Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

The A Team 16-1

Today we discussed Berkeley, Leibniz, Volataire, and Rorty.

We talked about Berkeley's "esse est percipi" and secondary qualities being objective or subjective.
I personally believe that if you can call the weight of  the table objective then you can call the shade of grey objective as well.  A scale is just a way of measuring what our idea of weight is. We can do the same with color, we can make a spectrum with 50 shades of grey ( no pun intended) and you can match the grey of the table to the closest grey on that spectrum. We are doing the same thing with weight. Because we dont have such a detailed spectrum with the color of grey as we do with weight doesn't mean one is objective and the other is subjective.
We also discussed Voltaire's views vs Leibniz's view.

In our discussion we decided that each person will email Bianca their own questions so we can get our 10 questions ready for the exam.
We also talked about Leibniz vs Voltaire. We discussed how at the time the great Chicago fire of 1871 probably seemed like the end of the world to people living there. The fire destroyed a good bit of the city so they had to rebuild it. Learning from their mistakes they built a much better city, including houses that don't burn down quite as easily. So in that example it seems Leibniz was probably right, but I guess that is subjective. I suppose the people that died would probably say that they would have rather lived and kept the same defunct city.

4 comments:

  1. Jordan Cornelius1:12 PM CDT

    Its ironic how we were talking about philosophy and Berkely, California. My sister graduated there and took a philosophy class and is the one who told me I needed to take this class.
    FQ: What college was named after George Berkeley? ( UC Berkeley)
    DQ: Are Berkeley's "esse est percipi" and Descartes "I think, therefore I am" quotes similar?
    Here's a link about the same thing http://www.loyno.edu/~folse/Berkeley.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. I believe natural disasters are meant to happen for the better. Just like we talked about in class if the fire would of never happened then newer, better things would have never been thought of.
    FQ: What is the Design Argument? (the argument for the existence of God stating that all things were made too complex and accurate for it not to have reason to be there. Only God could design something so complex.)
    DQ: Rousseau thought that civilization was corrupting people. Do you guys think so?
    Here's a link further explaining the Design Argument- http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/

    ReplyDelete
  3. jonathan bogasky2:48 PM CDT

    The weight of the table and the color of it are both fairly concrete and can both be measured. They're both very objective things, but they can both be interpreted differently without the proper instruments to measure them. Personally, I believe that the ability to measure something makes it concrete. The only truly abstract things are ideas.

    FQ: Which eighteenth believed that we can only know the result of a future event by drawing on past experience? (David Hume)
    DQ: How many different ways can we predict the outcome of an event?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3QZ2Ko-FOg

    ReplyDelete
  4. One of my bestfrends from high school goes to Berkeley. I used to believe that natural disasters were god's way of correcting human error even though that every time we are corrected humans build it back bigger better and worse for the environment.

    ReplyDelete