So what did you think of our Pascal/Kreeft text?
Wait until you are done with this material to address this question.
It is useful to separate your thinking into two parts: whether you agree with their presentation of the "problems" man faces and how you feel about their "solution". Even if you don't go for the latter, the former might still have value to you.
For Discussion:
The main critique I have of your presentations is that many of you presented Pascal & Kreeft's ideas as "facts" and gave no analysis as to whether I should agree with them or not. Please pick one of their ideas and provide an analysis here. (Give a page reference so we can all find the idea you are talking about easily.)
What do you think of Pascal's reasoning methods? How do they differ from a scientist's?
Was reading this book helpful? Should I use it again?
It is useful to separate your thinking into two parts: whether you agree with their presentation of the "problems" man faces and how you feel about their "solution". Even if you don't go for the latter, the former might still have value to you.
For Discussion:
The main critique I have of your presentations is that many of you presented Pascal & Kreeft's ideas as "facts" and gave no analysis as to whether I should agree with them or not. Please pick one of their ideas and provide an analysis here. (Give a page reference so we can all find the idea you are talking about easily.)
What do you think of Pascal's reasoning methods? How do they differ from a scientist's?
Was reading this book helpful? Should I use it again?
posted by Anthony at
7:43 AM
11 Comments:
Here is an example to get us started.
Pascal argues for the veracity of Scripture due to its antiquity (p. 263); associated is his idea that the Jewish people are the oldest known to man (p. 268).
To me this seems to be a poor argument; asian cultures are comparable and probably earlier. While much less was known about earlier societies in the middle east (because records were lost until archaeologists recovered them) today cuneiform tablets provide even earlier history.
To be fair, Pascal's argument might be that those belief-systems were lost, whereas the Jewish faith remains vibrant today,
By
Anthony, at Fri Sep 24, 02:44:00 PM 2010
Pascal writes that modern man do not know the truth because of science. pg(58)
I disagree with Pascal on his arguement simply beacause not everything in this world can be proven, but the things that are proven are facts so if anything i'd say science helps us to learn the truth instead of pulling us away from it.
He did have sum good ideas but he was too one sided in my opinion
By
orane churchill, at Fri Oct 01, 01:38:00 AM 2010
Thanks Orane! I am very glad you answered this question -- everyone else is dodging it!
By
Anthony, at Tue Oct 05, 08:53:00 AM 2010
Due to the fact I lent my book to someone in this class and never had it returned, I only have the concept Pascal discusses and the Chapter in which it was discussed. The idea that I most strongly disagree with is from chapter 3, where it is dicussed in relation to wretchedness that technology cannot bring happiness. I disagree with this statement strongly due to the fact, many technologies have helpes to both prolong and mend life. If you look at technology from stand-point of only relating it to maybe the internet or telephone calls, yes it can seem to bring unhappiness, especially when they sometimes make life harder. But what about the times that technology is used for good? Such as in medical developments and treatment. Without technology we would haven't been able to focus on many areas in health science, psychology, or basic everyday life styles. Beginning with health sciences, it is obviously known that many technologies serve a prime purpose in the treatment of illness. Things such as chemotherapy, heart bypass surgeries and simple technologies such as xrays, have allowed treatment and diagnosis of many terrible things to be found in people. Without them, it is not unlikely that a deformity could have been developed due to lack of xrays to provide the issue, and lives lost because of a lack of treatment for cancer and heart related issues. Technology is obviously beneficial in this aspect. With Psychology, technology is used to study brain patterns and behaviors. Without the development of such machines, little would be known on many psychological diseases and the world would still think that schizophrenics were possessed by demons.
By
Amber Konopka, at Mon Oct 11, 11:58:00 AM 2010
CONTINUED...
Furthermore, little would be understood regarding why people act as they do. With sleep, many technologies are used to determine why a paerson may have parasomnia, or sleep walking incidents, both in which can cause danger to others and themselves. In correlation with a health sciences, it is obvious that technology is needed to prempt treatment and reasoning behind such occurrences. Now some might say that in regards to technology benefiting or saving lives, this is bad due to a need of population control, it is important to look at this with regards to two spectrums. Firstly, from a moral stand point, who's ability is it to say that someone with an illness doesn't deserve atl east a chance to live? Technology ensures that those who are suffering have an equal chance to live compared with those who are not sick. Furthermore, we can now relate this to those in need of social services, maybe here or in other countries. Obviously Pascal didn't take the time to truly evaluate what to consider a harmful technology or he would have realized that things such as trains and boats are considered to be a technological development, ones in which he probably used at some point or another in order to have his ideas reviewed or published. In regards to social services, think about how someone would have proper access to medical supplies, food, or child care, if there weren't such things as technology. Look at Sub-Saharan Africa; the countries located in this "region" have little to no technologies to help support everyday life, and most areas located within this region are impoverished and over-flowing with deaths due to the inability to obtain proper nutrients or medical services. Because of a lack of medical supplies and health personnel, infant mortality and mother mortality rates are sky-rocketing. Deaths from AIDs and diseases like tuberculosis are also high. Only until maybe 7 years ago did impoverished nations actually cope with their issues, because countries like America brought them supplies and diagnosis abilities that only technology could have allowed them to reach. This is where a moralistic view becomes prominent. Is it right to allow people to die because they do not have even so much as to access to technological developments? No, this isn't right due to the fact services have been provided to them, because of technological capabilities. Secondly, it is important to realize that there is always alternative means in regard to population control such as famine, war or what can b considered fate. Although technology can be used to prevent such issues, it is also used to maintain proper population balance. Knowing that people are going to die, dispite of technology helping them, what does the amount of people who are helped matter, compared to those who are going to die anyway. This is a more extreme outlook on the situation, but holds true when certain things like fate can not be prevented. All in all, when Pascal says that technology cannot with hold happiness for those who use it, I find this assumption to be absurd. This statement doesn't make sense in a world where, yes, maybe little things such as our cell phone and computer infuriate us, but there are people out there who have been cured of things such as cancer due to technological advances. I am sorry to be so blunt about this situation but I know that someone who has been saved of dying, is going to be more happy than someone who rejected technology and is now dead. I am also sure, that if Pascal were to realize that he needed technology to spread the embrace of his ideas, he would reconsider the negativity that technology can bring. Also I am unsure of his reasoning behind such a statement, due to the fact, he is contradictive in regards to the basic assumption that he developed a technological machine to help his father's business, known to be one of the first actual calculators, and his dad was probably pretty happy to not have to do all hat tax mendin by hand any more.
By
Amber Konopka, at Mon Oct 11, 11:59:00 AM 2010
CONTINUED...
Furthermore, little would be understood regarding why people act as they do. With sleep, many technologies are used to determine why a paerson may have parasomnia, or sleep walking incidents, both in which can cause danger to others and themselves. In correlation with a health sciences, it is obvious that technology is needed to prempt treatment and reasoning behind such occurrences. Now some might say that in regards to technology benefiting or saving lives, this is bad due to a need of population control, it is important to look at this with regards to two spectrums. Firstly, from a moral stand point, who's ability is it to say that someone with an illness doesn't deserve atl east a chance to live? Technology ensures that those who are suffering have an equal chance to live compared with those who are not sick. Furthermore, we can now relate this to those in need of social services, maybe here or in other countries. Obviously Pascal didn't take the time to truly evaluate what to consider a harmful technology or he would have realized that things such as trains and boats are considered to be a technological development, ones in which he probably used at some point or another in order to have his ideas reviewed or published. In regards to social services, think about how someone would have proper access to medical supplies, food, or child care, if there weren't such things as technology. Look at Sub-Saharan Africa; the countries located in this "region" have little to no technologies to help support everyday life, and most areas located within this region are impoverished and over-flowing with deaths due to the inability to obtain proper nutrients or medical services. Because of a lack of medical supplies and health personnel, infant mortality and mother mortality rates are sky-rocketing. Deaths from AIDs and diseases like tuberculosis are also high. Only until maybe 7 years ago did impoverished nations actually cope with their issues, because countries like America brought them supplies and diagnosis abilities that only technology could have allowed them to reach. This is where a moralistic view becomes prominent. Is it right to allow people to die because they do not have even so much as to access to technological developments? No, this isn't right due to the fact services have been provided to them, because of technological capabilities. Secondly, it is important to realize that there is always alternative means in regard to population control such as famine, war or what can b considered fate. Although technology can be used to prevent such issues, it is also used to maintain proper population balance. Knowing that people are going to die, dispite of technology helping them, what does the amount of people who are helped matter, compared to those who are going to die anyway. This is a more extreme outlook on the situation, but holds true when certain things like fate can not be prevented. All in all, when Pascal says that technology cannot with hold happiness for those who use it, I find this assumption to be absurd. This statement doesn't make sense in a world where, yes, maybe little things such as our cell phone and computer infuriate us, but there are people out there who have been cured of things such as cancer due to technological advances. I am sorry to be so blunt about this situation but I know that someone who has been saved of dying, is going to be more happy than someone who rejected technology and is now dead. I am also sure, that if Pascal were to realize that he needed technology to spread the embrace of his ideas, he would reconsider the negativity that technology can bring. Also I am unsure of his reasoning behind such a statement, due to the fact, he is contradictive in regards to the basic assumption that he developed a technological machine to help his father's business, known to be one of the first actual calculators, and his dad was probably pretty happy to not have to do all hat tax mendin by hand any more.
By
Amber Konopka, at Mon Oct 11, 11:59:00 AM 2010
CONTINUED...
Furthermore, little would be understood regarding why people act as they do. With sleep, many technologies are used to determine why a paerson may have parasomnia, or sleep walking incidents, both in which can cause danger to others and themselves. In correlation with a health sciences, it is obvious that technology is needed to prempt treatment and reasoning behind such occurrences. Now some might say that in regards to technology benefiting or saving lives, this is bad due to a need of population control, it is important to look at this with regards to two spectrums. Firstly, from a moral stand point, who's ability is it to say that someone with an illness doesn't deserve atl east a chance to live? Technology ensures that those who are suffering have an equal chance to live compared with those who are not sick. Furthermore, we can now relate this to those in need of social services, maybe here or in other countries. Obviously Pascal didn't take the time to truly evaluate what to consider a harmful technology or he would have realized that things such as trains and boats are considered to be a technological development, ones in which he probably used at some point or another in order to have his ideas reviewed or published. In regards to social services, think about how someone would have proper access to medical supplies, food, or child care, if there weren't such things as technology. Look at Sub-Saharan Africa; the countries located in this "region" have little to no technologies to help support everyday life, and most areas located within this region are impoverished and over-flowing with deaths due to the inability to obtain proper nutrients or medical services. Because of a lack of medical supplies and health personnel, infant mortality and mother mortality rates are sky-rocketing. Deaths from AIDs and diseases like tuberculosis are also high. Only until maybe 7 years ago did impoverished nations actually cope with their issues, because countries like America brought them supplies and diagnosis abilities that only technology could have allowed them to reach. This is where a moralistic view becomes prominent. Is it right to allow people to die because they do not have even so much as to access to technological developments? No, this isn't right due to the fact services have been provided to them, because of technological capabilities. Secondly, it is important to realize that there is always alternative means in regard to population control such as famine, war or what can b considered fate. Although technology can be used to prevent such issues, it is also used to maintain proper population balance. Knowing that people are going to die, dispite of technology helping them, what does the amount of people who are helped matter, compared to those who are going to die anyway. This is a more extreme outlook on the situation, but holds true when certain things like fate can not be prevented. All in all, when Pascal says that technology cannot with hold happiness for those who use it, I find this assumption to be absurd. This statement doesn't make sense in a world where, yes, maybe little things such as our cell phone and computer infuriate us, but there are people out there who have been cured of things such as cancer due to technological advances. I am sorry to be so blunt about this situation but I know that someone who has been saved of dying, is going to be more happy than someone who rejected technology and is now dead. I am also sure, that if Pascal were to realize that he needed technology to spread the embrace of his ideas, he would reconsider the negativity that technology can bring. Also I am unsure of his reasoning behind such a statement, due to the fact, he is contradictive in regards to the basic assumption that he developed a technological machine to help his father's business, known to be one of the first actual calculators, and his dad was probably pretty happy to not have to do all hat tax mendin by hand any more.
By
Amber Konopka, at Mon Oct 11, 11:59:00 AM 2010
In chapter 8, Pascal argues that skepticism is absurd and that skeptics should give up on questioning and look to God for the solution.
On page 106 Pascal says,
"Nothing strengthens the case for scepticism more than the fact that there are people who are not sceptics. If they all were, they would all be wrong."
I disagree with Pascal on this topic. I think that it's important for people to question and reason in order to better understand things that they're not quite sure about. If we didn't question things we would be almost mindless, simply conforming to what everyone else believes instead of developing our own individual beliefs and ideas.
By
Jenna Murphy, at Sun Oct 24, 11:32:00 AM 2010
I would say that the book was helpful and interesting and should be used again, but only if you it used in the method that it was demonstrated this year. It is kind of a lot to handle and comprehend if we were to just read it on our own. Dividing up the chapters and assigning group work seemed very effective. If you wanted to assign each individual student to read this and perhaps write a critique on it, I think you should make it count for a rather large part of their grade and also to give them an extended period of time to do so, probably just as much as if it were our individual projects (papers).
By
OliviaAndersen, at Fri Dec 03, 04:16:00 PM 2010
Pascal argues "when you are looking our for Number One, you're going to step on some Number Two."(pg.147)
To me this arguement makes many good points. But there are many situations in life that number one is not looking out for number two. When someone enters the armed forces they are putting themselves in harms way for their country. They know going into combat that they are fighting for us and for our freedom. They are no longer looking out for themselves.
By
Emily Christian, at Tue Dec 14, 01:08:00 PM 2010
agree with Emily that "when you are looking out for number one, your going to step on number two".
To me, this argues the fact that you will do whatever it takes in order to get number one, even if that means hurting number two. Sometimes when your at the top, your there by yourself because you stepped on everyone else in order to get there.
By
Mike Turner, at Tue Dec 14, 07:34:00 PM 2010
Post a Comment
<< Home