Report Blog Entry
Before you start reading...
Please consider that this is my own research without exact literature and guides for the research, and also English is my second language, so I've translated all of this via Google Translate, for I have written in my own language (Serbian) originally. And I gotta add that this is all for education purposes, and if you do not agree with certain parts or think it is not enough information, please let me know down in the comments! Enjoy reading.
Astonishment
The first human impulse to philosophize.
Plato - claimed that "the attribute of a philosopher is that state of mind".
Aristotle:
1) amazement at obvious and everyday difficulties
β what makes a person happy? what is fair? etc...
2) wonder at natural phenomena
3) asking questions about the origin of everything that exists
Doubt
Another of the basic reasons for philosophizing.
There are legitimate reasons to doubt what the majority thinks is right.
Doubt is a state of indecision or hesitation regarding accepting or rejecting a given proposition.
RenΓ© Descartes, developed the method of doubt as a fundamental approach to the state. He argued that before claiming to understand reality or existence, we must establish firm, unquestionable relations to knowledge. In his "Meditations on First Philosophy," Descartes proposed limiting beliefs to those who could withstand radical doubt. He questioned whether our senses, reasoning, and beliefs can be trusted, ultimately suggesting that this knowledge should be based on a foundation of undeniable truths. This approach involves hypothetical doubt where we temporarily treat everything as questionable to identify beliefs that are truly beyond doubt.
In the "First Meditation", Descartes showed how our senses can deceive us, leading to doubts about their reliability. He also pointed to the possibility that we are always dreaming or being tricked by "evil geniuses", casting doubt on our reasoning abilities. Through this radical skepticism, Descartes concluded that most beliefs, especially those based on sense experience, are uncertain.
Shock
A condition involving disorientation, uncertainty, fear, and discomfort. Disorientation and insecurity make a person feel as if they have been taken out of their comfort zone and the person loses a firm footing with previous understandings. Fear or discomfort threatens the sense of control over the world and oneself.
When are we in that state?
It occurs when we encounter something we have never seen or something that is the total opposite of what we know. Limit situations are also an excellent example. Because in such situations we are directly faced with something unknown and unsolvable.
What does it encourage us to do?
Shock is one of the basic motivations for philosophizing. It is also an opportunity for deep reflection and growth, as it forces us to question established patterns of thinking and open ourselves to new insights.
My understanding of the lesson
Wonder, doubt, and shock are related, and can be arranged in the following order:
- Shock - encountering a problem
- Wondering - wonder/curiosity about the problem
- Doubt - uncertainty about the solution to the problem (or the problem itself)
It can also appear out of order, singly or in "pairs" such as shock and wonder, shock and doubt, wonder and doubt.
All three can be found in the example of Plato's allegory of the cave:
1) Shock
β The captive, when he comes out of the cave, experiences the real truth about reality.
β Captives who hear the shadow of the freed captive talking about the truth of true reality.
2) Astonishment - The captive who came out of the cave.
3) Suspicion - The captives who remained in the cave and heard the shadow of the freed captive
Comments
Displaying 3 of 3 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
Emma
When I was in my first year of high school, my history or philosophy teacher asked us to read Metaphysical Meditations by Descartes. In this work, Descartes states (as far as I can remember) that man's conscience isn't capable of creating information, but rather of transforming it and shaping it according to our needs. He gives the example that a painter can paint a monster, but he will still use colours and shapes that already exist. Of course, given that Descartes was born in the modern age, we have to look at his thoughts and considerations through the lens of someone who had little science and everything was God's will. At the same time that he was thinking about so many ideas, he still believed (at least that's what I understood from the only work I read by him) that God was unquestionable. Personally, I find someone who wonders if he is really lucid, but is sure that God exists, quite funny and curious. He's the living (now dead) proof that no matter what we do, we will always be the product of our times. I wonder what he would think if he were our contemporary and found out about neuroscience and other fields that study the human conscience.
that's so interesting, and come to think of it, this does proves the fact that we as humanity are improving, no matter how bad it seems now, maybe in the future it will be better
by cilica; ; Report
Contra
First of all, thanks for putting this together. You have a good eye for presenting information in a compelling manner! :)
I can't really argue much on the facts here. Every source you've used seems credible and, as far as memory serves, the informaton is accurate. The only small thing that I'd like to correct is that Descartes didn't say that we are always being tricked by evil geniuses casting doubt on our reasoning abilities. He said that that *could* be the case. But that's just a small nuance. Generally, Descartes was often talking in hypotheticals. As a logician, he was always trying to find one counter example that, if true, could completely debunk the thesis or understandings we had of the world. If our understanding of the world is that we can trust our reasoning, then that thesis is disproven by the idea that there could be an evil genius doing what he described. As long as that's a possibility, we can't trust our reasoning to 100%, as we shouldn't. I think he also used this example in order to prove that we can't trust the world to exist, because there *could* be someone casting an illusion of the world into us. I have to admit, I don't think that Descartes fully finished his meditations and I don't agree with his "Cognito ergo sum". Or maybe he actually means it in a different manner than it seems.
However, I do want to invite you to ponder on the questions and revelations gained from this compilation of ideas. Understanding a philosophers point of view is a good thing, but expanding upon and inquiring about it is what this is all about.
Astonishment, doubt and shock are all reactions of the human mind in order to explain why we seem to philosophize. One thing that instantly comes to my mind is that all of these are mechanisms that spring from within outselves. Are there any external factors or objects that influence why we philosophize? What is it about the external world that draws us to do all of this? What induces this astonishment, shock and doubt?And what do these things have in common? Are there extreme worlds that could be constructed in a manner that doesn't induce astonishment, shock and doubt? What about a world that would do so all of the time? Could they exist? And if yes, what would they look like in your mind?
I hope this isn't too much, haha xD
nah it's all good, i didn't have time to answer earlier, but thank you for commenting, your comment really challenged me to think about it, and maybe i'll write about it one day !!!
by cilica; ; Report
I'm glad that you took the time to read through and consider what I said. Thank you :>
by Contra; ; Report
you're welcome, thank you for taking your time to write this comment
by cilica; ; Report
Fayra π€
oh em gee this is so philosophical you slayed i love it
thank you bbygirl
by cilica; ; Report
ofc sweetie
by Fayra π€; ; Report