![frans-hals-descartes[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/gGMxE71.jpg "frans-hals-descartes[1].jpg")
Descartes was wrong.
The only thing that is certain isn't thinking it's experiencing.
Discuss this ground-breaking revolution in the canon of philosophy.
Hegel thought that first.
I Think Therefore I am Already Wrong was the title of an essay I wrote critiquing him last month.
>>7500361
What was your critique?
I also wrote a 800 word essay in under an hour and I probably fucked it up hard last week.
>>7500318
HEGEL DID IT
HEGEL DID IT
>>7500318
>Hegel thought that first
>Hegel thought
>thought
You mean he experienced that first?
>>7500406
btfo
But honestly what did Hegel say about this specifically?
>>7500421
His whole Phenomenology is built around this premise.
>>7500310
>The only thing that is certain isn't thinking it's experiencing.
deleuze says that cogito ergo sum is valid when you say. it is not meant to be said once and basta.
>>7500318
he chose to not understand empircism, stoicism nor buddhism.
Does anybody have a reliable download for the Phenomenology?
>>7500479
Hegel's?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21288399/Phenomenology%20translation%20English%20German.pdf
>>7500310
>I think therefore I am
>I think
>I am
>I
Hume btfo Descartes the second his critique of self-identity was conceived
>>7500492
philosophy is so gay
>>7500488
Thanks mate. Is that its entirety?
>>7500495
>philosophy is so gay
>gay
>gay
>gay
ur gay
>>7500492
>translation
>>7500497
Yes.
Thinking is actually a combination of two things, experiencing and exercising use of the will
>>7500310
As if experiencing can occur without thinking.
>>7500492
As if the identity of the self is founded upon empirical data.
- K
>>7500492
Hume didn't understand Descartes.
The "I" is absolutely necessary for certain truth or else it's not self-evident. Even Hume had to admit there was thinking, but if you simply say "there is thinking" or "it thinking", you are making an OBSERVATION on the outside world. How can an observation on the outside world be self-evident? That's why the concept doesn't work with the third-person perspective.
If you admit that there is thinking, then you also have to admit that you are the one thinking. And since Hume admits there is thinking, his idea that it's not "me" that is thinking is uncertain by his own standards.
>>7500622
>The "I" is absolutely necessary for certain truth or else it's not self-evident. Even Hume had to admit there was thinking, but if you simply say "there is thinking"
And that is all your post should have been.
The cogito is fallible because it assumes that there is a thinking "I". All it is really saying is "there is thinking" (Bertrand Russel would make the same observation) which, as you correctly pointed out, is a meaningless statement.
>>7500557
>tfw finally satisfied all the requirements for an upper level course dedicated entirely to Kant
>tfw Prof sent out an e-mail recently telling everyone to drop the course as soon as possible because it supposedly involves more reading than the last 4 years of my degree
>tfw I get to study one of the greatest philosophers of all time with one of the most passionate profs I've ever had
I've never been so excited
>>7500659
How much reading specifically we are talking about here? Did he mean like 'the whole philosophical canon before Kant'?
>>7500622
>Hume didn't understand Descartes
>If you admit that there is thinking, then you also have to admit that you are the one thinking. And since Hume admits there is thinking, his idea that it's not "me" that is thinking is uncertain by his own standard
>unironically thinking this is Hume's argument
Hume's entire point is that you cannot construct an identity based on seemingly similar experiences, or as you say "observations", of thought.
For subjective identity, in the way Descartes wants his "I" to refer to, there has to be a necessarily continues "I" existing through time.
How do you know, necessarily, that the "I" that experienced thought 5 days ago, is the same as "I" that is experiencing it now. You cannot know for certain. That is, you need more than just the experience of thinking to extend your experience of thinking to all previous experiences of thinking which when patched together leads to your identity.
That's all he's saying and it is an effective criticism since Descartes is trying to build a metaphysical system from the ground up and uses the certainty of the cogito to later ground the existence of God and the outside world.
Next semester, take Philosophy 101 at whatever part-time community college you study at.
>>7500668
The requirements for the class were pretty intense, especially for an undergrad course (involved 4 300 level classes as well as all the pre-recs for them, about a half dozen 100-200 level classes). He assumes you have a general understanding of the philosophical tradition from the Greeks all the way through to the Moderns.
For the class itself we're attempting to do close readings of the majority of Critique of Pure Reason along with some excerpts from Metaphysics of Morals and Critique of Judgement, all in a four month period of biweekly hour and a half classes.
The prof himself I can only describe as a mad philosopher. He paces the class and practically shouts his conclusions at you. His in class notes aren't slides, they're a loosely interconnected web of concepts that he writes on the blackboard and slowly connects them over the course of a class. He has nothing but respect and admiration for every discipline, from the hard sciences to the most liberal of liberal arts (though he's never afraid to lampoon any of them). His eccentricities are matched only by his depth of knowledge, he gives me the impression of being so full of wisdom that he has to try and impart it for fear of being overfull.
I know this is more than what you were asking for but I'm just so damn excited. It feels like the first philosophy course that will push me to my limits.
>>7500310
Descartes was wrong in a lot of ways but he wasn't full on stupid like you
>>7500622
Not only does your post indicate that you don't understand Hume, it honestly seems like you've never even read him.
At the very least pretend you have and briefly skim his bundle theory of self-identity. The idea of a persisting thinking "I" is a false idea and at best relates to a relational framework of concepts that constitute a method of navigating the world..
I'm pretty sure you need to have read Hume in order to be able to critique him.
>>7500717
I'm jealous. I never had financial or social conditions to study philosophy at college. I do it on my own.
>>7500622
how is thinking observable?
>>7500717
STEM here. I learned last semester to draw maps of conceptos un our hardest course (electromagnetic fields) after i reallies that mechanically applng the conceptos will be to complex. The profesor, although not a mad man, is very passionated with thia clases and love to ask conceptual problems.
To explain those maps wirh natural language is rhe real challange
Once you can almost tell a story with it, you can really understand what is happening with the maths you are using ( not really hard, but forma me it was).
>>7500659
You mind sharing the professor's name?
And it sounds like you're in for a great ride. My first toke of Kant left a powerful impression on my thinking - then taking a course on him, and understanding his philosophy more deeply, made me feel like I wouldnever see the world in the same way again (so far, that's been the case).
Then I read most of his major works on my own time, diving more into his system, and realized I didn't appreciate as much of his profundity and intricacy as I thought I had. I wonder if there'll be any time that revisiting him doesn't yield new discoveries and deeper insights.
>>7500881
Have you read Kant's Logic. It's a summation of his lecture works and there's a dank introduction that does a good job of going into detail on the spokes of Kant's system. A lot of the terminology he uses is covered very well. I don't think anyone truly understands Kant if you don't read his Logic
>>7500897
Not that guy, but did you mean "Kant's Introduction to Logic"?
>>7500918
http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Immanuel-Kant/dp/0486256502/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450987713&sr=8-1&keywords=Kant+Logic
>>7500897
Nah, but that and his lectures on metaphysics are two sources that I'm interested in reading - though I'm not sure I'll be able to budget time for them when I next study Kant, given their length. But your recommendation is helpful, and one day I'll get to them. Hopefully.
Where should I start with Kant?
>>7501129Platodesu
>>7501135
I mean what specific work of Kant, I know that I need a background of Greeks before. I'm working on that.
>>7501138
the prolegomena
>>7501144
thanks.
>>7501138
Assuming you're already familiar with The Empiricists and The Rationalists then read Prolegomena and then dive right into Critique of Pure Reason. I highly recommend taking notes.
The initial learning curve is pretty steep but once you're comfortable with his terminology it's just a matter of persevering and lengthy study
>>7500717
where do you go to uni?
>>7501138
Read some secondary lit first - try the Stanford article. Then read the Prolelogogenebababama to any future whatever.
I come to give this thread new life.
>>7502754
>those jpeg artifacts
though you have come to deliver life, you have brought only death
>>7501138
kant is a failed attempt to destroy the powerful destruction of the rationalism by the empiricism.
=> any non-empiricist doctrine is a nihilism.
>>7500717
Sounds groovy. Have fun, Anon.
>>7502782
does anyone still think this picture is real?
