1. I found Augustine's musing about the nature of Ideas and numbers to be interesting. I see what he's saying about numbers not being perceptible through bodily senses. I think that our knowledge of numbers does come from our sense of space, or at least one dimension of it (the number line). We have a sense of space in our own minds, although it does help to see numbers in actual space.
2. Augustine's arguments about self-knowledge sound like predecessors of Descartes'. The points he makes are solid. It made me wonder what the nature of existence. I guess what characterizes existence for me is persistence through time, and anything that makes us aware of that makes it evident that we exist.
1. Thank you Augustine. Right out of the gate he addresses an issue I have often had with something I often hear in philosophy. The need to name arguments and give credit to their progenitors seems reasonable enough but Augustine is the first western philosopher I have seen who wrote about how these ideas would come to be with or without the specific individuals that first expressed them, though he will give credit to God (which does not seem necessary). I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that these ideas of 'western culture' are merely a product of historical accident and maybe even mere artifice. A premise upon which the detractors of the 'western patriarchy' attack the notions of reason and science with an ironically religious fervor. The fundamental principles of science and reason arose out of necessity and would have arisen at some point whether or not they had been discovered by Plato, Aristotle and others. In fact, many of these principles were discovered by others, in other lands. Though Augustine did not know some of the things we know now, he was right to see that there was some truth to be discovered and the name of the finder, while important, is not nearly as important as the discovery itself.
2. Now I will, in some ways, contradict my previous statement. Augustine wrote about the permanence of numbers and their relationship to the number or concept of one. It is very interesting how these concepts brush up against Buddhist thought but then take an abrupt turn away from the direction that Buddhists took. In the Buddhism that I am aware of, one is an illusion. There is no other. If all things are an endless concatenation of cause and effect, nothing can be as it is without every other thing being as it is. There is no self. There is one giant everything and because there is nothing else, there is no thing. What I find interesting about Augustine's use of the concept one to explain many is that it requires two; the thing being counted and the counter.
The use of numbers to reinforce the idea of divine will and order is brilliant. The idea of reason being used to perceive numbers rather than the body also seems sound. However, I might argue against such a notion on the grounds of our perception. The temporal world has existed long before human beings, thus, we desire a simple way to categorize it, which must be taught. I enjoyed the reading, but thought Augustine could've build on his argument more than just stating basic facts about addition and doubling numbers. Leibniz or Newton could've greatly added to this argument, but were not his contemporaries.
His second passage reads similar to Descartes and the notion of the cogito. He knows that he exists because of his inner knowledge and spends much of the first few paragraphs discussing this. He seems to lean very much on what we would describe as rationalism. His skepticism runs deep enough for him to question the origins of his own birth, as that would require him to believe in an otherwise questionable testimony (which he seems to imply).
It is interesting how Augustine replaces and idea with the term reason to make the case of purpose in all creation. He also makes the case that because these reasons come from God and do not come in or out of existence that they are really existent in the platonic sense. It is more plausible, in my view, that if realism were true that it would be best grounded in theism as Augustine tries to argue here.
This passage about self-existence is entirely unique in that this seems to be the earliest attempt to address epistemology in the Cartesian format. I did not know that the idea of the cogito was an idea inspired by Augustine's writings. What makes this argument particularly interesting is that it is curious to think about what would drive the conversation of epistemology in this format during this era.
Augustine first starts the paper off by saying that Plato was the first one to name ideas. When I first read this I was very confused because I really did not understand what Augustine meant by ideas. As I continued to read I began to understand that Augustine meant Ideas as in forms or species. His concept of Ideas being permanent or immutable forms is interesting to me because I have never seen anyone use the word Ideas in this manner. The Ideas Augustine speaks of has to do with reasons for species acting the way they do.
I found Augustine’s outlook on numbers to be very interesting. He relates numbers to Ideas in that you cannot actually show a number. You can have a number of many items however you cannot truly represent a number physically because it is something that is understood more than shown. Augustine states that Ideas are the same in that they can be understood but not physically shown.
1. It was interesting how Augustine argues that knowledge of numbers was provided by some sort of divine intervention, thereby grounded the basis for their existence. He states, "men to whom God as given ability in argument, and whom stubbornness does not lead into confusion, are forced to admit that the order and truth of numbers have nothing to do with the bodily senses, but are unchangeable and true and common to all rational beings" (85).
2. I found many echoes of Descartes' meditations in Augustine's second piece. Perhaps what I found most interesting of all was seeing how much weigh Augustine gave to human's innate capacity to reason about their own existence. Allowing that through this sort of self-reflection alone human's can be made sure of their existence.
I thought it was refreshing to read a dialogue after an extensive dive into technical and logical arguments, however quickly it became a monologue. I am sympathetic to this discussion. I hesitate to call it an argument, as both parties seem to be more or less in agreement. If numbers are eternal and true and universal, then it stands that they must exist outside of one’s own mind. Although this is a new unit, this seems like a problem for conceptualists the same way the Rose problem was a problem for moderate realists.
After reading the second selection, I cannot help but see similarities between Augustine and Descartes. Despite the fact that Descartes removes God from the equation, there is still a distinct connection and perhaps a lineage between the way they two approach the material world and the internal sense of self. Augustine even includes a caveat providing for the exclusion of “delusive representations of images or phantasms” predicting, but attempting to hold off Descartes’s demon, as well as touching on the example that we cannot always (or usually) tell whether or not we are dreaming, but that even if we are deceived, we still think and therefore are “alive” as Augustine puts it. I wonder why more people do not talk about Augustine in addition to Descartes.
1. I found Augustine's musing about the nature of Ideas and numbers to be interesting. I see what he's saying about numbers not being perceptible through bodily senses. I think that our knowledge of numbers does come from our sense of space, or at least one dimension of it (the number line). We have a sense of space in our own minds, although it does help to see numbers in actual space.
ReplyDelete2. Augustine's arguments about self-knowledge sound like predecessors of Descartes'. The points he makes are solid. It made me wonder what the nature of existence. I guess what characterizes existence for me is persistence through time, and anything that makes us aware of that makes it evident that we exist.
1. Thank you Augustine. Right out of the gate he addresses an issue I have often had with something I often hear in philosophy. The need to name arguments and give credit to their progenitors seems reasonable enough but Augustine is the first western philosopher I have seen who wrote about how these ideas would come to be with or without the specific individuals that first expressed them, though he will give credit to God (which does not seem necessary). I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that these ideas of 'western culture' are merely a product of historical accident and maybe even mere artifice. A premise upon which the detractors of the 'western patriarchy' attack the notions of reason and science with an ironically religious fervor. The fundamental principles of science and reason arose out of necessity and would have arisen at some point whether or not they had been discovered by Plato, Aristotle and others. In fact, many of these principles were discovered by others, in other lands. Though Augustine did not know some of the things we know now, he was right to see that there was some truth to be discovered and the name of the finder, while important, is not nearly as important as the discovery itself.
ReplyDelete2. Now I will, in some ways, contradict my previous statement. Augustine wrote about the permanence of numbers and their relationship to the number or concept of one. It is very interesting how these concepts brush up against Buddhist thought but then take an abrupt turn away from the direction that Buddhists took. In the Buddhism that I am aware of, one is an illusion. There is no other. If all things are an endless concatenation of cause and effect, nothing can be as it is without every other thing being as it is. There is no self. There is one giant everything and because there is nothing else, there is no thing. What I find interesting about Augustine's use of the concept one to explain many is that it requires two; the thing being counted and the counter.
The use of numbers to reinforce the idea of divine will and order is brilliant. The idea of reason being used to perceive numbers rather than the body also seems sound. However, I might argue against such a notion on the grounds of our perception. The temporal world has existed long before human beings, thus, we desire a simple way to categorize it, which must be taught. I enjoyed the reading, but thought Augustine could've build on his argument more than just stating basic facts about addition and doubling numbers. Leibniz or Newton could've greatly added to this argument, but were not his contemporaries.
ReplyDeleteHis second passage reads similar to Descartes and the notion of the cogito. He knows that he exists because of his inner knowledge and spends much of the first few paragraphs discussing this. He seems to lean very much on what we would describe as rationalism. His skepticism runs deep enough for him to question the origins of his own birth, as that would require him to believe in an otherwise questionable testimony (which he seems to imply).
It is interesting how Augustine replaces and idea with the term reason to make the case of purpose in all creation. He also makes the case that because these reasons come from God and do not come in or out of existence that they are really existent in the platonic sense. It is more plausible, in my view, that if realism were true that it would be best grounded in theism as Augustine tries to argue here.
ReplyDeleteThis passage about self-existence is entirely unique in that this seems to be the earliest attempt to address epistemology in the Cartesian format. I did not know that the idea of the cogito was an idea inspired by Augustine's writings. What makes this argument particularly interesting is that it is curious to think about what would drive the conversation of epistemology in this format during this era.
ReplyDeleteAugustine first starts the paper off by saying that Plato was the first one to name ideas. When I first read this I was very confused because I really did not understand what Augustine meant by ideas. As I continued to read I began to understand that Augustine meant Ideas as in forms or species. His concept of Ideas being permanent or immutable forms is interesting to me because I have never seen anyone use the word Ideas in this manner. The Ideas Augustine speaks of has to do with reasons for species acting the way they do.
I found Augustine’s outlook on numbers to be very interesting. He relates numbers to Ideas in that you cannot actually show a number. You can have a number of many items however you cannot truly represent a number physically because it is something that is understood more than shown. Augustine states that Ideas are the same in that they can be understood but not physically shown.
Christopher Atuahene
Delete1. It was interesting how Augustine argues that knowledge of numbers was provided by some sort of divine intervention, thereby grounded the basis for their existence. He states, "men to whom God as given ability in argument, and whom stubbornness does not lead into confusion, are forced to admit that the order and truth of numbers have nothing to do with the bodily senses, but are unchangeable and true and common to all rational beings" (85).
ReplyDelete2. I found many echoes of Descartes' meditations in Augustine's second piece. Perhaps what I found most interesting of all was seeing how much weigh Augustine gave to human's innate capacity to reason about their own existence. Allowing that through this sort of self-reflection alone human's can be made sure of their existence.
I thought it was refreshing to read a dialogue after an extensive dive into technical and logical arguments, however quickly it became a monologue. I am sympathetic to this discussion. I hesitate to call it an argument, as both parties seem to be more or less in agreement. If numbers are eternal and true and universal, then it stands that they must exist outside of one’s own mind. Although this is a new unit, this seems like a problem for conceptualists the same way the Rose problem was a problem for moderate realists.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the second selection, I cannot help but see similarities between Augustine and Descartes. Despite the fact that Descartes removes God from the equation, there is still a distinct connection and perhaps a lineage between the way they two approach the material world and the internal sense of self. Augustine even includes a caveat providing for the exclusion of “delusive representations of images or phantasms” predicting, but attempting to hold off Descartes’s demon, as well as touching on the example that we cannot always (or usually) tell whether or not we are dreaming, but that even if we are deceived, we still think and therefore are “alive” as Augustine puts it. I wonder why more people do not talk about Augustine in addition to Descartes.