Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

Impenitent wrote:thinking in language that the thinker creates...

Not quite, thinking in a language that two thinkers have created to represent their thoughts to each other.

the existence of another is not proven through assertion...

the thinker creates unique meaning for each case... no? ...

Agreed in the sense that that the thoughts are unique but the meaning of language rests with the two sets of thoughts and is a feedback process of agreement, or some such.

the thoughts are unique as is their meaning... apparent agreement is not proof of existence

did you sense exactly that which "they" sense or do you simply believe and agree that they sensed the same things, even though their sensory organs and yours are completely different? not so obvious...

Not completely different as on the whole pretty much the same template.

on which sensory perception do you base this assertion?


But I agree one cannot sense exactly the same as an other but I know they sense pretty much the same thing as they tell me so and act as if they do.

how do you know this? you cannot sense it... god wouldn't allow such a deception?


But I agree one cannot sense exactly the same as an other but I know they sense pretty much the same thing as they tell me so and act as if they do.


how do you know this? being pretty much the same thing and in general agreement is Knowledge and proof of the existence of an external world? I don't think so...

no, his argument boils down to: there is thinking therefore there is something that thinks ...

Hmm...I thought it boiled down to 'I am' and then 'I think so I cannot doubt I am'?

there is thinking therefore there is something that thinks... his radical doubt wasn't radical enough...

Rene saw what the church did to galileo and he understood that his (rene's) mathematics ran counter to the church's teaching... so in order to distract the church from his mathematics, rene made a neat circular argument to prove the existence of god much like anslem's ...

Can't really say what his motivations were but agree he used an ontological argument for 'God' but my reading had it that this was done so that he could reconnect to the external world as his doubt left him no out. My take is that he could have used the fact that he could think in language and a language(as we understand it) needs two.

his mathematical "language" left him outside the church... his "doubt" gave him god... (as we understand it?) how do "we" understand it?

reconnect? to that which was never connected?

-Imp

I don't think he didn't believe in an external world as he pretty much says so in his passage about only madman and loons not knowing that there was an external world. It's just that his doubting method apparently left him no way back.

no way back? back to his mathematics or back to his god?

rene never doubted

-Imp

Logic has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of objects. I think 'something may exist or not exist but not both' is an assumption, along the lines of 'something cannot come from nothing.' These are truisms that come from the definitions of the terms - we define a 'something' as that which can exist or not exist, but not both. So the statement adds nothing, it just restates the definition.

The standard interpretation is that Descartes was appeasing the Jesuits in 'proving' the existence of God,a as Imp said.. I wonder what the rest of his 'method' was intended to accomplish? Or was it all just a set up for his proof? I think maybe he thought that a deductive theory of knowledge was possible.

Wyman wrote:Logic has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of objects. I think 'something may exist or not exist but not both' is an assumption, along the lines of 'something cannot come from nothing.' These are truisms that come from the definitions of the terms - we define a 'something' as that which can exist or not exist, but not both. So the statement adds nothing, it just restates the definition.

The standard interpretation is that Descartes was appeasing the Jesuits in 'proving' the existence of God,a as Imp said.. I wonder what the rest of his 'method' was intended to accomplish? Or was it all just a set up for his proof? I think maybe he thought that a deductive theory of knowledge was possible.

Or it could be that his deal with the RCC obligated him to include a proof of god with the understanding that he had free reign to continue with the rest of his ~Meditations. (historical fact).

Impenitent wrote: no way back? back to his mathematics or back to his god?

rene never doubted

-Imp

I would have been professional suicide to have doubted; that's the only reason the proof is in the Meditations at all. Remember that Galileo was not long before.

I should appear odd that none of what followed the proof was remotely connected to it.

Impenitent wrote:the existence of another is not proven through assertion...

Personally I don't think it needs proving at all as I can see, hear and touch others and given I can speak English I know that at least one other must be out there. Now if one uses a method of doubt and finds that they need a 'God' to come back I think my assertion would help them as no 'God' needed to deduce that at least one other exists.

the thoughts are unique as is their meaning... apparent agreement is not proof of existence

Given your point I don't think you can make this one as you cannot know their thoughts are unique nor that there is a 'their'. Who is one agreeing with if they do not exist?

on which sensory perception do you base this assertion?

The one that sees, hears and touches others who look like they share pretty much the same body form. That they duck when I throw a rock at them, that they play catch, that they do innumerable other actions that compare with mine, that they can correctly pick up an object that I name and can name objects that I then pick-up, etc also seems perceivable.

how do you know this? you cannot sense it... god wouldn't allow such a deception?

If they couldn't then my language would not work in the way it does.

how do you know this? being pretty much the same thing and in general agreement is Knowledge and proof of the existence of an external world? I don't think so...

I don't think an external world needs proof, its just there as a brute fact but if it did I think that language as we have it goes a fair way to knowing that it does.

there is thinking therefore there is something that thinks... his radical doubt wasn't radical enough...

Can't understand why not?

Rene saw what the church did to galileo and he understood that his (rene's) mathematics ran counter to the church's teaching... so in order to distract the church from his mathematics, rene made a neat circular argument to prove the existence of god much like anslem's ...

Can't really say what his motivations were but agree he used an ontological argument for 'God' but my reading had it that this was done so that he could reconnect to the external world as his doubt left him no out. My take is that he could have used the fact that he could think in language and a language(as we understand it) needs two.

his mathematical "language" left him outside the church... his "doubt" gave him god... (as we understand it?) how do "we" understand it?

You have the advantage of me as I had no idea that his co-ordinate geometry was frowned upon by the Church, how so? As I thought it his philosophy of doubt that upset them.

no way back? back to his mathematics or back to his god?

Neither, my reading of him has it that his doubt left him unable to reconnect to others or the world. He used an ontological argument to justify the external world that he knew existed but couldn't get back to via his method. Its why I didn't like it as not being a godbotherer it seemed a kludge.

rene never doubted

Like I said, he didn't believe that an external world didn't exist, it was just that his method of doubt left him isolated so he kludged 'God' to enable a return.

Wyman wrote:Logic has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of objects. I think 'something may exist or not exist but not both' is an assumption, along the lines of 'something cannot come from nothing.' These are truisms that come from the definitions of the terms - we define a 'something' as that which can exist or not exist, but not both. So the statement adds nothing, it just restates the definition.

I thought a something was defined as a something? For me Logic states what can or cannot be the case with things or relations between those things. Now whether this is due to the World being as it is or just how we reason about it I think it still a law about both things and facts. Unless of course you can show me a thing existing and not existing at the same time? Don't disagree that it doesn't add much as it's just one of the boundaries of reason and the world, i.e. necessity as opposed to impossible.

The standard interpretation is that Descartes was appeasing the Jesuits in 'proving' the existence of God,a as Imp said.. I wonder what the rest of his 'method' was intended to accomplish? Or was it all just a set up for his proof? ...

My reading had it that it was a kludge to get him out of the hole his method of doubt led him to. Personally I think that like most of his peers he was a true believer.

I think maybe he thought that a deductive theory of knowledge was possible.

No idea but its a thought I'll follow thanks.

Lev Muishkin wrote:Or it could be that his deal with the RCC obligated him to include a proof of god with the understanding that he had free reign to continue with the rest of his ~Meditations. (historical fact).

Really? When I read him it appeared clear that it was a solution to the problem of others and the external world that his method of doubt had led him to.