On this entry, I'm concentrating on material from the "Descartes" through "Bjerkely" chapters. (You're obviously free to draw on insights or knowledge picked up later in the reading as well...)
I'll expect a comment of one good paragraph or more. (To me, that means 5-6 sentences at a minimum.) You do not need to worry about perfect grammar, spelling and punctuation, but they should be understandable. Remember that this is a public site, and you are responsible for the content of your postings. Assume that each comment is worth 5 points.
YOUR COMMENT SHOULD BE POSTED BEFORE CLASS TIME ON MONDAY, MAY 12th IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FULL CREDIT.
You may write on any ONE question of your choice. (If you want, you can certainly post another comment on a different question as well... First, however, focus on answering one question in sufficient depth, etc.)
NOTE: If I use a page reference, it's from the smaller paperback version that most of you seem to have. I'll also be sure to reference the specific chapter.
1. Almost nothing in this book is as simple as it first appears. What do you make of Sophie's dialogue with the computer near the end of "Descartes?" Is the author trying to tell us some things about technology as well as advancing his plot? Seventeen years after the book was first written, has the passage of time confirmed or refuted Gaarder's view of technology?
2. There's a lot of talk about God in "Spinoza." What here resonates with your own view of God, whether you choose to believe or not? Are there things here particularly in tension with your views? Explain.
3. In "Locke," there are explicit discussions of empiricism and rationalism. Up until this point in the novel, which perspective do you think Sophie has most displayed? What about Alberto Knox? Explain.
4. Using at least two specific philosophical concepts, ideas or philosophers, tell us what you think Sophie is experiencing and/or coming to understand in "Berkeley."
5. Things take a bit of a turn, to say the least, in "Bjerkely." Be honest with us. Were you surprised? Did you expect this? Were you confused? Irritated? Amused? Basically, I want to know what you were feeling and thinking as you moved through this chapter.
6. Metaphysics or epistemology - you pick. What do you think Jostein Gaarder is trying to tell us about one of these two "biggies" given the events in the last several chapters>
Question 2
Overall, I think Spinoza’s view of god is unorthodox, at least with respect to modern views, because his idea is not really a personified God. In some ways, I thought Spinoza’s view of an expansive God that was present in everything was kind of lame. Basically, by categorizing God so broadly, Spinoza diluted the idea of God to a point where it didn’t really have any meaning because it can’t be distinguished from anything else. Also, because I grew up in a Christian environment, I suppose if I were asked to define what/who God on the spot, I would probably produce a definition different than what Spinoza would picture as God (which would be basically everything). However, this disagreement would not be of any importance to me because I do not believe that my view, Spinoza’s view, or any other view of God can be absolutely certain. It is difficult for me to criticize one view of God when I cannot be certain of my own.
I would like to respond to Dan by saying that I agree and disagree with him. I think that most people would not define God as “everything,” or “everywhere.” This includes me...and so I suppose that means that I disagree with Spinoza as well. However, my belief is that God IS everywhere. I think because I believe he created all, he is in everything and is everywhere. I don’t define God by where he is or as broad as Spinoza did, but I do somewhat agree with both Spinoza and Dan. Sorry if this is confusing...
5. Things take a bit of a turn, to say the least, in "Bjerkely." Be honest with us. Were you surprised? Did you expect this? Were you confused? Irritated? Amused? Basically, I want to know what you were feeling and thinking as you moved through this chapter.
when i read this chapter i was very amused and interested of this chapter altogether. the point that the author is trying to make a very valid point in this chapter when the girl gets the book as a gift. the point brought up is that our lives may not be so different from sophie's (who is a fictional charachter in a book) and that our entire existance and lives may not actually exist, and that we ourselves could just be a made up person in sombody's head
2. Spinoza and I don't really agree at all in terms of God. I kind of have a Deist view in that I believe the world was created by God, but does not really interfere with our lives now. I don't believe the Bible at all nor do I follow any organized religion. Spinoza on the other hand, thought the Bible should be read critically, I suppose this is different from other religious views, but still in conflict with mine as I don't believe the Bible needs to be read at all. I guess I could believe that God controls the Earth through the laws of nature as Spinoza does, but I had never really thought of it before.
Question #2
I disagree with Spinoza in that he suggests that we should read the Bible critically. I think that the Bible was meant to teach us life lessons and that paying attention to all the detail doesn't matter as much as the idea itself. I dont really understand when he talks about how only God can be free and that humans can only attain freedom from seeing things "from the perspective of eternity." I'm not completley sure about what I think about how God controls things but i guess i would agree that if he were to control things it would be through natural laws because we dont really see God.
berkely's big idea was that all ideas and things exist in gods brain, and that the world around us exists only in his mind. His thoughts create our world, and alberto thinks that this world exists only in alberts mind
5. Things take a bit of a turn, to say the least, in "Bjerkely." Be honest with us. Were you surprised? Did you expect this? Were you confused? Irritated? Amused? Basically, I want to know what you were feeling and thinking as you moved through this chapter.
So basically all the ideas Berkely was talking about were the idea that things today exist only exist in gods brain and we are what he pictures. I was a bit supprised when he said that te world around us is only in our existance because its in his mind. To me, that is a little to far. Theses guys are kind of crazy. Overall i was very confused because who would think that things exist only in gods brain? Yes some people believe that but for me that is a little bit out there
I disagree with Spinoza about reading the bible critically as well. Although I know some people would disagree with me, I think that the bible was meant to teach life lessons, and not to be used as a model for my life.
they way that Spinoza describes god is much different than how I would. the bible is a book that was written a long time ago. so we have a lot more knowledge than the people of the time. though it still gives good values. It doesn't need to be read really closely. if at all.
I agree with Dan on his idea that he can't criticize someone's else's view of God when I am not even sure of my own. Because of this, I don't think that I can really criticize Spinoza's view on God. However, I disagree with his idea that we should read the Bible critically. I believe that when people read the Bible critically, it can only cause them to discriminate others (in most situations...I know this is a generalization). Also, I'm not quite sure as to where I am on the stance that God controls everything. I don't think that it is possible for him to control EVERYTHING because that would mean that he is the reason that people around the world are dying everyday. I don't think that God wants anyone to die. However, I may believe that after something terrible happens, God does his best to make the best out of the situation. Again, I believe that this is something that I still ahve to ponder.
question 2
I don't really agree with Spinoza's view of God and how he makes all of our decisions. For example when we are thinking of something, Spinoza says that it is really God who is thinking for us. I agree with Sophie, in that, we are all thinking and doing things for ourselves. Also, Spinoza says that there is "one God, one nature, or one Substance." That seems a bit confusing. He says that God isn't a puppeteer who controls everything from the outside. He (or nature) is the "inner cause" of everything that happens. Overall, I don't agree with Spinoza's views. I don't read the bible critically, and I definitely don't believe that God controls our life, if there is a God. I think we all make decisions on our own, and we control our lives.
To be honest, I was taken by surprise by the twist in Berkeley. I never really spent any time pondering the bizarre violations of what I believe is and isn't possible. Of course, that could very well be Gaardner's ruse - that by simply accepting odd events without questioning their root cause I have failed as a philosopher. On the other hand, I think I deserve some slack - this book breezes through many different and difficult perceptions of reality that take some time to swallow. Regardless, I thought the chapter was very intriguing. Even though I have seen this kind of plot twist played out on more than one occasion (the matrix being the most memorable) there really is nothing more mind-bending than putting one's entire perception of reality into complete doubt. Still, I think this whole line of thinking is somewhat unnecessary. I would never call someone foolish for attempting to search for a greater understanding of the laws that govern our existence. At the same time, I also agree that we can never wholly know anything - absolute truth is unknowable. But spending your time wondering whether or not we exist in somebody's head is foolish. That's not trying to understand things at greater depth - that's wasting your time trying to know something that will give no great insight and is impossible to prove anyway. Unless it is explicity revealed to us, this is the only reality we know.
I agree that Spinoza's idea that religion is largely based on ritual, and that it should be read with a critical eye. I don't think the flaws in the text that Spinoza brought forward prove or disprove the existence of god, but I think that they remind us that while the Bible may have been inspired by divine events, they were recorded by men a long time ago with their own perceptions and agendas. Growing up in a non-religious environment may have influenced my own ideas on the subject, I view the Bible as a historical text, and one that should be understood because of the effect it (and the actions of people who follow its word) have had on world history. On the other had, it should be taken with a pinch of salt, and certainly not read literally. I also disagree with Spinoza's idea that got is always present in everything, giving it a cause. To me, these determinist views allow people to separate themselves from personal responsibility, which is at the core of many of my beliefs.
It seems to me that Spinoza’s idea is that the essence of the natural world is in God. While some may hold that the natural world was indeed created by god, I hold that the course of nature’s path is determined by a set of natural rules. This is somewhat in line with Spinoza’s thinking, but unlike him I do not hold that the natural rules are from a divine creation.
I do not agree with Spinoza's definition of God. Although he did say God is everywhere and everything, he did not define the God that so many people believe in. His idea on the bible is far to critical and not everything applies to today's lifestyle in the literal way. There are life lessons that are taught in the Bible on how to live a good life, but the idea of it being a set of rules to live by in all aspects is insane. Being a Christian myself, I can clearly say it is not necessary to read the bible to understand God or live a good life. Although it can teach and can apply to lives today, it is not a "must."
I partially agree with Spinoza in that God basically is everywhere. I believe that God created all things, and has the ability to do all things so ideally from this logic he could be everywhere. Although, contrary I don't believe that God "does" everything, such as thoughts and actions. I believe that we have the ability of free will and to make a choice based on what we know.
I disagree with Spinoza on his ideas of God. Simply because i persaonlly don't believe in god. What i do think though is that if there is a god it really doenst interfere with our life. Jsut created us and simply let us be. I also disagree with him reading the bible critically. I think the bible is should be read lightly and not critically like some novel. PErsonally i feel that the bible should be read and taken like "here are some ideas of how you can lead your life" and not "this is HOW you should live your life and how EVERYONE else should live their life" it only leads to a bias as we already see with many religions.
Question 4:
By the time I had read through the opening sentences of 'Bjerkeley', I was already put into a state of confusion. I was more irritated than amused, as I was more interested in Sophie's story. It feels like Gaarder copped out and this area, and decided to add a 'gimmick' to keep the story on its feet, though the story was already very involving to begin with.
Question 1:
The conversation that Sophie had with the computer, to me, was completely natural. Being raised in a place where talking to computers is commonplace, I find nothing odd about it. The only idea or philosophy that I would be able to draw from this conversation is that computers will never replace humans.
In my findings, I don't believe this to be true. I think that humans, as a race has lost the need to evolve. In a world where any socially fit person can survive, physical capabilities have little to do with survival. I personally believe that the next evolutionary process with be the bionic revolution where we are actually integrated with computers to become better. From there, evolution will be able to start again because we will have near-complete control over how and when we evolve.
First of all, I think the idea of defining God is more or less pointless. Everyone's idea of what "God" is is different. We all interpret the "word of God" (the Bible) differently, we all have different beliefs in the existence of a God, we all have different ways by which we communicate with the God we believe in... Spinoza happened to believe that God is everything. I view God as the creator, so, I actually partially agree with Spinoza. However, I also believe in the presence of Evil. My initial thoughts on evil tell me that Evil is not part of God, that evil was something that happened in reaction to the goodness that is "God". But that in itself is questionable. If God created all, then did he not create Evil as well? If we say that God created man, and that man has the capability to be evil, then we must say that God created Evil as well, even if it was just in the creation of "choice". We could also question the "goodness" of God. We see demonstrated multiple times in the old testament occasions of God's wrath and anger. Who is to decide whether or not his actions were out of anger or out of love? Either way, I agree with Dan in his statement that it is difficult to criticize one view of GOd when I cannot be certain of my own. This paragraph most certainly doesn't cover all of my own beliefs, arguments or questions, but I hope it is at least thought provoking.
I agree with Dan in most of his comment. He does imply, however, that an 'average Christian' would produce a more definitive definition of God. I disagree. I believe that teh 'average Christian' would, like Rachel said, agree that God is everywhere. This is about to get confusing... I do agree with Dan by saying that i CANNOT agree with Spnioza. If I, myself, cannot define God, who am I to turn down someone else's definition when i do not know myself?
I agree with what most people have been saying about Spinoza's view on God although I find his points very interesting. I personally do not see anything wrong with reading the bible critically. For some people this can be very helpful and very comforting. For others, it may not be as helpful as something else. Everyone is going to have their different preferences. As for the idea that God controls everything, I do not know if i personally agree with this. I think we all have the ability to choose our actions. Many times in life i have been given the choice to do something and I like to believe that I made the better choice by myself and not an outside power. But, I find this idea to be very interesting. The idea taht you think you make a choice but really you were just destined to makethat choice and there is no way to go agaisnt destiny can be very uncomfortable but also very interesting.