Replies

Technically, it is correct to say "doubts exist," nothing more. the "I doubt" is slipped in under the door and is not realized.

You "forgot" to explain why. Ten yard penalty.

Further, even if you DO recognize Cartesian self-awareness as a beginning point for knowledge,

Not what I did, go take it up with someone who might have actually done so.

there is no escape from solipsism with Descartes.

In principle, there is no escape from solipsism even without Decartes.

He himself recognized that, and acknowldeged that one had to posit a benificent God who had ordered the cosmos to be congruent with our brains (and vice versa) in order to make meaningful statements about ANYTHING other than our own existence.

On that point, he was mistaken.

It is clear you don't understand Descartes.

It is clear you don't understand me.

But it is not wise to swing a club at someone unless you are aware that that very club will wind up taking your own head clean off when you swing it. You need another stick, bubba.

Empty metaphor, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

DesCartes is NOT your solution.

I never said he was.

Actually, an empiricist is "certain" of nothing. In another post you snottily implied that you understood empiricism better than most. Your confidence was clearly misplaced.

Is it because some red lights flash on a machine (designed by processes in that uncertain ganglia), or is it because his perceptions of that data are grouped into categories by that same neural gangila and you assume therefore that this has some "real" relationship to the cosmos out there?

No, but that's a bizarre tangent you've gone off on.

On what basis do posit such crap?

I don't, actually. On what hallucination of yours do you posit that I did?

Technically, it is correct to say "doubts exist," nothing more. the "I doubt" is slipped in under the door and is not realized. You "forgot" to explain why. Ten yard penalty. >>>> Actually, others with better brains have done so better than I can, but since we all just hitch hike on others thoughts usually, I will give it a stab. Descartes was arguing for the existence of the self, the person, the "I", if you will. He started by doubting EVERYTHING. All he is left with is doubts, yet the doubts presuppose his existence, therefore, he must be.
The guys who "think for a living" (or at least WRITE about thinking for a living) have pointed out that it does not necessarily follow that there is an *I* doing the doubting. To use a very modern example, the "doubts" could be generated by a "matrix" something like the recent movie, or by some entity which generates thoughts the way the liver secretes bile.

Descartes DID point out that certain philosophical positions are UNAVOIDABLE BECAUSE WE ARE UNABLE TO TO PRESUPPOSE DIFFERENTLY. For example, I really should have said that "he just slipped the 'I doubt' in under the door and we don't realize it" but the very use of pronouns in the statement presupposes our existence and move us into Descartes oven, even if not into his realm of logic. We are unable to speak, argue, post on a computer bulletin board, or irritate each other without PRESUPPOSING our own existence. This is different from demonstrating our existence as a rational and necessary CERTAINTY, as our non-existence remains a theoretical possibility. However, thinkers (and the halfwits like me who read them) over the years have given Descartes a pass simply because it is embarrassing as hell to argue that I cannot be sure, YOU cannot be sure, HE cannot be sure, of personhood, and have to use all those personal pronouns in doing it. Another way of saying this is to quote a joke (I think it is from Anthony Flew, but I can't remember right now) about the guy at a party proclaiming that he can know NOTHING with certainty, not even his own existence. If you want to stop his foolery, just slide up to him and whisper "your fly is open." If he is so uncertain of everything, why does he check himself EVERY TIME? We are unable to think or act in a way that does NOT presuppose our existence, so Descartes is "sorta" right.

I must warn you, though, that this position moves you closer to the bible bangers. They claim that the reason that I must ACT as though I were made in the image of God, even though I may selectively deny it in theory. Descartes position is certainly consonant with this in the area of ontology (the cornerstone for the real issue of the thread, which is epistemology), and axiology (values, or ethics).

If the above is not always clear, I apologize. I am limited in my knowledge of philosophy and philosophical history, being degreed in Chemistry only. However, there are quite a number of critiques of Descartes one can google that say pretty much the same thing. The stuff about presuppositionalism is best laid out by a guy named Cornelius Van Til, although you can find others who say essentially the same stuff.

In the interests of time, I will pick up on your other issues in your post later.

Further, even if you DO recognize Cartesian self-awareness as a beginning point for knowledge, Not what I did, go take it up with someone who might have actually done so.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It seems that I misunderstood you. Do you start somewhere else? If so, where? I read your posts, and must have missed it. What DO you posit for a starting point for knowledge, and standards for evaluating such? That IS the point of the thread, you know. If I am mistaken, I will rush to apologize, I assure you.

____________________________________
there is no escape from solipsism with Descartes.
In principle, there is no escape from solipsism even without Decartes.
He himself recognized that, and acknowldeged that one had to posit a benificent God who had ordered the cosmos to be congruent with our brains (and vice versa) in order to make meaningful statements about ANYTHING other than our own existence.
On that point, he was mistaken.>>>>>>>>

Good job. You have confused the hell out of me. As bad I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and say "you just don't understand what he is trying to say...., it is the internet, after all...." here is where we are. First, you acknowledge that there is no rational escape from solipsism "without Descartes" (I am unaware of any thought, anywhere, anytime, that does not presuppose self-existence, so I really do not understand that interjection)....., or with him. Then I give you a textbook definition of solipsism, the inability to speak meaningfully about anything other than self without "cheating" and bringing in another reference point (God, in the case of Descartes), and you tell me that Descartes was incorrect.
Were you trying to say that Descartes should have brought in a DIFFERENT external reference point to validate his perceptions of the cosmos....., one previously and up to now undiscovered by someone other than you? That seems to be the only other option I can see. Either that, or you are saying that Descartes was right to be a solopsist and then wrong to be a solopsist.

At this point, all I have seen are halfassed swipes at those who consider a theocentric epistemology, a nod to Descartes, and a tossing out a few empirical maxims, dredged up on the fly. Then you are all offended when you get back gratuitous sneers with...., well, gratuitous sneers. It just happens that way.
We COULD move from the realm of chest thumping ego into a discussion of what you consider to be a viable basis for epistemology, and you will see a big "I AM SORRY FOR OFFENDING YOU, PLEASE FORGIVE ME. I ENJOY THIS CONVERSATION" in your rearview. NO ONE loves to be proven wrong on those kinds of issues than I. We are at an intersection, and your light just turned green. I will wait and see.

Now, would you like to remind me why an empiricist treats the sesory inputs from a cosmos that is uncertain and ordered by a neural ganglia of which he is also uncertain into "knowledge" of which he is certain?
Actually, an empiricist is "certain" of nothing. In another post you snottily implied that you understood empiricism better than most. Your confidence was clearly misplaced.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Actually, an empiricist is "certain" of nothing"..... BINGO! All knowledge is faith based. We have no basis for CERTAINTY in any of our knowledge. An empiricist has an object of trust (his own perceptions) and a theist has another object. There is no inherent REASON that one should be considered more reliable than the other. Nice to know we agree on this point.
As to how well I understand empiricism, I apologize for the misrepresentation of myself. I do NOT (snottily or otherwise) understand empiricism "better than most." In fact, what I understand least of all is the intolerable arrogance of empiricists who dismiss faith based claims as irrational, yet point to "science" as "solid data."
You see this type of reasoning all the time among naturalists. There is an assumption that data empirically gathered is substantive, and that non-empirical claims are assigned a "lower" grade of reliability, if not dismissed altogether. Indeed, the exact point has been made in this thread, emphatically, forcefully and clearly. It was not your post, but read Patrick Henry's posts on knowledge and reliability.
This only makes sense if you begin your thought system with an ASSUMPTION that our perceptions are acccurate, the universe is ordered, and that we have the ability to correctly classify and analyse our perceptions (you may not call it "data" until you are sure it is, in fact something other than your perceptions). Those assumptions have NO basis in SCIENCE at all, but are philosophical "a prioris" that you bring to the table. The purpose of a thread like this on epistemology is to ask the question, "how do you know your presuppositions are accurate." To respond with the vast majority of naturalists that "the data confirms it" is simply arguing in a circle. That was my point in the "bizarre tangent" below
Is it because some red lights flash on a machine (designed by processes in that uncertain ganglia), or is it because his perceptions of that data are grouped into categories by that same neural gangila and you assume therefore that this has some "real" relationship to the cosmos out there?>>>>>>>

All this is to say that modern science can say NOTHING meaningful about the nature of the universe other than "our minds seem to be able to group certain perceived families of input into categories, and we can build machines that reproduce those categories." Anything else is based on assumptions that science cannot and will not give you.