Sure. Catholics believe some things are true. I don't. But then, of course, there is the question of whether a belief is justified or not.

Hi,

It is fine with me. You have your Truths, and Catholic people have their Truths, and I have no Truths. It all works for me.

Rich

You believe some things are true; you wouldn't have typed this otherwise.

Of course. This is one of those cases when philosophers say one thing, but do something inconsistent with what they say. Philosophers declare that time is unreal at the same time they make appointments for lunch.

But I'm at a loss as to what he's actually proposing. Clearly he understands he thinks some things true.

What then does he mean by, "I have no Truths"? Is he speaking with a religious overtone? What does he mean?

...obvious Truths may not be such.....
Rich

Rich
You get the last word.

:whistling:

You do if you claim that you can know nothing, since you know that you were born, and that you had parents.

How did you come to exist unless you were born? And how could you have been born unless you have parents? Your having been adopted does not mean you did not have parents. I did not say that you know who your parents are, although I suppose you do.

Oh.
Well, before you said this i was almost sure that i am the result of a calculation in a computer.
Why should i have been born?
The only thing i know is that i have a feeling as if i was thinking. But i am not even sure if that's me or the computer processing.

To know that you know virtually nothing is the beginning of wisdom -- and of humility.





I guess Rich didn't get the last word.....

Well, you are a person, and all persons are born, so you were born.

To know that you know virtually nothing is the beginning of wisdom -- and of humility.

I guess Rich didn't get the last word.....

Look, it was Descartes himself who said "I think therefore i am".

Look, it was Descartes himself who said "I think therefore i am".
Not that i am a great admirer of Descartes, but when we talk about philosophy we have to take in account what has already been said instead of trying to invent the wheel over and over.
When Descartes said these words he was thinking about what do we actually know.
His summary was that the only thing he took for granted was the fact that he exists, because if he didn't exist it wouldn't appear logical that he could think about this question.
So he was one of the philosphers you blame for talking nonsense, because he also went to the toilet even if he didn't really know why, and he also made appointments and on and on...
I do not think that his words are the most up to date, but they were more up to date than what you say.
In other words: Maybe you should first explaine how you want to confute Descartes.

This is one of the most ironic quotes that I have ever come across. "I think therefore I am". Thought begats existence. Fascinating.
Rich

Metaphysics are not so much an explanation of the world but rather an explanation of how our brain works.
Physically touchable things are the first category we understand.
Before babies understand the meaning of verbs and adjectives they learn how to use names for things.
There are some things that our brain does automatically due to its evolution: One thing is e.g. realizing faces.
Children see faces everywhere, in clouds, stones, trees, etc.
Our brain will always realize patterns. Pattern recognition is one of the primary aspects of our intelligence.
A returning pattern like a face or a circle will be recognized and given a tag by our brain. That's another thing our brain does automatically - attaching tags to whatever. Anything that gets perceived needs to get a name, and thus an 'isness', giving it a state of something that 'is'. The 'idea' of a circle is an ideal you won't find in nature.
However the pattern of a circle has its particular place of memory assigned to it in our brain. That's why we -> project its existence to the outside world giving the idea of a circle an ontological existence.
Actually any shape (like any piece of lint's shape) could be considered to have an ontological existence. But the idea of circle has a stronger impressiveness due to its recognition value. That's why we consider a circle something that 'is'. A lint-shape though...
That is why great authorities like Platon assumed that the idea must have existed before the material existence appeared.
I find it interesting that there was a trend amongst christian mysticists referring to Plato, considering anything that exists a result of god's thoughts before the creation.
In other words the concept of a circle must have been thought by god to come to existence in our world.
That is a very precise description of how our brain does it.
First of all the pattern is realised as a reappearing shape, so that it is realized as belonging to the same category and soon it will be given a name (tag), attaching an ontological existence to it. Humans attach tags of ontological existence to anything because their mind is just made for it.
Modern philosophers have realized this epistemical process as partially misleading.
Actually it is obvious that the ontological view is highly incompatible with modern science.
Classical Physics are based on the assumption of a material reality that was there and will be there wether or not there is any kind of mind or intelligence.
Radical constructivists like Heinz von Foerster get along much better with modern scientific paradigms, as they are claiming that what we perceive as the outside world is a huge complex construction of tags that we attach to reality. It helps us to deal with it but it's just a crutch because reality in its whole complexity will always stay inaccessible to us.
Which is actually something that already Kant said about the world of things that we can touch but never completely access mentally.

So, if Descartes says that we know nothing, but we do know that Lima is the capital of Peru, then isn't he wrong.

I share your doubt.
Although it sounds like you criticize my post.

I share your doubt.
Although it sounds like you criticize my post.
That's why i want to repeat a part of my earlier post, which kennethamy has not replied to:



As you can see you find an explanation for 'thought begats existence'.
The assumption that thoughts (for Platon:ideai) precede existence has a long tradition.

---------- Post added at 02:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 AM ----------


To my deepest regret kennethamy this is one hundred percent wrong.
If there is one thing that we can say for sure, even though Descartes can not be interviewed anymore:
At no time he would have claimed that we know for sure that Lima is the capital of Peru.
When he wrote the words "I think therefore i am" he would not even have claimed that he knows for sure that his name is Descartes.
Nore would he have claimed that he knows his parents.
Nore would he have claimed he knows he has parents.
See the quote on wikipedia:

Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt - his argument from the existence of a deceiving god - Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence he finds it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon, the tool he uses to stop himself sliding back into ungrounded beliefs), his belief in his own existence would be secure, for how could he be deceived unless he existed in order to be deceived?[INDENT] But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16-17)"


[/INDENT]As you can see ANYTHING is doubted - except his own existence.
Now when Isaac Newton said he made his inventions only because he was standing on the shoulders of a giant he referred to Rene Descartes (But it was Isaac Newton using Descartes as an authority, not me )
The lesson you may have to learn is that even to reductionists and positivists from the age of enlightenment there appeared to be areas of our reality that are totally inaccassible to our perception. (meaning a subjective reality can be perceived, but truth can not).
there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies.

By the way, i did not coincidently say
The only thing i know is that i have a feeling as if i was thinking. But i am not even sure if that's me or the computer processing.

Nore would he have claimed that he knows his parents.
Nore would he have claimed he knows he has parents.

Then with all due respect, we would have called this a "crazy person".

Clearly he knew what people meant when they said, "I know my parents". And if he never claimed knowledge of anything, he is simply redefining the word "knowledge".

I think therefore I am does not mean "thought begats existence".

However, in the rest of the Meditations, Descartes argues that he (and we) has a means to knowledge that is certain independently of his senses, namely reason, and that through reason we can know that there is a world external to our senses, as well as that there is a God.

I guess we can not say that Descartes never claimed knowledge of anything.
He kept writing words of wisdom (at least they had that status in those days), so he claimed having loads of knowledge.
The point was that he created a new basis on which knowledge should be based.
Arguments like "it is true because it's what the pope claims to be true" for example should not be valid as a reason anymore. His intention was to set completely new criteria, based only on the new cognitions that the 'age of enlightenment' brought to humanity. So he started a logical deduction questioning everything that could not be logically deducted because logic was one of the major inventions of the age of enlightenment (of course the laws of logic were already invented many centuries ago, but the age of enlightenment was a rennaisance of those ideas).
When he claimed that the only thing he knows for sure was that he 'is', his message was in the first place, that we have to question everything that can not be logically deducted. And anything further has to be a logical deduction.
I don't know in detail how he came to all the other conclusions. He certainly accepted that there are tools like e.g. empirical data that also allow inductive cognitions. So he also said if A is true then B is true, which can lead to the pieces of a puzzle that explains the whole world.
He certainly never said that he had no parents. But it's important to understand that he would have accepted the sentence "i have parents" only under certain premises.
I remember a joke about three men arriving at the coast of schottland and the first thing they see is a black sheep. I think they were a farmer, a biologist and a philospher or something like that.
When they see the black sheep the farmer sais: "Look the sheep in schottland are black". The biologist sais "One sheep is black".
And the philosopher sais "At least one side of it".
What seems slightly funny in this joke is actually a serious intention of philosophy.
The point is, in our everyday life we are used to considering things true because of all the premises we make.
Philosophically thinking we have to question all of these premises.
Kennethamy advises us to look at several sources if one is not enough to be sure about wether something is true or not.
A few centuries ago there was an amazing number of books and other sources that claimed to have scientific proof that black humans are inferior humans referring to (trashy) investigations about the shape of the scull and other crab.
How can the number of sources be a proof of truth?
There were so many myths about jewish conspiracies, history seems to burst from jewish conspiracies. The mere amount of myths has been reason enough for hundreds of millions of people to believe it and i don't have to tell you about the consequences in the Third Reich. Even today the growing number of websites picking up these sick old ferrytales is a blameful fact of newer history.
So once more: How can the number of sources be a proof of truth?
In fact there is an empirical aspect to the number of sources: If we observe 9999 ravens to have black feathers then the probability is high that number tenthousand will also be black.
But it doesn't make the sentence true that ALL ravens are black.
Not from the logical perspective. Observing billions of apples that fall to the ground doesn't make it true that ALL apples fall to the ground. Not from a logical perspective.
Having to deal with reality forces us to compromise. And to make conclusions based upon presuppositions.
Of course i also agree that ALL apples fall to the ground, but then again i remember this is not even true because when you release an apple from your hand in a space shuttle you are proven wrong.
You see?
Definitely looking up a couple of sources does not prove that Lima is the capital of Peru. In the contrary.
Philosophically speaking you can not even be sure if you go to Lima and ask people if it's the capital. You think you could?
Imagine the year 1988: If you had visited the city 'Bonn' in Germany and asked 1000 people "What is the capital of Germany", what would have been the answer? I guarantee in one thousand out of one thousand cases you would have got the answer "Bonn is the capital of Germany".
Kennethamy would have said this is proof enough to know that 'Bonn is the capital of Germany' is the truth. Then i would have gone to ask Erich Honnecker the same question. Ooops... (to remind you: Erich Honecker was the head of the russian occupied Eastern Germany in those days) - The answer would have been Berlin. The fact that Germany did not have a real capital due to the fact that it was still divided was completely banned from the public consciousness.
We could go on and on with examples but i think i have made myself relativy clear why from a locical perspective we have to doubt everything before it has logical proof.
And that is the message Descartes had to the world. And even though i am not a fan of Descartes, i have to admit that this is something we have to keep in our mind.
From a philosophical perspective , which means searching for (ultimate) truth, there is nothing we can take for granted.
Again i would like to recall that i said "The only thing i know is that i have a feeling as if i was thinking. But i am not even sure if that's me or the computer processing".
This was not a joke.
What Descartes took for granted is nowadays not necessarily being taken for granted anymore.


I did not say that and neither did Descartes.

And here we go. You see: Descartes certainly was very concerned about making his deductions in a manner that everything would be waterproof. And still he comes to the conclusion that there is a god. Shame shame...
I would like to get away from arguing about wether or not Lima is the capital of Peru.
What i find problematic is that your sense of truth is kind of binary. You tend to ask 'is it true that' or 'is it not true that'. In fact for questions of formal logic this is quite helpful.
However i really would like to advertise a more process oriented thinking.
Logic is a powerful tool of philosophy, however often seems to fail in our complex reality.
Why? Our reality normally is to complex for calculations like 'if X is true then... , else...'.
Your logic is open to arguments like:
"Person X remembers having smoked Marihuana at High School which makes him a drug user. So is it not true that person X is a drug user?"
Humans tend to think in categories of black and white, on or off - binary.
Reality however is complex and furthermore a process. Something that is true from one perspective can be totally wrong from another.
In many situations of our life we have no other choice than simplifying. To say it's wether A or B.
But the more we leave our subjective perspective behind, the more we have to recognize there are many shades of grey.
Truth is not ultimate.