[Victus Mortuum]

I figured we could have an interesting discussion on philosophers of the past. I will be starting threads on different ones, spaced out a little if you are interested in discussing them.

So, first off, let's discuss the 'first modern philosoper', Rene Descartes.

What do you think of his rationalism and its conclusions? Do you think that his mode of acquiring 'truth' is proper? What are the flaws in cartesian philosophy? What about his famous statement 'I think therefore I am'? Anything else you want to discuss about him?

[bowstaff981]

I'm not an expert, but I did just finish a semester of western philosophy so I'll give this discussion a shot. What I found interesting about him is that his "I think therefore I am" doesn't go along with some other things he believed. He thought that God could do the logically impossible and make a nothing think that it's a something. So how does he know that he isn't just a nothing that thinks it's a something?

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Victus Mortuum

I figured we could have an interesting discussion on philosophers of the past. I will be starting threads on different ones, spaced out a little if you are interested in discussing them.

So, first off, let's discuss the 'first modern philosoper', Rene Descartes.

What do you think of his rationalism and its conclusions? Do you think that his mode of acquiring 'truth' is proper? What are the flaws in cartesian philosophy? What about his famous statement 'I think therefore I am'? Anything else you want to discuss about him?

So many stories about "in the beginning" begin with evil -- the world was created out of a war between the gods, the master and the slave fight and trade off domination, and so on. For Descartes, the entire world is assumed untrustworthy until he has an Archimedean reason otherwise. This, I think is his problem.

He is right to think so highly of human capability. The problem is that the locus of human capability is for him the self (and particularly the thinking, inner self), because of the assumed untrustworthiness of the world. That self is what gets him into so much trouble.

What are your thoughts on him?

[Rhonda Schofield]

His Discourse on Method was.. interesting. I especially love the pages where he goes on and on about the human circulation system.

[AlphaSigma]

Originally Posted by bowstaff981

I'm not an expert, but I did just finish a semester of western philosophy so I'll give this discussion a shot. What I found interesting about him is that his "I think therefore I am" doesn't go along with some other things he believed. He thought that God could do the logically impossible and make a nothing think that it's a something. So how does he know that he isn't just a nothing that thinks it's a something?

But if a nothing is thinking, he still is a thinking nothing. Which by description is a thing. It's almost paradoxical.

[Victus Mortuum]

Originally Posted by bowstaff981

I'm not an expert, but I did just finish a semester of western philosophy so I'll give this discussion a shot. What I found interesting about him is that his "I think therefore I am" doesn't go along with some other things he believed. He thought that God could do the logically impossible and make a nothing think that it's a something. So how does he know that he isn't just a nothing that thinks it's a something?

Yeah. Descartes is a funny guy. I think the most interesting thing about his 'Dubito ergo cogito, ergo sum.' (I doubt, hence I think, hence I am.) is that it really doesn't prove as much as he wanted it to. Certainly, if there was a postulate a thinking subject would have to accept on faith, it would be that it thinks, but what does that amount to? All that has been proven is that there is a subject of 'my' thoughts, that is, there is an illusory something thinking. We have yet to establish that anything but a subject exists. Am 'I' not just a series of memories that are the product of sensation, which he has already established as something he doubts? It's all very interesting.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

So many stories about "in the beginning" begin with evil -- the world was created out of a war between the gods, the master and the slave fight and trade off domination, and so on.

Even those myths typically are preceded by a period of prosperity: a period where the alienation (in whatever form it is being referred to) has yet to exist. Think about the 'Golden Age' of the Greeks, Eden of the Christians and Muslims, Krita Yuga for the Hindus, etc. I would say that most myths typically begin with the greatness of the beginning, which then becomes the alienated world that the faithful know.

For Descartes, the entire world is assumed untrustworthy until he has an Archimedean reason otherwise. This, I think is his problem.

I would agree. Nothing can be learned if we don't accept (even if we agree that we can't be 100% sure) our experienced is happening.

He is right to think so highly of human capability. The problem is that the locus of human capability is for him the self (and particularly the thinking, inner self), because of the assumed untrustworthiness of the world. That self is what gets him into so much trouble.

Agreed on many levels. He bases everything on the individual existence and makes jumps in his 'Meditations on First Philosophy' that are not proven based upon his 'Discourse on the Method' (his Dualism, his proof of God, his proof of himself, etc.).

Originally Posted by Rhonda Schofield

His Discourse on Method was.. interesting. I especially love the pages where he goes on and on about the human circulation system.

Ya, those are fun. I do appreciate his 'Method' though. It certainly was effective at solving math problems (think of the many scientific/mathematical achievements he is/was known for).

[Jeffrey]

At the core, the idea that the one thing I can't explain away is my own act of thinking is very reassuring. We discussed this in my middle school logic class when we discussed the senses - every could be illusion (I appended a very cynical ending to the old "man dreams he's a butterfly" claptrap), and thus could be explained away, but one must address thought. Can you disprove that right now, you are thinking?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Victus Mortuum

Even those myths typically are preceded by a period of prosperity: a period where the alienation (in whatever form it is being referred to) has yet to exist. Think about the 'Golden Age' of the Greeks, Eden of the Christians and Muslims, Krita Yuga for the Hindus, etc. I would say that most myths typically begin with the greatness of the beginning, which then becomes the alienated world that the faithful know.

Wasn't the Greek Golden Age of Men preceded by war between the Titans and the Olympians? And isn't Eden preceded by the Fall of the Devil after the War in Heaven?

The ancient Near East beginnings tend to start with chaos.

[AlphaSigma]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Wasn't the Greek Golden Age of Men preceded by war between the Titans and the Olympians? And isn't Eden preceded by the Fall of the Devil after the War in Heaven?

The ancient Near East beginnings tend to start with chaos.

Which tends to baffle my students at youth group when I tell them that the Genesis creation is nothing new in the ANE.

p.s. Jeffrey, is your avay a MTG card?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Blade84135

Which tends to baffle my students at youth group when I tell them that the Genesis creation is nothing new in the ANE.

Save that God does not have to battle chaos, nor does He bequeath Creation through any sort of sexual or asexual reproduction. Still...

p.s. Jeffrey, is your avay a MTG card?

As in Magic: the Gathering? No, it's Ash from Evil Dead 2.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Victus Mortuum

Even those myths typically are preceded by a period of prosperity: a period where the alienation (in whatever form it is being referred to) has yet to exist. Think about the 'Golden Age' of the Greeks, Eden of the Christians and Muslims, Krita Yuga for the Hindus, etc. I would say that most myths typically begin with the greatness of the beginning, which then becomes the alienated world that the faithful know.

But neither is truly "in the beginning;" one is part of an eternal cycle (following the chaotic destruction of the entire world) and the other is only first for humans (following the god-war I mentioned above). Descartes' dubious world is where everything begins -- since the private, inner, conscious, thinking self is truly the beginning of the whole world to him -- just as is Hobbes's "nasty, brutish, and short" world or Hegel's world of the master/slave dialectic.

Originally Posted by Victus Mortuum

I would agree. Nothing can be learned if we don't accept (even if we agree that we can't be 100% sure) our experienced is happening.

I wouldn't say that. Nothing can be proven if we don't accept that premise, yes -- of course, Descartes wants knowledge and proof to overlap completely, so obviously I've given him all he needs, haha!

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

At the core, the idea that the one thing I can't explain away is my own act of thinking is very reassuring. We discussed this in my middle school logic class when we discussed the senses - every could be illusion (I appended a very cynical ending to the old "man dreams he's a butterfly" claptrap), and thus could be explained away, but one must address thought. Can you disprove that right now, you are thinking?

But that posture carries strong assumptions about this "I" that you're talking about, such as (a) that "proof" is a big deal to "I," (b) there really is this "I" to whom belong the consciousness that's thinking about it, etc.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Save that God does not have to battle chaos, nor does He bequeath Creation through any sort of sexual or asexual reproduction. Still...

Yeah, for real. In the Genesis account/s God speaks the whole world into being -- very unique -- and it seems to go out of its way to show that God creates all the other gods (sun, moon, etc.). Its strong creator/creature distinction goes against the grain of other ANE cosmogonies and its covenantal/elective view of humanity carries a distinct self-understanding.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

But that posture carries strong assumptions about this "I" that you're talking about, such as (a) that "proof" is a big deal to "I," (b) there really is this "I" to whom belong the consciousness that's thinking about it, etc.

Well, not for me. It's more that consciousness itself in my limited perception & intuition cannot be denied. Sitting here, having a discussion with nothing by the shifting shadows in my head, I cannot deny that there is consciousness. The rest of the world may amount simply to sense data and the identity constructed in that unseen realm may shift, but there is something interpreting that data. Within those shifting shadows, that sense that considers itself [insert my secret name] cannot be disproven, even if its assumptions are shaped by illusion.

Yeah, for real. In the Genesis account/s God speaks the whole world into being -- very unique -- and it seems to go out of its way to show that God creates all the other gods (sun, moon, etc.). Its strong creator/creature distinction goes against the grain of other ANE cosmogonies and its covenantal/elective view of humanity carries a distinct self-understanding.

And this is where I begrudgingly find my musings intersecting with those of silly, fat Uncle Jack - that similarities between the Judeo-Christian story with other stories is not damning evidence of their falsehood. One can compare and contrast any two worldviews and find similarities.

[AlphaSigma]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Save that God does not have to battle chaos, nor does He bequeath Creation through any sort of sexual or asexual reproduction. Still...



As in Magic: the Gathering? No, it's Ash from Evil Dead 2.

I see what you're saying.

OK. I thought it was worth asking. [/tangent]

[Victus Mortuum]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Wasn't the Greek Golden Age of Men preceded by war between the Titans and the Olympians? And isn't Eden preceded by the Fall of the Devil after the War in Heaven?

The ancient Near East beginnings tend to start with chaos.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

But neither is truly "in the beginning;" one is part of an eternal cycle (following the chaotic destruction of the entire world) and the other is only first for humans (following the god-war I mentioned above).

Ya. I should have clarified. I meant the beginning for humanity. Humanity tends to start off in an unalienated position, and then 'falls' into its position as alienated.
A little thing about what you said, Jeffrey. The Genesis account/s of creation say/s nothing about the fall of the Devil after the War in Heaven (though there are some implications in Revelation and a few other books, all of which would have been written well after the Genesis myth).

Descartes' dubious world is where everything begins -- since the private, inner, conscious, thinking self is truly the beginning of the whole world to him -- just as is Hobbes's "nasty, brutish, and short" world or Hegel's world of the master/slave dialectic.

Descartes biggest mistake was his complete doubt of everything, and his gigantic jumps in assumptions (He starts using thoughts and phrases that are all empirical products of his memories, which are products of his senses, which he doubts. He thus gives no basis for any sort of trust in an individual self as opposed to an 'absolute idea' such as Hegel's. Descartes' error is what led to 'modern' idealism.).

I wouldn't say that. Nothing can be proven if we don't accept that premise, yes -- of course, Descartes wants knowledge and proof to overlap completely, so obviously I've given him all he needs, haha!

Perhaps I'm not reading this well, but what exactly are you trying to say?

And this is where I begrudgingly find my musings intersecting with those of silly, fat Uncle Jack - that similarities between the Judeo-Christian story with other stories is not damning evidence of their falsehood. One can compare and contrast any two worldviews and find similarities.

I wasn't attempting to show the falsehood of Genesis (or Christianity in general) by showing the connection between the stories. I was just pulling out a very consistent (and very understandable) similarity between all accounts of the 'first humanity'.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

As in Magic: the Gathering? No, it's Ash from Evil Dead 2.

If Bruce Campbell were a Magic card, he would be better than a Black Lotus. No question.