Monogomy works best for those who are in love and those who are ugly.

M

The cogito comes in different forms. "I think, therefore I am." "This proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."

This part of it, at least, is not rocket science. Note the I. Cogito, ego cogito, both "I think." The idea of a thought without someone (thing) having it is not part of Descartes' thinking. Indeed, it cannot be. If it were possible for there to be thought without it being thought, then Descartes could be fooled as to his being. So he concludes ergo sum, therefore I am. I am a being who thinks.

The difficulty here is that an active self has been introduced into thought, through the back door without having either an ivitation or any credentials to gain entry to the 'party'.

What descartes has proven is that it is possible for there to be thought, and thought is inescapable through thought itself. But he has not shown the thinking... that he or we are in control of our thoughts. He admits this point in Meditation 5 when he asserts that

"There is certainly further in me a certain passive faculty of perception, that is, of receiving and
recognising the ideas of sensible things, but this would be useless to me
[and I could in no way avail myself of it], if there were not either in me
or in some other thing another active faculty capable of forming and
producing these ideas. But this active faculty cannot exist in me
[inasmuch as I am a thing that thinks] seeing that it does not presuppose
thought, and also that those ideas are often produced in me without my
contributing in any way to the same, and often even against my will; it
is thus necessarily the case that the faculty resides in some substance
different from me in which all the reality which is objectively in the
ideas that are produced by this faculty is formally or eminently
contained, as I remarked before. And this substance is either a body,
that is, a corporeal nature in which there is contained formally [and
really] all that which is objectively [and by representation] in those
ideas, or it is God Himself, or some other creature more noble than
body in which that same is contained eminently."

Neitzsche in aphorism 17 (BG&E) Reiterates Descartes own criticism of himself, with the empirically correct observation that 'a thought comes when it wills' and not when this 'I' thing wills it. Therefore if thought simply comes when it wills, and is not generated by the entirely presumptive 'I', we must conclude that thought is independent of the 'I' and return to the fundamental principle that thought exists apriori. Although this is an unpleasant self negation, there is much evidence empirical and otherwise to point to its truth, and it seems to me that Philosophy all too often appears to fear the implications rather than explore them fully. And this 'fear' has led to much published and convicted nonsense.

"You really need to read Descartes more closely - or read better commentaries. Until you do, your comments don't really touch anything Descartes said."

Tim

Thanks for the rather pedantic reply and the advice therein. I look forward to your insights on Descartes, beyond the rather avuncular siggestions to me directly.

The discussion at hand refers specifically to Decartes second Meditation. Through the application of the dream analogy, and that of the evil demon, Decartes offers convincing if not conclusive evidence for the uniquivocal existence of thought. All other aspects of experience can be doubted, however one cannot doubt oneself into the belief that thought does not exist, as one must apply the modality of thought in the attempt to prove its non existence.

However the association of the "I" with this thought, is not equally affirmed by Descartes, indeed throughout the Meditations Descartes refers to himself as "what am I only a thing that thinks". There is a significant distance between the concepts of :

1) a thing that thinks
2) a thing that experiences thought
3) a thingless experience of thought
4) an 'I' thinking

From my own reading of Descartes I fail to see how anything more than the assertion at 3, a thingless experience of thought has been effectively reasoned by Descartes.

Neitzsche amongst others has been critical of the presumptions that are invariably added to 3, namely the presence of an 'I' and the notion that thinking is generated by this 'I'.

I have omitted quotations from Descartes as most are familliar enough with the Meditations. Let me know if you remain in the dark Tim and I will be happy to provide some reference points.

M

Christian Philosophy can indeed at times be relied upon to produce fine human beings and fine specimens of logical thought/philosophy.

It (good Christian Phiosophy) reminds one of the old adage that 'Christianity would be a great thing if anyone ever tried it'.

Fundamentalism aside there is much that is humbling, admirable, practical and Universal in Christian thought.

The difficulty I have with Religious thought in General is that it gennerally offers the same variant of Cartesian Dualism in respect of its view of consciousness and the human 'individual'. The notion is the cradle for the assumption that there is a 'God' and then there is a 'me' that is derived from and importantly DISTINCT from this 'God'. Essential to this line of reason is the notion of the endogenous generation of thought that constitutes this 'me'. Spinoza did not venture down this road, paved as it is with all of these presumptions upon assumptions.

Ultimately the existence or non existence of this 'me' is perhaps the fundamental philosophical question. When the 'me' is assumed a point or place in the Unverse is then fixed out of nothingness. A locus and mechanical generation of endogenous thought (AND a material Universe) is also assumed, and a distinction is then made between this concept of a 'me' and the 'remainder' of the Universe.... all of this assumption is predicated upon the initial assumption of an in-dependent material 'me'. The Cartesian cogito was perhaps the biggest blunder of Modern Western Philosophy, and it has yet to be corrected becuase it fits so perfectly with capitalism and democracy vis the 'worship of me' and the 'I think' and the century of the self.

I do not like this assumption , firstly because it is ilogical and secondly becuase of the complex and dangerous sequale it entails, and the fixed nature of belief in the sequelae, as though the premise of the 'me' had been established in any sound manner. A veritable empire of pure conjecture is constructed upon the assumed 'me' and is passed off as philosophy when it is nothing but poetry.

Plantinga assumes the 'me' and also falls prey to the subsequent assumptions of an endogenous generation of thought.. the 'me-thinking'.

"2. A belief has warrant only if the cognitive process that produces it is successfully aimed at truth -"

Here we encounter the assumption that beliefs are produced by cognetive processes. This is the fundamental assumption behind the 'me-paradigm'. However we are also considering supposedly innate beliefs that are the basis of these cognitive beliefs and are themselves independent of, or apriori to the cognitive process.

The assumption of self generation of thought, and the assumption of a distinct and independent 'me', are dangerous in that they are assumptions that establish a tension between that which is innate (purely factual) and that which is 'real' (purely hypothetical).

M

raza
556
↪Marcus de Brun You will perceive whatever is convenient to what you believe.

Nothing surprising about that. Nothing special. — raza

My point exactly. At last the same page!

M

The concept 'No-thing' presupposes the existence of things, and as all things are mind constructs, the concept comes attached to both a (P) world and an (M) world. Therefore 'nothing' can be correctly defined as the absence of things in a universe that is apriori composed of things, and thinking things.

M

I think you are right and I heartily like the term 'foundational beliefs'. The idea is in harmony with Schopenhauer's 'will' as representation Nietzsche's will to power, and Freud's instinctual basis of functional behavior. However if indeed conscious belief's are merely reasonings arising out of subconscious innate beliefs, we must then ask what is the purpose and origin of these innate beliefs?

Given that they are beliefs that are independent of reason, we must ask are they independent of the reasoner and the self ie do they originate from Nature.

Watched the clip... a half hour of my life that is lost for ever. I suspect that the Climate Change denier in the clip may well be suffering from a mental disorder.

The clip would do well in its own thread as an example of how people have beliefs first, and then look for the reasons for their beliefs... rather than hold belief's that are deduced from reason.

Our fate is sealed and no amount of reason is going to change that.


M

[reply="Relativist;200664"

Thank you for that Relativist. Point taken in respect of reason. Perhaps it would have been more reasonable to assert that 'there is no such thing as reason ALONE'.

I am not certain if I can agree that we have foundational beliefs that are not the product of reason. Please expand upon same? Are you referring to the noumenal, or to the will?

M

Take God, for example. The reasoning for its/His existence or non existence is sufficient for the thinker and non thinker solely upon the basis of apriori 'feelings'.

The reasoning itself arises out of the preceding feeling or beliefs. We do not reason ourselves into beliefs upon the basis of a sufficiency of reason. Rather we apply reasons to apriori beliefs with the intention of imposing a sufficiency upon the reasoning of others. (That is what we all do here)

The sufficiency is determined, whilst the reasoning is merely the puppet of the subconscious and the voice of apriori belief.

There is no such thing as reason, there are only feelings. The course of human history should be proof enough of that.

Apriori belief or feeling is therefore the 'sufficiency' and reason is just the straw, the filler that gives the apriori-'sufficiency', its logical substance. . The logic or reason can be straw stones rice or crumpled paper it merely fills a space 'sufficiently'.

Reason is not consistent (because it is determined by emotion), and for it to satisfy a 'sufficiency principle' it must be consistent.

One cannot say there is sufficient straw in the bag, without being certain that there is purely straw in the bag.

Some will find the foregoing reasonable and others will not. This fact/belief is already determined and needs no proof.

M

Any more nutty than putting the magnetosphere "issue " before that of the ongoing environmental crisis, or the Trump crisis?


M

Where is the delineation for sufficient reason.

The sufficiency or insufficiency of the reason is determined by the individual or individuals whom are in receipt of the particular reasoning.

One can apply all the reason one likes towards a particular conclusion or deduction and it will still be rejected upon the arbitrary, feelings or beliefs of the recipient.

In the short term, within the context of debate or discussion reason is subservient to feelings or emotions.

The PSR, really only has relevance, in the context of academic discussion, or published data, here the rules of the game generally exclude the interference of the "I feel" "I think" "I believe" etc.

Feelings and opinions remain the arbiter of reason within the context of daily life, however the sufficiency of reason is in proportion to the temporal persistence of the reason itself. The longer the idea persists in time the greater or more sufficient is its reasoning.
M

The magnetosphere...... And then there's asteroids, and super bugs, and solar flares, and the immanent eruption of Yellowstone, fluoride in the drinking water, decreased fertility of white people, alien invasion, aliens already here,...

No end to the list of potential diversions from reality. Did I mention China.....

Check out the current US federal deficit, and any recent stats on global ecology if you want a little glimpse of the real.

M

Pollution is catastrophic, or will become so. But this does not necessarily correlate to temperature change. — raza

?

Apologies Raza

But the climate change denial, and the Muslim stuff, and the tchnology will save us stuff.. all of it certainly does trigger a hyperventialtion of sorts. I am getting used to it as it is more common now since the election in 2016.

Hopefully it might one day trigger a little bit of anti-fascist introspection. However, I suspect the only thing that will accomplish that, is the old devil of 'consequence'. Most rhetoric (thanks to freedom) is apparently immune to consequence.

M

But also there are influential Islamic partners of Western banker interests. — raza

This is getting as interesting as it is becoming predictable. 'Influential Islamic partners of Western Bankers'

WOW X3

I should have known that the Muslims were next on the list.

Trumpism has been around long before Trump. To define it properly: Trump (the president) is the manifest democratic exuberance of the worst elements of human thought: greed, materialism, self interest, racism, jingoism etc...

These qualities (the horrible side of mankind) are not unique to Trump they are to a greater or lesser degree the base instinctual, or animal lusts/imperatives of all trousered apes (man). They are the enemy of Philosophy and the enemy of reason and the true enemy of Humanity.

Trumpism therefore is the private de-facto cherishing of Trump like ideals, beneath the surface of an ostensible or professed democratic or freedom morality.

You have declared antifascist stance, and yet you adhere (WOW's 1, 2 & 3) to Fascist ideals, pretty much to the letter:

Climate change denial, and the notion that there are externals, you use the usual Trumpian example of Muslims... who are an 'enemy' by virtue of them being Muslim. (that is kinda gross)

I suggest a bit of introspection to see the enemy/facist within. Not just for you, but all of us. But particularly yourself in the context of the 3 WOWS.

M

Pollution is catastrophic, or will become so. But this does not necessarily correlate to temperature change.

But "climate change" doctrine, just like terrorism, is a great tool towards people control — raza

Ahhhhh.

Now this is an interesting insight into your thought.

'Pollution does not correlate with temperature Change?'

WOW!

Climate change doctrine is: "like terrorism".

Double WOW!

Here in these ideas (plus the usual assertion that technology will save us from itself) we see the true Fascism that is contained behind the veil of the ostensible lovers of freedom and democracy. This is the Facism that is the enemy.

These assertions are Trumpisms!

Perhaps Trump is a Fascist of sorts. We presently enjoy temporary 'improved' international relations, because all the Fascists are presently getting on so well together... at least for the moment.

I contend that the only practical solution to all these Fascists, is a mega-Fascist with a big stick. (I even nominated Posty for the job) But I am open here to LOGICAL alternatives!


Indeed if democracy were to evolve and contain within itself a Fascist response to the subliminal (and arguably fascist) ideals behind Trumpism (racism, climate denial, capitalism etc)
Democracy might survive itself and freedom might be preserved. The cause of this catastrophic failure is (arguably) the failure of Philosophy. Philosophy may have begun to fail when it lost its own Fascist dictator... the guy with the beard who lives in the clouds......., but that's another days work!

M

It appears you are applying for employment. Gulag general, perhaps. — raza

Don't recall submitting an application for any particular post.

I would love someone to come up with an alternative to facism as a practical and real solution to the biggest crisis that humanity has faced since some of us descended from the trees.. (This was the general gist of my initial point which appears to have bruised some philosophical ego's)

Have a go at the idea....,rather than the old fool who has suggested it.

:yawn:
M

↪Marcus de Brun
Fascism is inherently not able to achieve the sort of international cooperation needed to counter climate change, nor to foster the technical developments that will be needed."

To assert that Fascism cannot achieve international cooperation is a bit of a logical oddity.

Facism achieved international cooperation in WW2, and stuck with the committed cooperation until each cooperating state was effectively annihilated and each fascist dictator was executed or committed suicide. If that's not a good example of cooperation I don't know what is.

Presently Putin, cooperates with other dictators like al-Assad, in the ongoing fascist war against the Syrian People...

Your stated opinion here makes zero sense.

Furthermore the notion that more technology will solve the environmental problems that result from technology is part of the delusion that causes the problem to expand at an exponential rate?

?

"And that's the only comment I have for you. — Banno

Philosophy is not about getting into a strop. Make your point and back it up with evidence and reason.

This type of analysis is superficial and somewhat facile.

What Trump means to individuals is irrelevant beyond the fact that he represents base primitive instinctual imperative towards materialism, greed and self interest. In this sense there is a little bit of Trump in all men. He derives much of his support from many who believe they are not in fact Trump supporters.

What is important about Trump is that he shows us that democracy is in crisis. Britain has its Trump in the form of Brexit, and democracies around the world are contaminated by the Trump ideals of materialism and self interest.

If democracy can present America and the world with a Trump as its answer to national and international crisis, then it is time to recognise that democracy is in crisis, that it has failed.

Human beings are incapable of living up to the moral obligations of freedom. They must be disciplined and controlled. They must be educated into the understanding that happiness does not equate with materialism, and that materialism is its antithesis. Only then will we be worthy of democratic freedom.

The immanent collapse of global ecology will assert this reality in the same manner that external ill considered reality has collapsed all previous empires and civilizations.

Trump is not a pathology, he is merely a symptom.

Democracy and capitalism are the disease.

M

If the ball was foul, then Joe never hit a home run to begin with...

And that remains true for eternity as well, assuming it was to start with. — creativesoul

He "never" hit a homerun, from the point that the revisionist steps in at t2 and makes the truth a falsity.

It was a home run at t1... you said so yourself!

M

If you are interested in the topic in respect of contemporary Facism, there are far better examples than China. Putin for example has all the trappings, behaviors and psychology of the historical Fascist dictator.

M

Posty.. you can do better than that... :vomit:

Hit me with an enlightened contradiction!

Perhaps America is making you lazy.

A more thorough response or we'll deport you to Putin-land... the New Land of the 'Almost' Free.
M

At time t1+1, the ref called a foul; and at t2 the 'truth' of the homerun was deemed untrue.....

M

Sometimes masturbation is easier.

Less potential complications, cheaper by far, and readily accessible, particularly so for the ambidextrous.

To continue the metaphor one must ask then, are you merely here to watch others 'masturbate' rather than join in the fun, if so voyeurism might be a little more unhealthy than jumping in and getting ones hands dirty, so to speak.

M

Sorry wellwisher, that comes across as mumbo-jumbo, and I don't know what point you are trying to make. Could you possibly summarize same in a sentence or two? We are trying to stay 'beyond good and evil'

M

:smile:

The vocabulary mandated (by all Americans) for discussions of this type requires that you call it "dependence", I know. But "support" would do as well, without picturing the recipient as a scrounger and a drain on the resources of decent people. — Pattern-chaser

The problem is however, that many abuse the 'support' and become dependent upon it rather than independent of the state and truly free. The 'support' ultimately creates both scroungers and dependents.

'Don't give the man 'free' fish; give him a rod and teach him to fish.' This (I think) is the logic of most fair minded republicans, and in fairness to the fair-minded America has an abundance of rivers and an abundance of fish.

M

Put your position/disagreement on a new discussion and we can break a lance on the idea?

M

I believe that too. I'm a realist. But I'd also say that both internal and external "realities" are temporal (in other words, reality is temporal, period). — numberjohnny5

We are drifting off topic a bit, However, I would agree with the 'both realities' idea, however I suspect that what ultimately differentiates the two, is that one is temporal and the other is not.

M

Truths, falsehoods, beliefs, etc. as mental phenomena only last as long as the mind conceiving/claiming them. What those truths/beliefs pick out in reality may change, whether perceiving and conceiving minds last or not. — numberjohnny5

You are simply returning us to the question of whether objective reality exists outside of the mind, and we have already agreed that for the context of this discussion, there is an objective reality that is independent of individual consciousness.

Although I take your point, it is not valid in this context as we are assuming a temporal external reality independent of the individual consciousness.

M

You say you are interested in my philosophy. Is this not the same thing as asking me what my philosophy is? — raza

No not at all. I suspect there is a distinction between your 'Philosophy' and that which is your philosophical view or consideration upon a subject, vis the subject at hand. You have not shared your own philosophy on the subject, merely joined the current thread with a joke about lib-tard (an admittedly funny joke) as yet you have offered no philosophical input?

I must certainly admit that I am rather fond of my own philosophical opinions, but do try not to let my fondness for myself, override the philosophy of others, if I can see that philosophy, and if it has some merit at least as I see it.

You have yet to share, on this particular topic.

M

No

M

If by "truths" you mean true statements, then if they are properly indexed they will always be true, assuming that they are when formed. — creativesoul

If by 'always' you mean infinite, this does not seem possible as the Universe seems to be heading towards its own expiration (open), rather than a closed loop (bang-crunch) that might (at least through repetition of the bang-crunch cycle) allow for a potential infinitely true statements.

Either way the universe seems to be evolving in time and in this sense any kind of stasis or permanence whether applied to truth or material form, seems unlikely. We can, apparently only approximate the truth of truth, with its persistence in time.

If truth is temporally dependent it follows that the true form of time itself, its existence or non existence must be an established apriori.

M

don't think truths are functions of time in that they morph with whatever it is that happens between two points in time.

If I understand you correctly you seem to be implying truth changes from a to b to c from time t1 to t2 to t3. I don't think that's what's happening.

A truth x is true at ALL times. It's just that we don't see it as such and appears to us as "different" truths over time because we either didn't think it over properly or simply didn't know.

For instance slavery is wrong everywhere and anytime. We just didn't figure it out in the past. — TheMadFool

No of fence mad, but these are precisely the 'beliefs' that we are trying to escape:

"If I understand you correctly you seem to be implying truth changes from a to b to c from time t1 to t2 to t3. I don't think that's what's happening."


This is a reference to the validity of truth in respect of what is believed. Belief's morph from t1 to t2. Therefore belief is not a safe reflection of truth, which apparently is associated with the longevity of the truth, therefore true-truths are related to greater time.

It is the temporal association of time and truth that is at issue, and whether this association might provide a means to establish the objective measurement of true-truths.

As Peirce suggests in the quoted passage, you cannot separate truth from belief and doubt. We can entertain the idea of Absolute Truths that have no dependence on belief, but for the fallible human mere absolute truths are what we will, at the end of inquiry, have no reason to doubt. It's the best we can do. — Janus

Pierce's assertion contains a contradiction in that the fallibility of the human animal may be escaped through objective measurement that is less confined to belief and doubt. For this truth to be true we need only presume the existence of an objective reality. This assumption is of course a big one but it appears confirmed through our interactions with other consciousness, that apparently (independent of me) agree upon a measurable objective reality and measurable 'truths'.

The agreed longevity association between truth and absolute truth (true-truth) would appear to be a measurable and objective aspect of truth, and therefore independent of belief and doubt.

Yes, I think this is what Peirce has in mind, although I think it would be more apt to have said merely 'true" than "more true". Or perhaps the idea could be reversed so that 'we then suggest that enduring truths persist in time in virtue of their truth'. "Their truth" here consisting in the absence of reason to doubt them. — Janus

I use the words 'more true' in deference to the possible truth of infinity itself. We can only assume an infinite truth if we assume the veracity of infinity.

My point being that the longer a truth might endure (the closer it approximates to a possible infinity) the more true it is.

If we are agreed on this it follows that true-truth has a relationship with time. To understand potential truths we must then have a full or better understanding of time.

If we consider the empirical fact that today's truths are constituted of many of tomorrow's falsities, we should in essence be able to consider the interaction between time and truths, outside of our belief systems, and arrive at a possible mechanism to select current truths that have a greater or lesser temporal potential. What is 'it' (outside of belief or doubt) about truth that determines its temporal persistence?

But if by truth and falsity you mean something not definable in terms of doubt and belief in any way, then you are talking of entities of whose existence you can know nothing, and which Ockham's razor would clean shave off. . — Janus

Great quote.

Well, if we presume that we cannot speak of truth and falsity with any certainty, then it follows that we must come outside of ourselves and our beliefs/doubts to arrive at possible 'eternal truths'.

Infinity by its nature is infinite and therefore truths that have an infinite nature must be closer to THE truth (if such a thing exists), than temporal truths which are eroded by time. Indeed time might erode all truths, however we might then assume that the longevity or temporal nature of a truth renders it more 'true' than a truth that is falsified relatively quickly?

Therefore can we then suggest that enduring truths are more true by virtue of their persistence in time?.

M

I don't think China might be considered as Fascist. For starters it is too big to be considered in any single context.

The Chinese government must manage one seventh of the worlds entire population. If the entire world were 'free' to live as we whiteys do in the west... there would not be a tree left in the Amazon.

White westerners can 'thrive' BECAUSE of the fascism and oppression that exists in someone else' backyard.

Fans of democracy should be careful what they wish for.

M

Would a fascist really refer to themselves as fascist?