favorite philosophers

[cantata]

Descartes is a good example. "I think, therefore I am" is a reasonable piece of philosophy (though incorrect).

I'd love to hear you expand on this.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

I feel that Descartes said some really cool things. When he said "I think therefore I am" I think if that as like his reality check, meaning he could be certain that he existed because his thoughts were so real to him. However he did worry that world was an illusion brought on by a powerful God, and I am sure I am not telling you anything you don't know, but I think it would be an honor to talk philosophy with someone from such a prestigious university.

I'll tell you where I went to school in a private message.

One of my favorite sayings is from Buddhism, Nano Amita A Butsu, There is a truth.

 

[Taure]

I'd love to hear you expand on this.

Descartes was inconsistent in his attempted rebuttal of skepticism, and guilty of contradiction.

I don't know how much you know about how he got to the conclusion "I think, therefore I am" so I'll assume you know nothing.

Basically, in his Meditations, Descartes adopted the skeptical position - that we can never know anything - in order to try to refute it.

This took 3 forms of increasing severity: the argument that our our sensations cannot be trusted, the argument that we are all dreaming, and the argument that an evil God (or Demon) is fooling us in every aspect of reality (like the Matrix).

He then goes on to say that even if all these things are true, we can still know one thing - our own existence. Even if all our thoughts and sensations are mistaken, we still have to exist in order to receive them.

Yes?

No.

In adopting the skeptical position, Descartes should also have abandoned logic, since the sceptical position is that we cannot know anything - logic included.

Once you do away with logic, the whole thing falls down.

Again, you postulate that our sensations are false, that we could all be dreaming, and that we could all be being fooled by some sort of Matrix-like structure.

But now we've done away with logic, the Cogito is no longer a refuge. Once you have no logic, then it's perfectly possible to have thoughts without a thinker, sensations without a sensor, and ideas without a mind. Everything becomes possible.

And so the Cogito breaks down.

This is just one argument against it - my favourite, as it uses Descartes own position against him.

You can also criticise the form of the argument by saying that Descartes contradicted himself. Let us set out the Cogito argument in very simple form:

Premise. There is a malicious demon that can fool me in every possible way - my sensations, thoughts and ideas can all be false.

Conclusion. Even if my every thought it false, there is one thing the demon cannot fool me about - that I exist in order to be the possessor of these thoughts.

Notice the bolded segments. In his argument, Descartes says that the Malicious demon can fool him in every way, yet his conclusion says that there is a way in which he cannot be fooled. Thus his conclusion goes against his premise, and the argument breaks down.

If he has a premise saying the demon can fool him in every possible way, then this includes that there needs to be a thinker for thoughts, and Descartes' argument becomes little more than a quirk of the fact that the English language needs a subject for a verb to act upon.

Indeed, Descartes' way of attempting to tackle scepticism by trying to find some foundation of knowledge was inherently flawed. It's far better to attack scepticism on its own turf - by showing the incohearance of the position - that the statement "We can know nothing" is a piece of knowledge in itself, and so the sceptic is contradicting himself by even trying to make his argument.

There are also a variety of handy arguments against each of the 3 sceptical arguments Descartes' constructed.

Let us look at each in turn.

1. Illusory Argument

Premise 1. Sometimes my sensations are shown to be false.
Conclusion. If some of my sensations are false, then its possible that all of them are false.

This can be criticised by attacking the form of the argument. Let's generalise the argument a bit, to see the form it takes:

1. Sometimes X can be false.
2. If sometimes X can be false, then its possible that X is always false.

If this is a legitimate argument form, it should be applicable to all situations. But this is not the case:

Premise. It is possible for some paintings to be forgeries.
Premise. If some paintings are forgeries, it's possible for all paintings to be forgeries.

Obviously, this is not true as in order for there to be forgeries, there must be something for it to be a forgery of.

So the argument from illusion is not logical, since the form of the argument is false.

2. Dreaming Argument

Basically, this argues that we could be dreaming all the time.

A simple rebuttal is that to have dreams, there must be a waking life, and so life cannot consist solely of dreams.

3. Demon argument

This just asks a "what if" question - what if a malicious demon were decieving me in every way?

The best answer to this one - and this works against all sceptical arguments - is: prove it. Simply pondering a "what if" is not an argument. In philosophy and science you need either reason or evidence to back up a claim - the burden of proof is on the sceptic to prove that there is such a demon, not on the normal person to prove that it isn't there.

If we were to accept all "what ifs" that we can't actively disprove, we'd accept everything. "

"What if there's a flying purple dragon in this room that you can see or feel or taste or smell? Prove that there isn't."

"What if there's a God in this room that you can't percieve? Prove that there isn't."

If we accept the "what if" argument, then all these become valid arguments. Obviously not the case.

Hope you enjoyed my little mini-essay on scepticism and Descartes lol, it turned out to be much longer than expected.

 

[us38]

Wittgenstein and Goedel.

 

[Taure]

Wittgenstein and Goedel.

Or rather, my Philosophy professor...

I never learnt specific philosophers so much as general arguments. Specific philosophers is next year lol

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

There is a problem with skepticism Taure, if it is true that we cannot have absolute objective knowledge about something or anything, then how can you be so sure of that? So it shoots its own self in the foot right at the first claim.

I believe somethings can be known absolutely 100% without a doubt. I tend to believe that, and some things are so far out in left field that I just rule them out all together, like being in the dream of a sleeping God, or that the universe just poped into existance five minutes ago. With logic, I am a firm believer that logic works, because it is a brute fact, it has to work, because contradictions cannot happen. So this has given me a new thought for a new thread about what I learned in my metaphysics class, and I hope we can debate in it, and have fun flexing our muscles, and perhaps, not feeling the need to be so dogmatic about skepticism. I believe I am a rationalist, but I am not familiar enough with the terms to be certain. I hope you will like my thread about the weather.

 

[cantata]

Descartes was inconsistent in his attempted rebuttal of skepticism, and guilty of contradiction.

I don't know how much you know about how he got to the conclusion "I think, therefore I am" so I'll assume you know nothing.

Basically, in his Meditations, Descartes adopted the skeptical position - that we can never know anything - in order to try to refute it.

This took 3 forms of increasing severity: the argument that our our sensations cannot be trusted, the argument that we are all dreaming, and the argument that an evil God (or Demon) is fooling us in every aspect of reality (like the Matrix).

He then goes on to say that even if all these things are true, we can still know one thing - our own existence. Even if all our thoughts and sensations are mistaken, we still have to exist in order to receive them?

Yes?

No.

In adopting the skeptical position, Descartes should also have abandoned logic, since the sceptical position is that we cannot know anything - logic included.

Sorry to make you go on! You could have stopped here, really I'm reasonably confident with Descartes; I was just interested to hear what your particular issue with the cogito is (since I've heard various responses and expositions).

How it actually functions as an argument is the most interesting question. I think you underestimate Descartes. He was quite aware that he couldn't assume that logic works. I think you make the error of thinking that the cogito functions as a simple syllogism:

Things that think, exist.
I think.
Therefore, I exist.
​

In reality I think that Descartes' argument is much cleverer than this. I am not sure that it is possible to reject the the cogito wholesale if you reject this interpretation of Descartes' argument. This is certainly not the most popular contemporary understanding of his position.

 

[Taure]

Sorry to make you go on! You could have stopped here, really

There were other arguments against it further down...keep reading lol.

How it actually functions as an argument is the most interesting question. I think you underestimate Descartes. He was quite aware that he couldn't assume that logic works. I think you make the error of thinking that the cogito functions as a simple syllogism:

Things that think, exist.
I think.
Therefore, I exist.
​

In reality I think that Descartes' argument is much cleverer than this.

You say this, but I don't see anything in the text to support it. Care to elaborate?

There is a problem with skepticism Taure, if it is true that we cannot have absolute objective knowledge about something or anything, then how can you be so sure of that? So it shoots its own self in the foot right at the first claim.

I believe somethings can be known absolutely 100% without a doubt. I tend to believe that, and some things are so far out in left field that I just rule them out all together, like being in the dream of a sleeping God, or that the universe just poped into existance five minutes ago. With logic, I am a firm believer that logic works, because it is a brute fact, it has to work, because contradictions cannot happen. So this has given me a new thought for a new thread about what I learned in my metaphysics class, and I hope we can debate in it, and have fun flexing our muscles, and perhaps, not feeling the need to be so dogmatic about skepticism. I believe I am a rationalist, but I am not familiar enough with the terms to be certain. I hope you will like my thread about the weather.

I did say this myself above...

Indeed, Descartes' way of attempting to tackle scepticism by trying to find some foundation of knowledge was inherently flawed. It's far better to attack scepticism on its own turf - by showing the incohearance of the position - that the statement "We can know nothing" is a piece of knowledge in itself, and so the sceptic is contradicting himself by even trying to make his argument.

 

[cantata]

There were other arguments against it further down...keep reading lol.
You say this, but I don't see anything in the text to support it. Care to elaborate?

Well, there's an exposition of it here, for example.

Philosophically it's extremely challenging. But I do think that you underestimate it. I would like to know how you think that the denial of logic can get you around the fact that it's impossible to doubt you exist if you are thinking about whether or not you do.

 

[Taure]

Philosophically it's extremely challenging. But I do think that you underestimate it. I would like to know how you think that the denial of logic can get you around the fact that it's impossible to doubt you exist if you are thinking about whether or not you do.

Because if you deny logic then you can have thoughts without thinkers. It may not even require the denial of logic for this to be the case. It may be true anyway.

It's very possible that there is no thinker here - just a series of electro-chemical signals firing around in a body that creates such an impression.

I should warn you that I hold a very reductionist and determinist outlook.

 

[cantata]

Because if you deny logic then you can have thoughts without thinkers. It may not even require the denial of logic for this to be the case. It may be true anyway.

It's very possible that there is no thinker here - just a series of electro-chemical signals firing around in a body that creates such an impression.

I should warn you that I hold a very reductionist and determinist outlook.

What is a series of electro-chemical signals, if not an thinking thing? Aren't you just redefining 'I' so that you don't have to talk about selves?

 

[Taure]

I'm using Descartes' "I" - more than just a collection of thoughts, but in fact a non-physical entity, separate from the body altogether - the soul.

 

[cantata]

I'm using Descartes' "I" - more than just a collection of thoughts, but in fact a non-physical entity, separate from the body altogether - the soul.

Well hang on, that's hardly fair. The reasoning he uses to get to his essence as a thinking thing comes much later in his argument.

All he needs to prove with the cogito is that he - a thing that thinks - exists.

 

[quatona]

There is a problem with skepticism Taure, if it is true that we cannot have absolute objective knowledge about something or anything, then how can you be so sure of that?

Well, I can not even be sure of that. So where´s the problem?

So it shoots its own self in the foot right at the first claim.

To me it seems that´s a problem of limitations of language rather than a true paradox.

 

[quatona]

What is a series of electro-chemical signals, if not an thinking thing?

I´d consider a sereis of electro-chemical signals a process rather than a thing.
The problem with the "cogito", in my opinion, is that the conclusion that there is an "I" (a thing) that performs those signals remains nothing but his preconceived assumption.

Aren't you just redefining 'I' so that you don't have to talk about selves?

I think it´s more like Descartes defines an "I" into existence without explaining what that´s actually supposed to be.

 

[Taure]

Well hang on, that's hardly fair. The reasoning he uses to get to his essence as a thinking thing comes much later in his argument.

All he needs to prove with the cogito is that he - a thing that thinks - exists.

But if we don't use Descartes' version of "I" and instead use mine - a collection of thoughts - then the argument breaks down. Descartes' argument needs his definition of "I" to work, for if you use mine then all the Cogito proves is that "there are thoughts, and we can name these thoughts thinking if we so wish".

This is opposed to proving that there is anything that is additional to the thoughts themselves - Descartes' "I". Descartes is trying to prove the existence of not just thoughts, but of something additional to those thoughts that possesses them - the thinker.

If you accept that thoughts can exist without anything possessing them, even if you label this group of thoughts the "I" for the sake of convenience, you have still failed to prove a thinker external to the thoughts using Descartes' argument. Just a group of thoughts that creates the illusion of a thinker.

 

[quatona]

All he needs to prove with the cogito is that he - a thing that thinks - exists.

Yes, but as far as I can see he didn´t do it. He simply asserted it as a premise.
Without anticipating the result he desires (i.e. merely begging the question) the sentence wouldn´t be "I think therefore I am", but "There are thoughts".

 

[cantata]

Do not thoughts by definition have to be perceived?

There is something profoundly different about stating that there are some thoughts in existence and stating that your self is experiencing some of them. I'm not sure you can call anything a thought at all if there is nothing thinking it.

 

[quatona]

Do not thoughts by definition have to be perceived?

If we work from this definition of "thoughts" Descartes has yet to show that what he is talking about are thoughts. As it stands, he has merely defined them into existence.
His argument wouldn´t have any more merits than saying "I can raise my arm, therefore I exist."

There is something profoundly different about stating that there are some thoughts in existence and stating that your self is experiencing some of them.

Yes. For stating that there is a self that experiences something you would have to show that there is such a thing as a self experiencing something. Descartes simply asserts as a premise that which he pretends to conclude.

I'm not sure you can call anything a thought at all if there is nothing thinking it.

Fine with me. Now I would expect Descartes to demonstrate that these are thoughts, instead of saying there is a self because there is something that requires a self. In order for his argument to have merits, he would have to show that that which he is talking about are "thoughts" (in the definition you want us to work from).

 

[Received]

Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Frankl, Tillich, Camus, Chomsky

Logic really isn't something to be known -- not in the usual sense that knowledge is understood. Logic is hard-wired; it's intuitive. You can't pick up logic; it doesn't exist "out there" as a stimulus that can be assimilated into knowledge. Rules of logic can -- but these only unveil the already present; they knock the rust from the machine.