NotStuckonStupid Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Can you Explain this to me: "I think Therefore I Am" Thanks
The Poojer Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Be obsequeous, purple and clairvoyant Can you Explain this to me: "I think Therefore I Am" Thanks 788131[/snapback]
IDBillzFan Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Be obsequeous, purple and clairvoyant 788137[/snapback] Pooj. An old Steve Martin line. I never knew you had it in you. Excellent.
tennesseeboy Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Can you Explain this to me: "I think Therefore I Am" Thanks 788131[/snapback] Descartes...Actually doesn't make sense. More sensible to say "I think, therefore I think I am." Thinking is not a precondition to being.
Ramius Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Descartes...Actually doesn't make sense. More sensible to say "I think, therefore I think I am." Thinking is not a precondition to being. 788165[/snapback] Also, this board is a prime example of "Thinking is not a precondition to posting."
Cugalabanza Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Can you Explain this to me: "I think Therefore I Am" Thanks 788131[/snapback] Descartes wanted to determine what, if anything, he could know for certain. He decided that he could question just about anything--all the objects you perceive around you might not be real--it's possible that you're dreaming or hallucinating them. The one thing he found it impossible to doubt was his own mind's existence. ("I think, therefore I am.") It's popular for contemporary philosophers to reject even this because they claim the "mind" or "self" is dubious. They would allow that THINKING EXISTS, but not necessarily that that implies a "thinker."
NotStuckonStupid Posted September 27, 2006 Author Posted September 27, 2006 Some thing like a Cartesian circle?
The Poojer Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Oh, nothing at all like that!!!! duh!!! Some thing like a Cartesian circle? 788208[/snapback]
Cugalabanza Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 ...Cartesian circle? 788208[/snapback] This is where Descartes goes on to try to prove the existence of God. He says that anything he is certain about is true. Then he says he's certain that God exists and is good. Then he says that the reason he can be certain of his knowledge about these things is that God exists and would not let him be deceived about it. Bad circular reasoning. It's an incredibly poor argument. So bad, in fact, that some philosophers say that Descartes just threw that God stuff in there to appease the churchy types who had a lot of power at the time and might have had him killed as a heretic if they suspected he was an agnostic.
The Senator Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Whenever I ponder life's deepest philosphical mysteries, I always look to TBD.
NotStuckonStupid Posted September 27, 2006 Author Posted September 27, 2006 Oh, nothing at all like that!!!! duh!!! 788226[/snapback] But the above is flawed reasoning
stuckincincy Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 This is where Descartes goes on to try to prove the existence of God. He says that anything he is certain about is true. Then he says he's certain that God exists and is good. Then he says that the reason he can be certain of his knowledge about these things is that God exists and would not let him be deceived about it. Bad circular reasoning. It's an incredibly poor argument. So bad, in fact, that some philosophers say that Descartes just threw that God stuff in there to appease the churchy types who had a lot of power at the time and might have had him killed as a heretic if they suspected he was an agnostic. 788229[/snapback] Pascal's Wager: The argument made by Blaise Pascal, for believing in God. Pascal said that either the tenets of Roman Catholicism are true or they are not. If they are true, and we wager they are true, then we have won an eternity of bliss; if they are false, and death is final, what has the bettor lost? On the other hand, if one wagers against God's existence and turns out to be wrong, there is eternal damnation.
tennesseeboy Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Whenever I ponder life's deepest philosphical mysteries, I always look to TBD. 788232[/snapback] Walt Whitman (1819-1892) When I Heard the Learn'd Astronomer WHEN I heard the learn'd astronomer; When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me; When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them; When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room, How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick; Till rising and gliding out, I wander'd off by myself, In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time, Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars. I'm not sure why this poem came to mind in light of this discussion. But what the hell. Guess it has to do with being over thinking.
Cugalabanza Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Pascal's Wager: The argument made by Blaise Pascal, for believing in God. Pascal said that either the tenets of Roman Catholicism are true or they are not. If they are true, and we wager they are true, then we have won an eternity of bliss; if they are false, and death is final, what has the bettor lost? On the other hand, if one wagers against God's existence and turns out to be wrong, there is eternal damnation. 788241[/snapback] Pascal--not only is he a terrible philosopher, but an incredible kitty too!
erynthered Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Can you Explain this to me: "I think Therefore I Am" Thanks 788131[/snapback] It means " Would you like fries, with that? "
NotStuckonStupid Posted September 27, 2006 Author Posted September 27, 2006 It means " Would you like fries, with that? " 788248[/snapback] thanks for the translation
taterhill Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 A flute without holes, is not a flute. A donut without a hole, is a Danish.
stuckincincy Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Pascal--not only is he a terrible philosopher, but an incredible kitty too! 788247[/snapback] Did he also resort to ad hominum like gringo seems to be doing here?
Recommended Posts