Reflection Journal 5268199.pdf - ID 5268199 Reflection...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 42 pages.

ID: 5268199 Reflection Paragraphs Introduction: I am a women in philosophy and this course made me regard in philosophy differently and have a more appreciative lens of all the hard work women have to go through in philosophy. A guide to the reader: I have a lot of questions and here is a roadmap of the things we talked about in the course and one snippet of how I feel about the topics. We started this course with Descartes. I think that Descartes is very important in the canon. I think that his argument for God’s existence is not great. An ontological argument never works for proving the existence of God for someone who does not believe in God already. After reading all of the meditations, we began to look at Elisabeth;s objections to Descartes regarding the exact manner that the soul acts on the body. Descartes was kind of a sexist pig in the beginning to Elisabeth saying that her body would have distracted him he had seen her in real life. Ridiculous. Descartes did not have an answer for Elisabeth and that is just another reason why women should be believed. After these huge sections we had spent less time on each important character. We went to Cavendish, Spinoza, and Conway. I wish we could have spent more time on these figures, but I know in a survey course that is not possible. Next, we focused on Locke. I am very interested in Locke. His ideas about personal identity interest me greatly. I think that Locke’s argument for God is infinitely better than Descartes’ and, yet, at the Shelley Weinberg talk, she had hated his argument for God’s existence. We talked about Reid's objection to Locke after reading Locke. Reid had confused Locke’s ideas of consciousness and had equated with memory, when that is not the case. Locke cannot even explain consciousness. Next, Catharine Trotter-Cockburn; I believe that she had adequately defended Locke in her essay. Mary Astell is next and I do not
know why, but I have always been fond of Mary Astell. I like her ontological argument more than Descartes’ for some reason. After Astell, we read all of the dialogues from Berkeley. I really enjoyed the dialogues. I think that Philonous is just constantly telling Hylas what to believe and then just destroys him. I think it is a really good way to object to your argument, so that they will have to believe you. Berkeley has made me worry that when I leave a room that I have no way of knowing if it is still there anymore. I am skeptical and that is the last thing Berkeley would want. Lastly, we studied Hume. I think that Hume’s argument for correlation and causation is extremely unsatisfying. There is nothing else he can say to make it not that way, but that just means that the world is unsatisfying with explanations with causation. Hume had me thinking about superstitions and I think that is super interesting. That is it in terms of coursework, but as far as I what have learned from this course is immeasurable. I have learned (even more) to ignore philosophy bros and be more confident in what I believe to be true. I have

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture