If Descartes' doubt is faux doubt, ... — Pantagruel

What existential, factual or formal grounds did Descartes have to "doubt everything"?

re: "paper doubts" ...

Some philosophers have imagined that to start an inquiry it was only necessary to utter a question whether orally or by setting it down upon paper, and have even recommended us to begin our studies with questioning everything! But the mere putting of a proposition into the interrogative form does not stimulate the mind to any struggle after belief. There must be a real and living doubt, and without this all discussion is idle. — C.S. Peirce

(emphasis is mine)

If you're not acquainted, I recommend Peirce's essay in full "Fixation of Belief" (1877).

... then equally anyone's commitment to any belief could be characterized as faux belief

Also, Wittgenstein's On Certainty (1949, 1969). Like doubts, beliefs require grounds (Clifford), which, with respect to non-speculative, practical, habits (or non-theoretical commitments), the absence of grounds, or reasons, to doubt usually suffices for believing (Witty). So, no, Pantagruel, at best your leap is a false equivalence.

If you're not acquainted, I recommend Peirce's essay in full "Fixation of Belief" (1877). — 180 Proof

Also Some Consequences of Four Incapacities. Peirce laid into Descartes in that essay as well. For Peirce and Dewey, actual doubts--actual problems or uncertainties which we seek to resolve--motivate inquiry.

:up:

There must be a real and living doubt, and without this all discussion is idle. — C.S. Peirce

And upon what do you base the assertion that Descartes did not experience this as a real and living doubt? He said he did. So you just do not believe him? Now it is a question of credibility.

I doubt that you can make me doubt the sincerity of Descartes' metaphysical doubt.

Well, how does the mind take part in creating, sustaining or swapping, illusions? — TheMadFool

Those "illusions" are Memes, and the brain/mind is very good at "creating, sustaining, and swapping them". Some Memes are reliable facts, but many are malicious gossip or deceptive propaganda. But only the term is new. Human minds have been dealing with those factual and illusory beliefs for millennia. So, don't give-up in despair. Each culture has developed techniques, such as Greek Philosophy, for discriminating useful knowledge from worthless or dangerous Memes.

Socrates claim to "know nothing" was simply a rhetorical device to indicate that humility regarding your own knowledge-base was advisable in the search for Wisdom. The basis for Wisdom is discernment of Illusions from verities, and Good from Evil. :smile:

Memes : an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.

Memetics : Memetics is the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution. Proponents describe memetics as an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer. Memetics describes how an idea can propagate successfully, but doesn't necessarily imply a concept is factual.

Socrates : "all I know is that I know nothing"
https://reasonandmeaning.com/2019/11/03/socrates-i-know-that-i-know-nothing/

General relativity to my knowledge says objects don't have objective size and location, and the outward appearance of things have an objectivity that is fuzzy. So does modern science confirm the world to be illusion?

And upon what do you base the assertion that Descartes did not experience this as a real and living doubt? — Pantagruel

Maybe he did, maybe he hallucinated or merely thought he did. No one has "asserted" that he didn't, only that Descartes was mistaken, even begged questions because he lacked reasons to question 'everything' in the first instance. The actual question asked was this one:

What existential, factual or formal grounds did Descartes have to "doubt everything"? — 180 Proof

You find Cartesian Doubt genuine, not merely idle, and answering the question above would go a very long way to demonstrating why I/we should agree with you, Pantagruel, that it's not "faux-doubt".

You find Cartesian Doubt genuine, not merely idle, and answering the question above would go a very long way to demonstrating why I/we should agree with you, Pantagruel, that it's not "faux-doubt". — 180 Proof

Descartes' reasons are explained through his arguments.

Accusing Descartes of "faux doubt" means that you are not accepting the content of his arguments. So essentially, you and/or CTW are perpetrating an ad hominem against a dead man. I guess an easy target for you.....

Evasion and deflection make you look foolish. Spinoza (my guy!) took down Descartes' philosophical arguments (e.g. MBP) over three centuries ago for which I've been grateful for a few decades now. I get it, Pg, you didn't get the memo and no amount of prompting you to acquaint yourself with counter-Cartesians like Hume, Peirce, Dewey, Wittgenstein, Merleau-Ponty, Haack, Deutsch, Metzinger, et al will convince you of the Monsieur's errors (Damasio); so let's agree to disagree. Pax.

It does not follow from the fact that we've been wrong about some things that we've been wrong about everything. It does not follow from the fact that we cannot know some things that we cannot know anything. It does not follow from the fact that we cannot directly perceive everything that we cannot directly perceive anything.

That's how I handle the all too well known limitations of our physiological sensory perception.

Others can posit that's it's all illusory, if they like.

:wink:

Those "illusions" are Memes, and the brain/mind is very good at "creating, sustaining, and swapping them". Some Memes are reliable facts, but many are malicious gossip or deceptive propaganda. But only the term is new. Human minds have been dealing with those factual and illusory beliefs for millennia. So, don't give-up in despair. Each culture has developed techniques, such as Greek Philosophy, for discriminating useful knowledge from worthless or dangerous Memes.

Socrates claim to "know nothing" was simply a rhetorical device to indicate that humility regarding your own knowledge-base was advisable in the search for Wisdom. The basis for Wisdom is discernment of Illusions from verities, and Good from Evil. :smile:

Memes : an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.

Memetics : Memetics is the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution. Proponents describe memetics as an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer. Memetics describes how an idea can propagate successfully, but doesn't necessarily imply a concept is factual.

Socrates : "all I know is that I know nothing"
https://reasonandmeaning.com/2019/11/03/socrates-i-know-that-i-know-nothing/ — Gnomon

Thanks for your post. The idea of memes as information following the same principles of biological evolution - replicating, morphing, going extinct - makes sense. What's intriguing is that for a meme to "infect" its host mind, the host mind must be receptive to the meme otherwise it'll be rejected. As an analogy the the key (meme) must match the lock (host mind) and only then will unlocking (meme-host mind match) take place. In the context of this current discussion, the host mind's receptiveness (the way the lock is constructed to match particular meme keys) contributes to the illusion the host mind lives in.

↪Pantagruel Evasion and deflection make you look foolish. Spinoza (my guy!) took down Descartes' philosophical arguments (e.g. MBP) over three centuries ago for which I've been grateful for a few decades now. I get it, Pg, you didn't get the memo and no amount of prompting you to acquaint yourself with counter-Cartesians like Hume, Peirce, Dewey, Wittgenstein, Merleau-Ponty, Haack, Deutsch, Metzinger, et al will convince you of the Monsieur's errors (Damasio); so let's agree to disagree. Pax. — 180 Proof

Well, one final.

Doubt is clearly a species of belief: I doubt x is true. I believe x is true.

You do not require reasons for belief. As soon as you add a requirement for a reason for belief, you have crossed the line from belief to knowledge. This was the glaring problem with Dennett's argument that there are "no good reasons for believing in god". Maybe no good reasons for him. He has absolutely no basis for disputing anyone else's belief in anything that isn't trivially and manifestly false. Same thing with doubt.

Finally, Descartes' doubt is an integral methodological component of his philosophy, and figures directly in his arguments. So it is supported by the coherence of the body of the whole. Thus the integrity or credibility of his doubt(belief) is evidenced by the quality of his conclusions. Cogito ergo sum is a monumental achievement that rang true for an age and rightly contributed to the well-earned title and position of the "father of modern thought." You are free to dispute him, but you cannot deny him.

I think those points are probably substantive by anyone's standards.

Oh, and for the record, Dewey is a genius and one of my current top picks. Have you read Nature and Human Conduct? Moving. I'll be reading Democracy and Education when I finish with Marx in a week or so.

The subject is an object. Yes, things which are subjects (have subjective experiences) are also objects. But having a subjective experience (which is specifically how subjectivity was being characterized, "being real for a subject,") is explicitly different from "being real as an object." Your construction lacks specificity. — Pantagruel

If humans are objects, then having subjective experiences is being real as an object. It would be a defining property of a the object, human. Our subjective experiences have a real causal effect on the rest of the world and are caused by the real interaction between the world and body, all of which are objects. So talking about states of objects being subjective isn't helpful as all objects have defining states that make them unique with unique responses to the events in the world.

If humans are objects, then having subjective experiences is being real as an object. It would be a defining property of a the object, human. — Harry Hindu

Yes, of the object "human". Not of the object "rock" or "atom" or of objectivity per se.If subjectivity is a uniquely emergent property, then you can't say that experience is a feature of objectivity as such.

And upon what do you base the assertion that Descartes did not experience this as a real and living doubt? He said he did. So you just do not believe him? Now it is a question of credibility. — Pantagruel

Well, he set the stage, as it were. I think he made it clear he was engaging in an exercise, a contrived one that he didn't really think anyone engages in normally, purportedly for the sake of acquiring an unshakeable foundation for thought. This supposedly required him to establish an absolute certainty; something that could never be questioned. Something needed, though I don't know why he thought it was needed, to eliminate any concern that we might be dreaming, or worry that an evil demon was fooling us.

Now I suspect he never really thought there was an evil demon; he was never really concerned that Beelzebub or some other demon was making him think he was writing about Beelzebub or some other demon making him think he was writing about him, or that he was sitting in a chair while doing so in his room while doing so. That's what I think of as faux doubt. A "doubt" which is entertained solely for the sake of making a point.

Well, he set the stage, as it were. I think he made it clear he was engaging in an exercise, a contrived one that he didn't really think anyone engages in normally, purportedly for the sake of acquiring an unshakeable foundation for thought. This supposedly required him to establish an absolute certainty; something that could never be questioned. Something needed, though I don't know why he thought it was needed, to eliminate any concern that we might be dreaming, or worry that an evil demon was fooling us.

Now I suspect he never really thought there was an evil demon; he was never really concerned that Beelzebub or some other demon was making him think he was writing about Beelzebub or some other demon making him think he was writing about him, or that he was sitting in a chair while doing so in his room while doing so. That's what I think of as faux doubt. A "doubt" which is entertained solely for the sake of making a point. — Ciceronianus the White

I don't think anyone seriously believes they are a brain in a vat either. And yet...that is the whole point, isn't it? Reality can be...deceptive. And sometimes doubt needs to be driven by intellect.

Let's call this one a draw.

Let's call this one a draw. — Pantagruel

That would be fine.

It's good to know there's another admirer of Dewey here. I think he was extraordinarily insightful.

It's good to know there's another admirer of Dewey here. I think he was extraordinarily insightful. — Ciceronianus the White

On this we agree 100% There's a man whose convictions come across with force in his writings.

That's what I think of as faux doubt. A "doubt" which is entertained solely for the sake of making a point. — Ciceronianus the White

:up:

What's intriguing is that for a meme to "infect" its host mind, the host mind must be receptive to the meme otherwise it'll be rejected. As an analogy the the key (meme) must match the lock (host mind) and only then will unlocking (meme-host mind match) take place. In the context of this current discussion, the host mind's receptiveness (the way the lock is constructed to match particular meme keys) contributes to the illusion the host mind lives in. — TheMadFool

Good point! A poster on another thread --- discussing FreeWill not gods --- replied to my reply, first by rejecting my links to "expert" opinions, and then by insisting that Philosophy must be governed by empirical science :

"There is no scientific discovery that involves or demonstrates gods, and I can guarantee that if there is any "expert opinion" to be found by following your link, it has nothing to do with science. Science is not a study of opinion. I can also guarantee that if the link contains any scientific information, that information has nothing to do with gods."

So, he made it clear that he is not "receptive" to philosophical speculation, even by credentialed scientists. Apparently, his belief system "lock" is already blocked by the meme of Scientism. So, I asked him why he bothers to post on a Philosophy forum. He didn't attempt an answer. But I suspect that he views philosophy as the theoretical branch of empirical Science, not as an independent method for critically examining even the dogmas --- yes, and even "illusions" (phlogiston, etc) --- of mainstream Science. Ironically, the "soft" sciences, such as Psychology, are still primarily philosophical. :smile:

Scientism : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Science vs Philosophy : "those who post comments to my entries often show two interesting and complementary attitudes: a fundamental distrust of (if not downright contempt for) philosophy, coupled with an overly enthusiastic endorsement of science."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rationally-speaking/200911/the-difference-between-science-and-philosophy

Descartes specifically said in his Replies attached to the Meditations that he doubted simply to find unshakable truth

Good point! A poster on another thread --- discussing FreeWill not gods --- replied to my reply, first by rejecting my links to "expert" opinions, and then by insisting that Philosophy must be governed by empirical science :

"There is no scientific discovery that involves or demonstrates gods, and I can guarantee that if there is any "expert opinion" to be found by following your link, it has nothing to do with science. Science is not a study of opinion. I can also guarantee that if the link contains any scientific information, that information has nothing to do with gods."

So, he made it clear that he is not "receptive" to philosophical speculation, even by credentialed scientists. Apparently, his belief system "lock" is already blocked by the meme of Scientism. So, I asked him why he bothers to post on a Philosophy forum. He didn't attempt an answer. But I suspect that he views philosophy as the theoretical branch of empirical Science, not as an independent method for critically examining even the dogmas --- yes, and even "illusions" (phlogiston, etc) --- of mainstream Science. Ironically, the "soft" sciences, such as Psychology, are still primarily philosophical. :smile:

Scientism : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Science vs Philosophy : "those who post comments to my entries often show two interesting and complementary attitudes: a fundamental distrust of (if not downright contempt for) philosophy, coupled with an overly enthusiastic endorsement of science."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rationally-speaking/200911/the-difference-between-science-and-philosophy — Gnomon

:up:

Philsophers are rain-makers. Wherever there's a parade, they make sure it rains and rains hard. :smile:

So does modern science confirm the world to be illusion? — Gregory

Simulation Hypothesis

Yes, of the object "human". Not of the object "rock" or "atom" or of objectivity per se.If subjectivity is a uniquely emergent property, then you can't say that experience is a feature of objectivity as such. — Pantagruel

Thats strange because you just wrote about subjectivity objectively, just as we can talk about some property of rocks being unique and a defining feature of rocks and that makes rocks behave in certain ways.

Descartes specifically said in his Replies attached to the Meditations that he doubted simply to find unshakable truth — Gregory

Does that minimize or maximize the force of his discovery?

Does it even make sense to talk about everything being an illusion? If there is nothing outside of this universe, then what is the difference between a universe that's entirely an illusion and a universe that is entirely real?

My position is that "illusion" is not actually a property of physical things, it's a relative property of hypotheses. The hypothesis that I am a human living in the year 2020 in a spacetime universe is the best one I have right now, and so I call it "real" and all other explanations "illusions".
But if I get introduced to some "Zion" outside of this world which is actually the Matrix, then I might come up with a better hypothesis to explain the totality of my experiences, and the idea that I'm a 2020 earthling might then become the "illusion".

The standard concept/ opinion is that we live in a state of "maya/illusion" and don't see the real reality in front of us.

But my opinion is that the real illusion is the concept that there is a fundamental view point called "reality" that anyone can technically experience this "reality " and it somehow be identical regardless of how many people get to experience it
I think that's the real illusion because we all experience a slightly different world because we have been shapeing are perspective since the day we were born and that's why a movie that makes one person cry can make the next person laugh despite being the same exact movie

And so I think reality is an illusion.

Perceptions of reality. phenomenon seems to fit the bill. — TheMadFool

I didn't see anyone mention the paradox/illusion of time, so I thought I would add this to your notion of our "perceptions of reality" statement.

:up: :ok:

You're welcome. One thing it didn't mention (among other's) is the idea that time itself, is not as illusionary as the change in time, itself. A distinction that's interesting. Of course the simple paradox of time zones and time travel via infamous twins bear this out... .

You're welcome. One thing it didn't mention (among other's) is the idea that time itself, is not as illusionary as the change in time, itself. A distinction that's interesting. Of course the simple paradox of time zones and time travel via infamous twins bear this out... . — 3017amen

I think time is unreal for the simple reason that it's relative according to the much bandied about theory of relativity of Einstein. The idea of relativensss, if that's even a word, suggests a kinship with what philosophers refer to as worldview/weltanshcauung - it's just a perspective ergo, subjective and not objective. I'm going out on a limb by saying, if Einstein is correct and we have good reasons to think he is, no one's time will ever perfectly match with someone else's. Time then is very much like a private, personal, experience having no existence beyond.