What arguments can you make against cartesian skepticism?
>>7782237
God is no deceiver :^)
Give her the D.
>>7782237
Makes too many assumptions to claim real knowledge.
>against
Why try to destroy the productions of other artists
cyclical
relies on the assumption that god isnt a deceiver to prove your evidence that god isnt a deceiver
also "muh clear and distinct perceptions" like yeah go fuck yourself
>>7782237
There's something else I can't doubt.The fact that she wants the D.
>>7782237
it's a method of analysis, not a conclusion? not sure what you mean by 'arguments against it
>>7782297
this is correct, the cartesian circle is certainly a problematic element in descartes' philosophy (although not in the way this poster says). and yes, his use of 'clear and distinct ideas/perceptions' is relatively vague and/or ambiguous, if not outright problematic as well
>>7782787
>this is correct, the cartesian circle is certainly a problematic element in descartes' philosophy (although not in the way this poster says). and yes, his use of 'clear and distinct ideas/perceptions' is relatively vague and/or ambiguous, if not outright problematic as well
can you expand your point about his use of "clear and distinct ideas/perceptions" being problematic?
>>7782887
correct me if i'm right, but as far as i remember he never really clarifies what he means by using that term while simultaneously relying on it in some of his proofs
>>7782893
*correct me if i'm wrong, sorry i'm a little drunk. i have formalized versions of his proofs in my notes if you're interested in further examples or clarification
>>7782898
>*correct me if i'm wrong, sorry i'm a little drunk. i have formalized versions of his proofs in my notes if you're interested in further examples or clarification
yes please
>>7782976
>>63126172
cogito (in the context of evil genius skepticism)
1a. i am being deceived
1b. i am thinking false thoughts
2. i am thinking (from 1b)
3. i exist (from 2)
proof for god's existence
1. everything has a cause
2. the degree of reality of a cause is greater than or equal to the reality of its effect
3. the formal reality of the cause of an idea is greater than or equal to the objective reality of that idea
4. i have an idea of god
5. i have an idea that has infinite objective reality (from 4)
6. the cause of this idea must have infinite formal reality (from 3 and 5)
7. i do not have infinite formal reality
8. so, an infinite being (i.e. god) exists independently of me (from 6 and 7)
ontological proof of god's existence (this is where clear and distinct ideas come into play)
1. i have a c + d idea of god
2. god's essence is to be extremely perfect
3. existence is a perfection and/or is required for perfection
4. so, existence is part of god's existence (from 2 and 3)
5. so, god necessarily exists (from 4)
proof of the existence of bodies
1. i have a strong 'natural impulse' to believe in the existence of bodies
2. if this belief were false, i would not be capable of correcting it
3. if god let me have this belief, he'd be a deceiver
4. god is not a deceiver
5. so, bodies exist (i.e. actual physical objects, this is in the context of d's dream skepticism)
the real distinction between mind and body
1. all the things i c + d perceive can be made by god just as i conceive them
2. i have a c + d idea of myself as a thinking thing
3. i have a c + d idea of my body as an extended thing
4. so, i can exist as a thinking, unextended thing (from 1 and 2)
5. my body can exist as an extended, unthinking thing (from 1 and 3)
6. so, i am really distinct from my body (from 4 and 5)
sorry for any typos!
>>7783036
Love you man. thanks a lot
>>7783101
no problem! the terminology is pretty important and somewhat confusing but i think some googling will clear that up if you have any issues, his terms are pretty intuitive anyway. spinoza responds to and critiques a lot of these proofs as well
>>7783036
>1a. i am being deceived
>1b. i am thinking false thoughts
the trouble with this is is that there is no evidence whatsoever that this is, or isn't, the case
also: "i am thinking" means that YOU, voluntarily, are thinking; being deceived and "thinking false thoughts" is letting the demon do the thinking for you; hence it is not you that is thinking and hence not you that exists.
moreover: the second conclusion (3.) doesn't follow from the first conclusion (2.), logically; not only that, but also because, again, there is no evidence whatsoever that your thinking is voluntary thinking (the evil demon again).
>1. everything has a cause
false. numbers and some subatomic phenomena bear no causality
premises 2-7 makes no sense whatsoever; they are obscure on par with the medieval gobbledygook
i'm ignoring the rest.
>>7783126
i think you're misunderstanding the cogito proof, he goes the route of assuming he's thinking false thoughts (think of a subproof in a formal proof) because if he wasn't being deceived, he would simply be thinking, which would clearly lead directly to 2.
also, your dismissal of d as abusing "medieval gobbledygook' is telling. obviously he's a product of his time period, which entails him being outdated to a certain extent, but there's a reason he's still studied today. his methodology and attempt to reconcile philosophy with the new science emerging at the time (think galileo, newton, etc.) are critical. following that, his terminology is not mere 'gobbledygook'; a lot of the time in history of modern philosophy courses isn't just over the history, context, and proofs, but also and especially spent on terminology. besides his already admitted abuse of the term 'clear and distinct perceptions,' the only instances where i can see your accusation having merit would be with the terms objective and formal reality, which in turn actually relatively clear and rigid definitions themselves. perhaps you don't understand them and need them defined for you?
>>7783157
to clarify my first paragraph, i don't see how evil genius skepticism would entail the possibility of the evil genius would mean 'letting the demon do the thinking for you' - that seems incoherent at best, unrelated at worst
>>7783126
>>7783157
>>7783175
even further, i'm not sure if you're arguing with me personally or just d in general - i never said he was completely correct or accurate or anything, i even said he was problematic in a number of ways previously. and if you're responding to d himself, you're not really saying anything new that historians of philosophy haven't already said themselves - even further, it's arguably self-evident that d isn't completely correct, considering his proofs and system are almost four hundred years old. what exactly do you think you're proving here?
>>7783157
first of all, there is no "route" since his "argument" doesn't resemble a proof at all. it's not even an argument, since neither conclusion FOLLOWS.
>he goes the route of assuming he's thinking false thoughts (think of a subproof in a formal proof)
what? do you mean negating the conclusion and deriving a contradiction? in that case there is no subproof, for the reductio IS the proof. in any case, it is meaningless to talk about proofs, let alone SUBproofs at this point. even if he WAS employing a reductio, the conclusion (2.) just cannot be derived from the assumed negated conclusion because it is not something you can derive a priori: i already remarked that inferring "i am thinking" from "i am thinking false thoughts" is tempting, but wrong. tempting, because it SEEMS to imply that, but in fact it does NOT, because, again, thinking false thoughts is letting (well, if it indeed is the case then 'let' is the wrong word here) someone else do the thinking for you, which cannot be considered as YOU THINKING. tl;dr: the argument equivocates.
>>7783234
nice try, but i never said anything about deriving a contradiction via reductio - good attempt at dropping terminology. i was simply pointing out that you're possible counterexample of the evil genius doing the thinking for you seems contradictory if not incoherent
and again, i'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove here by attempting to refute a philospher that's been critiqued in the past four hundred years in better ways than you possibly could in a 4chan post? it's a proof whether you like it or not.
>>7782248
this tbh
>>7783234
your outright appeals to positivism and disregarding d's historical import/context are unfortunate
