1) Siger of Brabant's section read to me like a more modern conversation regarding our ability to understand reality. Im thinking mostly of the Idealist v Realist debate, which perhaps the work of Siger influenced.
2) I thought Bacon's section regarding Mathematics was one of the most interesting readings so far. It was interesting to see an attempt to re-introduce previous knowledge to a group of thinkers that he he perceives as being ignorant too. The universality of the way in which we can reason Mathematics seems to make sense to me.
At first I found Siger's point very mundane and obvious, insofar as to humans possessing a variety of senses to interpret sensory data, as well as there relativism among them as to which is best given a specific piece of data. However, given the time period, I understand now that it was something of very significant need to detail and explain thoroughly. Unlike the things taken for granted, present day, the idea that the senses are susceptible to deception always, but also that the there is a hierarchy as to which is best suited to deal with a given piece of sensory data to distinguish, identify, and interpret said data.
The thought I found most interesting in the readings for today is when Siger says “But insofar as someone does not doubt one should not seek something else offering verification.” It reminds me of the position held by early opponents of medieval philosophy who thought that God should be taken on faith alone and not reasoned. I like this so much because it takes a step out of the usual discussion of what is absolutely true, and steps into the idea of what is “most” true or “true enough.” It says that if one has no doubt, then they need not investigate further, but I believe it also implies the counterpoint to that as well. If there IS doubt, then one ought to continue to seek verification.
Roger Bacon had me wondering whether or not mathematics and logic could be considered empirical. He argues (by logic/reason) that mathematics is required for science, and while he may not have the same conception of empirical science that we do today, it occurred to me that these are very different types of investigation. We use empirical observations in the form of (mathematical) measurements but our understanding of the mathematics is not observed in the same way.
1. When I read Siger's section about which senses are to be trusted, it made me think of what modern science would allow us to say about this subject e.g. the chemical properties of different substances that give them certain tastes, smells, and colors, and how our senses are able to differentiate these. It seems that tastes, smells, and colors aren't really properties of substances, they are just how we perceive them. I suppose the same goes for sounds being how we perceive the movement of objects, not their actual properties. Shapes perceived through vision can be wrong because they are perceived at a distance, but shapes and textures that are felt tactilely aren't usually wrong. Shapes and textures really are properties of an object because we have the ability to conceive of geometrical and physical (moving) bodies in our minds.
2. I think that Roger Bacon's argument makes sense because of the fact that mathematics underlie geometry, and geometry is the only thing that we have the ability to conceive of perfectly in our mind. We can imagine moving objects, but the laws governing aren't innate to our mind.
Siger is making an interesting epistemic point about the limitations of certain ways of acquiring knowledge if my understanding of this passage is correct. It seems as though he is making the case for empirical forms forms of knowledge and that some things we sense or understand cannot be reasoned too. I got this impression from his mention of how you cannot try to know something is sweet through reason rather than sense and that you can not know something is sweet through visual sense.
Although I understand Roger Bacon's overall point of mathematics being the source to understanding science and many other forms of knowledge, his arguments aren't all too clear. I believe his second argument is about the idea that mathematics are in a sense based on some intuitive knowledge.
Siger of Brabant was an interesting read because the concept of senses and their role in our understanding and interpretation of data, while it may seem obvious, is a concept that even modern thinkers are still deciphering and trying to better understand so the reading came across very deliberate and useful.
Bacon's reading has the same modern feeling as Sigers piece because the discussion on mathematics provokes questions about logic and reason that thinkers today can discuss. the idea that mathematics is necessary for other branches of learning is something discussed and believed today.
Singlars reading gave me a sence of basice greek emiprical learning. Where our senses are what gives us understanding to the world around us.
I also got the same impresion with Bacon. He uses a different route but it seems that he uses emprical reasoning through mathamatics to come to conclusions. Maybe it isnt what he is seeing with day to day life but its emprical evidence through math.
I found Siger of Brabant’s part of the reading to be interesting in the way he formatted it. His section was more about understanding reality in a talking type of way. Also some of Siger’s ideas reminded me of the past reading that have had philosophers state that God should be believed in based on faith alone.
In addition, Siger made clear point concerning people’s ability to decipher sensory data. The idea was interesting to me because I feel like during his time not many people thought of in depth idea such as sensory data. Also I thought his point about how a person’s senses can be easily deceived to be interesting.
Youssef Maklad 1- If it is as Sigar stated , that states of sleeping can't be compared to awaken states. Then doesn't that fall into Descartes dream argument? I know we discussed this before, but you can really start to see Descartes emerging from a lot of this medieval skepticism. 2- The piece by Roger Bacon really sets in stone that it was Plato who dominated the medieval era a lot more than Aristotle. Plato near the end of his life did much more mathematics than he did philosophy simply because he thought mathematics was the path to the forms. While Aristotelian science seemed to much more about observation and categorization more than anything else. So seeing a call for math in all the sciences seems to be much more platonic and Aristotelian.
1. Siger's discussion on the nature of our ability to know things through our senses seemed to be consistent with how he views deference to popular opinion in a skeptical light. He states that, "just as many kinds of error arise concerning things by trusting popular testimony, so too there is error in believing that someone is wise if this is believed by means of popular opinion" (436). I wonder if this was meant to be understood under a broader context where he warning of the deference being lent to the theologians.
2. When Bacon attaches such credence to mathematics, it almost seems like he is walking on a provocative, heretical line. He states that "Neglect of this branch now for thirty or forty tears has destroyed the whole system of study of the Latins. Since he who is ignorant of this cannot know the other sciences nor the affairs of this world, as I shall prove" (265). This seems like a bold and provacative statement that was perhaps meant to be aimed at the Theologians? Which seems like he is stepping close to heresy.
1) Siger of Brabant's section read to me like a more modern conversation regarding our ability to understand reality. Im thinking mostly of the Idealist v Realist debate, which perhaps the work of Siger influenced.
ReplyDelete2) I thought Bacon's section regarding Mathematics was one of the most interesting readings so far. It was interesting to see an attempt to re-introduce previous knowledge to a group of thinkers that he he perceives as being ignorant too. The universality of the way in which we can reason Mathematics seems to make sense to me.
At first I found Siger's point very mundane and obvious, insofar as to humans possessing a variety of senses to interpret sensory data, as well as there relativism among them as to which is best given a specific piece of data. However, given the time period, I understand now that it was something of very significant need to detail and explain thoroughly. Unlike the things taken for granted, present day, the idea that the senses are susceptible to deception always, but also that the there is a hierarchy as to which is best suited to deal with a given piece of sensory data to distinguish, identify, and interpret said data.
ReplyDeleteThe thought I found most interesting in the readings for today is when Siger says “But insofar as someone does not doubt one should not seek something else offering verification.” It reminds me of the position held by early opponents of medieval philosophy who thought that God should be taken on faith alone and not reasoned. I like this so much because it takes a step out of the usual discussion of what is absolutely true, and steps into the idea of what is “most” true or “true enough.” It says that if one has no doubt, then they need not investigate further, but I believe it also implies the counterpoint to that as well. If there IS doubt, then one ought to continue to seek verification.
ReplyDeleteRoger Bacon had me wondering whether or not mathematics and logic could be considered empirical. He argues (by logic/reason) that mathematics is required for science, and while he may not have the same conception of empirical science that we do today, it occurred to me that these are very different types of investigation. We use empirical observations in the form of (mathematical) measurements but our understanding of the mathematics is not observed in the same way.
1. When I read Siger's section about which senses are to be trusted, it made me think of what modern science would allow us to say about this subject e.g. the chemical properties of different substances that give them certain tastes, smells, and colors, and how our senses are able to differentiate these. It seems that tastes, smells, and colors aren't really properties of substances, they are just how we perceive them. I suppose the same goes for sounds being how we perceive the movement of objects, not their actual properties. Shapes perceived through vision can be wrong because they are perceived at a distance, but shapes and textures that are felt tactilely aren't usually wrong. Shapes and textures really are properties of an object because we have the ability to conceive of geometrical and physical (moving) bodies in our minds.
ReplyDelete2. I think that Roger Bacon's argument makes sense because of the fact that mathematics underlie geometry, and geometry is the only thing that we have the ability to conceive of perfectly in our mind. We can imagine moving objects, but the laws governing aren't innate to our mind.
Siger is making an interesting epistemic point about the limitations of certain ways of acquiring knowledge if my understanding of this passage is correct. It seems as though he is making the case for empirical forms forms of knowledge and that some things we sense or understand cannot be reasoned too. I got this impression from his mention of how you cannot try to know something is sweet through reason rather than sense and that you can not know something is sweet through visual sense.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I understand Roger Bacon's overall point of mathematics being the source to understanding science and many other forms of knowledge, his arguments aren't all too clear. I believe his second argument is about the idea that mathematics are in a sense based on some intuitive knowledge.
Siger of Brabant was an interesting read because the concept of senses and their role in our understanding and interpretation of data, while it may seem obvious, is a concept that even modern thinkers are still deciphering and trying to better understand so the reading came across very deliberate and useful.
ReplyDeleteBacon's reading has the same modern feeling as Sigers piece because the discussion on mathematics provokes questions about logic and reason that thinkers today can discuss. the idea that mathematics is necessary for other branches of learning is something discussed and believed today.
Singlars reading gave me a sence of basice greek emiprical learning. Where our senses are what gives us understanding to the world around us.
ReplyDeleteI also got the same impresion with Bacon. He uses a different route but it seems that he uses emprical reasoning through mathamatics to come to conclusions. Maybe it isnt what he is seeing with day to day life but its emprical evidence through math.
I found Siger of Brabant’s part of the reading to be interesting in the way he formatted it. His section was more about understanding reality in a talking type of way. Also some of Siger’s ideas reminded me of the past reading that have had philosophers state that God should be believed in based on faith alone.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, Siger made clear point concerning people’s ability to decipher sensory data. The idea was interesting to me because I feel like during his time not many people thought of in depth idea such as sensory data. Also I thought his point about how a person’s senses can be easily deceived to be interesting.
From: Christopher Atuahene
DeleteYoussef Maklad
ReplyDelete1- If it is as Sigar stated , that states of sleeping can't be compared to awaken states. Then doesn't that fall into Descartes dream argument? I know we discussed this before, but you can really start to see Descartes emerging from a lot of this medieval skepticism.
2- The piece by Roger Bacon really sets in stone that it was Plato who dominated the medieval era a lot more than Aristotle. Plato near the end of his life did much more mathematics than he did philosophy simply because he thought mathematics was the path to the forms. While Aristotelian science seemed to much more about observation and categorization more than anything else. So seeing a call for math in all the sciences seems to be much more platonic and Aristotelian.
1. Siger's discussion on the nature of our ability to know things through our senses seemed to be consistent with how he views deference to popular opinion in a skeptical light. He states that, "just as many kinds of error arise concerning things by trusting popular testimony, so too there is error in believing that someone is wise if this is believed by means of popular opinion" (436). I wonder if this was meant to be understood under a broader context where he warning of the deference being lent to the theologians.
ReplyDelete2. When Bacon attaches such credence to mathematics, it almost seems like he is walking on a provocative, heretical line. He states that "Neglect of this branch now for thirty or forty tears has destroyed the whole system of study of the Latins. Since he who is ignorant of this cannot know the other sciences nor the affairs of this world, as I shall prove" (265). This seems like a bold and provacative statement that was perhaps meant to be aimed at the Theologians? Which seems like he is stepping close to heresy.