P: Descartes, Doubt, Certainty, and the Pursuit Truth (Novum Topic)

3,735 Views | 50 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by Texaggie7nine
Mark_Novum
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In his Discourse on Method, Descartes begins his pursuit of truth by ridding his mind of anything that he could doubt, which seems very similar to the modern approach of philosophy. Here's how Descartes puts it:

"It is sometimes necessary to adopt, as if above doubt, opinions which we discern to be highly uncertain, as has been already said; but as I then desired to give my attention solely to the search after truth, I thought that a procedure exactly the opposite was called for, and that I ought to reject as absolutely false all opinions in regard to which I could suppose the least ground for doubt, in order to ascertain whether after that there remained aught in my belief that was wholly indubitable. Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; and because some men err in reasoning, and fall into paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for demonstrations; and finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM), was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search."

Questions:
What do you think of Descartes's method (strip away anything that can be doubted) and conclusion (I think therefore I am is the one certain thing)?
Does Descartes provide a good model for philosophical investigation here?
Post removed:
by user
Mark_Novum
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think that's part of the question. Does his project work or not? It seems you would say no. So, why doesn't it work? What reason do you have to doubt his famous assertion?
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It doesn't work because it grounds his being in man, not God. We now have "utilitarian" ethics in which infants, the elderly, and mentally ******ed are seen as less than human with less rights. Christians have it correct in that all humans are made in the image of God. Our being is grounded in God.
Post removed:
by user
Post removed:
by user
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It works.

I agree, that if you have an experience, you have to exist at some level.

However, what do we do with that? It is the only self-proving truth that I can think of. Not sure where to go with that model of thinking from there.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Mark_Novum said:

What do you think of Descartes's method (strip away anything that can be doubted) and conclusion (I think therefore I am is the one certain thing)?
Kierkegaard's critique makes sense to me. When you say "I" think, you've already presupposed the "I". It would be more appropriate to say "it" thinks, and the it is me. It's no proof. But it's compelling enough at a pragmatic level. In reality I don't think we can actually operate intellectually in any other way than to believe this.

Quote:

Does Descartes provide a good model for philosophical investigation here?
Yes and no. I think certain presuppositions are necessary, but should be used with extreme parsimony where we can. Some very basic things like our existence, the existence of others and this universe, induction, basic reliability of the senses are needed to get the ball rolling if you will. After that, it's best to stick to what can be rationally established. The more you presuppose the less you can find out you are wrong about.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's all models, all the way down.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

It doesn't work because it grounds his being in man, not God. We now have "utilitarian" ethics in which infants, the elderly, and mentally ******ed are seen as less than human with less rights. Christians have it correct in that all humans are made in the image of God. Our being is grounded in God.


You have no innate knowledge of God. Your only a priori assumption is your own mental existence. Descartes simply stripped the pretense from the scholastics and tried to simplify matters as much as possible before building what he considered reasonable assumptions for reality.

I would agree with the poster who mentioned Kierkegaard and the idea that we can only start from "it thinks." I would also point out that Spinoza noted multiple flaws in Descartes logic and method, positing that the most one can establish is one form of reality and thus one form of God, at one with reality.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We're not your community college history students. You don't have to try to impress us. My a priori assumption is man is created in God's image and has dignity and worth, even smug, degenerate atheists like you.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

We're not your community college history students. You don't have to try to impress us. My a priori assumption is man is created in God's image and has dignity and worth, even smug, degenerate atheists like you.


The discussion is about the validity of Descartes. It's a philosophical discussion. If you don't want to have one of those, don't respond. Otherwise, you have to base your conclusion on some form of logic.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I did. Then you tell me what I know and don't know. And what a priori assumptions I have and don't have. Descartes' ontology is wrong. It's no wonder we now have deplorable secular "utilitarian" ethics such as Peter Singer.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

I did. Then you tell me what I know and don't know. And what a priori assumptions I have and don't have. Descartes' ontology is wrong. It's no wonder we now have deplorable secular "utilitarian" ethics such as Peter Singer.


How did you establish anything? You made a faith-based statement without support.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

You made a faith-based statement without support.
"you have to base your conclusion on some form of logic" is equally a faith based statement.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:


Quote:

You made a faith-based statement without support.
"you have to base your conclusion on some form of logic" is equally a faith based statement.


No. No it's not.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I guess it's just "common sense", huh?
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Questions:
What do you think of Descartes's method (strip away anything that can be doubted) and conclusion (I think therefore I am is the one certain thing)?
Does Descartes provide a good model for philosophical investigation here?


I'm not good at philosophical discussions so I'll try my best.

The problem I have with Descartes's method is I can cast doubt on ANYTHING. Which he confirms and that is why he ends up with the "I think therefore I am." But I know there must be truth. The question is how do I decide what is true? Is it eyewitness accounts? Me seeing with my own eyes? Me experiencing it for myself?

These conversations twist my mind and start to make me wonder if all of this is just an allusion. However Jesus tells us to have "faith like a child" and "blessed are those who believe without seeing". So I wonder, do we over-think things?



Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
St John Chrysostom trained under Libanius, one of the greatest philosophers and orators of his day, and was well versed in grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric. Libanius is said to have lamented that of all his students it was St John who was most accomplished to succeed him, if he hadn't been stolen by the Christians.

I wonder if posed this question St John would merely dismiss the entire exercise as futile. I found this excerpt from one of his homilies.
Quote:

This fisherman then [St John the Divine], whose business was about lakes, and nets, and fish; this native of Bethsaida of Galilee; this son of a poor fisherman, yes, and poor to the last degree; this man ignorant, and to the last degree of ignorance too, who never learned letters either before or after he accompanied Christ; let us see what he utters, and on what matters he converses with us. Is it of things in the field? Is it of things in rivers? On the trade in fish? For these things, perhaps, one expects to hear from a fisherman. But fear not; we shall hear nought of these; but we shall hear of things in heaven, and what no one ever learned before this man. For, as might be expected of one who speaks from the very treasures of the Spirit, he has come bringing to us sublime doctrines, and the best way of life and wisdom. Do these things belong to a fisherman? Tell me. Do they belong to a rhetorician at all? To a sophist or philosopher? To every one trained in the wisdom of the Gentiles? By no means. The human soul is simply unable thus to philosophize on that pure and blessed nature; on the powers that come next to it; on immortality and endless life; on the nature of mortal bodies which shall hereafter be immortal; on punishment and the judgment to come; on the inquiries that shall be as to deeds and words, as to thoughts and imaginations. It cannot tell what is man, what the world; what is man indeed, and what he who seems to be man, but is not; what is the nature of virtue, what of vice.

Some of these things indeed the disciples of Plato and Pythagoras inquired into. Of the other philosophers we need make no mention at all; they have all on this point been so excessively ridiculous; and those who have been among them in greater esteem than the rest, and who have been considered the leading men in this science, are so more than the others; and they have composed and written somewhat on the subject of polity and doctrines, and in all have been more shamefully ridiculous than children. For they have spent their whole life in making women common to all, in overthrowing the very order of life, in doing away the honor of marriage, and in making other the like ridiculous laws. As for doctrines on the soul, there is nothing excessively shameful that they have left unsaid; asserting that the souls of men become flies, and gnats, and bushes, and that God Himself is a soul; with some other the like indecencies.

And not this alone in them is worthy of blame, but so is also their ever-shifting current of words; for since they assert everything on uncertain and fallacious arguments, they are like men carried here and there in Euripus, and never remain in the same place.

Not so this fisherman; for all he says is infallible; and standing as it were upon a rock, he never shifts his ground. For since he has been thought worthy to be in the most secret places, and has the Lord of all speaking within him, he is subject to nothing that is human. But they, like persons who are not held worthy even in a dream to set foot in the king's palace, but who pass their time in the forum with other men, guessing from their own imagination at what they cannot see, have erred a great error, and, like blind or drunken men in their wandering, have dashed against each other; and not only against each other, but against themselves, by continually changing their opinion, and that ever on the same matters.
Post removed:
by user
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Like I said, I am not good at philosophy. Plus it annoys me. It comes up with conclusions that nobody truly believes. If truth does not exist then why are we even arguing anything on this board? You can't tell me I'm wrong.
Post removed:
by user
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Are you sure? Or should you doubt that?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No matter what, reality is underdefined by our experiences. This includes the relationship between actuality and sense or perception, and the relationship between truth and our understanding.

And our beliefs and what we really think.
Post removed:
by user
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AstroAg17 said:

That statement is a consequence of the earlier statement that the only thing we can know is that something exists.
No it's not.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Only if you accept the law of noncontradiction.
Post removed:
by user
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AstroAg17 said:

Yes it is.

If I claim that only X can be known, it follows that nothing but X can be known.
Well, I guess there are two things you know are true then.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.