What does thinking mean to me?
As a creative I think about thinking a lot. The way different people process things is fascinating, given the way perspective works. Speaking of, I believe our perspective shapes the way we think and vice versa. The minute you are born you begin to think is my theory, due to the natural instinct on one wanting to understand their surroundings.
The child and development stage is one of the prime stages of life in which your formative thinking process begins to cement itself, according to a number of classes and studies I’ve looked at in my current undergrad. Anything thing I find fascinating is some of the most brilliant minds of history have been having the same conversation. Philosophers, psychologists and many other professions thought about thinking and how it comes to be.
Philosophers - Some of History's Greatest thinkers
Descartes bases his core views exclusively on things he can firmly assert are true after purifying himself of all beliefs while trapped in the stove cave, but this approach must have a source. This is because Descartes conducted his meditations in a sequential manner. Nevertheless, Descartes’s only goal in doing this was to establish an indisputable basis for his philosophical ideas, and he does this by employing the subsequent methods.
I. The Possibility of Doubt
It sounds negative at its surface, yet Descartes never ruled out the fact that he could be wrong and that is enlightening. Simply put, the possibility of doubt is the best way to rule out the possibility of error in one’s own uncertain interpretations. One of the most impactful of the theories. Just discarding any beliefs if there was cause for skepticism, unless he was certain they were true. As previously said, Descartes arrived at his conclusion about what was unquestionable in a stepwise manner, building on each first truth. Having stated that, Descartes’ first initial truth—that his mind exists—was realized as a result of this philosophical tactic. The fact that he is a thinking being cannot be denied, because to question your existence you must exist to begin with. Fascinating perspective to me.
II. The Certainty of an Omnipotent God
III & IV. Conceptualization & The External World
The finalization of the final two meditations includes the conceptual distinction between the truth and the false as well as evidence of the external world which as mentioned, come in a series to the rest of the basic principles that Descartes managed to establish. In the process, Descartes actively forms beliefs that reinforce his philosophy by doubting anything that is subject to doubt and frequently considers his own past. By constructing his philosophy from the ground up, Descartes potentially eliminates any gaps or barriers established against his arguments by conquering the challenge of proving God’s existence and absolving him of responsibility for our mistakes. Again it is all up for interpretation as the world changes everyday. However, it’s interesting to see how some of the earliest philosophical minds
Hume’s philosophical view and most effective learning tactic relied solely on the understanding of exploring the nature of human understanding. In addition, that must be done by eventually grasping the reality that not everything is meant to be understood by humans. Only then, will we be able to live in peace within life itself. David Hume’s philosophy is deeply ingrained in the inclinations of an empirical theory of learning and related ideologies. He is considered to be among the most important since he directly influenced a number of famous intellectuals with his careful narrowly focused thought. his beliefs were based mostly on naturalism, uncertainty, and empiricism and philosophical principles. This suggests that the ultimate source of all knowledge is experience. To put it another way, Hume aimed to characterize and explain both the methods and the nature of our mental capacities. This would clarify the processes that lead to the formation of our beliefs, as well as whether and when they are justified and what causes human errors.
Truth and Evidence is the Foundation of understanding to Hume
Hume goes on to expand his empirical view by stating that ideas are an attempt to show that even our experience is limited by what we can really comprehend and what we can only try to understand through philosophy. At that point, it becomes difficult to distinguish between ideas and accurate understanding. Simply put, have and always will have the tendency to ‘fill in the blanks’ on situations they cannot confirm based off experience. This is where the room for error comes from. Believing that humans can comprehend the reasoning. Where we often make mistakes in our understanding of how to apply philosophy is in thinking that humans are capable of understanding the logic behind metaphysical experiences and events, whatever you consider to be metaphysical.
Anne Conway was a brilliant mind that added great conversation to the topic of philosophy and the instinct of humanity itself. Conway makes a convincing argument for using mutability as a way of understanding organisms and their corresponding superiority or size. Anne Conway starts by dissecting organisms’ mutuality in a step-by-step manner. It begins with the real differentiation of what a creature is and how its potential to change is what makes a creature unique. Given the adaptability of all created organisms, nature is extraordinarily, if not indefinitely, diversified. Conway uses the main concepts from her dissection of metaphysics as the foundation for her case for substance unity. Substance unity meaning we as humans are greater than no creature. She illustrates her idea by pointing out a creature’s expansions and the context in which a species’ categorization is created. In order to expand on her concept of a creature, she lists humans, animals, and inanimate objects like rocks and books among the three categories of creatures, implying that we all have the same superiority in a way. Interesting take… but it gets deeper within her work to which she protects her claims the way any philosopher would.
God, Christ & Creatures
In her famous work titled “The Principles” she clearly outlines the three creatures of the universe as the three above… God, Christ and of course us considered the creatures. She further explains that God, being the highest authority, the most perfect being and eternally excellent in substance with the capacity to be constantly wise and just, comes right after classifying the three essences according to mutability. Remember that mutability is a heavy foundation piece for Conway’s philosophy. Conway first elaborates on God’s superiority before introducing the concept of Christ and how it functions as a sort of intermediary between God and creation. Stated differently, Christ is seen as a mediator between God and the third order of excellence. Additionally, Anne Conway presents Christ as a somewhat malleable force, suggesting that although it is capable of change, it must additionally come from God and not from the natural world or living things, that being us. Which brings me to the final essence of her ideology, creatures, humans and anything extended. Conway thinks that anything entirely changeable that is not God or Christ is classified as a creature. She suggests that all beings are fully adaptable or susceptible to change in order to expound on the concept of creatures. Thus, the word “mutability,” which describes the idea that inanimate objects and humans are of equal standing, is used.
Galileo’s Starry Messenger
Galileo’s capacity to combine the results and workings of the world with the inclination to respect scientific reasoning and mathematics made him one of the most profound reasoners of the scientific discovery age. His primary formula for comprehending the environment we live in and its consequences was this one. Galileo is most known for pioneer of space and intergalactic study. Though, Galileo didn’t invent the telescope as this invention belongs to the brilliant Hans Lipperhey and his companion Zacharias Janssen. In simplest explanation, Galileo made the decision to look up into the sky with the tool and began mapping start patterns and trends as far as the way planets orbit.
He explains the quarters of the moon in this matter to further his reasoning on why we cannot rule out the possibility of the Moon having a more profound terrain than what was observed during the time The Starry Messenger was written. Into detail he goes about the cause of Earth illumination and how similar characteristics can be observed on the moon and more, as he uses the Pythagorean Opinion that the moon is indeed like Earth with ridges and craters. Of course, this is why consideration was foundational for Galileo given no one would question these things before he pioneered the sky beyond the human eye. Another common scientific theme that Galileo founded his reasoning off was the importance of observation over time. He shows us its importance on several occasions with one being when explaining the theory of fixed stars and the rotation that takes place by each spherical Cosmo in space including the moons of Jupiter. Galileo perpetuates the idea that scientific discoveries take time and must hold true against all factors (including time) for it to be concrete. As mentioned, this can be seen during the time in which Galileo is examining the structure of Jupiter’s soon to be four discovered moons. He takes account the distance, time, complexion and illumination, rotation, degree and even compass direction when studying these structures to back his scientific discoveries up against any hypothetical argument he may face. Which furthers the first theme of consideration in Galileo’s work that we know.
The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
Along with the “Starry Messenger”, Galileo publishes an even more genius piece of work that. gets him exiled from the Roman Catholic Church and even banished from publicizing his writing. Most of the hate was due to the questioning of God and the entity’s higher power. That of which the people in Italy took no liking to. This writing was titled “The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” where he takes on three different perspectives that have a conversation amongst one another in order to prove his theories correct in the end. Within this work, he challenges views like Copernicus and Aristotle. One of the most clever ways I’ve ever seen someone prove a point to say the least.
