Reviews for The False Prison: A Study of the Development of Wittgenstein's Philosophy, Vol. 2

The average rating for The False Prison: A Study of the Development of Wittgenstein's Philosophy, Vol. 2 based on 2 reviews is 2.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2007-08-26 00:00:00 Donald Overstake Book introduction: 1. It seems that Descartes is skeptic about what was fed to him as the truth (things he think they are true just because he remember he was told they are so). So that's why he wasn't very skeptic about his existence (I think therefor I am) and existence of God (he doesn't believe in God because the priest told him God exists, he believes in God because it makes sense -logically- to him). Also when you remember (from memory) that you once concluded God exists then it's fine because this conclusion came from a a righteous process (even if you didn't remember how you concluded, it is enough to remember it was concluded righteously). 2. We question (be skeptic) our existence thus proving it, since questioning (thinking) requires existing. Then we realize we are limited thus there must be something unlimited that created us and other limited things. This proves all-powerful God (though Descartes treats God as Christian God where he is all-powerful all-good and descended to earth as Jesus, from where did our skeptic fellow concluded that? He assumed he is all-good to prove he is not going to fool us in our existing. Is he all-good because he is all-powerful? Assuming goodness is more ultimate?). So logically we first conclude we exist then we conclude God exists. But, fundamentally: First God exists then we exist. Descartes differentiate between the two. I personally think we can say our existence is an effect and God existence is the cause. That's good ol' cause and effect for ya. ----- Rules For The Direction of The Mind (1618?-1628?): mainly an epistemological method !! IGNORE THIS BOOK'S REVIEW, points 3 to 9, thank you !! 3. There are only two ways to reach truth, Intuition and Deduction. Intuition is something that you just figure (with solid reasoning) and simply makes sense to you? This sounds a bit childish but he got to have it or else he will get stuck in the loop of proving proofs. Deduction is logic where you start from truths you learned from Intuition then reach new truths. However though Deduction is never wrong, intuition is a more rightful way (more perfect than what is perfect?). I can see that this is parallel to Axioms (Intuition) and Theories (Deduction, note that I'm not being accurate on Deduction vs Induction) constructed logically from the Axioms. I also see that Deduction method itself is an intuition (just like I think therefor I am) because Descartes "feels" that Deduction method makes sense. Remember, to Descartes Intuition and Deduction are totally different things in the sense that they are the only two distinctive methods to fetch truth. 4. When having a complex relative (particular, effect) problem, just make it a simple absolute (universal, cause) one. You should divide complex problem into simpler easier ones. 5. There are 3 sources of knowledge; Intellect, Imagination and Senses (then later he adds a fourth which is memory, which is to me all the 3 but in the past and if you remember some truth it is indeed a truth if and only if you fetched it through Intellect and thereafter stored it in memory). Only knowledge coming from the Intellect should be accounted for. However only depending on Intellect might make knowledge on something to exceed the bounds of human mind. But this knowledge of knowing that you can't apprehend the truth about a thing is a positive thing. Check paragraph 1 on skepticism. 6. On Deduction: If you were blind you wouldn't know about color existence but if you were familiar with basic colors then you can Deduce intermediate ones. So our senses are helpful after all? Here he is implicitly accrediting Sense to some extent, or do they affect our Intuition thus colors as abstract (regardless that in fact our Senses might fool us, a mirage we see it as an oasis) become Intuition? No explicit way is given to validate my Intuition. Descartes' Intuition concluded God exists, an atheist's Intuition concludes God might not exist. Intuitions like Cogito and that a thing can't contradict itself are absolute Intuitions (ie everyone agrees on them, well at least Rationalists). Should we survey percentage of people agreeing on an Intuition? But even then, most of people in middle-ages-Europe believed in God, nowadays not. 7. And what if two people had used same Intuitions, processed them via Deduction and reached totally contradicting results? On paper (ie on theory), they should reach same result if they started with same Intuitions and used strictly the logical Deduction. But people sometimes are biased or think in a different way, hence Descartes is a christian thus biased in favor of God existence (I'm a believer too, I also can't escape this bias for the record). Who/What is to be blamed for this? I believe it is the method for it is not bias-proof. The method is not perfect at all. Or maybe people are the ones to blame for inconsistency of Deduction's results; if each single one starts with same Intuitions and follows Deduction strictly then he shall reach the same universal result. But Descartes himself was the victim of his own method; he wasn't able to follow it strictly and by bias he proved God existence. However, in both cases the method is too hard to follow strictly (its author couldn't) thus it is useless. That's why he says Intuition is more perfect than Deduction because issues might occur with Deduction. But wait!! He concluded God exists after Cogito's Intuition thus God existence is Deduction not Intuition as he claims, and a controversial Deduction nonetheless. Also, he only realized he exists after realizing he is thinking, Thinking is Intuition, Existing is Deduction. Check paragraph 6 on God Intuition; it was Deduction after all so that's there were problems on how to make sure Intuitions are righteous because the Intuitions discussed on paragraph 6 were actually Deductions after all and we concluded here that Deduction has some issues. Descartes' method is saved, his problem (God Intuition is controversial) was with not following Deduction strictly and that his method (Intuition plus Deduction) is fine. 8. Returning to Senses, this shows how limited our brains are. Maybe we are blind on many things on the universe. We wouldn't be able to see the rest of electromagnetic wave spectrum without computers, thank you computers! Btw, stars omit all frequencies and not just visible ones (visible is above infra-red and under ultraviolet hence we call them infra and ultra because they are beyond our eyes ability) so check photos published by NASA where computers shift waves into visible ones, to see the universe in a new eye is amazing! Later on rule 12 where he concludes his method (rules 1 to 12 are on the method, the rest talk about some details), he explicitly confirms senses are helpful. To quote: "The Intellect only is capable of perceiving truth; but it must nevertheless be assisted by imagination, sense, and memory, if we are not to omit anything that lies in our power". 9. The book was never finished by Descartes. It's a bit boring and doesn't have the cool "I think therefor I am" stuff. Perhaps he had that dream of his while writing the book thus abandoned it and started working in Discourses on Method? Nevertheless it being boring is a triumph of Descartes. His at-time revolutionary ideas became the standard today. Hackett version only has first (bit abridged) 14 rules and 15-21 only rule title (they saw it was of no value to translate?) while Cambridge version only has first (less abridged) 13 rules but rule 12 is just title and the rest of rules all totally omitted. ----- To Mersenne, On the Eternal Truths (1630): 3 letters (2 print paper) 10. Passionate theological metaphysical letters. Why math truths are so eternal? Because God made them so, he also has the power to change that, if he wants to. But it doesn't seem he will change them anytime soon. Truths are truths because God made them so and not because he learned them because that means truths are independent from God which is blasphemous. If God didn't exist would these truths exist? Of course not, actually nothing will exist because, I quote, "The existence of God is the first and the most eternal of all the truths there can be, and the only one from which all the others flow". This confirms what I concluded in the end of paragraph 2. 11. He is also saying that God is greater than our Imagination (it's obvious anyways), I wrote that somewhere else couple of weeks ago so I like the lovely coincident. I used it however in proving that how hard you try to Imagine a beautiful female, she either existed or existing or will exist for Quran says that God made us in the best form (best beauty), and God is more powerful than our Imagination thus your dream girl is real lol. Maybe she died ten thousand years ago so don't get your hopes up. Cheap pickup line: you're more beautiful than what my imagination can come up with. *claps* BRAVO GOD WELL DONE! 12. He is asking Mersenne to spread his opinions (anonymously) so he can get replies on his ideas. It is also mentioned on the introduction of the book that he used to print few copies of a book of his, hand them to elites, get their objections, reply to them and append the objections and the replies to the mass-printed version. He was so eager for his work to be criticized, I love that about him! ----- The World or Treatise on Light [and Man] (1632): empiricism to understand the material world with no description of a method at all 13. On Chapter 1. The essence of things and our perception of things are totally different things. Words are just sounds we made with our tongues. They only have meaning because we give them a meaning. Tell someone who doesn't speak English "I love you" and you'll know what he means. Thus what if our perception of Sun's flame so called Light was just a language taught to us by nature and that the flame in its essence has no meaning? By this reasoning we can be skeptic on anything we perceive, but we shouldn't, as Descartes asks us. He showed that just so we clear our minds from what we already taken for granted (check paragraph 1). 14. On Chapter 2. Light comes from Stars and Fire. Stars are too far so we can't test our theories on them so let's take Fire. Flame consists of tiny parts that we can see that are rapidly moving and when we touch Flame we can feel the heat. This is confirmed by rubbing your hands together rapidly. Also perception of Light on our eyes is the same rapid-movement thingy. He is right about Heat (by definition Heat is the average of speed of the particles, air/smoke particles on Fire case). But not correct about Light. Light is Electromagnetic waves (check paragraph 8 for cool NASA EM waves talk). He is trying to reason using only Physics (movement, displacement, also EM waves etc.) without any Chemistry (was it not well developed at the time or was he ignorant of it?) for wood burning is a chemical reaction. 15. On Chapter 4. Movement is circular as in when I move forward I push the air in front of me which in turn pushes the air around it and so on till the void I left behind me is filled with air now. That is Aerodynamics 101 for ya. We think of air as void because we can't see it. We can confirm by experimenting with fish and their swimming. Also wine can't flow out of cask if it wasn't open from the top so it allows air to fill void lift behind wine and for wine to fill void left behind air (they exchange places by smooth air going round) via circular motion. However he can't confirm there is no void in Nature. Actually there is void, Outer Space. Good thing he didn't confirm there was no void. Kudus for you, Descartes. 16. On Chapter 6 and 7, also 8 to 15 but they are omitted from translation :( . An imagination-provoking description of a new world only described to argue on the truths of our own World. "If God had created many worlds, the laws would be true in all of them as this one. For every action there is equal reaction (circular motion). When something hits something it makes it moves (conservation of momentum, technically identical to previous action/reaction thing). But why do rocks stop moving when we throw them? Air friction. Also that whatever moves/stationed continues to move/station (law of Inertia). This is straight Newton (Descartes died when Newton was 8) Physic laws (missing conservation of energy, he should have linked slowing thrown rock with heated thrown rock). 17. On Chapter 18. Soul/Body is analogous to Captain/Ship. The body is just a machine that the soul gets inside it and controls and gives it orders, also taken information (senses) just like when the captain looks around the ship for information on the ship (the ship was hit by a canon, the ship is injured). He here uses another analogy (engineered machine) but the captain/ship analogy was mentioned by him somewhere else (I think Discourses on Method) so I'm using that simpler one. Oh how Descartes a genius Physicist in this book, not so much a philosopher in his other books. In this natural science book he is investigating objectively. In other books, Christianity's footprint is as clear as the day sky. ----- To Mersenne, About Galileo's Condemnation (1634): 18. He is telling Mersenne his book of The Light/World would never see the light (pun intended by Descartes lol) because it will be counted as heretical like Galileo's work. Though he agrees with Galileo in working on Physics mathematically, he doesn't like that Galileo is only working and explaining the effects while not seeking to learn the first cause (root cause) thus his ideas are without a foundation. It means that Galileo is using Induction (go the lab, drop light and heavy items, they reach floor at same time, thus we generalize all objects fall with same speed regardless of mass) and Descartes is condemning that. Or does it mean that Descartes wants Galileo to start from Intellect then goes out to the outer world through Senses and not to start with outer world (didn't Descartes do that in The World?) and experimenting with it?. Or if Galileo came up with the theory of Gravity (falling is effect, gravity is cause), Descartes will be satisfied? Both Descartes' Deduction (cause-to-effect sort of) and Galileo's Induction (effect to cause) are welcomed by modern Natural Science as long as empirical results agree with the theory. The entire text of The World was published posthumously. However, Descartes reworked The World into Principles of Philosophy (1644) to replace Aristotelian university textbooks. Oh boy I'm only into page 45/323 and I already wrote a 2300-words review..... ----- Dicourse on The Method (1637): Six parts: FIRST considerations concerning science, SECOND the method, THIRD morality applying the method, FOURTH existence of god and human soul applying the method (foundation of his metaphysics), FIFTH how the heart works and differences between human and beast souls applying the method, SIXTH (and last) further investigation of nature. 19. FIRST People have various opinions, not that they vary in the power to reason (all are equal in this, as long as they are of the same species) but the "fact that we lead our thoughts along different path and do not take same things into consideration". So, this means anyone and everyone can be so reasonable provided he was provided the proper way (method) to lead his thoughts? He is marketing his method it seems, suggesting all can benefit from it. 20. Reading books (especially classical ones), "is like a conversation with the most honorable people of past age... is about the same thing as traveling". But don't just rely on books: real traveling, seeing the world, seeing how others live and and their morals, opens your mind and sets you free and helps you to be objective. Oh you René, how poetic! In first part in general he is talking about his experience with the sciences (check point 24). 21. SECOND when a house built by consecutive architect, the final result will not be solid as if it was done by a single one. The same can apply to thoughts. We are born as children governed by our appetite and teacher (various architects of thoughts). "It is nearly impossible for our judgment to be as pure or as solid as they would have been if we had had the full use of our reason (check point 19) from the moment of our birth". Thus, René decided to start from scratch. His motive is to assure having all-solid reason-based thoughts. If he found his reasoning had resulted into a thought he discarded when decided to start then that is fine, he is not assuming everything he was taught is wrong. This is his motive, but, to reach what? For "I would succeed in conducting my life much better than if I were to build only upon old foundations". (Check point 24). 22. "[with algebra], one is so subjected to certain rules and to certain symbols, that out of it there results a confused and obscure art that encumbers the mind, rather than a science that cultivates it". So, does this implies René is condemning Analytical Philosophy or Algebra/Math itself? (Assuming this is what AP is about, I'm not familiar with it). Lully, a Catalan philosopher who tried to defend Christianity with Logic, is negatively mentioned, he used to "speak without judgement concerning matters about which [he was] ignorant". Nonetheless, take the best of the three worlds (Algebra and two other things I guess) discarding their defects. 23. 4 simple logical rules: First,nothing is true unless came to be so by doubtless judgment. Second, divide the problem into as many parts as possible. Third, conduct thoughts in an orderly fashion, starting with simple easy objects to know then ascending to difficult composite ones. Forth, to make enumerations so complete and reviews so general to assure having omitted nothing. (Good ol' double check your work). 24. The method can be applied to any field, he applied it at Algebra and Geometry, combining them into one field, Cartesian Coordinates. His motivation to make the method was that since various fields (Natural Science, Human Studies, etc), their foundations are established in Philosophy (Newton was a philosopher, so was Freud) and he wanted to dig deeper in these fields, he couldn't since their at-the-time foundations weren't correct. His reason to make his philosophy was so practical, he is proving the practicality in FIFTH part. This SECOND part has some similarity with Rules for Direction of Mind (check points 3 and 4, Intuition and Simplifying). 25. THIRD The house is being rebuilt from scratch (check point 21), meanwhile one must live in a temporary house till work is done. In other words, you can't just live conveniently for example with no moral code (you might go to jail, you're not living alone) because you're reestablishing what right and wrong from scratch, you must do these 4: First obey the law of the people you're living with, continue holding your religion. Second is to be firm your action, follow the most doubtful opinion once you had decided on them. Third is conquer yourself rather than fortune, changing your desires instead of the world (internal changes rather than external). Fourth and last reviewing various occupations of other men to choose best one (René chose to continue seeking knowledge of truth by reasoning, I guess this is a requirement for starting from scratch, or else starting totally from scratch without deciding to rebuild opinions/thoughts will make stuck with scratch-thoughts forever). So he is not starting from scratch, he's starting with these four maxims including "truths of the faith". So, should I use these four maxims in my reasoning (rebuilding) or they are temporary and will eventually going to be replaced? In other words, am I allowed to reason using facts from faith I'm "temporarily" holding? At least he is explicitly telling he continued to practice his method (not totally scratch but starting with maxims+method).

Review # 2 was written on 2012-08-07 00:00:00 Andy Long This was the text used in a class held at the Huntington Library by Descartes scholar Gideon Manning. Wonderful class, and useful text--it was a solid collection of Descartes works with a very helpful introduction. The book itself was very cheaply produced by Hackett and not a pleasure to read in any way, which was a shame, since the class was held in the glorious Huntington Library. More thoughts on re-reading Descartes in mid-life: