Actually, "I think, therefore I am" is universally agreed upon as being true, and there is no possible way it can be false. Statements that can be logically derived from the cogito are also true. Philosophy has given some definite answers, albeit not very many.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
philosophy
- Thread starter ivar
- Start date
- Status
Don't forget the Eastern tradition of thought that has a very unorthodox vision of 'being', and according to which you may well, and should, be thinking, all in order to realise you are not really there. Philosophy shouldn't be equated with logic, I think, and even with logic, you could think logically based on radically different starting principles. Buddhism, for instance, is perfectly reasonable upon closer inspection, while the conclusions it draws can be seen as very extreme by representatives of equally reasonable schools of thought in the West.
if you think answers are irrelevant to discussion, a) you don't get philosophy, and b) any discussion you've ever embarked upon philosophically has been wholly pointless
i'm inclined to disagree with you that philosophy as a whole is remarkably easy, but i imagine that's because we're probably referring to two different things -- i don't think most of the practical philosophy worth your while is straightforward, but sure, most of what people study and gets handed down to students as staple philosophy is easy because it's based on material that scholars and laymen alike have done to death a million times over through history
i'm glad to hear you're a logicist too (or so it seems); i had a pretty lengthy back-and-forth argument with someone recently about the reduction of all things -- notably maths in this case, because they're a maths major -- to logic, and the more i argue for it or have it argued against the more i am convinced logicism is an accurate model
apparently the idea has gone out of fashion, though
i'm inclined to disagree with you that philosophy as a whole is remarkably easy, but i imagine that's because we're probably referring to two different things -- i don't think most of the practical philosophy worth your while is straightforward, but sure, most of what people study and gets handed down to students as staple philosophy is easy because it's based on material that scholars and laymen alike have done to death a million times over through history
i'm glad to hear you're a logicist too (or so it seems); i had a pretty lengthy back-and-forth argument with someone recently about the reduction of all things -- notably maths in this case, because they're a maths major -- to logic, and the more i argue for it or have it argued against the more i am convinced logicism is an accurate model
apparently the idea has gone out of fashion, though
absolutely not, it's pretty obvious you don't know what you're talking about
it is not universally agreed upon as being true at all, and i can give you one very simple reason as to why not only is it not agreed upon as being true, but is in fact completely false
the argument relies upon premises it is not entitled to, in that it's conclusion is one of the necessary premises
"how can one think without existing?" is the common interpretation that leads people to find it compelling, but since existence is necessary for the thinking to be done...
yeah, it's circular
What? How is that circular? It's proof by contradiction - something cannot think without existing because a non-existent entity cannot have properties.
Invalidating cogito ergo sum would require redefinitions of non-existence and/or cognition; with currently accepted definitions the proof is incontrovertible, almost tautological (as kierkegaard implied).
which means that the premises that make up the argument falsely describe the whatever it is they argue for; the problem is "i"
the proof is absolutely not incontrovertible at all; the cogito is in fact a pretty great scapegoat in modern philosophy as an example of bad logic
fyi, kierkegaard held the same view -- he argued that the pre-suppositon of the existence of any body supposedly doing the thinking invalidates the argument, which is true. his point that the argument is trivial because it seems to state exactly what it argues for is not a triumph proponents of the cogito should consider proud to have under their belts, lol
the proof is absolutely not incontrovertible at all; the cogito is in fact a pretty great scapegoat in modern philosophy as an example of bad logic
fyi, kierkegaard held the same view -- he argued that the pre-suppositon of the existence of any body supposedly doing the thinking invalidates the argument, which is true. his point that the argument is trivial because it seems to state exactly what it argues for is not a triumph proponents of the cogito should consider proud to have under their belts, lol
i never said answers are irrelevant to the discussion. i meant that simply because we don't have all answers it does not mean we did not learn something and obtained some answers. discussions don't necessarily lead to answers, but they might lead to some... just as scientific experiments might but do not necessarily lead to answers
i went over this: the cogito is not circular because it's not an inferential argument (no middle term). the cogitio has no premises, according to descartes. it's supposed to be an intuitive truth, like the law of non-contradiction, which is apparent to us according to the natural light of reason, again like the law of non-contradiction. if we attempt to inferentially 'prove' the law of non-contradiction, we have to invoke rule-circularity... but nobody doubts the law of non-contradiction (i go so far as to say that nobody can coherently doubt the law of non-contradiction)
now, you may disagree with descartes and not think that the cogitio is an intuitively self-evident and non-complex clear and distinct idea, but you certainly have misrepresented his position (as have countless other philosophers). that's fair though, given how misleading the phrase 'i think therefore i am' is: it should read something like 'i cannot doubt that i am and i think'. not nearly as pithy though
as for logicism... what about godel's incompleteness theorem?
i went over this: the cogito is not circular because it's not an inferential argument (no middle term). the cogitio has no premises, according to descartes. it's supposed to be an intuitive truth, like the law of non-contradiction, which is apparent to us according to the natural light of reason, again like the law of non-contradiction. if we attempt to inferentially 'prove' the law of non-contradiction, we have to invoke rule-circularity... but nobody doubts the law of non-contradiction (i go so far as to say that nobody can coherently doubt the law of non-contradiction)
now, you may disagree with descartes and not think that the cogitio is an intuitively self-evident and non-complex clear and distinct idea, but you certainly have misrepresented his position (as have countless other philosophers). that's fair though, given how misleading the phrase 'i think therefore i am' is: it should read something like 'i cannot doubt that i am and i think'. not nearly as pithy though
as for logicism... what about godel's incompleteness theorem?
barely worth mentioning, but if it was an intuitive truth, why write the meditations?
there's no get-out clause, and the charge that people have misread the argument is terrible. it basically amounts to "if you disagree you just didn't get it". philosophers, and i, have certainly not misrepresented his position, it is simply a bad argument
if it has no premises, it is not an argument, has no place in philosophy, certainly not as "the foundation of all knowledge" etc etc
if, on the other hand, you want to reform it and say "no, the argument is actually x, not y", like "i cannot doubt that i am and i think", you're still stuck with the fact that you are not entitled to the assumption "i". paint it up to be psychologically attractive as you like, it is not logically sound
i'm not david hilbert, so godel really doesn't matter to me
there's no get-out clause, and the charge that people have misread the argument is terrible. it basically amounts to "if you disagree you just didn't get it". philosophers, and i, have certainly not misrepresented his position, it is simply a bad argument
if it has no premises, it is not an argument, has no place in philosophy, certainly not as "the foundation of all knowledge" etc etc
if, on the other hand, you want to reform it and say "no, the argument is actually x, not y", like "i cannot doubt that i am and i think", you're still stuck with the fact that you are not entitled to the assumption "i". paint it up to be psychologically attractive as you like, it is not logically sound
i'm not david hilbert, so godel really doesn't matter to me
the meditations wasn't about simply proving the cogitio--the cogitio was simply the foundation for the rest of his philosophy. hence why he wrote it
intuitively self-evident propositions are not arguments but that does not necessarily take away from their truth. i repeat, you cannot prove the law of non-contradiction with premises and arguments without circularity, and you need the law of non-contradiction in order to reason about anything. but there is something about it that is intuitively self-evident to us, and descartes posits the same is true pertaining to the cogitio
further, im not saying simply 'you misrepresented descartes fool you are wrong'--im showing why you misrepresented descartes. that misrepresentation was honestly a tertiary point. also, i don't necessarily even agree with descartes (in case that is unclear), but it's important to represent in the best possible light the position of philosophers, instead of being overly dismissive (which is a problem a lot of undergrad phil majors have--not saying you have this problem, mind you)
as for logicism, fair enough--all i know is that mathematics cannot be axiomatized according to logic, but i suppose it could derive its validity from logic (haven't looked into it too closely)
intuitively self-evident propositions are not arguments but that does not necessarily take away from their truth. i repeat, you cannot prove the law of non-contradiction with premises and arguments without circularity, and you need the law of non-contradiction in order to reason about anything. but there is something about it that is intuitively self-evident to us, and descartes posits the same is true pertaining to the cogitio
further, im not saying simply 'you misrepresented descartes fool you are wrong'--im showing why you misrepresented descartes. that misrepresentation was honestly a tertiary point. also, i don't necessarily even agree with descartes (in case that is unclear), but it's important to represent in the best possible light the position of philosophers, instead of being overly dismissive (which is a problem a lot of undergrad phil majors have--not saying you have this problem, mind you)
as for logicism, fair enough--all i know is that mathematics cannot be axiomatized according to logic, but i suppose it could derive its validity from logic (haven't looked into it too closely)
i wasn't implying that he wrote the meditations to prove the cogito, i'm saying that his so-called intuitive self-evident truths by virtue of his writing, argumentation and our and all seubsequent discussion of the matter prove otherwise
no, there is something about it that makes it easy/rational/comfortable to assume for us. since we're arguing descartes, assumptions like these really shouldn't be slipping under the radar
in descartes' flawed model, maybe!
yeah, straw men, blah blah blah
logic is objective and black and white, however. i can't under represent truth and falsehood
has not, not cannot
all previous models and attempts have been demonstrated to be lacking one way or another, but there is nothing definitively crippling to the idea, and logicians continue to work on it in the present day
no, there is something about it that makes it easy/rational/comfortable to assume for us. since we're arguing descartes, assumptions like these really shouldn't be slipping under the radar
in descartes' flawed model, maybe!
yeah, straw men, blah blah blah
logic is objective and black and white, however. i can't under represent truth and falsehood
has not, not cannot
all previous models and attempts have been demonstrated to be lacking one way or another, but there is nothing definitively crippling to the idea, and logicians continue to work on it in the present day
there's a difference between something being self-evident to us and something self-evident in itself. the latter is simply something that is true analytically and follows from the principle of non-contradiction, while the former is a combination of that and a psychological principle of assent. this might be one way descartes can respond to your point as to why he wrote about the cogitio, even though it is intuitively self-evident (he wasn't the first either, and he used that as further 'evidence' that anyone can assent to the cogitio)
but, i agree: i don't think that descartes' cogitio is a guaranteed self-evident truth--for many reasons. my point, again, was not that descartes is right, but your counter-points to descartes, up until maybe your last post, misrepresented his position, so they weren't good counter-points. it's not strawman blah blah--if you fudge the position then the counter-points are not any good. it's important to never take that for granted and overestimate your ability to grasp an argument. it's part of being a responsible thinker. i'm not sure where the black and white of logic fits in here--logic is a useful tool that must be properly applied. it's also a bit naive to think of logic as black and white: i've studied logic as well so i'm not talking about hippy buddhist bullshit either.
and no, i did not confuse cannot with have not. there can be no complete consistent axiomatisation of mathematics. logicism, however, does not necessarily attempt to axiomatize mathematics, but simply demonstrate that the validity of mathematics is derived from valid logical laws. nary a logicist denies godel's incompleteness theorems
but, i agree: i don't think that descartes' cogitio is a guaranteed self-evident truth--for many reasons. my point, again, was not that descartes is right, but your counter-points to descartes, up until maybe your last post, misrepresented his position, so they weren't good counter-points. it's not strawman blah blah--if you fudge the position then the counter-points are not any good. it's important to never take that for granted and overestimate your ability to grasp an argument. it's part of being a responsible thinker. i'm not sure where the black and white of logic fits in here--logic is a useful tool that must be properly applied. it's also a bit naive to think of logic as black and white: i've studied logic as well so i'm not talking about hippy buddhist bullshit either.
and no, i did not confuse cannot with have not. there can be no complete consistent axiomatisation of mathematics. logicism, however, does not necessarily attempt to axiomatize mathematics, but simply demonstrate that the validity of mathematics is derived from valid logical laws. nary a logicist denies godel's incompleteness theorems
This is only true if you take cogito as arguing for what existence is, not whether an entity exists. It is an assumption of the cogito argument that only entities which exist can have properties, yes, but that is only relevant if the cogito argument were attempting to argue that point. In reality, the point being made is that if we accept certain premises, then there is no way around the fact that some entity doing the thinking exists.
I must confess that I simply do not see the issue here. It seems patently obvious to me that, if an entity is doing an activity, that entity must exist, as non-entities cannot do activities. Things that aren't can't be.
My understand of Kierkegaard's critique is that Descartes assumed the existence of an ego ("I") and assigned the activity of thinking to that ego, which is true; but I don't see how this invalidates the argument so much as it just makes the argument tautological, since if we presume the activity of thinking, then we have to assign that to SOMETHING, and we can't assign it to a third party because we don't know that third parties exist (hume et. al. have made that apparent). This means we have to assign it to an "I", and the idea of "I" has to be implicit in the idea of "thinking" in this instance, otherwise we'd get statements like this: "I do not exist, but I am wrong about this argument."
Logic is impossible to counter without being wrong, deluded, retarded or faithful. My brother took a few classes, explained some things to me. All my proper exposure is from his ethical and logical assertions/distillations and whatnot, the closest thing to logic I've taken (at least at high level) would be calculus.
actually this is a prime example of what i pointed out is the number one pitfall of philosophical discussion
i haven't spent 20 posts explaining it, i've spent one, and then the rest arguing (apparently) for what the cogito is even arguing for -- that is, a completely different fucking subject, lol
no it isn't, the cogito is an argument for existence, and it has been taken by me and -- i'm going to go out on a limb here -- most of it's other critics as being that way. this is the same deal as trying to argue it has been misread. it has not, and it still doesn't hold up to scrutiny
the assumption is doubly relevant when taken (as it is intended) as an argument for existence because existence is assumed in the very first premise
since the argument is trying to convince you of something's existence, it cannot ask you to accept the assumption in the first premise of existence
how does this not make sense to you ?_?
"john i'm going to try to convince you that pokemon is objectively the greatest rpg of all time"
"well ok tom"
"ok john well suppose first of all that pokemon is objectively the greatest rpg of all time. then it would be, right?"
i haven't spent 20 posts explaining it, i've spent one, and then the rest arguing (apparently) for what the cogito is even arguing for -- that is, a completely different fucking subject, lol
no it isn't, the cogito is an argument for existence, and it has been taken by me and -- i'm going to go out on a limb here -- most of it's other critics as being that way. this is the same deal as trying to argue it has been misread. it has not, and it still doesn't hold up to scrutiny
the assumption is doubly relevant when taken (as it is intended) as an argument for existence because existence is assumed in the very first premise
since the argument is trying to convince you of something's existence, it cannot ask you to accept the assumption in the first premise of existence
how does this not make sense to you ?_?
"john i'm going to try to convince you that pokemon is objectively the greatest rpg of all time"
"well ok tom"
"ok john well suppose first of all that pokemon is objectively the greatest rpg of all time. then it would be, right?"
The outcome is generally different from desirable though (again, depending how much you expect in the first place). Would you like the other person to agree with you? To present an opposing point of view that the other side doesn't agree with but sees some positive qualities in?
Obviously, ideally the goal of engaging in any kind of discussion is to locate the truth. Of course, it's silly to suppose everybody enters a discussion without any clue of the way things are. If you have only questions and not a single thought, you probably won't enter a discussion at all. If logic is the way to go, we'll still need to agree on some fundamental truths before we can reach any consensus.
I doubt any discussion could be fruitless though, unless you're for some reason expecting a wonderful revelation from every person you engage in a conversation with, which I think you shouldn't.
Obviously, ideally the goal of engaging in any kind of discussion is to locate the truth. Of course, it's silly to suppose everybody enters a discussion without any clue of the way things are. If you have only questions and not a single thought, you probably won't enter a discussion at all. If logic is the way to go, we'll still need to agree on some fundamental truths before we can reach any consensus.
I doubt any discussion could be fruitless though, unless you're for some reason expecting a wonderful revelation from every person you engage in a conversation with, which I think you shouldn't.
discussion is not as simple as discussion A results in outcome A, which is either fruitful or not
though the ultimate question of the discussion may not be answered, we learn fragments of truth--not only that, but not all discussion pertaining to a given subject needs to be fruitful for the subject of discussion to be useful. even if philosophical discussion is not always fruitful, it does not follow that it many times can be
further, why bother having cong-style threads in 'a forum'? the discussion about nature vs. nurture in morm's thread, for examples, is a debate which borrows elements of philosophical inquiry and injects science into the discussion as well. we did not come to a consensus in that thread. so you really think that discussion was pointless as well? why bother arguing with each other then
though the ultimate question of the discussion may not be answered, we learn fragments of truth--not only that, but not all discussion pertaining to a given subject needs to be fruitful for the subject of discussion to be useful. even if philosophical discussion is not always fruitful, it does not follow that it many times can be
further, why bother having cong-style threads in 'a forum'? the discussion about nature vs. nurture in morm's thread, for examples, is a debate which borrows elements of philosophical inquiry and injects science into the discussion as well. we did not come to a consensus in that thread. so you really think that discussion was pointless as well? why bother arguing with each other then
oh, haha, okay
i don't mean to dismiss such a long post, but you've misread me! discussion threads are great, because those "fragments of truth" are acceptable to me as fruits of discussion
i don't, however, think that all discussions provide these, and often philosophical discussion in particular ends in a quagmire
- Status