Posted on 11/04/2002 7:52:21 AM PST by thinktwice
Descartes was a geometrician. He found only in mathematics and geometry the certainty that he required. Therefore, he used the methods of geometry to think about the world. Now, in geometry, one begins with a search for axioms, simple undeniable truths – for example, the axiom that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. On the foundations of such “self-evident” propositions, whole geometrical systems can be built.
Following his geometrical model, Descartes proceeds to doubt everything – de onmibus dubitandum. He will suspend belief in the knowledge he learned from childhood, all those things “which I allowed myself in youth to be persuaded without having inquired into their truth.” Doubt will be his method, a deliberate strategy for proceeding toward certainty. (Descartes is a doubter not by nature, but by necessity. What he really wants is secure understanding so he can stop doubting.)
Descartes finds that he has no trouble doubting the existence of real objects/events – our senses too easily deceive us. And we can doubt the existence of a supernatural realm of reality – figments and fantasies are too often conjured by our native imaginations. But now his geometrical model pays off: in trying to doubt everything, he discovers something that he can’t doubt. What he can’t doubt is that he is doubting. Obviously, I exist if I doubt that I exist. My doubt that I exist proves that I exist, for I have to exist to be able to doubt. Therefore I can’t doubt that I exist. Hence, there is at least one fact in the universe that is beyond doubt. “I am, I exist is necessarily true each time that I pronounce it, or that I mentally conceive it.
Descartes thus becomes the author of the most famous phrase in Western philosophy: Cognito ergo sum, or, in his original French, Je pense, donc je suis. – I think, therefore I exist. With roots in St. Augustine, this is certainly one of the catchiest ideas yet created by the human mind.
c. thank for the link, should be a good read. Yes. in addition to trying to avoid the subject of death, God is also ignored. The idea of a Person who has predetermined what is up and what is down, especially morally, is repulsive to one who would assert self over all.
If you say this is what the question was, it's new to me.
Define 'existence' and then define 'reason' and then tell me if they share inclusively common terms.
If they don't then the equation doesn't work. In other words, if 'reason' is dependent upon existence as an Axiom, as a premise for reason, then they can't be 'equal' can they?
Then I have repaid thee for the ping. As common a fallacy you will never find as this one. It is the father of the thousand camels in the camel yard, as the Arabs used to say.
You have never heard of it because it is used to bury a plethora of philosophical skeletons in countless metaphysical dead end closets. Once revealed it can bump in the night no more.
eudaemonism - sent me diving for my dictionary, but there is a check mark by the root, so I've been there, so hard to keep all these obscure definitions in use.
How far we are from such a concept. How abstract - an emotion generated from right actions taken. A depth of thought rarely conceived of today.
With reference to post 300, The problem in the above statement lies in the fact that you are reifying the concept "truth"; you've assumed that truth is a material object and - in so doing -- you've implied that truth forgotten is no longer truth.
I think I thunk a thought I think, therefore a thought I thunk I think I am.
When the damned things pop up into our perception, at many varied places over time, because they felt like it and as fallen angels they were originally created by God with independent volition. Go attempt to explain physical phenomenon such as a chest of drawers moving on its own across the floor or knickknacks being tossed about without proximate cause. Rare events, but nonetheless very obviously discernible when they occur.
My statement is easily misunderstood. Obviously we are rewarded for good works after salvation. The point made is that if one gambles to remain unrepentant for most of their life before the first death, and only repent later in life, they afforded less time to remian obedient and failed to take advantage of past lost opportunites to work within His will.
Since we have volition, we can compare how a possible world may have arisen had we remianed obedient to Him rather than fallen away. The former is always preferable. Sa;vation is independent of our good works, but our rewards in heaven will be based upon our evidence and good work. Thank You Lord.
What is factuallly obvious, is that those on earth guaranteeing salvation are rewarded by followers before salvation.
You've missed the point in my question. Let's start again with just one question. When did the concept "demon" originate in history?
I'd guess that the mental state associated with "demonic possesion" has been with mankind for countless milleniums, but when did that state become associated with the devil?
The Devil -- there's another concept that must have some history, too. The Bible, perhaps?
Umm. . . The Koran, perhaps?
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.