David Hume

I found Hume very interesting in discussing and reading about. Many of his ideas, concerning our accusation of knowledge made allot of sense; however through discussion in the seminar, that we found Hume can be a bit depressing and leave you feel a bit lost in the Universe. In part I of an Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Hume describes an optimum state of mind, that I think that is the best state of mind to further understanding and knowledge. "Be a philosopher; but admist all your philosophy, be still a man". in this paragraph Hume asserts that the "Mind requires relaxation", a balance between business and pleasure. Hume describes business as "Industry" and pleasure as social interaction. I read into this that if you busy your mind with constantly considering business, and do not relax your mind, then your mind may burn out and you may become frustrated and drowning in to much serious thought. That is why relaxation is required to re-set your brain and let it re-boot. This important in every aspect of life, the mind and body need rest to function at it's best.

His ideas on accuracy, and how it is advantageous to beauty, is of sound reasoning and something I agree with. Perfection does not exist in the Universe, if it did then we would not be in existence, however the pursuit of perfection can bread something beautiful. I understand accuracy as perfection, to be accurate is to be perfect. A good example is a gymnast coming up with a new routine, their pursuit of everything flowing perfectly can generate a beautiful routine. Although perfection does not exist the pursuit of it defiantly does and this is what produces beauty.

Hume also discusses how our own faculties and experiences shape how we perceive other thought or ideas.I found the topic of how we can imagine a feeling without feeling it, very interesting to read; and how our imagination can take us beyond anywhere out physical bodies dwell, such as the stars in the sky. "Every idea which we examine is copied from a similar impression". I'm not sure if I believe this is true, but Keith Richards once said "There is only one song that was made by Adam...All other songs are copies or imitations of that song". This is an interesting area to discuss. It made me think of critics and how they make their criticisms. In music how can a critic criticise a song, what are they comparing it to? To my knowledge there is not a thing as proper music, or a proper song, good and bad songs are a matter of opinion; but maybe there is one great song, as suggested by Keith Richards and maybe that's what songs are judged against. But without any proof of that song who is to say one song is better than another. Someone might love Wonderwall by Oasis but another person might hate it, who is to say weather it is a good song or not?

During the seminar we discussed how, according to Hume, somethings may not be 100% correct. Just because we are alive one minute there is no guarantee that we will be alive the next; probability is the only certain factor in understanding, However we discussed how the laws of physics must be correct as we have devised quantum mechanics from it, and have evidence that support these ideas and theories. We also discussed how somethings have to be taken at face value, otherwise you would be going around in circles. For example if you are on a train and are calling someone to pick you up at the station at a certain time, you can't say "so I will see you at half past, but I might not because I can't be 100% sure", if everyone acted like that then no one would get anywhere. Of course someone might commit suicide on the tracks then of course the train will be late. Somethings have to be taken on face value, such as physics and science, of course it may be wrong to make assumptions sometimes, but to go anywhere or achieve anything we have to assume somethings.

The Royal exchange & method

I found the reading quite interesting and enjoyable. I found the reading about the royal exchange particular interesting; I share the point of view being expressed. I think we are more enlightened by other cultures and visitors, it would be very short sighted to life in a little bubble and say this is the way things should be done and no other way. Through other cultures and foreign concepts we can further ground our own believes and understandings. If someone from another point of view challenges yours, your reasoning can be so grounded that it changes their perspective on things, or their reasoning might be so grounded that it changes your point of view. In the latter scenario you understanding of something is pushed and expanded and may even be better.

I thought I had a good grasp on the article about method. I thought that method was very important in writing. You need to structure a piece of writing for it to make scenes. I see it allot when politicians argue on T.V, when confronted with a question they may not want to answer, there method is to deflect from the question and go on to talk about something completely else; sometimes getting so lost in the deflection that they do not make sense. On the other hand, writing an essay for example you need method to write it, otherwise points will get lost and may not be as clear as they could be. However people in the seminar offered a different point of view and suggested that method is not always important. which got me thinking maybe method is not important in popular writing such as gossip magazines, but it is important in academic writing when stressing an argument. You don't need much method in film reviews as it is personal opinion, for example.