Descartes and Certainty

[usmhot]

An interesting answer to this that I heard before (so long ago I forget the source, unfortunately, but I presume it was a more recent philosopher) ...

Descartes' argument allows me to prove the existence of my own mind. So, let's start there.
My mind exists.
A mind must have content - it must contemplate something, otherwise it is nothing.
But, if only my mind exists, then it is not possible for it to contemplate anything other than itself. And, yet, my mind does contemplate many things other than itself (I 'see' other 'things' and 'people' etc.). At least one other thing must exist outside my mind and be perceived by my mind for it to contemplate something other than itself.
Therefore, there is at least one other existence outside my mind.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So you created me in your mind? Ok but now you come up to me and ask me a tough probability question that you only know haw to do the long way. I give you an answer in ten seconds that you write down. Five minutes later you verify it. That doesn't fully disprove solipsism because it is conceivable that your subconscious brain is as good at math as me. But aside from this technical objection, my scenario should ease your mind.

(A seond example would be to drop something from 13 feet, see how long it takes to drop and then go to the library to look up the appropriate physics formulas and see if they jive. Again not an ironclad proof but good enough.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't do experiments to prove you're not dreaming unless you know some type of experience cannot exist within a dream.

chez

[Georgia Avenue]

This is not "disproving" anything...it is in fact what Descartes was getting at.

It's sad to me that Descartes is associated with solipsism, when in fact it was this sort of Amateur Hour Grateful Dead balderdash that he was trying to move past in “Meditations.” His essential path was:
1. I exist as thought.
2. My thought must be of something.
3. The only thing I can prove I didn’t invent is God.
4. If God exists, all Creation (including Science and Math) exists.
5. Let’s get back to business.

Certainly much to disagree with there, but, not just boring solipsism.

Here’s a sample:
[ QUOTE ]

But there is still another way of inquiring whether, of the objects whose ideas are in my mind, there are any that exist out of me. If ideas are taken in so far only as they are certain modes of consciousness, I do not remark any difference or inequality among them, and all seem, in the same manner, to proceed from myself; but, considering them as images, of which one represents one thing and another a different, it is evident that a great diversity obtains among them. For, without doubt, those that represent substances are something more, and contain in themselves, so to speak, more objective reality that is, participate by representation in higher degrees of being or perfection], than those that represent only modes or accidents; and again, the idea by which I conceive a God sovereign], eternal, infinite, immutable], all-knowing, all-powerful, and the creator of all things that are out of himself, this, I say, has certainly in it more objective reality than those ideas by which finite substances are represented.


[/ QUOTE ]
I *heart* l'goolibrary

Remember kids…YOU CAN’T JUST READ THE CLIFF’S NOTES! Read the actual work of the author.


Man, I’m grumpy this morning.

We are nothing more than highly intelligent animals. We are aware of our own existence, and can challenge our own existence (what is the purpose of life?..etc..) unlike other animals that think and operate on a more instinctual level. "I AM, THEREFORE I THINK" seems like a better way to put it, but thats just my opinion on the matter.

[carlo]

"Digesto, Ergo Sum"

carlo

[jester710]

[ QUOTE ]
It's sad to me that Descartes is associated with solipsism, when in fact it was this sort of Amateur Hour Grateful Dead balderdash that he was trying to move past in “Meditations.”

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not mean to imply that Descartes was an advocate of solipsism, and I apologize if I gave that impression. Like I said, most philosophical arguments are based on an agreed-upon assumption (e.g., things exist); Descartes was simply trying to prove the most basic of assumptions. If he had, he probably could have proven just about anything, including the (non)existence of God. His quote of Archimedes says it best: "Give me a long enough lever and a place to stand and I will move the world."

[DougShrapnel]

I suddenly realized an important aspect of this line of thought. Part of evolution is that when we are young we are designed to believe any and everything told to us. We are inquisitive but haven't developed the ability of skepticism.

Eventually our reasoning abilities develop further up until around 25 years of age when our brains are fully developed, and with the our reasoning ability are then able to question everything we have taken on someone’s word.

Would a better line of thought be I will only believe that which there is evidence for, that which is testable, even the most deeply held beliefs I have must be able to stand the most rigorous scrutiny?

Certainly, if I never questioned what i was told. That would bring some doubt to the validity of my beliefs.