Don't you think that lawyers pretend as well? This very moment, I'm pretending I care what you think about lawyers. What wonders will I learn from this pursuit? — Ciceronianus

I think lawyers do it for differing reasons or even financial motivations. The motivation for a philosopher to pretend would be only to engage similarly as in physics with thought experiments over the nature of the world.

What kind of pretending do lawyers have to do as a living to play devils advocate or be called accusers doesn't seem interesting to debate over.

It happens Dewey indeed said that (although I paraphrase). You may find that out for yourself if you manage to convince yourself there is an Internet and you can access it. I happen to agree with him. And with Peirce that what he calls "self-deception" on the part of Descartes shouldn't be indulged in. — Ciceronianus

Well, if Peirce called it self-deception at his time, and with it Hume told us to disregard metaphysics, which seems to always be a common theme that you bring up about the nature of philosophy isn't really interesting to pretend about nowadays with the linguistic turn and stuff like that.

It's a common to mistake argumentation for philosophy. Argumentation is indeed a game of let's pretend some premises and see what conclusions we come to.

He had reason to doubt he had hands, eyes, blood, senses (though using them all to write that he doubted them)? — Ciceronianus

He used a hypothetical doubt to construct a foundation for knowledge. And he wrote afterwards about his meditations. One can of course doubt the construction of his doubt. Let's pretend there is a devil deceiver???

If "If" is equivalent to "Let's pretend", then every argument can be recast as "let's pretend {premises}, then {conclusion}. The interesting question, then, is "is there more to philosophy than argument?" I certainly hope so!

If you and others believe he really thought he had no hands, or eyes, or nose, or ears, and that an Evil Demon was having a joke at his expense, then by all means say so. If you don't believe he thought that, but nonetheless said he would assume that was true, have the kindness to say that as well.

If you and others believe he really thought he had no hands, or eyes, or nose, or ears, and that an Evil Demon was having a joke at his expense, then by all means say so. If you don't believe he thought that, but nonetheless said he would assume that was true, have the kindness to say that as well. — Ciceronianus

The point is Descartes did not believe he had no hands etc. He found himself capable of doubting he had hands etc, on the strength of the possibility that he might be dreaming, it might be a trick played on him by the ED and so on. He went through the process of identifying everything he could possibly doubt in order to see what he could not possibly doubt. — Janus

I re-post this, which you (perhaps conveniently?) failed to respond to previously.

The point is Descartes did not believe he had no hands etc. He found himself capable of doubting he had hands etc, on the strength of the possibility that he might be dreaming, it might be a trick played on him by the ED and so on. He went through the process of identifying everything he could possibly doubt in order to see what he could not possibly doubt.
— Janus

I re-post this, which you (perhaps conveniently?) failed to respond to previously. — Janus

Let's consider the definition of "doubt."

Macmillan Dictionary (online)
"to think that something is probably not true or that it probably does not exist
to think that something is unlikely"

From Dictionary.com:

"to be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe
verb
to be uncertain about something; be undecided in opinion or belief:
noun
a feeling of uncertainty about the truth, reality, or nature of something:
a general feeling of uncertainty, worry, or concern:
As soon as I'd dropped out of school to become a full-time musician, I was full of doubt—what if I’d made a terrible mistake?
Set your doubts aside, and listen to my business idea with an open mind."

From Collins English Dictionary (online):

"1. VARIABLE NOUN
If you have doubt or doubts about something, you feel uncertain about it and do not know whether it is true or possible.
2. TRANSITIVE VERB
If you doubt whether something is true or possible, you believe that it is probably not true or possible.
3. TRANSITIVE VERB
If you doubt something, you believe that it might not be true or genuine.
4. TRANSITIVE VERB
If you doubt someone or doubt their word, you think that they may not be telling the truth."

As you say Descartes did not believe he had no hands, I assume you think he believed he had hands. By saying he was nonetheless able to doubt he did have hands, are you saying:

He believed he had hands, but was uncertain he had hands?
He believed he had hands but thought it probably not true he had hands?
He believed he had hands but thought it questionable he had hands?
He believed he had hands but thought it unlikely he had hands?
He believed he had hands but believed it might not be true he had hands?
He believed he had hands but hesitated to believe it true he had hands?

If not, you should reconsider your use of the word "doubt." If so, you must think Descartes to have been a very frightened, undecided and confused man.

I think you are missing the point. Descartes was able to imagine a scenario in which the existence of his hands (to stick to the example) could be subject to doubt. His whole life as he presently remembers and experiences it might be a dreamed confabulation, or a delusion visited on him by the ED, and so on. These are not serious everyday doubts we might have but radical thought experiment scenarios which Descartes takes to clarify just what could, in extremis, be doubted, and what could not.

I think there's a bit of a difference between pretending that I'm a super hero saving the world, vs wondering about the meaning of life. Play is purely for entertainment, while thinking is about solving real questions about life. Can some people approach philosophy as entertainment? Certainly. But the core of philosophy is thinking.

Personally I've likened philosophy to figuring out detailed and rational definitions to what we already use daily. What is "good"? What is "meaning"? It asks us to examine the words we've been using without thinking about them, and finally thinking about them.

The process of thinking involves imagination, and thought experiments. How else would a hypothesis be formed in science? The same goes for a premise in philosophy. A fine philosophical question by the way!

But also, perhaps, it sometimes distances itself too greatly from life and the world and becomes pretense. — Ciceronianus

The imagination is not a state: it is the human existence itself.

William Blake


P. S.

I rest not from my great task! | To open the Eternal Worlds, | to open the immortal Eyes of Man | Inwards into the Worlds of Thought; | Into eternity, ever expanding | In the Bosom of God, | The Human Imagination

Are you offended that Descartes had thoughts that he didn’t have to?

It doesn't do anything so useful and worthy when it entails questioning the existence of the "external world" — Ciceronianus

I tend to agree - to an extent. Debates on abortion, outside academic philosophy, quickly go to topics such as personal identity, the nature of consciousness, the possibility of knowing other people's perceptions, free will and responsibility. On the one hand, Wittgenstein talking about beetles in boxes and G E Moore speculating that he might not have eaten an egg for breakfast. On the other, demonstrations outside clinics. There is a connection - I submit.

Are you offended that Descartes had thoughts that he didn’t have to? — Srap Tasmaner

No. I don't find anything he did (that I know of) offensive. I think he never, really, thought that an Evil Demon was fooling him, or that he thought he had no hands, no eyes, or that he thought any of things he said he would assume didn't exist didn't, in fact, exist. I don't find that offensive. I merely think it was a pretense.

Descartes was able to imagine a scenario in which the existence of his hands (to stick to the example) could be subject to doubt. — Janus

"Imagining a scenario" sounds quite a bit like pretending, to me. I suppose you may say that Descartes "imagined" he had no hands if you'd like to or even "imagined" doubting he had no hands. What I contend, though, and what it seems several people disagree with, for reasons unclear to me, is that he never actually doubted he had hands; he always believed he had hands; he always thought he had hands. Like "pretending," "imagining" something to be the case isn't believing it to be the case.

Like "pretending," "imagining" something to be the case isn't believing it to be the case. — Ciceronianus

That's right; he never believed he had no hands, but recognized that the belief that he had hands was not ineliminable across the whole range of imaginable scenarios; whereas the belief that he had beliefs was ineliminable across all imaginable scenarios. I'm struggling to see what your point has been. Are you accusing him of disingenuously pretending to honestly believe he had no hands, or what?

Does it also show that you shouldn't quote someone without quoting the "background material" as well, and then complain that the person you provided the quote to hasn't bothered to read the "background material"? — Ciceronianus

I think he never, really, thought that an Evil Demon was fooling him, or that he thought he had no hands, no eyes, or that he thought any of things he said he would assume didn't exist didn't, in fact, exist. — Ciceronianus

He didnt claim they didn’t exist, he hypthosized that they could possibly not exist, that he might possibly be deceived about their existence. Do you think this was an important idea for him to convey , an idea deserving of analysis within thousands of doctoral
dissertations written over the past few hundred years? Tell me how much stronger Descartes’ argument would have been had he eliminated reference to the ED ( must be getting old. I keep reading this as ‘erectile dysfunction’).

I'm struggling to see what your point has been. Are you accusing him of disingenuously pretending to honestly believe he had no hands, or what? — Janus

I'm saying he pretended to have no hands (and so on). I'm unsure how to make this any clearer. He entertained a faux doubt--he feigned doubt--for the purpose of justifying the fact he never had any doubt in the first place. But, to put it simply, we don't doubt what we don't doubt. We don't resolve doubt when we have no doubt. We may be able to resolve our doubt when we actually doubt, by addressing the reasons for our real doubt and determining whether they have any basis. Resolution is obtained when we no longer feel any doubt.

Descartes never felt any doubt he had hands. There was nothing to resolve or explain. He would never have come to the conclusion that he had no hands, or that his doubt he had hands was justified. The conclusion was never in question. There was no question to be addressed, and the answer was "fixed." I think that entertaining pseudo-questions isn't beneficial.

I'm saying he pretended to have no hands (and so on). I'm unsure how to make this any clearer. He entertained a faux doubt--he feigned doubt--for the purpose of justifying the fact he never had any doubt in the first place. — Ciceronianus

OK, I don't know if you have read Descartes, but you seem to fairly thoroughly misunderstand his project. I don't know what else to say to you about it, so I guess I'll leave it there.

Do you think this was an important idea for him to convey , an idea deserving of analysis within thousands of doctoral dissertations written over the past few hundred years? — Joshs

I can't say I do, sorry. I fear there's nothing I can do about those doctoral dissertations, but I don't think I'm alone in thinking philosophers have been addressing pseudo-questions for centuries, so it isn't surprising that such dissertations were written.

Tell me how much stronger Descartes’ argument would have been had he eliminated reference to the ED — Joshs

That's difficult to do, as I don't think he needed to argue that he had hands. I don't think there was an reason to think he didn't. However, if the question was raised, e.g. if someone claimed he had no hands, or that he should doubt their existence, in his place I would have asked--"Why?" And have addressed the feebleness of the responses made.

Descartes never felt any doubt he had hands — Ciceronianus

You’re wrong. Descartes had reason to doubt he had hands. I imagine if you were to ask him point blank what odds he would give that he had no hands he would say something like 1/10th of 1% or less, probably much less. That is not certainty of having hands, that is exceedingly strong confidence of having hands. The point isnt the percentage of doubt. It is that there is no way to exclude at least a smidgeon of doubt, due to the possibility that one’s faculties of cognitive judgement have been deranged. That is a vital and important point to make about where cognitive certainty and doubt come from, especially when it is contrasted with what he claimed one can be indubitably, 100% certain about in cognition.

You’re wrong. Descartes had reason to doubt he had hands. I imagine if you were to ask him point blank what odds he would give that he had no hands he would say something like 1/10th of 1% or less, probably much less. That is not certainty of having hands, that is exceedingly strong confidence of having hands. The point isnt the percentage of doubt. It is that there is no way to exclude at least a smidgeon of doubt, due to the possibility that one’s faculties of cognitive judgement have been deranged. That is a vital and important point to make about where cognitive certainty and doubt come from, especially when it is contrasted with what he claimed one can be indubitably, 100% certain about in cognition. — Joshs

Well, if you think we have "reason to doubt" in any case absent absolute certainty, then I think you've accepted a very peculiar definition of "doubt" which admits of no reasonable discussion of it given its definition.

I merely think it was a pretense. — Ciceronianus

I get the impulse to say that Descartes was conjuring a pseudo-problem, and ‘solving’ this so-called problem is offered to the over-educated as a pointless game they can play in their ivory tower. I’ve had such feelings about philosophy, and I’d guess most have.

But I find myself wanting to defend Descartes, because this was a bold act of imagination on his part, was it not? And as such, yes, something like playing — but play is serious business.

For instance, when you say

traditional philosophical discussion ... sometimes distances itself too greatly from life and the world and becomes pretense — Ciceronianus

I wonder about that. For Descartes to respond imaginatively to his experience as he did — is that “distancing” himself from life, rather than another possibility of life? Is there no imagination in the life and in the world you suggest are our proper study?

And more than that: by imagining other possibilities, he can, as science fiction writers do, show us how the world we do live in works — not by saying it works like the world he imagines, not because his imagined world is some explanation of ours, but because he can show us, perhaps more clearly in imagination, how a world works. You have to conjure, imaginatively, a way of bringing out what is most taken for granted, what you can’t see because it’s too close. You have to, as Pound said, “make it new!”

None of this is judgment on the success of Descartes’s experiment, but I’m inclined to applaud the attempt, and his use of imagination.

I wonder about that. For Descartes to respond imaginatively to his experience as he did — is that “distancing” himself from life, rather than another possibility of life? Is there no imagination in the life and in the world you suggest are our proper study? — Srap Tasmaner

Philosophy (in the past at least, and it seems for some now) cherished certainty and perfection. Philosophers sought immutable truth, beauty and goodness. They treated the "real world" and ordinary day-to-day life as imperfect and consequently inferior, unhelpful in seeking the absolute. For example, they thought that cases of mistakes in perception established our senses could not be trusted as sources of knowledge in any case regardless of whether they could be explained by circumstances and conditions that applied. They thought dreams indicate we can't tell for sure whether we're asleep or awake at all times. They ignored context, perhaps because they thought context was the world and the world just wasn't good enough.

I think that's what Descartes and other philosophers thought. That allowed them to ignore the fact that moment to moment their existence and conduct established they didn't harbor any reasonable doubt they had hands, or that there was an "external world." Instead, they thought they had to justify the fact they didn't doubt what they didn't doubt, instead of inquiring whether there was any reasonable basis for doubt in the first place. They were befuddled, in other words.

I think that entertaining pseudo-questions isn't beneficial. — Ciceronianus

But it's not always a cut-and-dried distinction - the one between questions and pseudo-questions. Wars have been fought over this. In fact a war of a kind is underway right now. I mean, between people who know or think they know what sex they are, regardless of what kind of body they have, and people who think or know that our sex is (usually) as much beyond discussion and doubt as (usually, again) our possession of hands.

I think that's more a dispute over the definition of "sex." As far as I know, there's no dispute regarding the definition of "hands." But in all honesty, I don't know much about the "war" you mention.

Philosophy (in the past at least, and it seems for some now) cherished certainty and perfection. Philosophers sought immutable truth, beauty and goodness. They treated the "real world" and ordinary day-to-day life as imperfect and consequently inferior, unhelpful in seeking the absolute. — Ciceronianus

I get that, and I get wanting to call that a “retreat from life” or something, but of course it’s not — there’s no such thing. It’s just another way of living. What you can do is point out how this way of living works, and how it differs from other ways, what enables it, and so on. But don’t take them at their word.

Maybe an example would be clearer. Suppose you know someone who believes in an afterlife, and they explain to you that they give no thought to their temporary stay here on earth but only to the eternal life to come. Now you could, as someone who does not believe in an afterlife, tell them that they are giving up earthly rewards for nothing, since nothing is waiting for them in the afterlife. Or you could point out that believing in an afterlife is a particular way of living here on earth, that it’s simply not true that they give no thought to this life but only to the eternal life to come: they give it enough thought to arrange this life in a particular way, as a preparation for the eternal life, and we can see them living that sort of life, in accordance with that idea, right here, right now.

Philosophy (in the past at least, and it seems for some now) cherished certainty and perfection. Philosophers sought immutable truth, beauty and goodness. They treated the "real world" and ordinary day-to-day life as imperfect and consequently inferior, unhelpful in seeking the absolute. — Ciceronianus

That’s also what scientists like Galileo and Newton , artists and poets prior to the Romantic era, and political theorists thought. That’s what the Enlightenment was about, an idea of rationality as making possible the perfection of empirical and social knowledge. Philosophical eras are reactions against previous thinking. Enlightenment rationalism was a rejection of medieval scholasticism and its anti-empirical bent. So relative to what came before it , Cartesianism was hardly a dismissing of the
real world’. On the contrary, it inaugurated an era of questioning of inherited assumptions about reality.

As is always the case, philosophers in the post-Enlightenment era have led the way in rejecting the ideals of perfection, the absolute and certainty. So your critique of philosophy is really only the critique of the philosophy of a certain era, and along with it every other field of cultural endeavor of that era. Its fault was that it didn’t go far enough in rejecting Medieval platonism.

He does this after he evokes ED, though. He pretends, and after pretending concludes he was correct from the beginning.
— Ciceronianus

That's because he wrote the Meditations as a series of ready-to-use arguments that Catholics could use to convert other people to Catholicism. He says as much in the preface, it's why the Church allowed the publishing of the book. — baker

Holy Mother Church has so much to answer for, I'm afraid. — Ciceronianus

Not the Church, but philosophers. Why did they ignore Descartes' explanations as to what he wished to achieve with his texts, and instead took him as "one of their own", ie. a secular philosopher seeking the truth?

You seem to be deeply missing the point.

Descartes did not merely pretend ED.
He supposed ED, and lo and behold: this supposition is as consistent with our observations as our default presumption of a stable, mind independent world.

This is a nontrivial result. It reframes our knowledge of a stable, mind independent external world. It is not absolute certainty, but rather, presumption. No matter how likely we might feel this presumption to be, it cannot be confirmed with certainty, since whatever observation we can imagine, ED explains this observation equally well.

This underpins our modern understanding of science, that every theory is provisional in principle. This extends to our pragmatic, mundane lives: we cannot explain any phenomena definitively, another explanation may always come along which explains the same thing equally well, or better.

He believed he had hands without the certain knowledge he had hands — Ciceronianus

He believed he had hands without the certain knowledge he had hands
— Ciceronianus — hypericin

Where did you find this? I don't recall saying such a thing, and the comment I'm directed to doesn't seem to contain it.

This underpins our modern understanding of science, that every theory is provisional in principle. This extends to our pragmatic, mundane lives: we cannot explain any phenomena definitively, another explanation may always come along which explains the same thing equally well, or better. — hypericin

So, our "modern understanding of science" is that it supports the existence of an Evil Demon as much as any other explanation of our observations? I don't think so.

You seem to be on the "quest for certainty." No certainty, no basis for judgment. I think that's something very different from an acknowledgement that new evidence may require an adjustment in judgments made. That acknowledgement doesn't mean we must believe that any theory, no matter how well-tested, no matter how well it fits the evidence, is no more preferable than any other. If so, the belief we're hatched from eggs by the will of God is just as reasonable as any other explanation of our existence.

If your view is the prevailing view, it's no wonder people won't take vaccines for fear of microchips or turning gay, and believe Trump won the 2020 election.

Where did you find this? — Ciceronianus

This was my addition to your list, sorry I thought it was obvious.

is that it supports the existence of an Evil Demon as much as any other explanation of our observations? — Ciceronianus

Not "as much as".

You seem to be on the "quest for certainty." No certainty, no basis for judgment. — Ciceronianus

Funny, this strikes me as your attitude. You are the one who is conflating doubt with disbelief.

Certainty is what Descartes teaches us we must abandon. But this does not make all theories equal. There are any number of reasons why we might prefer one theory over another. I greatly prefer stable, mind independent objects, over ED. But we cannot be certain, that is just the condition we have to live with.

If so, the belief we're hatched from eggs by the will of God is just as reasonable as any other explanation of our existence. — Ciceronianus

Even if we could somehow shoehorn this theory to fit all observations, the resulting model would be so baroquely complex we would reject it. But so long as it really does match observation, it cannot be eliminated with certainty.

This was my addition to your list, sorry I thought it was obvious. — hypericin

Ah well, nothing wrong with deliberately misquoting someone, is there? And the list was meant to provide examples of what it is to "doubt" the existence of one's hands according to the definition of that word. I don't doubt my hands exist, nor did Descartes, by that definition, so nothing on that list was an expression of an opinion on my part. You managed to not only attribute to me something I never said, but misrepresent my opinion.

I greatly prefer stable, mind independent objects, over ED. — hypericin

Is there any basis for this preference? One which makes it more likely to be correct than ED, for example?

Even if we could somehow shoehorn this theory to fit all observations, the resulting model would be so baroquely complex we would reject it. — hypericin

Why should we care whether a theory fits all observations? What if it fit most observations, as opposed to theories which fit none at all?