Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"I think, therefore I exist" -- Rene Descartes
Philosophy, An introduction to the Art of Wondering - Sixth Edition -- pages 36/37 | 1994 | James L. Christian

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: descartes; existence; inconsequentiality; maudlinmumbling; myheadhurts; philosophy; proof; renedescartes; startthebombing; winecuresthis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-451 next last
To: LogicWings
I love to go out on a pier and look at the waves as they travel into the shore. Try and wrap your mind around what is happening there and you will see that there is an element to reality that is 'non-material' that passes through us every moment of every day.

"Diamonds are found only in the dark bowels of the earth; truths are found only in the depths of thought." -- Victor Hugo, Les Miserables, Signet Classic, page 231

421 posted on 02/12/2003 7:58:46 AM PST by thinktwice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: TX Bluebonnet
"I stink. therefore I am!"

I think you have hit upon every Frenchman's philosophical set-piece.
422 posted on 02/12/2003 8:21:10 AM PST by Dionysius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dionysius; TX Bluebonnet
"I stink. therefore I am!"
I think you have hit upon every Frenchman's philosophical set-piece.



Pepe Le Pew

"I stink; zerefore, I am!"

423 posted on 02/12/2003 8:33:41 AM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan; thinktwice; LogicWings
This is nominalism or subjectivism, not realism.

What a philosopher means by realism is the opposite of what everyone else means by realism. The philosopher who styles himself a realist believes universals have real metaphysical existence independent of particulars. In other words, a philosophical realist believes a red (redness) and ball (ballness) in a red ball exist independently of any red balls, and that red balls can only exist if real universal redness and real universal ballness somehow come together to be red balls which are then called a particulars.

Normal people believe red (redness) and ball (ballness) do not exist if there are no red balls, and that it is red balls that have real metaphysical existense, and their color and shape only exist as characteristics of the red balls. Normal people are are called "nominalists" by philosophical realists. Philosophical realists are called jerks by normal people, and the normal people are right.

Hank

424 posted on 02/12/2003 9:35:28 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

UNIVERSALS
425 posted on 02/12/2003 12:25:09 PM PST by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Most people are wrong about most things most of the time.

Er, can your generalization be applied to itself?
426 posted on 02/12/2003 12:33:34 PM PST by NukeMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
Most people are wrong about most things most of the time.

Er, can your generalization be applied to itself?

It's not a generalization. It doesn't say all, but most...most...most.

Secondly, it is factual. On all issues that people themselves consider important, the majority is always wrong. For examples, religion and politics. Since no group maintains a clear majority on any religious or political view, either everyone is wrong about these things, or, if any are right, all the rest, that is, the majority are wrong.

Hank

427 posted on 02/12/2003 12:46:49 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
UNIVERSALS

I've been responding to your posts as though you had some serious intellectual interest either in discovering how reality and existence can be understood or in trying to convince me that the superstitious views of the Schoolmen neverthless contained some truth.

If the latter is your object, you cannot convince me, because I am thoroughly familiar with the teaching and have seen through it completely. Certainly you are not going to convince my by linking to sources less cogent than even your own posts.

Hank

428 posted on 02/12/2003 12:55:30 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
"It's not a generalization. It doesn't say all, but most...most...most."

Well, to be sure, I looked it up: Generalization - A principle, statement, or idea having general application. And general means: affecting or characteristic of the majority of those involved; prevalent.

Ergo, most most most. I'm not trying to bust your chops. I simply noticed that you try to be scrupulous with your logic, and perhaps this is a slip. Taken literally, we would have reason to doubt your statement, since it is 'most' likely you are of the class of 'most' people!
429 posted on 02/12/2003 1:20:17 PM PST by NukeMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
Ergo, most most most. I'm not trying to bust your chops. I simply noticed that you try to be scrupulous with your logic, and perhaps this is a slip. Taken literally, we would have reason to doubt your statement, since it is 'most' likely you are of the class of 'most' people!

My views might be entirely wrong but it won't ever be because they agree with any majority view. Almost no one agrees with me. I belong to the smallest minority that exists, a minority of one.

If you discover I am wrong, it will be in spite of the fact that my "generality" cannot apply to me.

(I don't mean to say no one agrees with me, but I assure there are not many. As you've probably guessed, that does not bother me a whole lot. For one thing, it has taught me, people can be immensely enjoyable, no matter how much they disagree with me, so long as the dissagreement is not a threat of force against my person or property.)

Thank you for the kind comment about being scrupulously logical, and I certainly do make slips, and worse. I just don't think this is one. But don't worry about busting my chops. Sometimes that is the only way to get through someone's thick skull, and mine is thicker than I like sometimes. My wife has made me aware of this.

Hank

430 posted on 02/12/2003 4:56:41 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
You amaze me Hank, rarely does anyone think so clearly. And state it so clearly.

I see you've been petting a cat and a dog.

431 posted on 02/12/2003 7:29:57 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
I see you've been petting a cat and a dog.

I ride a Harley and wear a lot of black. Cat hair and dog hair frequently appear on me, I'm afraid. You've caught me!

(And I try so hard to be the ruthless, selfish, uncharitable, mean, objectivist I'm supposed to be. Maybe if I join Hells Angels...)

Hank

432 posted on 02/12/2003 7:58:35 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Again, materialism can provide no coherent, logical explanation for the reliability of our senses (nor the unified experience of consciousness itself for that matter).

This is not only an Assertion Without Proof, it is the Fallacy of 'Can't Prove a Negative.' YOU cannot prove that no such reliability exists, since, if it doesn't exist, it cannot be proven to exist. This statement PROVES that you don't know how to think, what thought is, or what logic is. I cannot take such an assertion seriously.

I CAN logically prove the reliability of the senses because without them nothing can be proven, or verified, to exist. Not Jesus, not justice, not courts, not altruism, not truth, not the Bible, not love, not the poor, nothing, none of it. Every single aspect, every single word, every single concept is utterly and completely dependent upon the reliability of the senses or it is all lies.

You read the Bible? You depend upon your senses. You know you must breathe? You depend upon the reliability of your senses. You think your senses are unreliable? Stop breathing. Stop eating. Stop sensing. Stop being.

You cannot. Being and sensing synonymous. You have NO OTHER MEANS to verify anything other than your senses. You cannot prove otherwise. The burden of proof is upon you.

The syllogism is:

To survive you must assume the reliability of the senses.
You survive. Therefore you assume the reliability of the senses.

If you don't then you make a fool out of every person who has ever starved to death. What, you think they didn't know they needed food? Because their senses told them they needed food and those senses were unreliable? This is so utterly foolish it hurts to even think somebody actually still thinks like this.

Every single person who chooses to survive depends upon the reliability of the senses, or they don't survive. You want to prove me wrong, go jump off a bridge or cliff or something and fly to a soft landing.

Otherwise, stop bothering me with nonsense,

433 posted on 02/13/2003 12:08:32 AM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: unspun
I would make a distinction between understanding fully (comprehension) and understanding in part (potentially up to and including a "working knowledge").

Tracking.

If what lies beyond our comprehension may be understood in part due to inference,

Then you 'comprehend' only to the degree that you may infer. If you 'infer' it isn't 'beyond.'

to the volitional efforts of someone there presenting us knowledge of its nature and substance (Bible happens to call that "glory," literally translated "weight" from Hebrew)

So, because somebody else said it is so, it is so? How do I verify this other than to accept it? If I can verify it, then I'm not dependent upon their 'presenting us knowledge' and if I can't then I have to suspect its veracity.

then we may know in part (even if "through a glass, darkly").

Reminds me of the 3 blind men and the elephant, (can't get any darker than that). If you only know part, you don't really know what you know. Kind of sums it up for me. So many people only have a partial picture and want to launch off telling everybody else how to live. I'm tired of this. Prove it all to me or shut up.

434 posted on 02/13/2003 12:19:19 AM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
"Diamonds are found only in the dark bowels of the earth; truths are found only in the depths of thought." -- Victor Hugo, Les Miserables, Signet Classic, page 231

I know Rand admired him tremendously. I keep meaning to go there. This gem is an example why. thanks

435 posted on 02/13/2003 12:21:03 AM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Philosophical realists are called jerks by normal people, and the normal people are right.

Made me laugh again!

All these mystics. All these magicians arguing over which magic is the more powerful. None live in reality.

Like Osama claiming that God is on their side and, therefore, they will win. How many times have we heard that? Makes me shake my head when I hear what some say here about stem cell research. Can't they see they are saying the same thing, only the subject and the level of willing ignorance and rejection of science is different?

Oh well, answered my own question. No, they can't.

436 posted on 02/13/2003 12:26:35 AM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings; Hank Kerchief; All
"False words are not only evil in themselves but they inject the soul with evil." -- Socrates
437 posted on 02/13/2003 11:01:33 AM PST by thinktwice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
"Diamonds are found only in the dark bowels of the earth; truths are found only in the depths of thought." -- Victor Hugo, Les Miserables, Signet Classic, page 231

The dramatic context of that line - the situation and resolution -- is a far better gem.

438 posted on 02/13/2003 11:07:46 AM PST by thinktwice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Reality is that which exists, and if God exists in reality, He necessarily must have created Himself. I disagree sort of. i think God either IS existence, or precedes it in some fashion. There has to be an uncaused causer. The jewish kabbalah has an interesting concept called "tzim tzum" meaning "contraction". The kabbalah states that God is infinite, and thus, to create anything that wasnt God, God had to "suck in" or contract and create room for a universe. Perhaps "existence" as we know it is that space. I'm under the notion that God is much "bigger" than even Jehova in the Bible. I think the personal God isnt the fullness of God. I think that were God to fully "exhale" everything would cease to exist and it would just be God in His infinity. But who knows.
439 posted on 02/13/2003 12:07:41 PM PST by CaptainJustice (Get RIGHT or get left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: CaptainJustice
That which exists is everything that is, and if God created everything that is, God must be more than "is."

Think ... transcendent.
Think ... beyond infinity.
Think ... indeterminate form.

440 posted on 02/13/2003 1:02:56 PM PST by thinktwice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-451 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson