Good evening, afternoon or morning, whatever the case may be in your part of the world.

I'm an undergrad student majoring in Philosophy and English at Kiel University in Germany. That is to say, I've been working on my English program for two years already and recently switched my second major to Philosophy, so I'm still a tabula rasa in that department for the time being. But what I lack in experience I hope to make up for with my innate curiosity.

I enjoy classical music, dry red wine, and long walks on the beach...

Whoops, wrong site. :whistling:

My philosophical dispositions are still rather hazy and undefined because of my lack of knowledge on the subject, but in general I come from a background of skepticism and appreciation (ok, worship) of science. So far I'm unconvinced that Philosophy (or Science for that matter) are capable of making any meaningful metaphysical statements, but I'm willing to be proven wrong on that point. Ethics is both extremely interesting and at times (just about all of them) terribly complicated.

As this post shows, I've been known to ramble, so humor me for the time being, as I'm making an effort to reduce the sheer number of words with which I attempt to convey a message within the context of the discussion which we may or may not be having, depending on your possible future responses to this introductory message; also, I sometimes enjoy provoking people with run-on sentences. :poke-eye:

Another bad habit of mine is starting long posts in the middle of the night, only to abandon them 1/2 finished after falling asleep on the keyboard three times or so. With that in mind I'll post this now. Thanks for maybe having read this entire message. :flowers:

The first question I would ask you is what do you think a metaphysical statement is, and what would be your criterion of meaningfulness. Have you any examples in mind? Here is a metaphysical statement I think is meaningful and true. What exists must have properties. What about that one? (In my opinion, there is sensible metaphysics and also, silly metaphysics).

An aside: Has anyone ever attempted to refute the Cogito?

So far I'm unconvinced that Philosophy (or Science for that matter) are capable of making any meaningful metaphysical statements, but I'm willing to be proven wrong on that point. Ethics is both extremely interesting and at times (just about all of them) terribly complicated.

Welcome to the forum, TalkingBook. You sound like an interesting character. Don't worry about rambling, the most important thing is getting your point across.

Indeed they have, one Gilbert Ryle made a career out of it. See The Concept of Mind by him and Daniel Dennett, from which I believe comes the famous critical imagery of 'the ghost in the machine'.

Incidentally, for what it is worth, my own (modest) understanding of the vast topic of philosophy has always proceeded along historical lines. Perhaps because I started with Russell's History...but in any case, I found the historical method useful because it provides a way to sequence and order the materials, and, more importantly, because I eventually came around to a perspective of 'historical determinism'. This views 'the history of ideas' as a response to the historical and social circumstances in which they arise. It is one of the bases of the 'sociology of knowledge' which was largely created by one of my favourite thinkers, Peter Berger.

(Subsequently, I have learned of another History of Wst. Phil. which is, I think, considered to be better than Russell's, namely that of Copleson.)

Thanks for the replies. Yes, refutation of Cartesian dualism seems quite widespread, but as I'm unable to conceive of any argument against the Cogito itself I was curious if anyone had an idea about it.

I'm a fan of Russell and have been meaning to pick up his History..., but I'm afraid I just don't have the time right now. The reviews on Amazon are interestingly polarized regarding the book, with many people suggesting that he writes with a rather heavy bias (i.e. stressing the importance of those philosophers whose ideas are in greatest alignment with his own). Any comments on this thought?

By the way, there is a considerable difference between the terms, "denial" or, "repudiation", on the one hand, and "refutation" on the other hand. To refute is to prove error. Unless you think that a criticism has proved that the Cogito is wrong, you should not use the word, "refute" for it.