Descartes on distinct
-
Jaded Sage
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm
Descartes on distinct
I'm fairly certain I have the idea of 'clear' down, but I do not understand 'distinct'. Does it mean separate? In that case, is that what causes me, when I think of a blue horse, despite it being an impossibility, to still be just as much of a horse as any possibly-colored-horse (etc. i.e. number of legs, a tail, hooves)?
-
Dalek Prime
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Descartes on distinct
Do you consider yourself a 'distinct' consciousness, JS?
-
Jaded Sage
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm
Re: Descartes on distinct
How could I? I'm not even sure what the word means.Dalek Prime wrote:Do you consider yourself a 'distinct' consciousness, JS?
-
Dalek Prime
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Descartes on distinct
Which word? Consciousness, or distinct?Jaded Sage wrote:How could I? I'm not even sure what the word means.Dalek Prime wrote:Do you consider yourself a 'distinct' consciousness, JS?
Let me help you out here. Do you share your consciousness? If you don't, it's distinct from other consciousness'. And if you do, what is everyone else jabbering about inside your skull?
-
Jaded Sage
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm
Re: Descartes on distinct
I mean Descartes definition of distinct. I heard it means 'readily understandable.' Do you know if that is correct?
Re: Descartes on distinct
You could pick it out from a line-up of western adult male consciousnesses.
-
Dalek Prime
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Descartes on distinct
Skip wrote:You could pick it out from a line-up of western adult male consciousnesses.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8360
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Descartes on distinct
Having an idea "down", is a dreadful abuse of language. It's no wonder that you have not grasped "distinct".Jaded Sage wrote:I'm fairly certain I have the idea of 'clear' down, but I do not understand 'distinct'. Does it mean separate? In that case, is that what causes me, when I think of a blue horse, despite it being an impossibility, to still be just as much of a horse as any possibly-colored-horse (etc. i.e. number of legs, a tail, hooves)?
Have you tried a dictionary to acknowledge that there are multiple definitions?
Re: Descartes on distinct
http://home.wlu.edu/~mahonj/Descartes.M3.Truth.htm
It seems relevant to your question, JS, but I admit to not reading much of it because I'm more interested in other areas of philosophy.
It seems relevant to your question, JS, but I admit to not reading much of it because I'm more interested in other areas of philosophy.
-
Jaded Sage
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm
Re: Descartes on distinct
Lol, yeah, of course. That's where "separate" came from. But that's incorrect. It means readily understandable and beyond question.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Having an idea "down", is a dreadful abuse of language. It's no wonder that you have not grasped "distinct".Jaded Sage wrote:I'm fairly certain I have the idea of 'clear' down, but I do not understand 'distinct'. Does it mean separate? In that case, is that what causes me, when I think of a blue horse, despite it being an impossibility, to still be just as much of a horse as any possibly-colored-horse (etc. i.e. number of legs, a tail, hooves)?
Have you tried a dictionary to acknowledge that there are multiple definitions?
Last edited by Jaded Sage on Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Jaded Sage
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm
Re: Descartes on distinct
Thanks, Greta. I already got my answer, buy I might check it later.Greta wrote:http://home.wlu.edu/~mahonj/Descartes.M3.Truth.htm
It seems relevant to your question, JS, but I admit to not reading much of it because I'm more interested in other areas of philosophy.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8360
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Descartes on distinct
It seems to me that if you preserve the sense of the word distinct as being separate you will not go wrong grasping the meaning of distinct.Jaded Sage wrote:Lol, yeah, of course. That's where "separate" came from. But that's incorrect. It means readily understandable and beyond question.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Having an idea "down", is a dreadful abuse of language. It's no wonder that you have not grasped "distinct".Jaded Sage wrote:I'm fairly certain I have the idea of 'clear' down, but I do not understand 'distinct'. Does it mean separate? In that case, is that what causes me, when I think of a blue horse, despite it being an impossibility, to still be just as much of a horse as any possibly-colored-horse (etc. i.e. number of legs, a tail, hooves)?
Have you tried a dictionary to acknowledge that there are multiple definitions?
Since to understand that thing you need to know how it is different, separate and hence distinct from all other things.
But without the exact context of the use of distinct then you can't really expect others to help out here.
In the example from Greta, Descartes is asserting that he is in fact separate from the world around him.
Re: Descartes on distinct
This is why I don't care for this side of philosophy - not you HobbesHobbes' Choice wrote:It seems to me that if you preserve the sense of the word distinct as being separate you will not go wrong grasping the meaning of distinct.
Since to understand that thing you need to know how it is different, separate and hence distinct from all other things.
But without the exact context of the use of distinct then you can't really expect others to help out here.
In the example from Greta, Descartes is asserting that he is in fact separate from the world around him.
No doubt we have all pondered how we are at once both one and many. Due to the fractal nature of reality, distinctness is naturally relative since we are all in truth at least three things - a collection of communities, the emergent entity that forms from that collection, and a member of our own larger communities/bodies.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8360
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Descartes on distinct
To make things worse, Descartes was writing in 17thC French and Latin, there might be lost connotations to his opinion. No matter, I think the thing is clear enough.Greta wrote:This is why I don't care for this side of philosophy - not you HobbesHobbes' Choice wrote:It seems to me that if you preserve the sense of the word distinct as being separate you will not go wrong grasping the meaning of distinct.
Since to understand that thing you need to know how it is different, separate and hence distinct from all other things.
But without the exact context of the use of distinct then you can't really expect others to help out here.
In the example from Greta, Descartes is asserting that he is in fact separate from the world around him., but these kinds of fiddly examinations of the obvious, although I appreciate the criticality of definitions. I'm just grateful it's not me who has to do it..
-
Jaded Sage
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm
Re: Descartes on distinct
I'm not sure seperate is accurate. I think maybe something happened in translation. It isn't quite accurate to call this a "side" of phil. There is much more to it. At most it's like a tenth of phil, and that is generous. Descartes was looking for absolute certainty. It was something somebody needed to do. I assumed people in a phil site would know a little more than the average joe about phil.