Frankenstein, 1931 dir. James Whale

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcJwt8XB4M

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, 1994, dir. Kenneth Branagh

Watch these two clips and in a 250-word comment below, reflect on the portrayals of the Creature’s birth and how they differ from Shelley’s description in the novel. What do the films retain or change, and how does it affect your understanding of the scene?

Reading Descarte’s ‘Cogito Ergo Sum’ theory (‘I am thinking, therefore I exist’) seems to me to be a very simple concept which also leads me into thinking Descarte has over thought his own theory. He is explaining that those who are able to think for themselves exist as beings which I agree with however it seems throughout reading his writing he goes deeper into the process of our thoughts and where our idea’s come from, this is where I believe he has become lost in his own thoughts. Clearly Descarte believes in a God which he brings up multiple times in his writing to make a comparison between ourselves and perfection (God), but reading his writing seems as though he is trying to join the ideas existing based on the simple fact that one is able to think with the concept that your existence is weighed based on your knowledge from person to person.

Although I disagree with the continuation to his theory on existence and what it takes to be perfect, I like that he is questioning perfection which he later realizes does not exist unless of course you are God “Thus I saw that God could not have doubt, inconstancy, sadness and the like, since I myself would have been very glad to be free from them, ·which shows that they are imperfections” because everyone experiences uncertainty and sadness which were the few human attributes he mentions to be signs of imperfection. As we all know there will always be someone smarter than you, just because this is not true does not make us any less of a person than they are.

Descartes proved the existence of God and the human soul on part 4 of his Discourse on the Method. I would like to accentuate some ideas that I got from reading it:1. one’s mere act of thinking proves one’s own existence, that is, the existence of one’s soul ; 2. “god” is what he uses to represent perfection  3. he thinks his ability to think of his own imperfection, and the ability to think of something that is more perfect than he is,  have to come from something that is more perfect than he is 4. he tries to find the truth by doubting everything first  5. existence is part of perfection 6. he values “reasoning,” and believe that we should only believe our reasoning

I think the idea of Cogito Ergo Sum is quite edifying. I remember when I was young, I had this thought:  How do we know we are not controlled by a giant computer, and everything that we do is preprogrammed? Descartes thinks that ” If I am thinking, therefore I exist.” There could be some variations of this, that can prove this to be true: base on “If I am thinking, therefore I exist,” If I am not thinking, then my existence is in question; on the contrary, if I exist, then I can choose to think or not to think; If I don’t exist, then I can’t be thinking. It’s complex.

As for the existence of god, I do have a few questions in mind after reading this piece. Suppose we are created by a perfect being, “god,” if “god” is so perfect, why did it have to create us? If “god” is perfect, shouldn’t all of its creations be perfect too?

I am so confused.

But at least I know I exist.

Fanliang Cen

In section 4 of Descartes “Discourse on Method” we are introduced to the idea that “I am thinking, therefore I exist” (15). As I try to comprehend the complexness of the text religion keeps coming to mind. The “I am thinking…” part of the idea seems to relate to how we are always questioning and doubting our fundamental ideals. This can relate to many things such as religion, social structure. Much of the religion we see in the US deals with the idea relating to why we exist, and our purpose in this life. So the “I am thinking..” is most probably relating to this idea we have in religion. The “…therefore I exist” most likely pertains to to the idea that the reason we think is to constantly dought ourselves and to judge what is right from what is wrong. This is my thought on this idea, despite possibly being completely off from what Descartes intentions where.

Part 4 Descartes’ Discourse on the Method is a fascinating read about his take on the famous line “I am thinking, therefore I exist” (Descartes 15). I completely agree when Descartes says “intellectual nature is distinct from bodily nature” because he gives to the notion that although someone is alive, they may not be free of imperfections (Descartes 16). Generally, as people age, it is expected that they gain and learn from a number of experiences which, in turn, make them better people. However, there are many older people who have simply not experienced as much, and therefore do not have the same experiences. Likewise, there are very young people who have experienced a great deal of happenings, which make them seem more intelligent. In addition, everyone gains different experiences as they age, which make them more intellectual. Regardless of how similar two people seem, they will never be them same people because they experience different things and see the world in a different light.

When Descartes says that many people “never raise their minds above things that can be perceived by the senses” (Descartes 17), I think of the material world in which we live in today, and the notion of old money and new money. There are individuals who believe that in order to show success in life and be happy, they must have material possessions to show their high status. These material possessions therefore define who they are. In contrast, those with an old money lifestyle do not flaunt material possessions, and often believe that simply doing good for society and contributing to make the world a better place is more than enough to define themselves. As such, many believe that if they cannot see something material or tangible, it must not be real, and that a person (i.e. one from an old money family) does not reveal material possessions, they must not have money – even if they do.

I thought that part 4 of Descartes’ writing “Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting one’s Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences” was quite interesting. In particular I believed that his breakdown and analysis of his quote “I am thinking, therefore I exist” was quite stimulating to the mind in a way that it is a method of thinking that I do not usually pursue. The way that I could further expand on this saying would be that because you are having thoughts you are a living being and are analyzing your surroundings, therefore you are existing. In addition it is basically saying that if you are not thinking or do not have thoughts about your existence then you are not living (existing). It is essentially your thoughts that keep you thinking that you exist in society. If you did not have any thought on things going on in your life, did they even happen?, were you even there?, or is it something that is just made up in your nonexistence. Descartes uses the word “nothingness” to describe where his thoughts potentially could come from. This would be an example of nonexistence. As stated earlier, if you can not pinpoint your thoughts as coming from a real thing in life, are you existing? One more thing that I wanted to bring up before finishing this post was how Descartes talks about peoples inability to believe things that they can not see with their own eyes. He uses god as an example. Many people in this world do not believe in God because God is not existing. He says that senses are the only thing that makes people believe and understand their existence. I find this quite interesting because as I was reading this, I tried to think of other things that have a trend of societal disbelief and all I could think of were things that people have never seen, smelled, heard, tasted, or felt.

When I originally heard the phrase, “I am thinking, therefore I exist” (15), I heard it as a variation, which was “I think, therefore I am.” I’ve always understood that phrase as an expression of how our mentality can effect our physically presence. Such as “I think positive thoughts, therefore I am positive.” Or vise versa with negative thoughts. However, after reading this in its original context, it doesn’t quite match up to how I originally thought it to be. Descartes meant it to be a statement of truth, referring to the fact that he himself must exist because of his ability to reflect on his own doubt. It is almost an existential reassurance that if anything in this world is true it is that we ourselves exist. Its strange to now know the true contextual meaning of that phrase, although it is still quite an interesting concept.

Descartes also makes some other interesting statements, such as “People with the strongest reasoning and the most skill at ordering their thoughts so as to make them clear and intelligible are always the most persuasive, even if they speak only a provincial dialect and never learned rhetoric,” (3). As soon as I read that statement it brought a few people to mind whom I felt fit that description. People I know who have a natural talent for communication. I never gave much thought as to why they seemed to be so good at communicating, but as Descartes points out, it is their ability to have a command over their own thoughts and expression of them. At many points during this Discourse, Descartes reflects on the qualities of various persons, including the influence of nurture (one’s environment) on humans. He states that, “Someone who has been brought up from infancy among the French or Germans developed something different from what he would have been if he- the same man, with the same mind- had always lived among the Chinese or among cannibals,” (7). The effect of our upbringing on our beliefs and values is a well known idea. In order for him to try to assess the truths he wants to validate, he acknowledges that what he knows is often an effect of where he has lived and been brought up.

However, one of the ideas in Descartes writing seems hard for me to fully accept. It is where Descartes begins to talk about the differences between humans and beasts, as in the difference of reason and soul. A few points that he made seem to discredit a lot of what we now know about certain animals, including the ability to be self aware as well as problem solve on an extraordinary level. Crows are one of those animals. And there are many other animals, such as gorillas, whom are able to communicate through the use of sign language. It may just very well be that we as humans were able to develop our reasoning and culture purely through evolutionary luck, and there may be the possibility that if other animals had our luck that they too could have developed the complex culture and reasoning that we have. However, I do see his reasoning behind the statement even though I think it could require some updating.

As humans, we are empowered with five senses- to feel, hear, see, touch and taste. Along with these five senses, we are the only beings on earth with the power of thought, contemplation and self-reflection. We can give thought to anything and we have the autonomy to question anything. With the awareness of this, Descartes builds on his distinguished phrase, “I think, therefore I am” in his book Discourse on the Method. Descartes chooses to dispose of all his sensory knowledge because he claims that our senses can be deceitful. Instead, he concludes that all of our thoughts and imaginations are of greater significance because they are what connects our mind to the external world. The fact that we are capable of thought is what authenticates our existence. Descartes states, “For reason doesn’t insist that what we thus •see or •imagine is true. But it does insist that all our ideas or notions must have some foundation of truth…” (18) Through this, Descartes establishes that if we are able to reflect on an idea, then that idea must have some truth in it, otherwise we would not be capable of giving it thought. This does not mean that everything we think is undoubtedly true, it just means that there must be some truth within.

Towards the end of the reading, Descartes compares the existence of God to that of geometric proof, which is something that perplexed me. Religion has always played a powerful role in my life and never before have I thought of the existence of God as something even remotely similar to geometric proof. I feel as though the belief in the existence of God can only be achieved spiritually and through devotion. In a similar way, he describes God as a “perfect” being with no imperfections. However, as we all understand as humans, it is ultimately impossible to be perfect and we all have our equal share of flaws that make us who we are.

After reading this piece I wondered who this writer was and I found that he was a philosopher, mathematician and scientist. The idea of “Cogito Ergo Sum” in  Discourse on the Method is one of his most well-known pieces.  Discourse on the Method by Rene Descartes is a pieces separated into six sections. On this piece we are focused on part four. The whole piece is about Descartes’ reasoning on problems he is trying to prove. In part four he suggests the idea “Cogito Ergo Sum” which means, “I am thinking, therefore I exist.” Then he goes on to explain why this is true. At first thought I believe this idea is true because it makes sense.  As I continue to read, Descartes has convinced me that this idea of “Cogito Ergo Sum” is definitely true.

On Page 16 he states that “I decided to pretend that everything that had ever entered my mind was no more true than the illusions of my dreams.”  Then he goes on to say that “I saw on the contrary that from the mere fact that I thought about doubting the truth of other things, it followed quite evidently and certainly that I existed.” So he tried to convince himself that he what he had thought was false, but this only led him to believe even more that he existed. Then he states “I reflected on the fact that I was doubting, and that consequently I wasn’t wholly perfect” this causes him  to contemplate on a being that is more perfect then himself and concludes that god must exist. Furthermore he continues his thoughts on the idea of god and proposes that god the good reason good things exist.

I was quite interesting that he compared a geometric proof to his proof of god’s existence. The proof is as follows “the idea I had of a perfect being, I found that this idea of a perfect being included existence in the same way as—or even more evidently than— the idea of a triangle includes the equality of its three angles to two right angles or the idea of a sphere includes the equidistance from the centre of all the points on the surface. Thus I concluded that the existence of this perfect being, God, is at least as certain as any geometrical proof.” In his conclusion he draws that “•God exists and •is a perfect being, and because •everything in us comes from him.”  I think it is amazing how he is able to take us through his thought process. I was almost as if I was there when he came up with this proof.

Sandy Cheng

In “Discourse on Method” Descartes proves he exists by coming to the conclusion of “cogito ergo sum” which means “I think, therefore i am.” He uses a method of doubt by denying anything that is not 100% certain or that can be doubted at all. One of the first things he calls into question is the ability to discover truths through the senses. He arrives to the conclusion that he cannot trust the senses since they sometimes deceive him. I could be jumping off of a plane ski-diving and really believe that  that’s what I doing at the moment because I can see it and i can feel it, while in reality I’m laying in my bed with just my underwear on snoring like a motorcycle engine. There is a lesson to be learned out of this, and important to realize that even if we think we think something is true our senses could be deceiving us. This is not only important to know to distinguish between dreams and awakeness but also important in our day to day lives of dealing and interacting with people. Many times our senses might tell us something about a person that will lead us to judge them in a certain way and follow itself by a list of assumptions about that person, meanwhile whatever we are thinking and assuming about that person can be far from the truth. When it comes to judging people we should use a similar method that Descartes uses and give the benefit of the doubt. With this method we will sooner or later realize that some of the things we originally thought about that person were false.