Rene Descartes?

[graciesings]

Anyone ever read any Rene Descartes? I'm reading "Meditations on First Philosophy" for a literature class.

What did you think? Any ideas? What stood out to you? Where does/doesn't his position fit with the Bible? (Yes, jokes about his "I think, therefore I am" statement are welcome here.)

God bless you,
Grace

 

[Paradoxum]

I did a Philosophy degree, and ended up reading Descartes two or three times.

I think a main objection to his argument is that thinking (or doubting) doesn't prove that you are doing the thinking... only that you are experiencing thought. ie: Your thoughts could be being given to you by the omni-potent demon, and you are merely a receiver.

Nietzsche may have said something along the lines of the above counter-argument, but I can't remember where he said it.

In terms of literature... it's quite interesting that he writes it as if he is doing the meditations at the time, and as if it is spread out over multiple days. I suppose the point is that you could follow along too and do the same.

I do find Descartes quite interesting, though I disagree with him.

 

[durangodawood]

The lame thing about the cogito is that Descartes doesnt reason toward existence. Nooo. He begins with it. Check it out:

I think therefore.....

Yep. Existence, the "I" is the starting point for the cogito. not the end point.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Anyone ever read any Rene Descartes? I'm reading "Meditations on First Philosophy" for a literature class.

What did you think? Any ideas? What stood out to you?

I read the Meditations for a philosophy class way back when.

I appreciate the cogito, but I think if you're really going to be a radical skeptic, that's as far as you can get. I exist. But I could be a brain in a vat or (contra Descartes) deceived by demons. The rest of the philosophy he develops, and the way he develops it, is interesting, but I think most of it is on shaky foundations.

Historically, I think it's interesting that the church fathers weren't very supportive of Descartes. Although he 'proves' God's existence, I think the feeling was that he was trying to set philosophy above theology. And they didn't like that.

 

[poolerboy0077]

The lame thing about the cogito is that Descartes doesnt reason toward existence. Nooo. He begins with it. Check it out:

I think therefore.....

Yep. Existence, the "I" is the starting point for the cogito. not the end point.

So it's question-begging by assuming the conclusion in the premise.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Personally, I think that Augustine's reply was better:

"If I am mistaken, I am."

Meaning basically that if you are told that you could be mistaken about your existence, you still exist to be mistaken.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

I think a main objection to his argument is that thinking (or doubting) doesn't prove that you are doing the thinking... only that you are experiencing thought. ie: Your thoughts could be being given to you by the omni-potent demon, and you are merely a receiver.

That doesn't actually disprove cogito, unless you take the "I think" part as an implied claim that you are in full control of your thinking. I've only ever heard it explained that it refers to your mind essentially being a vessel for the thoughts and so there is something associated with "you" that exists, even if it's being controlled by someone else.

(unless Descartes explicitly said otherwise when he expounded on his argument, of course)

That's the problem with short, snappy statements - nitpickers will come along to RUIN EVERYTHING

 

[Resha Caner]

That's the problem with short, snappy statements - nitpickers will come along to RUIN EVERYTHING

Yep. I sometimes wonder if people pick at Descartes just to make themselves feel smart. Regardless of whether his system was flawless, his impact was huge.

I still think cogito is a brilliant statement despite how people try to detract from it.

With that said, I agree his argument gets weaker and weaker as it proceeds. Maybe his main benefit is to stake out one end of the spectrum (a belief that God can be rationally proven) while Kierkegaard stakes out the other end (the leap of faith). I fall between those two extremes.

I also think Descartes' larger importance is some of his ideas for the metaphysics that underlie physics. Again, he strikes a good contrast with Newton, Leibniz, etc.

 

[Gadarene]

Yep. I sometimes wonder if people pick at Descartes just to make themselves feel smart. Regardless of whether his system was flawless, his impact was huge.

I still think cogito is a brilliant statement despite how people try to detract from it.

I don't know why people might object to it. I wouldn't particularly call it a circular argument, it just depends on what exactly one means by "I" and "think".

It has a pretty special place in my library of ideas, for the simple reason that it appears to demonstrate something to be absolutely true - one of the few things that can. Ok, I'm still basically stuck with solipsism, but it's rather amazing nonetheless.

With that said, I agree his argument gets weaker and weaker as it proceeds. Maybe his main benefit is to stake out one end of the spectrum (a belief that God can be rationally proven) while Kierkegaard stakes out the other end (the leap of faith). I fall between those two extremes.

I also think Descartes' larger importance is some of his ideas for the metaphysics that underlie physics. Again, he strikes a good contrast with Newton, Leibniz, etc.

I'm not really too familiar with the wider context and why he was arguing cogito, though I think I do have one of his books somewhere....

 

[Paradoxum]

That doesn't actually disprove cogito, unless you take the "I think" part as an implied claim that you are in full control of your thinking. I've only ever heard it explained that it refers to your mind essentially being a vessel for the thoughts and so there is something associated with "you" that exists, even if it's being controlled by someone else.

(unless Descartes explicitly said otherwise when he expounded on his argument, of course)

That's the problem with short, snappy statements - nitpickers will come along to RUIN EVERYTHING

It depends if you think he means that he is the thing that produces his thought. I haven't read it in a while so I can't remember.

I did start reading Meditation Two to try to figure it out, but I realised I'd have to properly read it, rather than skim it, to figure it out, and I'm too lazy for that right now.

 

[Gadarene]

It depends if you think he means that he is the thing that produces his thought. I haven't read it in a while so I can't remember. I did start reading Meditation Two to try to figure it out, but I realised I'd have to properly read it, rather than skim it, to figure it out, and I'm too lazy for that right now.

Cogito ergo cba?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

That doesn't actually disprove cogito, unless you take the "I think" part as an implied claim that you are in full control of your thinking. I've only ever heard it explained that it refers to your mind essentially being a vessel for the thoughts and so there is something associated with "you" that exists, even if it's being controlled by someone else.

(unless Descartes explicitly said otherwise when he expounded on his argument, of course)

That's the problem with short, snappy statements - nitpickers will come along to RUIN EVERYTHING

I see your point Gadarene. Good observation.