Week 3-- I Kant believe I was able to comprehend most of this lesson! lol

Thank you for the encouragement last week Prof. Foster! I definitely relied on it when I started reading this week!!

So this week was definitely a challenge and that is a conservative statement. In addition to learning about new philosophers and their contributions to the discipline of philosophy we had to read and interpret what at times seemed to be unintelligible language. I had to read the material several times in order to understand it, but I must say that the book was correct when it read that if we were able to understand Kant's material we would be rewarded by having done something that to many was very difficult.

I found it interesting to see that even philosophers (who are expected to be objective) still find a way to bend their discipline to conform with their own religious beliefs, as did Berkeley to align with christianity. Despite whatever great contributions he might have offered philosophy all of his contributions must be held to the strictest level of skepticism.

I must add that at first I found the material to be lacking a relation to what I thought philosophy should be about; I thought who cares about the spatial and temporal relation that objects have in our minds? But after having some time to reflect, I noticed that the material had more to do with my philosophy (and why I might take a certain position) in regard to important subjects, than where a "book is located in my room"

After reading this material it is clear why a law school admissions team may prefer a student take a philosophy class over a law class. The law school can always teach you the law but you have to already come in knowing how to "think" or at least understand your own pattern of logic.

Also, I wonder if privately judges consider themselves philosophers or interpreters.

week 2 Descartes

Okay, so I know there have only been two weeks so far but this is my favorite lesson so far. I guess because what Descartes is in search for is exactly what I was searching for when I decided to take this course-- the search for certainty. I like to know that what I believe is the truth and if it is not the truth then I want to know it. It is always good to kick the tires.

In another class we discussed whether or not children make credible witnesses and most people said no because they are too young. Their litmus test consists of determining whether or not the child believes in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or other wild characters and stories that are told to them.  I countered by exclaiming that a child's beliefs can not be used to determine credibility. Why? Because Children believe what they are told, usually.  Also many adults believe in religion and God and the Holy Spirit and ghosts. Could these be stories also? Can these adults be certain that what they believe actually exists? Does this make them unreliable witnesses too?

I guess some would say, "well I've never seen a Tooth Fairy!" I would reply, "I have yet to see God!" Practicioners might say that even if one does not see God that we can witness his/her miracles. A skeptic might say, miracles or fortunate coincidence?