.....it was a sensible approach. — Manuel
I happen to think that his dualism is often misunderstood. — Manuel
True enough. Nowadays we call it reification, in that mind per se isn’t reducible to substance, therefore thinking substance is moot. — Mww
But do you think Descartes treated res cogitans as a principle, or an actual substance? In First Principles 1, 52 he defines substance, then in 1-53 qualifies the differences with the attributes each can have. The attribute of a thinking substance is thought, so....is he calling it out as the case, or a principle which grounds the case? — Mww
He was as much a scientist and mathematician, if not more so..... — Manuel
I'm saying that he postulated res cogitans as a way to account for the things which could not be accounted for by res extensa. — Manuel
Descartes’ cogito was never meant to indicate the source of all certainty. — Mww
Spinoza's notion of substance makes more sense:deus sative natura, 'God or Nature. — Janus
someone might be certain of something that is not true. — Banno
But not at the same time, in the same subject, complete and proper rationality being given. — Mww
What substance can have both attributes? — Mww
Now it follows that the folk who are certain of that statement hold it to be true.
But it does not follow that the statement is indeed true. — Banno
On the other hand you can feel certain of anything at all. — Janus
On. a common, probably analytic, account, certainty is a "propositional attitude", in that it involves both people and a purported statement, and indicates a certain attitude of those folk towards that statement. — Banno
It's the phrase "certainty grounds truth" that I find puzzling. — Banno
We know that humans have a tendency to think in dualistic terms, but I see no reason to think that says anything about anything beyond the nature of our thinking. — Janus
Does our language reflect the primordial nature of thinking itself or does our thinking reflect the dualistic character of language? Chicken or the egg? — Janus
Most people would agree that there are objects with a location in space and time and exist independently of conscious beings. This position is commonly called “materialism”. But for some reason, some people commonly called “idealists”, believe that there are no such objects. Instead, they claim that conscious beings and their experiences are the basis on which existence itself lies. — Hello Human
If this were correct, there would be two worlds, the one that we live and act in every day, and which is described by physics, and another, what you call the actual world, about which we can know nothing....the actual world is possibly unknowable to us... — introbert
Does that in any way change the screen on which you are reading this? It's still a screen. You still interact with it, touch, see, and break it. Further, it's still an actual screen, not a prop or a toy....physics states that all is energy... — boagie
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.