Archive for ‘Second Blog Post’

“Man is born free and yet we see him everywhere in chains.”

Rousseau’s ideas that man was born inherently good falls can fall into categories of the creation and the fall. You can attribute the creation part and the fall of man to the idea that Adam and Eve were created perfect, but it was when sin came into the world that they rebelled. Rousseau believed that the absence of being contaminated by society is where people can be truly free; Society is what made us bad because we learn to be unharmonious from it.  Man was born free, All men are equal.  These ideas are basic, but very influential. The idea that sovereign power is found through the people instead of through anything higher is very interesting. I do not agree with the idea that man can be harmonious without some sort of higher standard, but his idea of the “noble savage,” made me think about society in a different way. I love and agree with his ides about how education should be more about developing unique skills that are found in people individually, than learning a structured lesson. That is very forward thinking about education and it would be cool to see something of that nature implemented in the America’s school systems.Overall I think he made some great contributions.

After class today, I thought I would write about Jean Jacques Rousseau and redemption. He believes that all men must be equal. All systems that facilitate inequality should be abolished and new systems should come into place to promote equality. This is an extremely romantic ideal. The task of making every one person in the world equal is seemingly impossible. Even if it were attempted, there would have to be at least one person leading the charge and exerting power over people to make that change, unless of course everybody simultaneously had the same idea and acted it out at the same time. Even then, as mentioned in class, according to Nietzsche, people have a will to power and it has been shown in many situations where man has tried to make each other equals. People still end up taking power and ruling over their “equals”. I understand his idea and how it would be great if everybody was equal, however, I believe that there will never be a time on this earth when everyone will be equal. Knowledge in people can never be equal. If knowledge were equal in every individual, there would never be advancement, life would be all tradition and no change. Change is essential for the development and survival of the world. People are all different and with different desires. We were created that way. People should never be equal to one another, they should act out their own goals in life and simply respect others and their beliefs. The goal should not be equality, but tolerance.

Immanuel Kant was a German, revolutionary theorist during the Enlightenment and is well known today for many of his ideals and beliefs. He believed that everything we see, feel and think are all fabrications of our own minds and imaginations. What we experience is what we mentally create and nothing more than that. Obviously I disagree with many of these assertions but find them oddly unique and fascinating because of their intensity and the way they stood, and continue to stand out from most people. He noted that what we mentally create does not, “…necessarily pertain to every being” but, because of the interconnected nature of our lives, does to a certain extent influence everyone. This manner of thinking insinuates that there is no absolute truth in life and all we see is not concrete. In our relationship with Christ as Christians, I identify with the idea that there is more to life than what we see and that our perception of this life may be skewed, but overall, most of this sounds a little crazy to me. I believe that this life does contain real, measurable, physical things that we interact with daily and that all other human beings relate to them the same way as well. Kant produced many interesting works that led to him being widely important to the structuring of modern philosophy. Parts of it I agree with, parts of it I don’t, but all of his ideas are intriguing to me and provide a base and a good starting point of raising questions about who and what we are.

http://www.egs.edu/library/immanuel-kant/biography/
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/kant.html
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3f/Immanuel_Kant_3.jpg

This clip is from I,robot. It touches on the differences between humans and machines and animals.

http://youtu.be/05bGPiyM4jg

Julien de La Mettrie is known for, L’Homme Machine, which calls man a machine. He sees man as mechanical because if we were not educated and did nothave our own language then we would resemble other animals. Especially due to a primate’s brain being about the size as ours. He also drew three conclusions. The first is the fiercer the animal the less brain they have. The second is the brain increases in size in proportion to the gentleness of the animal. Lastly the miore one gains in intelligence the more they lose instinct. Animals have made losts of advancements themselves like being able to learn tricks and memorize tunes. In the clip it was even said that dogs could dream, and we know that they can feel emotion. So yes I admit we are similar, but we are different. We have reflexes and process our brain goes through in order to regulate our emotions whereas dogs don’t. Ever pass by a yard and a dog wouldn’t stop barking at you?

In the clip Will’s Character says that robots don’t feel emotions, yet Sonny (the robot) gets very angry. They can turn music into a symphony or paint into a masterpiece. I believe that is what sets humans and robots as well as animals. We have these deep longings that we can’t even figure most of the time.  We have purposes and callings and we have this innate motivation to want to help others, but also are selfish like animals sometimes.  (However we feel more happiness usually when we help someone thanks to dopamine.) Anyways our talents and the way we communicate with each other sets us apart than just animals or machines. Our imagination sets us apart!

I  honestly think this could go under fall or redemption because I think the difference between humans and machines or animals shows how we were created much differently. It also shows how barbaric we can be sometimes. Another thing Mettrie said was that he noticed when men ate raw meat they were more barbaric. So if I had focused more on the barabaric nature of men like in the prehistoric history it could have went under fall. Since man’s main purpose was to hunt and marry, and have the strongest offspring. There are lots of tribes in Africa among other nations that we would find barbaric, but we don’t see them as less human.

Hello Again!!
Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said, ” Man is born free yet we see him everywhere in chains”. I don’t know about you, but I find that so true even today. He believed that humans by nature wanted to live in harmony. If they had been given the freedom to developed they would do what was best for themselves and other. Unfortunately, I don’t think that is true. Rousseau knew man were fallen and not acting in their true nature. I like Jean-Jacques Rousseau belief that man is not inherently wicked. God said let us make man in our image and God is good. We were meant to reflect the goodness of God and to be intimate with him. Even intimacy itself is good. The plan was for intimacy for goodness and freedom. For example we produce good things like inventions, ideas, and innovative medicines or medical practices that save lives. I believe without any motivation to be good man only looks out for himself. Man is mainly motivated by money, fame, having a purpose, or religion. Sometimes all those things can’t keep a man motivated. However, if men are motivated by pure love that changes things immensely. Rousseau knew that man was fallen and bound up in chains not able to live up to their potential goodness. Rousseau believed that humans did not need to be governed and that’s understandable because in Eden Adam and Eve weren’t governed. It seemed as though God just came and went as He wanted to. Once the fall happened we were brought the law or the government. The government kept us from attacking ourselves, even Jesus came to fulfill the law (and its purpose) not destroy it. Law showed us our brokenness and that we needed structure and order. However, after Christ it becomes a hindrance because in our immense brokenness even the thing they looked to correct them could not provide the perfection they needed. Rousseau did not like the government and that is understandable because it is not the way we were meant to be. Law, as much as we wanted  it to, could not give us freedom.

While the idea of empiricism began to overtake the previous idea of rationalism, Francis Bacon saw that a marriage of the two was was the best way to go about the sciences.  Bacon believed that scientists should follow two rules: “lay aside received opinions and notions, an the other, to restrain the mind for a time from the highest generalizations.”  He believed that there were four sources of error that could contaminate scientific observation and research.  These, he referred to as idols- the idols of the cave, the tribe, the marketplace, and the theatre.  All these idols refer to the different biases that the scientist or observer may have.  This focus of Bacon’s and the critique of the way to do science resembles the Biblically historic stage of Redemption.  Bacon claimed that we can only command nature by obeying her, hence concluding that “knowledge is power.”  By this understanding of human weakness, he is able to actually make humanity stronger.  The book claims that Bacon was ahead of his time in insisting that scientists rid themselves of bias. I classify him as a redemption philosopher because this understanding comes with a hindsight of the fall.  Seeing the mistakes in the the sciences and philosophies of the medieval period, he sees the affects of the fall and desires to correct it in hopes of a better future of scientific inquiry.  There is also an element in redemption of knowing our weakness. Bacon embraces the Renaissance focus on humanity, but claims his fallenness and seeks to correct it.  Ultimately this idea has transformed the way empirical data is collected.

I would categorize the works of Francisco Petrarch with the idea of redemption. “Petrarch was concerned with the freeing of the human spirit from the confines of medieval tradition.” (p.99) He was a revolutionist in his philosophy because he saw what was flawed with popular beliefs at the time, and sought to influence people.

Petrarch urged people to return to religion for personal reasons such as satisfaction and counsel. Similarly, encouraged the study of classics written by human beings for their outwardly reflective value. This supports redemption because Petrarch believed in living life on Earth now. Lastly, Francisco Petrarch’s “skepticism towards all forms of dogma paved the way for modern science.” (p.100) This shows that the petitions of this man encouraged the consideration of today. Not exclusively, “who are we?” but also, “what can we be doing?”

This is applicable to a psychology class because wecan apply the progressive thought process in our field of study to challenge ourselves and popular belief. The theory of Petrarch is imperative to Christianity to approach our personal reflection differently. This open-minded approach doesn’t act out of obligations but for personal gain.

This photograph shows Petrarch depicted as holding an unlabeled book. I included this graphic because I associate him with literature and embracing cultural works of art. He is considered the “Father of the Renaissance” for this reason.

During the Renaissance, one of the main themes was emphasis on personal religion. This was different from the dark ages where religion was a public institution. I would classify the emphasis on personal religion as a part of the redemption. In order for one to be redeemed, they truly need to focus on their individual relationship with God. In today’s society, this is where the emphasis still lies. Not so much a strong focus of the church but a focus on the faith and religion that you share with Jesus Christ. So to us, this is an old thought.
But, to those in the Renaissance, this idea of personal religion was a new one. The people didn’t know anything different from the industrialized form of religion that they had been taking part in. This is also a part in the “redemption” of the world/society. God’s love is for his people, and the Renaissance began to put a lot of emphasis on that, and bring the focus back to the people. This was also a form of Individualism, a second major theme of the Renaissance. So together, these both are a part of the redemption story.

Luther had a very strict view that people should be punished. He did not believe that people could escape their bad choices. He states that, “People should not be able to escape consequences of sin through penance or absolution; if they have sinned, they should suffer the consequences, which could be eternal damnation. (96)” Luther was very strict with his views and did not let others change his mind. He was devoted to what he believed and fought hard against others to prove that he was right.

I believe that the fall goes great with Luther because he talks about our sins and how we can not make up for them. He is truly defining the fall of man. Also, he does not give an alternative for a way to overcome our sin. Man must try to live a perfect life. The fall of man fits this so well, however, he does not go into how others can receive redemption. Luther is a perfect example of a priest who believes that we must live the right way, or we will never make it to Heaven. I think that his believes are the definition of the fall of man and he just did not understand that there is redemption with Jesus.

In a time when materialism was replacing religious belief, George Berkeley suggested another perspective to the Creation ideal. Popular thought for his time period believed that all matter on earth could be broken down into “atomic and corpuscular structure” (p. 140). The universe that they perceived was materialistic and physical events could be explained by mechanistic laws. Our world was just “matter in motion”. The materialistic perspective falls under the Creation sector because it deals with and examines the questions of created things and events.

Berkeley though, rejected the idea of materialism and suggested that matter does not exist. This challenges the traditional way that we examine Creation. I think that we are quick to associate Creation with the idea of making something –which more often than not, usually evokes a physical and tangible connotation. For Berkeley we are in a world of our perceptions and nothing more. Creation in this sense exists in the mind as what are called Secondary Qualities. This is not to say that Berkeley rejected the idea of an External Reality and claimed that our perceptions alone are valid. Instead, he understood the fallacies present in that thinking and acknowledged that God’s perceptions make up the consistent reality that is not a subjective experience from person to person.

When God created the world He spoke. The reality that resulted came from within Him. Words are not tangible. For all we know, the world began for us through an intangible and most certainly unknown mechanistic way. Reality for us as human beings is the sum of our perceiving God’s perceptions. We give His way entrance into our own minds and our perceptions are changed as a result. Essentially, according to Berkeley, “to be [human] is to be perceived”. The “good life” results when our perceptions synonymously line up with God’s.

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/gardenofeden.jpg

Imagine the garden and the reality that Adam and Eve walked as God spoke. Prior to the fall, their perceptions of reality could be argued to be exactly like God’s. For the first and only time in all of Creation man’s and God’s realities were identical. As God spoke His world into motion, His ideas became the reality of the garden. This idea stems from Berkeley’s Principle of Association. For Adam and Eve the integration of their senses wove together what we would imagine the garden to be. By sunlight and color, hard and soft, hot and cold…etc etc the garden came to be. And it was Good (Genesis 1:31).

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

I think that if we apply George Berkeley’s beliefs, we can see that the term “made” is in and of itself an act of Creation. His explanation poses the question that perhaps “made” does not imply the physical. A perception is made. And that perception can create/define reality.