Deep+Thoughts+-+Perception

=DEEP THOUGHTS=

Instructions: We are going to build this page together, containing our observations and questions that follow a passage of famous text. Read and consider the following passage. Write a response afterwards in which you offer a summary, any questions that come to mind, or applications to life you can make. (In other words, consider "What does it SAY," "What does it MEAN," and/or "What does it MEAN TO US/ME.") Use the following format:
 * Name -- Observation or intricate question. (2-3 sentences aiming for complexity/comprehensiveness)

**by R. Descartes**
. . . . . I don't know if I should share with you the first meditations which I made there, for they are so metaphysical and so out of the ordinary that they will perhaps not be to everyone's taste. However, in order that people may be able to judge if the foundations which I set are sufficiently strong, I find myself in some way compelled to speak of them. . . . . . For a long time previously I had noticed that where morals are concerned it is necessary sometimes to follow opinions which one knows are extremely uncertain as if they are indubitable, as mentioned above. But since at that time I wanted only to carry out research into the truth, I thought I must do the opposite and reject as absolutely false everything about which I could imagine the least doubt, in order to see if there would be anything totally indisputable remaining after that in my belief. Thus, because our senses deceive us sometimes, I was willing to assume that there was nothing which existed the way our senses present it to us. And because there are men who make mistakes in reasoning, even concerning the most simple matters of geometry, and who create paralogisms, and because I judged that I was subject to error just as much as anyone else, I rejected as false all the reasons which I had taken earlier as proofs. Finally, considering that all the same thoughts which we have when awake can also come to us when we are asleep, without there being truth in any of them at the time, I determined to pretend that everything which had ever entered my mind was no more true than the illusions of my dreams. . . . . . But immediately afterwards I noticed that, while I wished in this way to think everything was false, it was necessary that I—who was doing the thinking—had to be something. Noticing that this truth—//I think; therefore, I am//—was so firm and so sure that all the most extravagant assumptions of the skeptics would not be able to weaken it, I judged that I could accept it without scruple as the first principle of the philosophy I was looking for.

by F. Kafka
. . . . . When you go walking at night up a street and a man, visible a long way off-- for the street goes uphill and there is a full moon-- comes running to you, well, you don't catch hold of him as he passes. You let him run on even if he is a feeble old man, even if someone is chasing him and yelling at him. . . . . . For it is night, and you can't help it if the street goes uphill in the moonlight. And besides, these two maybe started the chase to amuse themselves, or perhaps they are both chasign a thrid person, or perhaps the first is an innocent man and the second wants to murder him and so you would become an accessory, or they are merely running separately home to bed, or perhasp the first has a gun. <span style="color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">. . . . . And anyhow, haven't you a right to be tired, haven't you been drinking a lot of wine? You're thankful they are now both long out of sight.


 * Wall-- Descartes seems to assume that we are all "subject to error." To what extent is this true? What about the other kinds of thinking, not just reason? We also have stuff like authority and introspection. In fact, maybe his conclusion about I think therefore I am is really using an introspective reason.
 * Geard-- Descartes's famous quote, "I think, therefore, I am", means to me that the only thing we truly know is that we are here, and that we have the ability to think. All else is questionable, and if you ignore logic and science, everything can easily be discarded as false truths, but the inner truth of knowing oneself, and knowing one's own feelings, can only be analysed and clamied as truth by the individual.
 * Sean -- Descartes seemed to "lose" himself and question the truth of reality, to "know" something. I think it is essential in life to hold atleast one thing to be true, to understand reality and where/who we are, and not to consider ourselves to be in an "illusion of dreams." Knowing the difference of reality and an "illusion" may be challenging, but holding onto something that you know is true is key to this. As for Kafka.. I didnt really understand his translation of the running man..
 * Soo Hyung -- According to Descartes, the truth depends on a person's own understanding and ability to discern whether it's reality or illusion. I think that the truth (subjective) exists in the mind rather than in reality (objective); since every person has their own individual mind, making subjective truth relative.
 * Quentin -- Descartes, all in all, broke our reality down into nothingness; since beliefs, in relation to religion for example, can be deceitful at times, he started to disbelieve anything that could have a hint of doubt. Our ability to question our perception of reality is, in the end, not us being skeptical at all but us being realistic: making sense of the world. Looking for the universe's ultimate "answer" is useless, because as we've come to find out, anything can be contested. What's important is we're here, whether we understand why or not.
 * Shawn-- Most of us are familiar with the quote, "Cogito, ergo sum." Indeed, Descartes, one of the acknowledged enlightened rationalist noticed the dubious nature of perception, and such discernment is remarkable as most of his contemporaries were still obsessed with Medieval matters. He is even skeptical of mathematics-which we often think is relatively more objective than others-; he was more or less swayed by the skepticism among his colleagues. His words remind me of Picasso and Einstein, who both claimed that imagination (or perception) is more important than the reality. Perhaps Aristotle may refute, "If you cannot believe your eyes, why aren't you jumping over the cliff? You are NOT sure whether you will fall and die or not." I don't know how to refute to this though lol
 * Taku -- Descartes noticed that "opinions which one knows are extremely uncertain as if they are indubitable," which means that we are facing opinions and beliefs that we are not sure of. In my opinion, opinions and beliefs are coming from one's knowledge and knowledge is something that are unique to everyone. Therefore, there are less chance of being sure of those opinions because they are different from your own knowledge. My opinion above can be "unsure" for most of us because it's my own thought and unique knowledge, however, we try to be sure of those thoughts; therefore our knowledge are expanding each time we communicate our opinions.
 * JP -- Kafka's passage really made me think about how we justify things to ourselves. this can be observed in the man's reasoning to himself, he knows that there is something going on. but he refuses to aknowlege it, and to do anything about it. in many ways i think all of us do the same thing when ever we have an idea we deem logical. We notice that there are some things going on, that could make our logic fall apart, but we refuse to look twice at them and we cling to our idea of reason. We do this as a natural instinct to provide a point of referance. If something is logical to us, and yet there are things that can defy this logic, we choose to ignore these things. this gives us the idea of "solid logic" that can be used to justify our decisions. In the case of The passerby, his reasoning/justification that hes tired and drunk, provides the man with a feeling of "its OK". its his referance that he chooses to take. I wonder what happens when we try to challenge our justifications and our reasoning. is it possible?
 * Edward -- I think that Kafka is trying to tell us that we usually don't bother trying to think difficultly about things that aren't related to us. Although the passerby could be running for his life or could be a criminal, we usually don't think that way; instead, we presume that he is merely in a hurry for some event. Since we are "tired" or have "drank too much wine," we don't bother thinking deeply into matters that may seem trivial to us at first, but could be a lot more significant.
 * Kento - Descartes' passage makes us ask questions to ourselfves which leads to more questinos, and it is obviously written to mess with our minds...
 * Harry -- As Descartes stated above, "while I wished in this way to think everything was false, it was necessary that I—who was doing the thinking—had to be something." By terminating all thoughts that were unfounded, Descartes reached the deep core of what we indisputably know. As he stated, because our senses seem to deceive us, and the fact that humans are inevitable to mistakes, he was able to deduce one fact: I think; Therefore, I am. We as readers can hardly be cynical of what he writes, for what he did was truly logical and rational. To get to the heart of true knowledge, we must cleanse ourselves from what thoughts can be questioned. Again, as he said, I think; Therefore, I am. We can now ask however, is this the only thing that we, as people, truly know? There has to be something else that is logically sound, something else that can be supported logically with true evidence and rational, something else that we indubitably know.
 * Jangho - Descartes is just trying to make a point that we perceive what we want to and expect to perceive and that our brain gets confused easily and constantly. I think Kafka is also stating that we don't perceive what we don't want to perceive simply because we don't care about it.
 * Nari - Descartes threw him out to nowhere, where he "believed" that everything was false and then started building from that point. This is something that no ordinary person could do and I think Descartes has done something intriguing to all of us. Also, as he continued his "experiment," he reached this statement of "I think, therefore I am," which is a famous quote of Descartes that everybody has heard at least once.
 * Albert- Descartes describes, "everything which had ever entered my mind was no more true than the illusions of my dreams." He feels that the information what our five senses interpret about the all the objects in this world is ambiguous. Nothing could be certain and clear. Then I came up with a question saying "what could KNOW something fr sure?" Maybe we can never get the answer, and life might be easier if we could just think like Descartes, which he said " there was nothing which existed the way our senses present it to us. "
 * Aaron -- Kafka makes very good points in his text. It makes me realize that it is very true that if I see one man running and another is chasing him I would think nothing of it. I would just keep walking toward where ever I am going. In my opinion he is trying to say we think about what we are doing before thinking about others. We wouldn't think about what the two men are doing. If we are "tired" or "drank to much" our goal is probably just to get home to bed.

<span style="font-family: Constantia,serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal;"> for the street goes uphill and there is a full moon " adds to the feel of isolation the man (you) must be feeling in the moment where the two other men pass by you. Very simply dismissed as nothing too serious. This reminds me of a story: a fire starts in the last house of the block, you do not do anything, but as the fire starts to spread to the other houses, and get's closer and closer to your's, there you start to help extinguish it. This kind of act varies from person to person, and I believe it is something that happens by instinct, nobody really reflects on it, and if they do, they think about something they want to happen, wether it is optimistic or pessimistic. The question is: is it the right thing to do?
 * Chae Young- Decartes's quote "I think; therefore, I am" tells us that we are being confused what the reality is and just interprete everything the way we want to interpret and that we are the center of our perception of reality. Kafka's description also tells us about human nature. Humans tend to think about what they were doing before thinking about the other people, once again, placing us at the center of perception.
 * Matthieu-- Kafka's take on human nature is very much true. It is the truth that many people knowingly don't do anything about the floods in Australia or the fighting in Uganda other than utter "Oh my" before their tv screens because it makes cracks and breaks in our personal future of safety and optimism. Just like how the Pentagon knew about the Nazi deathcamps which they could have bombed the railroads to just once, the ugly truth is that we couldn't care less about other people in trouble until we reach some type of "mental-mindset change" and reach out and give a helping hand with true sincerity.
 * Filippo -- In many ways Kafka's passage applies to human nature. By the description of the setting we can tell how in specific situations, if not in all, humans can really be selfish; "