How can we base our existence on thought?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I have been reading some descartes, and I find myself agreeing with him, to the point of the idea as being able to base our belief in self on the fact that we are thinking.

My problem is that we cannot be sure that our thoughts are not simply prewritten recordings, or being projected. Of course, there is the argument that there is no evidence that those things are occuring, either. I guess therein lies the crux of things. We have no proof of anything, really, not even a first assumption, therefore we do and do not exist, depending on what hallucination you ascribe to.

 

[disease]

I have been reading some descartes, and I find myself agreeing with him

Oh dear, you realize what happened to poor old Rene, when he started to agree with himself? He went nuts.

 

[nietzschefan]

Yup he's garbage.

 

[glaucon]

Yup he's garbage.

Nope; genius.

I have been reading some descartes, and I find myself agreeing with him, to the point of the idea as being able to base our belief in self on the fact that we are thinking.

My problem is that we cannot be sure that our thoughts are not simply prewritten recordings, or being projected. Of course, there is the argument that there is no evidence that those things are occuring, either. I guess therein lies the crux of things. We have no proof of anything, really, not even a first assumption, therefore we do and do not exist, depending on what hallucination you ascribe to.

You've either misread him, or haven't finished The Meditations.
The essence of the cogito is the undubitibility of the doubting act.
You're correct to notice that, ultimately, there is nothing to be certain of, and therefore, we are driven to extreme skepticism. This is the beautiful legacy of Descartes.
Note that Rene 'escapes' this solipsism by a typical Rationalist manouvre, the introduction of an a priori, in this case, God.

lol

Silly Rene.

 

[Simon Anders]

I have been reading some descartes, and I find myself agreeing with him, to the point of the idea as being able to base our belief in self on the fact that we are thinking.

We don't know if those thoughts are ours, for example.

My problem is that we cannot be sure that our thoughts are not simply prewritten recordings, or being projected. Of course, there is the argument that there is no evidence that those things are occuring, either. I guess therein lies the crux of things. We have no proof of anything, really, not even a first assumption, therefore we do and do not exist, depending on what hallucination you ascribe to.

To me descartes always seemed to be missing the fact that he was assuming things. LIke that there are experiencers, so if their is experience there must be an experiencer.

If you're going to peel back nearly all assumptions, why stop near the finish line?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Glaucon, I haveonly read a little bit of him so far, as I have only one book with a variety of philosophers' writings. Plato's apology of socrates was... too much. I felt like I had to strain out the meat from the rest of the text. Why is an a priori an improper assumption?

SA-That's why I find the assumption of all things and no things to be the proper assumption.

 

[glaucon]

... Why is an a priori an improper assumption?

In my opinion or in Descartes' opinion?

First, Descartes': the whole point of his Meditations was to derive an epistemology that could attain a degree of certainty. Rene's systematic use of the skeptical method leads him to a point where all is uncertain. He then introduces the a priori, to build his foundation. This, many have noted, is fallaciously circular.

And mine: the problem with making use of an a priori as the foundational basis for an epistemology is that everything is thereby entirely contingent upon that single caveat. By definition then, it necessarily evades that certainty which it sought.

Regardless, moving back to the thread title: how would you propose we base our existence on the exclusion of thought?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I propose that we base our existance on the assumption that all possibilities are valid, and all possibilities are invalid at the same time. I would go on, but would like to hear your thoughts on this basic premise.

 

[lightgigantic]

I have been reading some descartes, and I find myself agreeing with him, to the point of the idea as being able to base our belief in self on the fact that we are thinking.

My problem is that we cannot be sure that our thoughts are not simply prewritten recordings, or being projected. Of course, there is the argument that there is no evidence that those things are occuring, either. I guess therein lies the crux of things. We have no proof of anything, really, not even a first assumption, therefore we do and do not exist, depending on what hallucination you ascribe to.

the problem with mental thought as a stable platform is that it has nothing constant about it - IOW it has no sense of self/environment to adhere to.

and that is essentially what the variety of disciplines of self realization involve - namely bringing the mind to bear on issues that are constant
(hence some, like buddhism for eg, suggest there is nothing constant, so the mind is simply to be disregarded and eventually discarded ... or others suggest that the mind is simply like a covering for an eternal self, and to be caught within the folds of the mind is much like being afflicted with jaundice, etc etc)

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

lg-so my proposal is correct?

 

[Simon Anders]

SA-That's why I find the assumption of all things and no things to be the proper assumption.

I have no idea how to 'have' that assumption, even if it were correct.

To me I find myself already having beliefs and assumptions. I have to work (my way out?) from this messy place.

 

[Simon Anders]

And mine: the problem with making use of an a priori as the foundational basis for an epistemology is that everything is thereby entirely contingent upon that single caveat. By definition then, it necessarily evades that certainty which it sought.

Have you no a priori?

 

[glaucon]

Have you no a priori?

Depends on how stringent one wants to be with the definition.

I'd say the only thing I could perhaps characterize within my philosophical POV/epistemolgy as a priori would be a few logical axioms. Beyond that, everything is contingent, and revisable.

 

[Simon Anders]

Depends on how stringent one wants to be with the definition.

Oh, I'll probably be pretty fussy if I am intelligent enough to notice them.

I'd say the only thing I could perhaps characterize within my philosophical POV/epistemolgy as a priori would be a few logical axioms. Beyond that, everything is contingent, and revisable.

I assume logical is not a value judgment, but rather you mean some axioms to do with the logical relations between premises and conclusions, etc.

Would you say you have the axiom that you are not actively editing what you perceive to maintain beliefs?

(and in response to a likely response on your part: Would you say you have an axiom that your defenses here are not very strong?)

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I have no idea how to 'have' that assumption, even if it were correct.

To me I find myself already having beliefs and assumptions. I have to work (my way out?) from this messy place.

Start by believing your perceptions are all fiction, and that within that fiction to which you are constrained you can manipulate the things you can perceive and can be affected by the things you cannot perceive, and that while this is all occuring, it IS occuring, or may as well be, because you are trapped within the hallucination.

 

[Simon Anders]

Start by believing your perceptions are all fiction, and that within that fiction to which you are constrained you can manipulate the things you can perceive and can be affected by the things you cannot perceive, and that while this is all occuring, it IS occuring, or may as well be, because you are trapped within the hallucination.

Ham, this is alike saying
start by levitating 10 inches above the ground.

 

[glaucon]

I assume logical is not a value judgment, but rather you mean some axioms to do with the logical relations between premises and conclusions, etc.

Indeed. A la Principia Mathematica.

Would you say you have the axiom that you are not actively editing what you perceive to maintain beliefs?

By definition, an axiom doesn't change.

(and in response to a likely response on your part: Would you say you have an axiom that your defenses here are not very strong?)

What do you mean?

..perhaps I've misunderstood your previous question, throwing off my understanding of this one......

 

[lightgigantic]

lg-so my proposal is correct?

that depends

I have been reading some descartes, and I find myself agreeing with him, to the point of the idea as being able to base our belief in self on the fact that we are thinking.

if one leans towards impersonalism and buddhism one would probably say no

My problem is that we cannot be sure that our thoughts are not simply prewritten recordings, or being projected.

if one leans towards the idea that there is an eternal self behind the projections of the mind, one would say no

Of course, there is the argument that there is no evidence that those things are occuring, either.
ditto above

I guess therein lies the crux of things. We have no proof of anything, really, not even a first assumption, therefore we do and do not exist, depending on what hallucination you ascribe to.

in short, the mind is not capable of "seeing" what it is seeing with. However whether the mind is the final last word about our sense of consciousness is the departure point that a lot of eastern philosophy begins at.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Ok, Simon, how about his, without even thought as proof for a basis of mind and self, what can you base anything on, anything more solid than pure assumption, that is?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

glaucon, I'd like to suggest that without the introduction of an a priori, there is no escape from the paradox of the possibility of non-existence