1. That a conscious being can discover the forms, reasons or ideas that are always true and unchangeable always seemed self-evident to me. I am no social constructionist but I do acknowledge that individuals do not exist in a vacuum. I wonder if I owe my faith in reason to Plato and these theologians or if it would have arisen some other way. It seems like there is something to discover 'out there' and I was always interested (for as long as I can remember) in finding out more of what was discoverable. Was it really such an odd idea that an individual could uncover truths about the world that it took the recorded musings of learned individuals to set off an era of individualism? I only ask because it seems as though many of the deconstructionists who would challenge reason today claim it is only because of texts from 'old dead white men' that we currently place such an emphasis on reason. To me, it seems self-evident that reason arises from the physics of life. The yin and yang and the eight trigrams outline a kind of binary code to explain relationships in three dimensional space and change over time, mathematics owes much of its existence to the Middle East. It seems that reason arises naturally from consciousness and language. I agree with Augustine that there are some universals but I'm not sure what God has to do with it.
2. I must be missing the point. It seems strange to me to focus so much on the ontological reality of genus. It seems like mathematics does a better job of proving the forms or the universality of concepts. Genus seems more like a convenient label; one used to categorize more than to uncover unchanging truths. I suppose that it was used later to classify animals and that might be the connotation that my mind is stuck on. It just seems that if these fellows focused on a more relational thinking, if they saw that certain relationships always exist, even if the players or individuals shift about, they might find less difficulty in explaining what is universal and, in some way, unchanging.
This reading was differnt for me based on my comunication background. The concept that words are based off forms and not a true human concept was suprising. I was always told words are ambiguis, arbitrary and abstract.
Also the belife that only god can know the true understanding of these forms is also suprising. I understand we have a limited knowlege of life but words in my opinion are created by group meaning.
1. It was interesting fro me to see Plato's theory of the forms through Augustine's lens. There have been many references to Plato by Augustine thus far in this class, however, the selection that we were assigned to read for today seemed to provide the most cogent of these references. In addition, it was also interesting to go back to Augustine in order to see how great the original emphasis on reason was and how much it was used to shape the outset of the medieval period. This goes as far as translating plato's "eidoi" into "reasons" and saying that they were born from God's rationality.
2. It was intriguing, and at hard times to follow, Boethius' defense for the existence of incorporeal things such as universals, species, and genera. It was interesting to see how he used the philosophy of language to conclude that universals like this "exist in corporeal and sensible items, but they are thought of apart from sensible item so that their nature can be perceived and their property understood."
The readings for today return to Platonism, and Aristotelianism insofar as they refer to “forms” and “Species”/”Genus.” Boethius takes the Aristotelian route, but returns to questioning the corporeal v. incorporeal nature of this reason, which he still calls species/genus. Boethius clearly does not buy into Platonism as it pertains to universals and I don’t disagree. Platonic forms, and similarly reasons as Augustine puts it, can be helpful ways to understand and cut up the world, but it is far too simple, and the Aristotelian practice of considering the object as primary to the form allows for much clearer designations and categories than platonic forms ever could.
Compotista appears to be toying with logic. While generally this is a style of argument that I enjoy, particularly when there are unusual conclusions, I am not comfortable enough with the language he uses to cautiously pick out whatever issues I might have with his premises. Hopefully in class that will become clearer to me.
1.) Boethius had a good outlook on thought, and genera. I completely agree with him when he talks about thoughts are grasped from a subject or thing of nature. This was something that caught my eye because when a species is thinking about something, that thought has to derive from some kind of subject that they've seen or saw. But, he also goes to say the subjects that are not in themselves are empty thoughts. If thoughts are empty what could be drawn from those things? 2.) Augustine talks about the divine mind, and reason. I found this insightful because he says that all things are set up by reason in ones mind but they are unchangeable. I see how he says these are unchangeable because when the light of God is in the soul that the ideas, and reasons are pure and they will become true.
1.) While reading Boethus I found myself thinking my usual line. Since these kinds of metaphysics are outside the realm of human knowledge I found myself wondering the about if chash the forms had any cash value. Generally speaking I think living life that way takes away from ones life in a manner of different ways. The chief reason is that when one spends life fully worshiping the forms they miss out on the particular, and misses some of the niceties of life. 2.) While reading Augustine I couldn’t help but have the thought that the ‘rational’ mind seems to be a hugely metaphysically loaded term when used in this context. Here I think that we should be having a conversation about epistemology of some sort, and find myself let down that all that is offered is metaphysics instead.
1) When I think about how Christians understand God, I find myself imagining that they see Him through a Platonic lens, like Augustine writes in the first section. God is the perfect being in which we aspire to be but can never really be. We can be holy and pure, but we can never really be God. He exists in a much higher 'category' per se, one not visually or intelletually attainable by us. 2. I followed much about what he was saying, and I agree that what he would call a genera could not be a single unit. Something that is incorporeal can not be a single unit in how it is understood. Is God incorporeal? In-so-far as we can understand God, how can we be sure that we understand him in a universally sound way?
This first reading by Augustine concerning universals was the first time that I really felt Deja vu. The reading read very similar to ones by Aristotle or Plato insofar a they had simple yet persuading arguments in them. Now there was a clear Christian bias that I think muddied especially near the end. He responded to one counterpoint by saying that it would be sacrilege to think that way. Boethius was surprisingly Aristotelian. His definition, distinctions, and arguments for them were very grounded in the same way that Aristotle’s was. It avoided standing on mystical ground and remained for the most part empirical. This strikes me as odd for a medieval thinker. It is a lot easier and maybe in fact preferable to take more from Plato then Aristotle if one believed in a God. This is because platonism is very susceptible to become religious. It is very easy to insert a God like figure when one is thinking like Plato but not so much when one is thinking like Aristotle.
I found this reading to be very interesting. Plato’s theory of forms being spoken about through the gaze of Augustine was different. Augustine focused a lot on reason in this reading, this I found to be different than many of the readings we have been reading lately.
I found the introduction of species and genus to be a surprising and new. It shows that the readings are progressing along the timeline. Even though Boethius concept of species vs. genus is different. It seems that logic is somewhat being discussed in a way that looks to find new more improved logic.
1. That a conscious being can discover the forms, reasons or ideas that are always true and unchangeable always seemed self-evident to me. I am no social constructionist but I do acknowledge that individuals do not exist in a vacuum. I wonder if I owe my faith in reason to Plato and these theologians or if it would have arisen some other way. It seems like there is something to discover 'out there' and I was always interested (for as long as I can remember) in finding out more of what was discoverable. Was it really such an odd idea that an individual could uncover truths about the world that it took the recorded musings of learned individuals to set off an era of individualism? I only ask because it seems as though many of the deconstructionists who would challenge reason today claim it is only because of texts from 'old dead white men' that we currently place such an emphasis on reason. To me, it seems self-evident that reason arises from the physics of life. The yin and yang and the eight trigrams outline a kind of binary code to explain relationships in three dimensional space and change over time, mathematics owes much of its existence to the Middle East. It seems that reason arises naturally from consciousness and language. I agree with Augustine that there are some universals but I'm not sure what God has to do with it.
ReplyDelete2. I must be missing the point. It seems strange to me to focus so much on the ontological reality of genus. It seems like mathematics does a better job of proving the forms or the universality of concepts. Genus seems more like a convenient label; one used to categorize more than to uncover unchanging truths. I suppose that it was used later to classify animals and that might be the connotation that my mind is stuck on. It just seems that if these fellows focused on a more relational thinking, if they saw that certain relationships always exist, even if the players or individuals shift about, they might find less difficulty in explaining what is universal and, in some way, unchanging.
This reading was differnt for me based on my comunication background. The concept that words are based off forms and not a true human concept was suprising. I was always told words are ambiguis, arbitrary and abstract.
ReplyDeleteAlso the belife that only god can know the true understanding of these forms is also suprising. I understand we have a limited knowlege of life but words in my opinion are created by group meaning.
1. It was interesting fro me to see Plato's theory of the forms through Augustine's lens. There have been many references to Plato by Augustine thus far in this class, however, the selection that we were assigned to read for today seemed to provide the most cogent of these references. In addition, it was also interesting to go back to Augustine in order to see how great the original emphasis on reason was and how much it was used to shape the outset of the medieval period. This goes as far as translating plato's "eidoi" into "reasons" and saying that they were born from God's rationality.
ReplyDelete2. It was intriguing, and at hard times to follow, Boethius' defense for the existence of incorporeal things such as universals, species, and genera. It was interesting to see how he used the philosophy of language to conclude that universals like this "exist in corporeal and sensible items, but they are thought of apart from sensible item so that their nature can be perceived and their property understood."
The readings for today return to Platonism, and Aristotelianism insofar as they refer to “forms” and “Species”/”Genus.” Boethius takes the Aristotelian route, but returns to questioning the corporeal v. incorporeal nature of this reason, which he still calls species/genus. Boethius clearly does not buy into Platonism as it pertains to universals and I don’t disagree. Platonic forms, and similarly reasons as Augustine puts it, can be helpful ways to understand and cut up the world, but it is far too simple, and the Aristotelian practice of considering the object as primary to the form allows for much clearer designations and categories than platonic forms ever could.
ReplyDeleteCompotista appears to be toying with logic. While generally this is a style of argument that I enjoy, particularly when there are unusual conclusions, I am not comfortable enough with the language he uses to cautiously pick out whatever issues I might have with his premises. Hopefully in class that will become clearer to me.
1.) Boethius had a good outlook on thought, and genera. I completely agree with him when he talks about thoughts are grasped from a subject or thing of nature. This was something that caught my eye because when a species is thinking about something, that thought has to derive from some kind of subject that they've seen or saw. But, he also goes to say the subjects that are not in themselves are empty thoughts. If thoughts are empty what could be drawn from those things?
ReplyDelete2.) Augustine talks about the divine mind, and reason. I found this insightful because he says that all things are set up by reason in ones mind but they are unchangeable. I see how he says these are unchangeable because when the light of God is in the soul that the ideas, and reasons are pure and they will become true.
1.) While reading Boethus I found myself thinking my usual line. Since these kinds of metaphysics are outside the realm of human knowledge I found myself wondering the about if chash the forms had any cash value. Generally speaking I think living life that way takes away from ones life in a manner of different ways. The chief reason is that when one spends life fully worshiping the forms they miss out on the particular, and misses some of the niceties of life.
ReplyDelete2.) While reading Augustine I couldn’t help but have the thought that the ‘rational’ mind seems to be a hugely metaphysically loaded term when used in this context. Here I think that we should be having a conversation about epistemology of some sort, and find myself let down that all that is offered is metaphysics instead.
1) When I think about how Christians understand God, I find myself imagining that they see Him through a Platonic lens, like Augustine writes in the first section. God is the perfect being in which we aspire to be but can never really be. We can be holy and pure, but we can never really be God. He exists in a much higher 'category' per se, one not visually or intelletually attainable by us.
ReplyDelete2. I followed much about what he was saying, and I agree that what he would call a genera could not be a single unit. Something that is incorporeal can not be a single unit in how it is understood. Is God incorporeal? In-so-far as we can understand God, how can we be sure that we understand him in a universally sound way?
This first reading by Augustine concerning universals was the first time that I really felt Deja vu. The reading read very similar to ones by Aristotle or Plato insofar a they had simple yet persuading arguments in them. Now there was a clear Christian bias that I think muddied especially near the end. He responded to one counterpoint by saying that it would be sacrilege to think that way.
ReplyDeleteBoethius was surprisingly Aristotelian. His definition, distinctions, and arguments for them were very grounded in the same way that Aristotle’s was. It avoided standing on mystical ground and remained for the most part empirical. This strikes me as odd for a medieval thinker. It is a lot easier and maybe in fact preferable to take more from Plato then Aristotle if one believed in a God. This is because platonism is very susceptible to become religious. It is very easy to insert a God like figure when one is thinking like Plato but not so much when one is thinking like Aristotle.
I found this reading to be very interesting. Plato’s theory of forms being spoken about through the gaze of Augustine was different. Augustine focused a lot on reason in this reading, this I found to be different than many of the readings we have been reading lately.
ReplyDeleteI found the introduction of species and genus to be a surprising and new. It shows that the readings are progressing along the timeline. Even though Boethius concept of species vs. genus is different. It seems that logic is somewhat being discussed in a way that looks to find new more improved logic.