Certainty and Personal Confidence, Descartes and Hume.

[RJT]

Actually, I've just been wanting to use the Mick Jagger thing for a while now. Seemed like a good time.

[ QUOTE ]
I can say with 100% absolute certainty that I exist and that I think, the former being an implication of the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only say with 100% certainty that there is thinking, I cannot say with certainty that there exits a thinker. I see no neccesary implication.

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can say with 100% absolute certainty that I exist and that I think, the former being an implication of the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only say with 100% certainty that there is thinking, I cannot say with certainty that there exits a thinker. I see no neccesary implication.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thinking is an action. It necessarily requires a subject. The thinker necessarily exists. That's not to say anything really about what form the thinker takes....

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking is an action. It necessarily requires a subject. The thinker necessarily exists. That's not to say anything really about what form the thinker takes....

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you see all the extra baggage you need to bring in, for Descartes stememnt seeming to hold. It simplicity may be seducing to someone of Descartes times but I would not fall for it. I see no evidence of a thinker anywhere. I think that Descartes leap of faith/understanding is not acceptable in a rigourous logical argument. The say that thinking is an action and therefore needs a subject is not at all clear to me, except linguistically.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would contend that no one has 100% certainty in their beliefs (no atheist and no believer).

[/ QUOTE ]
I can say with 100% absolute certainty that I exist and that I think, the former being an implication of the latter.

Outside of that, though, when people say they're 100% certain, it generally assumes a foundation of logic and rationality. I'm interested in how much confidence we can have in these claims given those basic axioms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a bit confused what it is you are actually asking. (If it is because I am too dense, then bear with me.) Your first sentence of your OP seem to suggest that you are talking about certainty of beliefs relative to things like religious beliefs. But, then you continue on with what sounds like questioning certainty relative to things like “How do I know I am actually typing on a computer right now?”.

If it is the former you are questioning - then my answer remains that one can never be 100% certain. I can’t speak for atheists, but I know for sure no Christian can ever be 100% certain. If they profess they are, it would perhaps be blasphemy - Jesus had a moment of doubt and you never ever have a doubt about any part of it? Other religions, not sure about - does anyone know of anyone who has actually achieved Nirvana (not sure how that really works, so if it is not a good example then disregard)? Jews - they are waiting for the Messiah, no real certainty need for that anyway - He’s not here yet so, really, certainty isn’t even required yet. I guess a case could be made for suicide Muslims bombers being 100% certain - but, I sure as heck would want to talk with a few of them before the act to see for myself that they actually were 100%.

I would suggest a dialectic approach with the atheist who contends 100% certainty. I have a few questions to start the ball rolling. Hopefully, I will have a chance to post tomorrow under the “anguish of the non believer” thread.

If it is the latter you are asking about - the typing on the computer thing - then, I’ll take a pass on getting into that. Sounds like you could come up with a better answer than I could. If it is this type of thing you are asking - I would suggest that if you have just dropped some acid in the last few days then, trust me, you’ll get over these types of questions in a few more days. Unless you happen to be Sid Barrett (from the original Pink Floyd).

As far as a barometer to measure certainty, I’ll defer to the scientists here.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Who deserves to be more confident? How do we construct a metric that will tell us?


[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read Berkely? I haven't but I'm generally familiar with the arguments of sceptics. The idea is you can't objectively prove the existence of anything outside your own mind. Descartes was following this idea with his Evil Demon scenario - or think of the movie Matrix.

One can be 100% certain of any number of things, subjectively. No one can demonstrate anything empirical to a 100% degree of certainty. We are but clay.

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who deserves to be more confident? How do we construct a metric that will tell us?


[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read Berkely? I haven't but I'm generally familiar with the arguments of sceptics. The idea is you can't objectively prove the existence of anything outside your own mind. Descartes was following this idea with his Evil Demon scenario - or think of the movie Matrix.

One can be 100% certain of any number of things, subjectively. No one can demonstrate anything empirical to a 100% degree of certainty. We are but clay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I've read Berkeley. His idealist philosophy basically eliminated an external world and maintained God was directly responsible for the reality we experience through some sort of unified mind or whatever. That's a rough summary, but I think he's responsible for some of the most ridiculous metaphysical nonsense there is, and it irks me on some irrational level that my alma mater bears his name. (At least we pronounce it differently.....Bishop Berkeley's name is pronounced like Charles Barkley).

Descartes evil demon scenario was just another of the roadblocks he came across in his meditations, which he so artfully dodged by wishing it away.

Anyway, like I said, all the Descartes stuff was really just background so that it would be clear I was NOT talking about certainty in that sense (looks like I got that point across well.....). I'm talking about 100% certainty at a level of abstraction that assumes some basic axioms about reality: empiricism, causuality, reason, etc. I do see claims made all the time of this sort, some of which contradict similar claims, hence the question of how to judge who's more likely to be correct.

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you see all the extra baggage you need to bring in, for Descartes stememnt seeming to hold. It simplicity may be seducing to someone of Descartes times but I would not fall for it. I see no evidence of a thinker anywhere. I think that Descartes leap of faith/understanding is not acceptable in a rigourous logical argument. The say that thinking is an action and therefore needs a subject is not at all clear to me, except linguistically.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're putting a lot of stock - one might call it 'excess baggage' - in this so-called 'rigorous logical argument,' when at that point in the meditations, Descartes hasn't even concluded that such a thing is valid. One of the goals of the meditations is to gain certainty about things such as logic and reason. At this point, all he's able to be certain about is cogito ergo sum. This is true by the definition of the words, which is what gives the phrase any informational meaning in the first place. So, in this case, its 'linguistic clarity' is really all that's important. "There exists a thought but no thinker" is equivalent nonsense to "red is not red" or "goobledy gobbledy gook."

I have to say it's tiring defending Descartes, since I despise the majority of his philosophy so heavily, and because it's basically irrelevant.

[kbfc]

I'm not interested in, "woah, what if I'm not really typing this" sort of garbage. I want to know who should be trusted when the following scenario occurs:

Dick says, "Hey boys, I got a question for yas. Is the capitol of Kentucky pronounced, 'Loo-ey-vill' or 'Loo-iss-vill?'

George replies, "By golly, I know for a 100% sure fact it's 'Loo-ey-vill.'"

Karl, however, is equally adamant, "You country fool, it's 'Frank-furt,' and I'm 100% sure of this fact."

Who deserves more confidence, assuming you don't already know the answer? And as I said above, I'm not interested in horseshit like, "How do we know Kentucky even exists?"

[ QUOTE ]

You're putting a lot of stock - one might call it 'excess baggage' - in this so-called 'rigorous logical argument,' when at that point in the meditations, Descartes hasn't even concluded that such a thing is valid. One of the goals of the meditations is to gain certainty about things such as logic and reason. At this point, all he's able to be certain about is cogito ergo sum. This is true by the definition of the words, which is what gives the phrase any informational meaning in the first place. So, in this case, its 'linguistic clarity' is really all that's important. "There exists a thought but no thinker" is equivalent nonsense to "red is not red" or "goobledy gobbledy gook."

I have to say it's tiring defending Descartes, since I despise the majority of his philosophy so heavily, and because it's basically irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your reply. If you think that thinking needs a thinker because the grammar of the language demands it, I fail to see the logic in that.

Regarding meditation, obviously, Descartes didn't do enough of it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]