Nature Essay Research Paper Descartes explains in

Nature Essay, Research Paper

Descartes explains in nature that he exits by having such qualities and abilities to see, touch, taste and smell. Although existing in nature includes being able to walk, have perception and thinking, Descartes believes that he is a thinking thing. (Thinking includes understanding and reason).

But what is a thinking thing. It is a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses that imagines also, and perceives. Assuredly it is not little, if all these properties belong to my nature. (Popkin)

Descartes realizes that with all of these attributes, he is a human and a thinking thing yet when he observes the lump of wax and observes the transformations that it undergoes, he questions the principles that he developed. At first the lump of wax is, or appears to be, hard and cold with a sweet odor that can be held and a sound is created when tapped upon. But when held to a flame, it changes dramatically from its once distinct shape. The smell that once lingered disappears, the size increases and a totally different figure is formed. The object is also not in any condition to be handled any longer. By conducting this experiment, Descartes concludes that even though the piece of wax lost its shape and some of it s features, it was still the same piece of wax.

Assuredly, it could be nothing of all that I observed by means of senses, since all things fell under taste, smell, sight, touch, and hearing are changed, and yet the same piece of wax remains. (Popkin)

By observing the wax it is apparent that although it lost its shape and senses it was still the same exact piece that it was before it transformed due to the heat. Perception is not just the ideas of sight or touch, but something more deeply than that. Therefor in regards to judging people or anything for that matter, it is foolish to judge

them based solely on sight or external observation. Descartes explains how just by listening to someone or observing their actions formed no grounds for criticism or stereotyping. A person displaying a bad attitude or speaking in a vulgar language does not necessarily classify anybody into any kind of negative category. Through observing the lump of wax, it at one time seemed one dimensional with certain characteristics that accompanied it yet, it ended up changing into almost the exact opposite of what Descartes had first perceived.

Because Descartes exists and has senses, he touches the wax and he feels it, therefor he exists and the more that he observes about the wax the more he learns and knows about himself.

So, likewise if I judge that the wax exists because I touch it, it will still also follow that I am; and if I determine that my imagination, or any other cause, whatever it may be, persuades me of the existence of the wax, I will still draw the same conclusion. (Popkin)

Descartes notices that the lump of wax is still the same object; it only changed slightly and enlarged. All objects are here for a reason, fulfilling a purpose. They are seen and touched but not always understood. Descartes looks deeper into the actual item and tries not to judge it based solely on first perception. Material things come in a variety of shapes and sizes and many different possibilities.

The Aristotelian view of science was derived from Aristotle s conception that scientific knowledge should serve as basis for providing explanations of why or how something is the case by starting from the nature of the things evolved. Aristotelians didn t think that finding the general physical principles concerning change and its causes was the main goal for science. Bacon, on the other hand, differed in his arguments against them. He blames Aristotelians for going straight from observation to first principles.

No general principles could be known a priori but must all be deduced by a procedure of successive generalism from experimental investigations and observations. (Parkinson)

The actual goal of science is to discover the most general principles structuring the world. Only then can we get the full account of forms of things. Aristotelian science said that they could only learn from observation of naturally occurring things and items such as artifacts do not contribute to the understanding of nature. Bacon, on the other hand, argues that the route of scientific knowledge could not be simply an observation of nature taking its course, but instead a mandatory intervention that could come from any kind of device. With these apparatuses, experiments are conducted and that is how you get to the bottom of it all. The two opinions differ in that while Bacon includes such things as heat, whiteness, and brittleness as forms of nature, the Aristotelians defined those things as qualities. Bacon s theory tends to make the most sense. Basically, in

order to understand the world and the nature of the world, many steps are required to fully understand reasons for occurrences in nature.

In religious language, three alternatives are questioned. Is our language expressed about God entirely the same as he is. Is it entirely different the way that he is. Or is it similar. Aquinas opted for the third choice for many reasons. He believed that we spoke a religious language, which is the same as God, the belief that analogy is the only adequate answer. He says that analogous re