Emily Burch

Andrew Israelson
Philosophy 1000
May 1, 2017
Eportfolio
My favorite readings in philosophy 1000 were the first two canvas readings, the
Xenophanes fragments, and the Parmenides poem. The thing that I really enjoyed about these
pieces of writing was the negative remarks aimed at the current belief systems. I did not enjoy
them because they remarked against the belief in god; Parmenides criticizes the belief in what
seems most obvious, not necessarily god. What I enjoyed was the way that they criticized.
Xenophanes took a direct stance against god, but he also aimed his critique at the customs
of the time. I enjoyed his voice and writing, although brief. His simile of cows and their gods
looking like cows was an amusing way of making the point that he had seen the world and the
gods of each region reflected the image of the people who worshiped particular gods. I enjoy
poetry so long as I do not feel that it is stale and lifeless. Xenophanes jokes brought life to his
poetry, and Parmenides imagery brought life to his.
Parmenides may have been confusing and required more analysis to understand, but it
was interesting and that made it easy to reread. I did not comprehend the poem the first time I
read it, and had to read it a few more times before I began to understand. The message was
worth the effort. Parmenides statement that the world should not just be taken as is was
agreeable to me. I took it differently than Parmenides meant it, but that is what I like most about
poetry; it is open to interpretation. The overall tone of the poem had a similar feel to the
Xenophanes fragments. I enjoyed their mocking of popular beliefs; it was not overbearing, but
more of a jest. The poems felt light hearted to me, and that made them enjoyable, I did not
however enjoy Descartes.
Descartes was not enjoyable to me, as his writing was the opposite of Xenophanes and
Parmenides. The writing was dry, and it was difficult for me to focus on his message. While I
do applaud his attempt to attain mathematical certainty through pure thought, it was mostly a
failure. He doubted his senses, and while the senses can be deceptive, to me it makes no sense to
truly doubt them. No, Descartes did not really doubt his senses, but that just makes his
meditations appear to be a mind game. Even if the senses are not real, I still have to use them to
decide where I am, and what I need. He had hoped to attain certainty by proving the foundation
for his knowledge sound, but he made his argument seem meaningless. While I wonder if
Descartes was completely sane, I do think that the cogito was masterfully done.
Descartes did achieve what he sought to do; he proved existence through pure thought.
He just failed to prove what he sought to prove. The cogito is a solid argument which I doubt
will ever be disproven. What really made me dislike Descartes was the huge jump he made from
the cogito to the existence of god. It was not his attempt to prove god that made me dislike
Descartes so much, it was his poor argument. The jump from I am a thinking thing to god must
exist because I as a thinking thing could not have come up with god myself seems contradictory,
and he is barrowing from Anslem. The real issue for me here is that he had made such a great
argument from a poor standpoint, and then he moved on when he wasnt ready to. Descartes was
a disappointment to me, and part of the reason I have decided not to continue with philosophy.
While I do like philosophy, it is not for me. The way that many of the philosophers
discussed in class have used rhetoric to make their points was maddening. Rhetoric has its place,
and is a tool that needs to be refined and used. The way that philosophers have set out to prove a
point through thinking and rhetoric, and not to come to an unbiased conclusion about reality,
makes it hard for me to take their arguments seriously. I know they are trying to influence me
into their own bias beliefs, and because of that I resist.