Up@dawn 2.0

Monday, October 24, 2011

Group 05, Section 001 (New Format)

Okay, this post is going to contain two subjects, since the class is now switching over to the new format for blog posting.

(All group members were present.)

Topic 1: Averroes (For last Thursday's class - 10/20/11)

Averroes was a Middle Eastern philosopher who tried to bring back philosophy into western culture. Following al-Ghazzali, his counterpart who argued that civilization should bring an end to all philosophy, Averroes argued that all people who are capable of reasoning should try to understand philosophy and that outlawing philosophy would be "like a man who prevents a thirsty person from drinking cool, fresh water until he dies of thirst, because some people have choked to death on it." Not only is Averroes arguing to the preservation of philosophy and logical thinking, he is also stating that people should beware the traps and snares of logical reasoning (which I am currently learning how to do in my "Elementary Logic and Critical Thinking Class.") Averroes also claimed that things can be reasoned from demonstrative study, which is close to allegorical and metaphorical justifications of explaining the world around us. Demonstrative study can change with the times.

His writings were significant in the fact that he always had a comment to say whenever he translated Arabic texts in Latin. For example, for each of Aristotle's ideas, Averroes also inserted his own opinion, and he was not afraid to disagree with the ancient philosophers, either. It came to the point that Aristotle became known as "The Philosopher" and Averroes as "The Commentator." Averroes said that philosophy did not clash with the Koran, and that God (contradictory to Aristotle's theory) at least knew us in some sense.

Factual question: What is Averroes known as?
A) The prophet
B) The commentator
C) The physicist
D) Great Thinker
E) The translator
F) The Neoplatonist
G) The nudist
I) The religious philosopher

(Answer: B)

Discussion topic: Do you agree with Averroes that demonstrative studies change with the times?


Topic 2: Nicholas (For today's class - 10/25/11)

Nicholas of Autrecourt was one of his "period's other great Christian thinkers." He was one of the few medieval philosophers to push back into the range of the ancient skeptics. He said that "we can never be certain if two rational notions are causally related, no matter how well they seem to link." Cause and effect, then, are uncertain things. (This puzzles me a little, especially since in my "Elementary Logic and Critical Thinking Class," we are studying valid argument forms in which the conclusion must follow if the premises are true. Here's a common argument form that many of us are familiar with: If A, then B. A, so B. Basically, what Nicholas would try to say, it would seem, is that we could not derive B from A, even if A is true --- and therefore, according to logic courses --- means that B would have to follow.) It came to the point that he doubted even the existence of the physical body. He questioned, therefore, that we cannot determine the existence of a God when we cannot even prove our own existence. He is known as the "medieval skeptic."

Factual question: What was Nicholas forced to do?
A) Drink poison
B) Admit to the Catholic Church that his philosophy was sacrilegious, and repent
C) Burn his writings
D) He was forced into exile.

(Answer: C)

Discussion question: Why was there such as influx of skepticism again in Nicholas's period?

3 comments:

  1. Here are my questions on Hypatia I published on last weeks post:

    Disc: Can there be a place for both philosophy and religion as Averroes says there is? It seems like the common thread in philosophy is to either separate these two entities or to chastise one. How can we find the right balance?

    Fact: For what philosopher did Averroes become "the commentator"?

    Aristotle


    Here are my questions for Nicholas:

    Discussion: How can we be certain that two ideas are related? How can someone be certain of anything? Is a certainty for one individual only relative? Is the only certainty the fact that there is no certainty?

    Factual: Who is referred to as the "Medieval Skeptic?

    Nicholas of Autecourt

    ReplyDelete
  2. Discussion: As human beings, should we be skeptical of everything? Perhaps even our own existence? What could we learn from said skepticism?

    Factual: Nicholas questioned _____.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Discussion: Should we question skepticism? What if the truth can only be found when accepting some base claims, as opposed to challenging everything?

    Factual: How did those opposed to Nicholas kill him?
    A. Hanging
    B. Poisoning
    C. He was not killed for his beliefs
    D. Burned at the stake

    (C)

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.