Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 37-53

These pages cover the Section 6 titled Of Probability. Hume says that there is no such thing as chance but that our ignorance of the real causes of events leads us to believe in chance. In Section 7, Part 1 titled Of the Idea of Necessary Connexion, Hume discusses Metaphysics and states that “no idea in metaphysics is more obscure and uncertain than those of force, power, energy, or necessary connexion, of which it is every moment necessary for us to treat in all our disquisitions." Hume says that all ideas and complex impressions are formed by simple impressions and that these no not automatically give us necessary connection. He looks at the mind and body and says that in this case we do not perceive by experiment or reason necessary connection. This concept is a little fuzzy for me but I can essential understand his meaning. Hume then discusses the mind-body interaction and explains that although we are aware our bodies move can’t really understand the connection of how the actual movement happens.  The relationship between these bodies is very complex for Hume and I can appreciate his ability to recognize such an issue. I’ve always found it fascinating how we can make our bodies move, but not actually think arm and hand type that sentence. Then we have mind-mind interaction, where we come up with our ideas and he can’t seem to find any connection and how we can just come up with something in our mind from nothing. I agree with his thoughts that experience plays a very important role in our ideas and how we begin to come up with certain thoughts and ideas. 

Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 20-37

Hume explains that matters of fact relationships come from sensory experience or from memory. He explains cannot be a source of my knowledge and that know matters of fact about unnoticed things through cause and effect. He then discusses how the principle of cause and effect works. Cause and effect are separate from each other. From experience in the past we infer what we will experience in the future. As humans we then base our awareness of future events on past experiences. To explain this situation Hume gives us "demonstrative reasoning," which is based on relations of ideas, and "moral reasoning," or matters of fact. This presents a problem of knowing the future based solely on the past and everything we experience will begin to resemble one-another. Hume shows we suppose instances between the past and future, but there is nothing to say that we can say that this is actually what will happen or prove that it is even possible.  So the main points of this section are that our knowledge from experience is based on the principle of cause and effect.  We find that the principal of cause and effect is in the nature of induction and this relies on the uniformity principle, which says the future will take after the past and we come to know this principal through our experiences.

Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding 1-20

In section one of this works Hume lays out the framework for his project and gives us two types of Philosophy: Moral Philosophy versus the Science of Human Nature. In his explanation of the Moral Philosophy he gives is 2 types of man which concludes of the first to be the Easy and Obvious or born for action and is influenced by “taste and sentiment and pursing one object in avoiding another, according to the value by which these objects seem to possess, and according to light in which they present themselves.” (1)  This type philosophy works to support our behaviors by using examples from everyday life. This then shows us examples of vice and virtue.  For Hume this is the common sense approach to philosophy. Then there is the Abstruse or the contemplative also known as the spirit of accuracy or progress.  Rather than addressing our behaviors we are urged to better understand the principals that let us choose our own behavior rather than counting on our common senses. He says this category of man we consider man in the light of the reasonable rather than an active being. I think it means to critique this type of philosophy. I think the reason that Hume finds a problem with the Abstruse philosophy is that often times we can be flawed it use from the simple fact that it conflicts with our common sense which I think are a very important aspect of human nature for Hume. A disadvantage Hume discusses would be on how we free ourselves from superstition and obscurity. He finds a solution to this problem through his use of “mental geography” of the mind and its parts. He then gives us the classes of perceptions. Our Ideas, then Impressions, classifying them in 2 parts as our external and internal expressions followed but his description of its relationship and functions. Hume admits against accurate and abstract philosophy explaining that they are not sciences, but rather a confused attempt to explain by means of blind prejudice what we do not know. One thing we have to address is that Hume is inheriting John Locke ideas, that we are a “tabula rosa” and Hume’s explanation between impressions and ideas clears up some misunderstandings found in Locke's rejection of innate ideas. Hume complains that Locke fails to clarify what he means either by "innate" or "idea."  For Hume impressions are innate and ideas are not. Hume then discusses the links that between ideas, asserting that all ideas are linked to other ideas. Hume then discusses in the next section the relationship between "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact” and cause and effect relationships. All sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic which house all logically true statements such as "5 + 7 = 12" and "all bachelors are unmarried" are relations of ideas. Matters of fact deal with experience: that the sun is shining, I went to class today, we have a term paper due are all matters of fact. 

Foucault, “My Body, This Paper, This Fire” and “Reply to Derrida”

                                          

So after the work published by Derrida it seems that Foucault has no choice but to defend himself and his writings. He begin is rebuttal by claiming that Derrida is being too nitpicky.  He seems to defend himself against most of the claims made by Derrida. Foucault begins by saying that Derrida has focused his entire critique on one small portion of Foucault work, his uses of Descartes, and he takes great offense to this.  Through several sections of his works he quotes Descartes and uses this to refute his claims. Examples of this can be found in his explanation of Dreams versus Madness and well as the “good” and “bad” examples. Foucault responded to Derrida’s critique when he published the second edition of his book. Foucault responds by explaining in so many words that his intention was not to write the history of that language, but rather the archaeology of madness as we discussed in class. Foucault also makes a dismissive reference to Derrida’s philosophical practices.  Foucault argues that “We should not try to justify the old book…we should not pretend to discover in it a secret reserve…I will add only two texts…where I try to address a remarkable criticism by Derrida” . Foucault argues that Derrida asserts arguments into his work that are not necessarily there.  There are some points when Foucault gives Derrida credit for his assertions and their evidence but quickly discounts them with his own sources but claiming Derrida’s misunderstanding of the original Latin texts and claiming he understands Desartes meaning in his texts, when Foucault believes he does not. His final blow and a fine one comes with the final line of the text stating, “But as only the wise can distinguish what is clearly conceived from what only seems and appears to be so, I am not surprised that this fellow can’t tell the difference between them.” 

Derrida, “Cogito and the History of Madness”

Derrida poses two major questions: if history is a rational concept, how is it possible to write a history of madness? And is Foucault’s interpretation of Descartes justifiable. Also he asks the question; does Foucault get it right? Is it acceptable to add Descartes in historically? Derrida attacks Foucault on many levels including his methodology and use of specific terms and as we discussed in class it is difficult to see that the two were friends in the critique.  He makes his distaste for Foucault works very apparent. He uses the term “totalitarian”, which for the time in which this was written the 1960’s was equivalent to the modern day term of “terrorism”.  This would be the worst type of term you could refer to a philosophical work in the time; I think this term was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back.  Certainly this was an instance that placed a strain on the friendship.  One of Derrida’s main focuses was on the problem of writing a history of something that it is almost impossible for anyone to fully know of understand. This subject matter is almost speculative. It isn’t the same as historically classifying war for Derrida, where there are tangible instances and examples, when you can know actual causes. Madness is a grey area in this aspect. He claims that Foucault makes several presumptions that he criticizes.   Another issue is that Derrida claims that Foucault never actually gives us a definition of madness or tells us what he thinks it is. I have to say, I think Foucault was right in not doing so, it is such a broad term, I think to give it an actual definition would have done damage to his entire purpose. His attack on Foucault language was a big one as well. He disagrees with the context of his language and the way he uses specific terms.  Derrida asks if it is possible to write a history of silence?

Foucault, Madness and Civilization, 221-240

This section covers Chapter 8, The New Division.

“No one blushed to put the insane in prison.” (221)

In the 19^th century the educated of the period began to condemn confinement, this included psychiatrists and historians alike.  People began to try and make the distinction between the criminals, the simply poor and the mad. In the eighteenth century it seems they figured out that poverty was an economic problem instead or a moral issue but by the time, the houses of confinement had been in place for over 100 years. I can’t help but think link the poor and the mad together. When their only crime was being born underprivileged and being places in these houses of confinement, in some cases as driving them into a mad state by being treated as animals. It seems the people and the responsibility was simply swept under the rug, oops we made a huge mistake and hundreds of lives we ruined or taken but we’ll do better next time doesn’t seem to be a significant response to me. On the other hand, what could they really do? The damage is already done. Giving the mad the attention and support they have been lacking from the very beginning.  Although we can’t seem to blame the ignorant for their actions and choices, a new age was rising for the better understanding of the human mind and nature alike.  The formation of the prison vs the hospital has begun. 

Blueprint of  Huntingdon County Gaol and House of Correction, England, built c1828.

Foucault, Madness and Civilization, 199-220

Chapter The Great Fear shows the return of madness and unreason to the throws of society.  The madman had come to be seen as a social individual.  They were basically seen as good individuals and good people but with “cracked heads.” In the mid-18^th century people began to fear the disease that spread through the houses of confinement known as “prison fevers”, these houses had become unpopular and it was considered “a terrible ulcer upon the public body.” Everything about these places repulsed the people of the cities and they wanted nothing to do with them. The relationship between madness and morality is a theme of nineteenth century psychology. For Foucault I see that psychology is more about morality than science, and as often stated by other critiques and I tend to agree that psychology is only present when this morality and madness are linked. 

Foucault, Madness and Civilization, 117-198

Chapter 5 titles the Aspects of Madness Foucault gives us the symptoms in such behaviors but he does not try to write a history of psychiatry, but he attempts to “show the specific faces by which madness was recognized in classical thought” (117) He covers 2 main topics: Melancholia and Mania.  Melancholia which indicates a specific causal system had such symptoms as imitation belief in being something they are not and fear of what they are or may see for themselves. From my understanding, these people are overly stimulated. Between the two terms Melancholia was that to be the relation of a tense channel of nerves and vessels and Mania was thought to be the vibration.  I have to say some of the components of this chapter were hard for me to follow and understand some of the explanations given.

Hysteria & Hypochondria are two major problems that they had a hard time characterizing. Were they legit forms of madness and how should they be treated together or separate? They were thought to be caused by physical problems, acid, fermentation and chemical reactions. They were classified as diseases of the nerves, which were later proved to be a mental disease.

Chapter 6 labeled Doctors and Patients was used to objectify patient’s relationships.  The madman’s body was regarded as the visible and solid presence of disease hence the cures used were consolidation, purification, immersion and regulation of movement.  A problem was ever present in the physical and moral divide that was not seen during the classical era. (178)

Foucault, Madness and Civilization, 85-116

Chapter 4 Concerning Passion and Delirium showcases the fundamental reasons for the behavior of the mad of the era and the people controlling them.  Foucault shows us that one way madness was characterized was through our minds inability to overcome our passions. They considered the excesses of eating and drinking, corporeal vices, to be the worst causes of all madness.  “The possibility of madness if therefore implicit in the very phenomenon of passions.”  (88) I found that meant that madness for men is linked to his weaknesses and self-perception, the leading causes of our passions.    Foucault then talks of the imagination, for which he explains to us that madness is beyond the imagination, he says that “madness is no more than a derangement of the imagination.” (93)  He also gives us his thoughts on delirium and shows that in the classical age there were two forms thru hallucination and language. Delirium is what Foucault says is the most accurate definition of madness in the classical age. 

Foucault, Madness and Civilization, 38-84

During the 17^th century the expansions of the houses of confinement we on a steady rise. We had just seen leprosy and the Ship of Fools set out to rid the towns and cities of the mad, who were people of all sorts. Instead of previously dealing with the problem and working on a solution, they were pushed on to other cities. These houses of confinement, especially the famed Hospital de General where the next step in the evolution of the “madman” during this time period. Nearly 1 out of every 100 in the city of Paris were placed in a house for one reason or another, some imprisoned falsely and some for reasons that they themselves could not help nor fix. Madness for Foucault was directly linked to these houses, for if someone was not mad to being, they were surely to be when they left. These placed houses not only the poor, but the “sick, invalid, convalescing as well as the curable and incurable. Directors of such facilities were given complete power of the prisoners, I mean patients and appointed to the positions for life, which was a problem in itself. With power come responsibility and a respect of your power and when the latter is lacking, there is bound to be an abuse of this power. Patients were subjected to such items as chains, stakes, dungeons and irons.  Before long there was an edict to establish a hospital de general in every city in France.  In other places, such as England these houses took the form of “houses of correction”, later leading to work houses, then to jails and prisons. The image Foucault gives us in theses chapters is very disturbing, but upon further research very mindful of the time.  Chapter 3 on the Insane was also a very informative chapter on the history and the inevitable change in the people and the creation of more mad from simple people. 



                          René Magritte, Les Amants (1928)

Foucault, Madness and Civilization, Preface- 37

I enjoyed reading the Preface, although sometimes I found myself re-reading sentences and the beginning of Foucault’s work. It read more like a story than most of the philosophical works we are asked to read. It was a nice break, but with that being said Foucault with his Madness and Civilization used historical facts (which I liked) to make relevant points which is refreshing from Descartes and his because I said so readings. This reading is a profound description of the role of madness in Western society during the 17^th century and beyond. The historical facts about leprosy, which was actually very educational for me was very attention-grabbing. The Ship of Fools and its importance of the time were nicely described.  The imagery of the use of a ship to banish the men and the purifying image the water was important to the time, it showed the mind frame of the banishers and what they aimed to do with the “mad”.  I found the fascination this culture had with madness to be interesting. The various expressions of madness Foucault uses were especially interesting, as he describes the means by which madness was expressed. Such as: through romantic identification, vain presumption, just punishment of knowledge, just punishment and desperate passion.

Meditation on First Philosophy PE 113-122

Meditation 3: Concerning God, That He Exists    

   In Mediation 3 there are a few things of which Descartes can be certain.  His goal in this Meditation is to give himself classification of mental activity. The item for which he finds the criteria clear and distinct is that his mind exists and his body exists through extension. With this problem of the mind comes the question, what causes ideas to come into his head? Through this he classifies his mental activities, argues the existence of God and then reconsiders himself.

    Now through this vague and frankly confusing argument that he now knows that God exists. We can be certain that perception and imagination exists.Through his classification of thoughts he examines that we have volition, modes of willing i.e. desires, fears, Judgments and Ideas. With our judgments he concludes that if we want it we necessarily want it. That through our judgments we find error because of what and how we use our senses to come to such judgments which are different from ideas and volition. We then have our Ideas, which are images of objects, which he uses to see if in his own mind he can find a reason for God not to exist. He classifies them into 3 parts: Innate ideas which are the “light of nature”, ideas given to us by God. Adventitious ideas or alien ideas, these are given to us by an outside source such as nature.  We then come to our Invented ideas. He finds that most ideas are given to us by the external world and we are taught by nature and not the light of nature because all of these ideas are certainly true.  In the last part of the mediation Descartes argues again for the existence of God who is a perfect and infinite being.  Which I have come to understand his writing to say that he now knows that working through all his methods God exists because all ideas are effects of prior causes and they must come from a source with a greater sense of reality than the one he is capable of understanding. 

    I must say…I read the material and then I re-read the material again and most times I have a hard time following his work. Some of the conclusions he draws although I know he does not really believe all that he is saying just don’t make sense to me. I can’t decide if he is only saying God exists in this writing so that he may be able continue his work?

Meditation on First Philosophy PE 107-113

Meditation 2: Concerning the Nature of the Human Mind: That It Is Better Known   Than the Body

This meditation is dedicated to discovering if there is anything of which he can be absolutely certain. First there is a set of problems for which he needs the answer.

The first problem continues from the first meditation and that is of the evil deceiver.  The problem lies that in order to be deceived it must be certain that he exists. Descartes concludes that the fact that he doubts or wonders why he exists proves he exists. This then poses the question of, Who is the Who that wonders? He know he exists because he is a “thinking thing”.

His second problem lays with the question of what am I? The I that exists is that of a body and soul.  Then following Descartes methodology we must break down the body and soul. The body which is doubtable because it is finite and because we don’t know of the evil deceiver and the soul, which is what I am, a mind, a way of functioning and infinite.

The third problem asks what the soul is.  Descartes answers this by saying it is simply a thinking thing.  

Again to follow the methodology, what is a thinking thing?  We can conclude that it is something that has senses, intellect, doubt, willing and many more attributes that give the thinking thing power.

Finally we ask, what is a body?  For Descartes it can be described the relationship between the internal and external worlds an extended thing.

Meditation on First Philosophy PE 97-107

Meditation One: Concerning Those Things That Can Be Called Into Doubt

So Descartes has given us a method to which we are supposed to read him. We have to read him critically and to follow his strict methodology for which he has laid out for us.  He lays out the reasons for which we are to doubt and they are as follows:

1.    Sense Perception: for intensive purposes our senses are not to be trusted.  All information that they gather can be considered false and unreliable.   

2.    Madness although he says himself he is not a madman. The only way that you can deny that you exist and that you sit and read this blog as I have typed it would be to say that you are insane a human being.

3.    Dreams: Descartes says that the imagery we see in our dreams comes from the reality we see when we are awake. This imagery is easily confused between the time he is awake and the time he is asleep.

4.    Evil Deceiver: cannot be sure that God is not some kind of evil deceiver. He understands that God is good and cannot understand why God would want to deceive him. 

Discourse on Method PE 64-82

In Parts 3-6 Descartes he continues to try and explain his method of reasoning and begins to layout some ground rules for each.

Part 3 gives a moral code to which we are to live by or the Maxims for the Best Life. He begins with the rule to obey the laws and customs of our country and religion.  Second, always be decisive and stick with your decisions. Third, try to change himself and not the world around him. He seeks knowledge for his benefit and his alone. Lastly, to examine all the occupations of the world in order to try and choose the best one.  

Part 4 He discovers that there is a certain truth we cannot doubt but to doubt everything that can be doubted.  He proceeds to doubt the nature of his dreams and his senses. He then infers that he is a “thinking thing” that is how he knows not to doubt himself. “I think therefore I am” Also Descartes offers proofs that the soul and God exist.  

Part 5 Descartes dissects the theory of anatomy by using animals. He considers that animals have the same types of bodies as animals as in our organs and limbs but fall short of the power of speech or reasoning nor intelligence at all. He then explains human’s “rational soul.” Which I find a little confusing as to wear the idea of the soul came from? It seems as though he has inferred so many things that this one he just assumed we would accept because he has lead up to this point?  There is a connection between the body and soul that he cannot explain but exists and that make the body and soul separate and thus the soul is an eternal.

Part 6 Descartes talks of the conflicts with the church over his writing hence the reason he picked carefully what he chose to publish, because he would not be seen as someone who went against the church. It was one of his rules in this Discourse. 

Discourse on Method PE 46-64

Is this writing Descartes tries to explain his method with stories of his life to which he shows how he has come to these conclusions. Each one of parts described below are in my own interpretation of his writing.

In Part 1 he explains how common sense is essential to a successful life. Just because you are intelligent or what we would now call "book smart" doesn't mean you are wise. This is what separates men from beasts. Every man has equal opportunity and Descartes Discourse on Method, is attempting to show that how you achieve the knowledge is more important that the conclusion.

Descartes then discusses education and prejudices. Where the conclusion can be drawn that he means to say that just because you see something one way and make your own judgments and assumptions doesn't make it so. 

Descartes then makes it clear to the reader that this is his own method and these are his thoughts and they should not be taken as “gospel” but as one learning tool on how to achieve their own goals of knowledge.

In another anecdote about his younger years he explains how he has received years and years of formal education and yet he finds he is still ignorant to the problems faced by the world and their solutions. Education doesn’t always translate into real world scenarios.

After he makes an argument for why education is sometimes overrated he them formulates an argument for formal education explaining that he does understand why we are urged to be educated because it is the basic knowledge taught will help make your everyday life easier.  

Decartes: Rules for The Direction of the Mind

            In Descartes first 3 Rules he sets out to explain the importance of certainty in his thinking .Rule 1 sets out to explain how we can use our common senses and judgments through experience to gain more knowledge. He explains that if you have any type of knowledge at all, if you perceive it to be true will only lead to more and truer knowledge.
            In Rule 2, he contends we must only concern ourselves with objects for which we know to be certain. He says, "So it is better not to study at all than to occupy oneself with objects so difficult that, in our ability to distinguish true from false, we are forced to admit doubtful things for certain, for in these matters there is not so much hope of increasing our learning is danger of diminishing it".So don't worry about things that you know you cannot understand it is pointless to try because you will never understand them and they will only lead you away from knowing the things you are capable of understanding.
             Rule 3 says that we should only study objects that we ourselves can understand through our own knowledge.  You may only fully understand a notion if you have learned it clearly and on your own and with no help of others.

Rule 4 shows how the mind must have a clear method in order to understand true knowledge. This set of rules that make up his method will help you successfully attain the knowledge of all things.

Rule 5 shows that everything thing should be broken into its simplest form and from there can be truly examined.

Rule 6 once everything is broken into its simplest forms then you should break down each simplified part into carrying degrees and compare the complexities of them. Some things are “absolute” are pure and simple and cannot be broken down any farther but some things are “relative” and can be broken down and compared to their “absolute” parts.

Rule 7 states that no matter what the cause you should not skip any steps of the method.

Rule 8 asks that you avoid making things more complex than they have to be in order to prevent confusion in your understanding.

Rule 9 asks that you concentrate on the simplest elements of which you seek knowledge.  He shows that the operations of our intellect are intuition and deduction. If we use these tools wisely and often we will eventually be able to know the simple truths of our knowledge.

Rule 10 says that in order to fully understand everything start with the simplest of tasks first, then move your way, although this is not for everyone, into the more complex issues. It’s important for everyone to learn at their own pace.

Rule 11concerns intuition and deduction.  If you are using your intuitions and it leads you to doubts about your deductions you should continue on your path and further analyze the problem.

What is Modern Philosophy?

One misconception amongst students in understanding what modern philosophy is and what it consists of. Is because when we hear the word "modern" we assume it to mean the philosophical views of people we see to be in our own era of time, i.e. the 20th & 21st centuries. As disappointing as this may seen, this is simply not true.

 Modern philosophy concerns a branch of philosophy that originated around the 17th Century in Western Europe and is now studied across the world.  It is a basis for which most western philosophys are based.

And so we being our journey into Modern Philosophy with the study of Descartes...