What existential, factual or formal grounds did Descartes have to "doubt everything"?If Descartes' doubt is faux doubt, ... — Pantagruel
(emphasis is mine)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
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.... then equally anyone's commitment to any belief could be characterized as faux belief
If you're not acquainted, I recommend Peirce's essay in full "Fixation of Belief" (1877). — 180 Proof
There must be a real and living doubt, and without this all discussion is idle. — C.S. Peirce
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.Well, how does the mind take part in creating, sustaining or swapping, illusions? — TheMadFool
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:And upon what do you base the assertion that Descartes did not experience this as a real and living doubt? — Pantagruel
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".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". — 180 Proof
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
↪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
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.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. — Harry Hindu
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. — Ciceronianus the White
Let's call this one a draw. — Pantagruel
It's good to know there's another admirer of Dewey here. I think he was extraordinarily insightful. — Ciceronianus the White
:up: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
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 :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 — Gnomon
So does modern science confirm the world to be illusion? — Gregory
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.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
Descartes specifically said in his Replies attached to the Meditations that he doubted simply to find unshakable truth — Gregory
Perceptions of reality. phenomenon seems to fit the bill. — TheMadFool
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.