I THINK therefore I AM

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;71582 wrote:

Descartes said that he is certain he exists. That's ontology.

Well, perhaps a very very very narrowly focused little piece of it, but that is not at all how I'd categorize it (or expand upon it in conversation). I mean with ontology I usually think of discussions about the nature of existing things -- and this is not what Descartes meant, nor does he even address the existence of other thinking entities. He's talking about the certainty, the proof of his existence -- not the nature of it.

The God part loses me a bit, because his God proof is so slipshod, especially as compared with his systematic doubt.

@Aedes,

Aedes;71591 wrote:

Well, perhaps a very very very narrowly focused little piece of it, but that is not at all how I'd categorize it (or expand upon it in conversation). I mean with ontology I usually think of discussions about the nature of existing things -- and this is not what Descartes meant, nor does he even address the existence of other thinking entities. He's talking about the certainty, the proof of his existence -- not the nature of it.

The God part loses me a bit, because his God proof is so slipshod, especially as compared with his systematic doubt.

But what difference does that make? He believed he proved that God existed (in three different ways) and his proof proceeded from the nature of God. So that's ontology. And he thought he had proved that there is conscious substance and extended substance, and that's ontology; and he thought he had prove the existence of an external world, as well as its natur, and isn't that ontology? So I am wondering where you got this bit about Descartes and no ontology. It is patently false. He goes into great lengths about what or who he is, which he proved existed. He is a soul not a body, although he is intimately connected with his body. And a lot more. And that is only in the Meditations. He says a lot more about it elsewhere. I hope that one of your teachers isn't feeding you this stuff. Since there are three God proofs, I don't know which ones you think are "slipshod" nor, of course, why.

@Aedes,

I THINK therefore I AM.

What would be the reaction of the Church at that time, had he not been so enigmatic? Had he suggested anything but the supremacy of Church doctrine? Was he enigmatic because he feared to be accused of heresy by the Church at a time when any philosopher feared the same fate as Galileo.

Fearing the condemnation of the church, however, Descartes was rightly cautious about publicly expressing the full measure of his radical views. The philosophical writings for which he is remembered are therefore extremely circumspect in their treatment of controversial issues. Descartes: Method

Whatever he was thinking, the statement stands on its own as being the philosopher's answer to Mona Lisa's smile.

Rich

@kennethamy,

I don't see how the cogito, which is derived from absolute and complete subjectivity (solely the self-awareness of the author), can be described as ontology without taking a big liberty with the concept. Epistemology, yes, of course -- it's the nature of what he can know. But ontology?? No -- the conclusion is therefore I am. The discussion isn't about what exists and what doesn't -- it's about how he knows if he himself exists or not.

That Descartes engages in ontology after the cogito is indeed true and I agree with that, but it is only after his introduction of God. But his God proof itself, which was basically an apathetic version of Anselm's, is way beneath Descartes' own rhetorical and logical powers.

kennethamy;71597 wrote:

I hope that one of your teachers isn't feeding you this stuff.

Teachers?

---------- Post added at 11:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 PM ----------

richrf;71602 wrote:

What would be the reaction of the Church at that time, had he not been so enigmatic?

I don't know, but seeing as he followed the cogito with a god proof, he probably got a green light.

@Aedes,

Aedes;71603 wrote:

I don't see how the cogito, which is derived from absolute and complete subjectivity (solely the self-awareness of the author), can be described as ontology without taking a big liberty with the concept. Epistemology, yes, of course -- it's the nature of what he can know. But ontology?? No -- the conclusion is therefore I am. The discussion isn't about what exists and what doesn't -- it's about how he knows if he himself exists or not.

That Descartes engages in ontology after the cogito is indeed true and I agree with that, but it is only after his introduction of God. But his God proof itself, which was basically an apathetic version of Anselm's, is way beneath Descartes' own rhetorical and logical powers.

Teachers?

The entire point of Rationalism, and certainly Cartesian Rationalism, is that we can begin from what we clearly and distinctly perceive, and that will tell us what is true about the world. So, your objection here just questions the point of the Rationalism enterprise. Whether that route to knowledge is successful or even plausible, is, of course, something else again. But your argument that since Rationalism is not a successful ontological investigation (or could not be) that cannot be what Descartes was doing, and knew he was doing, is clearly fallacious. One thing is the historical question of what he was doing and what he believed he was doing. A different question is whether his programme was successful. But you cannot reasonably argue that since his program was not successful, it was not his program. After the cogito, and before God, he first argues about who he is, and reaches the ontological conclusion that he is essentially a spirit in a body. It is only then that he goes on to his first proof of God. In fact, one of the objections the Church had to Descartes is that he placed ordered his proof so that God needed his existence for proof of God's own existence. As for the Ontological argument, Decartes revived it after it was ignored because it had been believed that Aquinas had refuted it, once and for all. So, in this, too, Descartes challenged the Church and the past. Actually, his revival of the argument was ingenious, although it had the same flaw Anselm's version had.

@Aedes,

Aedes;71603 wrote:

II don't know, but seeing as he followed the cogito with a god proof, he probably got a green light.

Yes, Descartes knew what he had to say, but did he mean it? For me, there is plenty of room for doubt. Descartes principle statement can stand on its own, without the further acknowledgment of God which might have been a bow to the times and the punishments that would ensue if he had said otherwise.

Rich

@richrf,

Actually you're right, Descartes never did say it in print. It is, however, a neat compression of what he did say, and not misleading. Personally I find it one of the most confusing, misleading and unhelpful statements in the whole of philosophy, but it is at least thought provoking.

I suppose, Didymos, that you're talking about lucid dreaming. I must have a go at this sometime. Do you any advice on how to practice it?

Richrf - I like your 'keep it simple stupid' approach to philosophising. I'm all for it. But I don't think you can measure the clarity and simplicity of a concept by the number of syllables in its name. Still, if words like heterophenomenology can be banished from philosophy I wouldn't complain.

@Whoever,

Whoever;71652 wrote:

Actually you're right, Descartes never did say it in print.

The cogito? Yes he did -- he said it in French (something like "Je pense, donc je suis") in the Discourse, and he said it in Latin (cogito ergo sum) in a text he later wrote. He just didn't write it as such in the Meditations, but the surrounding arguments are the same.

@richrf,

richrf;71613 wrote:

Yes, Descartes knew what he had to say, but did he mean it? For me, there is plenty of room for doubt. Descartes principle statement can stand on its own, without the further acknowledgment of God which might have been a bow to the times and the punishments that would ensue if he had said otherwise.

Rich

Oh, by all means, speculate. Just as long as you realize it is speculation, unless, of course, you get up some evidence. Why does the Cogito need God to be correct? Or is that speculation too. I can see no reason for you to say it. Perhaps you can provide one.

@Aedes,

Aedes;71718 wrote:

The cogito? Yes he did -- he said it in French (something like "Je pense, donc je suis") in the Discourse, and he said it in Latin (cogito ergo sum) in a text he later wrote. He just didn't write it as such in the Meditations, but the surrounding arguments are the same.

Okay. But Ben-Ami Scharfstein in 'Philosophy East, Philosophy West' states otherwise, and gives the various forms in which D expressed the idea. But he is not, in my opinion, reliable on every issue, and maybe this is one of them.

@Whoever,

Whoever;71722 wrote:

Okay. But Ben-Ami Scharfstein in 'Philosophy East, Philosophy West' states otherwise, and gives the various forms in which D expressed the idea. But he is not, in my opinion, reliable on every issue, and maybe this is one of them.

What is, "otherwise"?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;71719 wrote:

Oh, by all means, speculate. Just as long as you realize it is speculation, unless, of course, you get up some evidence. Why does the Cogito need God to be correct? Or is that speculation too. I can see no reason for you to say it. Perhaps you can provide one.

Throughout history, people were forced to write in a disguised manner during times of suppression and persecution. Here, in the U.S., the period of time during the 1950s, and the McCarthy hearings, many writers were forced to hide their views or face blacklisting. For Descartes, punishment could have been much worse, given what happened to Galileo and many others during those times.

For me, when I read the Discourse on Method I found that this statement struck me beyond all others:

I think, therefore I am--was so firm and so assured that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics were unable to shake it, I judged that I could unhesitatingly accept it as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking.

Descartes possibly could not suggest anything else other than the values of Church teachings, as he does further in his writings. But here, I believe, he may reveal his core thought that would supersede anything else that he writes.

I do not know how good is this translation. I do not know what Descartes might have been thinking within himself at this time. There were historical forces at the time that affected many of the things that philosophers were writing. To what degree, can only be speculated. But it is also a speculation that what Descartes wrote was a complete description of his thoughts.

So I look at this first principle and am amazed at the succinctness of what it says and all that it may imply.

Rich

---------- Post added at 09:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 AM ----------

Whoever;71722 wrote:

Okay. But Ben-Ami Scharfstein in 'Philosophy East, Philosophy West' states otherwise, and gives the various forms in which D expressed the idea. But he is not, in my opinion, reliable on every issue, and maybe this is one of them.

Hi there Whoever,

Do you recommend this book? I am looking for new, creative ways to look at Eastern and Western philosophy in total, e.g. Heraclitus and Daoism, etc. Most of the philosophy books I have read tend to treat one to the exclusion of the other.

Rich

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;71724 wrote:

What is, "otherwise"?

He says that 'cogito ergo sum' is not found in Descartes, in any language, but that this is almost what he said and clearly what he meant. I have no view on this.

@Whoever,

Whoever;71762 wrote:

He says that 'cogito ergo sum' is not found in Descartes, in any language

That's not correct. This is the untranslated original French of his Discourse on Method (Discours sur la Methode) from the Quatrieme Partie.
Discours sur la methode

Descartes wrote:

je pense, donc je suis

Here is where it appears in Latin in his Principia philosophiae:
Principia philosophiae - Wikisource

Descartes wrote:

Sic autem reiicientes illa omnia, de quibus aliquo /7/ modo possumus dubitare, ac etiam falsa esse fingentes, facile quidem supponimus nullum esse Deum, nullum coelum, nulla corpora; nosque etiam ipsos non habere manus, nec pedes, nec denique ullum corpus; non autem ideo nos, qui talia cogitamus, nihil esse: repugnat enim, ut putemus id quod cogitat, eo ipso tempore quo cogitat, non existere. Ac proinde haec cognitio:

Ego cogito, ergo sum

est omnium prima et certissima, quae cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat.

@richrf,

richrf;71555 wrote:

Totally. To me it is amazing. I have never been there, so if you (or anyone else) has some accounts you can related to me I would appreciate it. I am interested in the general feelings that you observe and what you are dreaming. Thanks.

Rich

Unfortunately, all I can give you are second hand accounts. There are many methods to get to where you can lucid dream on a regular basis, you might see if any of them seem works for you so you can try it yourself.

Here is one account I found:

Lucid Dreaming Experience - A Lucid Dream Journal Account

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;71775 wrote:

Unfortunately, all I can give you are second hand accounts. There are many methods to get to where you can lucid dream on a regular basis, you might see if any of them seem works for you so you can try it yourself.

Here is one account I found:

Lucid Dreaming Experience - A Lucid Dream Journal Account

Hi there,

Thanks for the link. I will take a look at it.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;71729 wrote:

Throughout history, people were forced to write in a disguised manner during times of suppression and persecution. Here, in the U.S., the period of time during the 1950s, and the McCarthy hearings, many writers were forced to hide their views or face blacklisting. For Descartes, punishment could have been much worse, given what happened to Galileo and many others during those times.

Good point. It is probably dangerous to forget this this for any religious writings. Sometimes a secret language is necessary. Spinoza chickened out completely.

Quote:

Descartes possibly could not suggest anything else other than the values of Church teachings, as he does further in his writings.

I expect this is true. But I think a more important issue here is that all philosophers, when they try to complete a 'theory of everything' or concoct a plausible metaphysical position, find that something like God is required to make the theory work. Berkeley's idealism is a notable example of this problem. Russell's neutral monism is another. There simply has to be more than just mind and matter. This is David Chalmer's explanatory gap, the missing ingredient that he challenges his peers to discover.

Quote:

Hi there Whoever,

Do you recommend this book? I am looking for new, creative ways to look at Eastern and Western philosophy in total, e.g. Heraclitus and Daoism, etc. Most of the philosophy books I have read tend to treat one to the exclusion of the other.

Well, in my not very humble opinion it is almost a very good book, but untrustworthy when it comes to the interpretation of some of the literature, in particular the Tao Teh Ching. I once emailed him to query a passage but his reply avoided the issue. At any rate, I wouldn't recommend it, even though there's a lot of good stuff in it.

It's very difficult to find a good book connecting up the views of Heraclitus, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, Al Halaj, Muhammed etc. I'm not sure I know of one that I like. (I'm in the middle of trying to write one, so tempting is the gap in the market). But there are many wonderful books dealing with parts of the picture. If you're ok with a very difficult book then Jay Garfield's The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way is one I'd recommend. Garfield translates Nagarujna's text into a western philosophical language and compares it with the various views found in the European tradition. Unmissable. Radhakrishnan's Philosophy of the Upanishads is completely brilliant, and provides a solid foundation for a philosophical understanding of mysticism in general. But these are not intended as introductions to the topic.

Much of the best discussion I've found that brings together all the issues has been in articles on the Internet. A good starting point might be Robin Robertson's website. He's a Jungian psychologist, president of the American Society if I remember right, and a mathematician. He explores many connections, and I think he knows what he's talking about. You might like his 'Jungian Archetypes, which comes at mathematics and mysticism from Pythagoras to Goedel in a quite unusual way. You might also like Mysticism by F.C. Happold, an oldie but a goodie.

Sorry not to be able to pick out just one.

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

Aedes - Thanks. I stand corrected.

@Whoever,

Whoever;71782 wrote:

Well, in my not very humble opinion it is almost a very good book, but untrustworthy when it comes to the interpretation of some of the literature, in particular the Tao Teh Ching.

I have many interpretations and translations of the Dao De Jing (Tao Teh Ching), and all of them are completely different depending upon where the author is coming from. Those that I find are most compelling are from those who practice Taiji, since the experiencial aspects of Taiji assist in understood the implied meaning of the Chinese characters. Since I have practice Taiji and Chinese medicine for many years, I can see the symmetry and practicality that exists between the underlying philosophy and the human condition. The two are integrated and very practical.

Quote:

It's very difficult to find a good book connecting up the views of Heraclitus, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, Al Halaj, Muhammed etc. I'm not sure I know of one that I like. (I'm in the middle of trying to write one, so tempting is the gap in the market).

I am looking forward to your insights.

Quote:

Much of the best discussion I've found that brings together all the issues has been in articles on the Internet. A good starting point might be Robin Robertson's website. He's a Jungian psychologist, president of the American Society if I remember right, and a mathematician. He explores many connections, and I think he knows what he's talking about. You might like his 'Jungian Archetypes, which comes at mathematics and mysticism from Pythagoras to Goedel in a quite unusual way. You might also like Mysticism by F.C. Happold, an oldie but a goodie.

Sorry not to be able to pick out just one.

Thanks much for your recommendations. I will look into them.

Regards,
Rich

@richrf,

richrf;71786 wrote:

I have many interpretations and translations of the Dao De Jing (Tao Teh Ching), and all of them are completely different depending upon where the author is coming from.

Yes. This is a big problem. I have at least one really bad translation. On interpreting this text, my view is that when the meaning coincides with the rest of the world's mystics then this is pretty secure interpretation, and when it is incoherent it is not at all secure. This narrows down the options, but still leaves room for error.

@richrf,

I have three or four translations of the Bhagavad Gita. They're all different, but the main difference is aesthetic, i.e. the poetry and cadence. The information content does not differ in any way that makes me wonder which is the most accurate. To be sure reading combinations of them feels better than just reading one alone.

Philosophy Forum

I THINK therefore I AM

Quick Links

My Account

able2know