I interpret Cartesian dualism as rooted in extended substance and thinking substance. And as always and given the absolute self sufficiency of the distinct substances, the issue always comes down to how do they interact. And after 400 years of Cartesianism, the answer is always transcendence. And of course transcendence always turns out to be a label we give to some sort of process we cannot explain. Isn't it wonderful?

We agree. However, one can be in search of a "vague" concept/idea - and not necessarily have a clear definition. — Don Wade

I agree. You and I could not even talk about truth (let alone define it) without having at least a vague and average understanding of truth.

In both pictures, women are covered from head to toe. Yet, one is considered the epitome of virtue and the other is seen as the very definition of oppression. — TheMadFool

depends upon who is doing the seeing. I suspect there are many Muslims (and some of them women) who believe their attire is the epitome of virtue.

Similarly, I suspect there are many non-theists who consider the habits worn by nuns to be oppressive symbols worn by those most likely raised in oppressive religious environments.

For the most part, I suspect both groups consider themselves to be virtuously attired.

Searching for truth is not the same as defining truth. How can one search for something they can't define? — Don Wade

and what if you don't see it because it doesn't fit your definition?

there is a wide range between having an idea of what you are in search of and having a clear definition of what you are in search of.

searching and defining is an interactive process.

unless you have already been there, you cannot be certain how it will look until you get there.

And why would you want to?

I question whether Nietzsche thought of "happiness" as a guiding determinant of action. I think righteousness would fit better with Nietzsche than happiness, i.e., the eternal affirmation of life is not outcome dependent.

so we can argue about stuff

didn't say it was necessarily true, did I? — Bartricks

You misunderstand.

I am simply pointing out that logic itself is premised upon what is known as the "law of non-contradiction", i.e., the law of non-contradiction is necessary to logical argument.

If you will live longer by rejecting the necessity of the law of non-contradiction to logical argument, then go for it.

I wish you nothing but the best.

How well can anyone define truth in philosophy - yet we still search for it. — Don Wade

Searching for truth is not the same as defining truth.

And defining truth is not the same as defining philosophy.

My point remains the same. I suspect your project would be more worthwhile if you let go of the mistaken belief that it's success depends upon a definition of philosophy.

It is your project, you solicited opinions, I provided mine, and I wish you nothing but success.

ok

I think that if a proposition is true, then it will not also be false.
You agree, I take it? — Bartricks

and that is called the law of non-contradiction. And it is necessary to your entire argument.

So you have refuted your own argument.

and that is called the law of non-contradiction. And it is necessary to your entire argument.

So you have refuted your own argument.

why

yes

a thousand variations on the ghost in the machine

There you go. Turns out you can. — Isaac

Excellent. :-)

your whole argument is premised upon the necessity of the law of non-contradiction.

Interesting idea though.

if you must first define philosophy before you can simulate philosophy, then you will define philosophy in such way that you can simulate philosophy. And then your computer will be unable to entertain any philosophical notions not contained within its definition. It is the classic garbage in/garbage out dilemma.

In a Kierkegaardian sense, the inherent dynamics of being (philosophy) are such that it will overflow any box (definition) in which you try to contain it.

There can be no philosophy if the definition of philosophy is not itself an issue for philosophy.

And does not the entire project rest upon the unstated presumption that a particular type of entity (human?) is uniquely situated to decide what is and what is not philosophy?

Interesting topic.

in addition, the "I" is not separable from the "I am". There can be no "I" without an "am." Though I suspect there can be an "I" without the "think." In fact, the "I" rarely appears in most of what we do and is generally a post script whose only purpose is to give description of what occurs in its absence.

and to what is it reducible since I certainly do more than think. How about you?

Actually, I think the original went too far.

"I am" is a self-sufficient and absolute affirmation of being. You could not "think" or do anything else in regard to "I am" if you were not.

All else is unnecessarily and arbitrarily rendering asunder what the king's men in all their futility have been trying to put back together for almost 400 years.

Just saying.

Sorry to have bothered you.

OK

but you said someone else "would" have written Being and Time. That would make Being and Time anecessary thing. All cannot be contingent if anything is necessary. Just saying.

the presence of being-in-the-world. you are being-in-the-world and to be present is to be in the world. if you were not in the world, you would not be present.

the notion that all is contingent and the existence of Heidegger was unnecessary is inconsistent with the notion that someone else would have written Being and Time. You are essentially saying everything is contingent except Being and Time.

people misunderstand Heidegger and the concept of care. it has little to do with the colloquial English understanding of the word. Instead and for Heidegger, care is the term he gives toward what is more of an explanatory spectrum for our behavior. The absence of care is just as likely to explain our behavior as the presence of care. In addition, there is no positive moral dimension to the concept. A good Nazi could care just as much about being a good Nazi as a good Christian could care about being a good Christian.

Heidegger is arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

Both the History of the Concept of Time (pre-B&T) and Basic Problems of Phenomenology (post-B&T) are excellent companions to Being and Time.

There is no consensus that brains produce consciousness.

all cars is not by definition an infinite set any more than all living monarchs of the United Kingdom

Why is everyone talking about the "premises of life" as if they were listed on the back of a cereal box? I must have been out that day.

and what are the premises of life?

I see my duty as to make my tribe better. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I suspect every sheeple would say the same.

I am my highest authority, judge and guide — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Do you have some reason to believe that this renders you unusual in some significant way?

I would have to argue that what you are describing is an abuse of, rather than legitimate authority. Insofar as authority is legitimate, in my view it embraces full responsibility. — Pantagruel

There is no necessary connection between authority and acceptance of responsibility and the "legitimacy" of the authority does not create one. The world is full of people who only exercise "legitimate" authority while still denying any and all responsibility when things go bad.

Having mechanisms to force "legitimate" authority to accept responsibility is not the equivalent of "legitimate" authority "embrac[ing] full responsibility." I do not remember the last time that anyone in Washington "embraced full responsibility" for anything gone wrong. But they sure don't hesitate to push that envelope when it comes to exercising their "legitimate" authority. Even if he did it, its not a crime.

I am ultimately responsible for everything I say and do and think. So I find myself pragmatically in the same category as you I think. — Pantagruel

Insisting on being one's own highest authority is not the same as accepting responsibility for all one does. The world is full of the highest authority rejecting responsibility for the negative consequences of exercising authority. For many, the more authority they claim, the quicker they are to blame.

In reality, Descartes did not think that the cogito was a truth of experience in the usual sense of the term. It was a rational intuition that I think and that if I think it is rationally impossible for me not to exist. The negation of the cogito ergo sum would be a blatant contradiction. — David Mo

I agree. Your position is supported by Descartes characterization of the res cogitans and the res extensa as distinct and self sufficient substances. It is referred to as Cartesian dualism for a reason. Never the twain shall meet.

only an existing being can doubt. your doubt proves your existence.

Descartes presupposed I; he took existence as a starting point to prove existence. In doing so, he failed. — Kranky

You are mistaken in two fundamental ways. First, Descartes did not take "existence as a starting point." Instead, he took his "existence as a starting point." And second, he did not take his existence as a starting point "to prove existence." Instead, he took his existence as a starting point precisely because it was the only thing the existence of which he did not have to prove.

If you are still troubled by questions regarding your own existence I suggest you consult a psychologist, or psychiatrist; or perhaps your mother would be a good place to start. — A Seagull

If only Descartes would have done so.