fops' (whatever that is) has risin in this past century and look forward to learning why this is so. ~ There is it, my first blog. I hope this works!