Ta-da!! Magic (Descartes blog 2)

I’m still sticking to the same topic about how your senses deceive you. When we discussed about this topic this automatically made me think of magic. Magicians have many techniques to make you see and to belief something that isn’t real. Magicians use misdirection to get you to not focus on what they’re really doing. I’m not a big magic fan because I just never really believed in it. I guess my mind is stronger than my senses on this particular subject. Magicians play on your senses and make you want to doubt what your mind really perceives. But Descartes teaches us to not doubt ourselves..right? “I am, I exist” (pg.17). So we can’t go wrong. Let’s break down a magic trick. Let’s use our reasoning and not use our senses to see reality. Descartes says that we use our senses to see reality, “whatever I have up till now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses or through the senses. But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once”(pg.12). Magicians are the deceivers trying to get you to think a certain way different from reality. There was a show on Fox network called ‘Breaking the Magician’s Code: Magic’s Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed’. The show explained the methods behind magic tricks and illusions. One of the most famous tricks was revealed, how to “saw a woman in half.” Now we know that can’t be true. I mean in reality if that were to happen, that person would be dead. But remember the magician is trying to deceive you because they want you to use your senses, you see it so it must be true. Well here is how they perform the trick. They get an assistant that is willing to participate in the trick and shackle her at the neck and her ankles on a table. The magician shackles her to make you think that she cannot move. Two special boxes are then put on top of her and are then strapped to the table. The doors of the boxes are then open so we can see the assistant. By doing that, this is what makes the trick so effective. We rely so much on what we see, our senses! Her hand is then tied after they open the doors of the box. The magician then closes the doors and brings out the saw. The saw is real and is very sharp. He then cuts through the middle of the box and sometimes the assistant in the box will scream (another sense that would make us think it’s real) as if she were getting cut. To even add more effect he gets out more blades to “cut” the lady in the box and acts as if he was cutting bone (appearing to struggle to put the blade completely through). After the blades are inserted he removes them, and pulls the assistant in the box apart. He spins the table around to give more of an illusion. The magician then brings the table back together and then removes the blades. After that, he then unties the restraints and the boxes are removed. Low and behold, the assistant is still shackled to the table. The shackles are removed and magically she seems to be still whole, uncut. Well here is what really happens. The shackles that were placed on this assistant gave us an illusion that she can’t escape, when really she can. All the locks placed on the shackle made us think, “oh there is no way to escape.” But, when the doors of the boxes are closed, she can slip her feet out of the shackles and positions herself so that her whole body will fit in one box (the top half). Magicians sometimes even put fake feet that move around on the 2^nd box to create that illusion that the person hasn’t moved. So after the trick has been performed, she then slips her feet back in the shackles. So there you have it, our senses lying to us. But using our reasoning is the only solid foundation to not be deceived by magic. There are so many tricks that have been revealed on that show. I will post a few more. Challenge yourself. Watch the magic trick, and then use your reasoning to explain how the magic trick works before they tell you how it’s really done. 

Descartes

The philosopher of the week that we are discussing about in class is Descartes. Descartes was the “Father of modern philosophy”. He is a French dude and also a mathematician. I think that’s pretty cool, except that so far his thoughts and reasoning are confusing. It’s actually intriguing but I’m kind of waiting for Dr. McAteer to break down the book for us, because I’m not sure if I’m understanding correctly.  I agree with his approach to understanding philosophy by applying math and science because when it is explained in that aspect I feel that it is clearer for people to understand that way. So Descartes is saying that we have to go all the way back to the beginning, back to Plato. He actually wants us to forget everything we know.  Descartes tells us, "I realized that it was necessary, once in the course of my life, to demolish everything completely and start again right from the foundations if I wanted to establish anything at all in the sciences that was stable and likely to last" (pg.12) Ugh!! This rollercoaster never ends. It feels like after I have taken a step, I get taken back two steps. I was actually getting comfortable with Aquinas. Although I agree with some of what Plato thought. I actually agree somewhat with every philosopher we have learned about. As a philosopher, it is up to me to figure out what’s the truth. Ok let’s go let’s go let’s go!! Getting back to Descartes, he said that  we need to use our reason to correct our senses; that our mind is more reliable than senses because the "senses deceive you" (pg.12).  Funny story is that about an hour or so after philosophy class my friend texted me commenting on a picture I had sent. My friend told me that I look “darker” in that picture and asked if I had gotten a tan. I laughed because it reminded me of lecture. The setting in the picture was of me standing at the car wash as the sun was setting. So I had to explain to my friend that in the picture my body is blocking the sunrays in a particular spot and that is casting shadows on my body and making my skin look darker. I jokingly told them to take a philosophy class to correct their senses because their sense and mind is playing tricks on them.  The picture looks so awesome that it actually does look like I had a tan or something and not shadows. Hmm, maybe my senses are tricking me?? Descartes wants us to pretend that an evil demon is deceiving us, because that’s a way to break the habit of using your senses. I don’t know about this one. It’s too hard to do because I feel that I am not crazy and nothing is deceiving me. God is guiding me so how am I deceived? So I guess I’ll give it a try. So according to Descartes I have to pretend that the demon made my mind crazy so I should doubt my mind and reasoning. So I’m not doing an assignment for philosophy, I might be actually doing an assignment for my chemistry class. I’m not in this philosophy class and this assignment is made up. Dr. McAteer is steering me wrong, he is not teaching philosophy, he is teaching us how to make homemade ice cream and that is actually our assignment. Good deal! I’d rather be making and eating ice cream right now. So why am I typing on my laptop? Or is this even a laptop? Twilight zone! Doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo! See how crazy this sounds. But hmmm maybe he has a point; it really makes you think or wonder…

Paging Dr. House. (Aquinas blog 2).

In class during a lecture we were discussing about everything that we do aims to philosophy. So we discussed about the active versus contemplative life. Things that fall under an active life are: doing/applying something, political activity, and phronesis (practical wisdom). Living in a contemplative life we understand, practice philosophy, and gain sophia (contemplating the forms or theoretical wisdom) (pg. 685 -686). In my previous blog I was wondering why moral virtues isn’t happiness. Aquinas believed that moral virtues are ordered to something else. Moral virtues make emotions in the right order so you can do philosophy. So that means we use practical application (action) to understand the truth (contemplation) (pg.278-80). But in our society we generally don’t see it that way. Even Plato did not see it that way. In our society we contemplate and then take action.

(We all should remember this sketch)

Aquinas believed: Action ----------->Contemplation

Plato believed: Action<---------------Contemplation

I actually saw it both ways, but Aquinas says it can’t be both ways because one has to be the end (aim or purpose). An interesting topic came about in class where a pupil questioned Aquinas belief on why the arrow pointed this way ------->. She said if that’s true, then that means a doctor is supposed to act (practice medicine) and then understand medicine (fundamental knowledge that one achieves by going to medical school). That seems bizarre to me that a doctor would act before understanding what he/she is doing. I don’t think anybody would trust doctors to perform surgeries at all if that were the case. And I also thought generally doctors practice medicine (contemplation) to become doctors to save lives (action). My dream is to become a doctor just to help save lives and also to understand the human body. That’s why I thought the arrow could go both ways <----->, like its in equilibrium. This topic made me think about the tv show House (by the way I really love this show, it is one of my personal favorites). Dr. House I believe sees the arrow going the way Aquinas sees it. Gregory House, M.D., is a fictional character played by actor Hugh Laurie. House is a medical genius and a diagnostician and specializes in infectious diseases and nephrology. He works as the Chief of Diagnostic Medicine at Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching Hospital in New Jersey, where he heads a team of diagnosticians. House's character is seen as a cynical, misanthropical, narcissist. His team and anybody who knows him calls him an “ass”. House flaunts his vast knowledge around and always wants to prove that he’s right.  His friend and colleague James Wilson M.D., says that some doctors have the “Messiah complex” (feeling like they need to save lives or save the world), but House has the “Rubik’s complex” (he needs to solve the puzzle).  House always wants to try crazy treatments just to prove that he’s right. He even disregards patients’ feelings or consent just to find out why a certain disease is causing the patient to die. Not because they are dying, but just because he wants to understand and to know the truth. I remember an episode on the show called “house training” where one of his colleagues Eric Foreman M.D., misdiagnosed a patient and ended up causing her death. House wanted to give her an aspiration while the patient was suffering and dying. He didn’t care that the patient was dying; he wanted to do a procedure on an already dying patient and didn’t want to wait until she died to do the aspiration to find out the cause of her falling ill. He needed to know so badly what the team missed and what the big mystery of her fatal illness was. But Dr. Foreman made him wait until she was dead. Dr. House even wanted to inject a patient with Hepatitis A to prove that his theory is right and will cure a patient that had some other infectious disease. He comes up with crazy ideas that are usually right and usually performs these actions and cures patients. These actions helps to reaffirm what he knows and also that he’s right.

Aquinas

Philosophy is really starting to aggravate me! Arggh! It seems like you know and then you have no idea, or then you get confused.  Aquinas really threw me off. I just don’t know anymore. I just want to start off by saying I believe God exists because history, nature, the Bible, faith, and Jesus Christ. When we look at the mountains, the moon, how the sun rotates, humans, creatures, anything and everything on this world, then you know that God exists. Nature and history shows us some truths about God, but it does not tell us enough about God. But most of all Jesus Christ confirms his existence and through Jesus he shows us what we need to do to be a good human being and how to have a close relationship with God. I think so far Aquinas agrees with that. But what throws me off is that Aquinas thinks, “human happiness does not consist in moral activities” (page 278). Why not? I think that is a part of happiness. Aquinas says that because, “ The ultimate end of things is to be assimilated to God. Therefore, man’s happiness will lie in that which most assimilates him to God. But this does not come about through the moral virtues, since such acts can only be attributed to God metaphorically, because God does not have passions or anything like them, which are the moral subject of moral virtues.” It makes it seem like he is telling us to be God. That just doesn’t seem right to me. It is impossible to me because we aren’t God, we are humans. I know we are suppose to imitate God, but we are not perfect. I get the whole negative theory and that God does not express emotions because he doesn’t have emotions. The bible is symbolic but through Jesus we should know how to act, and that consists of moral virtues. Jesus displayed characteristics of moral virtues and emotions. Like for example, I believe that to enter into the Kingdom of God and also to be close to God, we must show compassion. Jesus was very compassionate. I remember a parable in the bible where it talks about a slave that owes his master money and the slave then begged to have mercy on him. The master forgave the slaves debt. But that same slave didn’t show mercy to someone that owed him money. When the master found out, he threw that slave into prison. I just don’t know, this whole order thing gets confusing. It feels like Aquinas, Augustine, and Aristotle beliefs are all just running together. So moral activities are ordered to something else so that cannot be happiness according to Aquinas. I just really believe that it’s a part of being happy but I understand that it does not mean complete happiness. I’m on Aristotle’s side with this situation. Aquinas says that since we can’t have the form of God in us, then we must understand God to be close to Him. True happiness is contemplating the form of God. I’m still searching for the answer on what that exactly means that we should do.