As I've said earlier in other thread that just because our scientific knowledge is incomplete does not give you license to make up stuff to fill up the gaps in your mystical knowledge. As I see it, all you’ve done is back off from an assertion that you can know what those stuffs like consciousness/soul/afterlife or any other spiritual word/s (which is not appropriate to mention here) is through intuition, and are now arguing that the physicalist understanding is incomplete. So what? “We do not know” is a perfectly acceptable answer (atom to know). In fact, the areas where we do not know the answers are the fun parts of science. By the way you wouldn't try to convince an inanimate object that it didn't exist. Descartes' point was not that the qualifying factor for existing is thinking; his point was that the fact that he could think proved to him that he existed and that the Evil Demon's attempt to convince him that he didn't exist (and thus cause him to contemplate non-existence) proves that he does exist.
This already is used by Ancient Greek philosophers, when they started thinking - full stop! From apeiron to atoms and onwards! These matters are not 'reached' by senses but by Nous/Reason, they are not "experienced" by touching, smelling etc. but "seen" by "inner eyes"... Seriously, one can clearly see right here that those who do not know their history (of Philosophy/Science) are doomed to repeating it, so to speak...
The mind is our only qualifying factor when it comes to the existence of anything and everything.I can say the "sun" exists because I feel its warmth and I notice when its not there. The only way I can feel its warmth is by way of receptors in my skin sending signals to my brain which then interprets the temperature change as being warmer or colder if the sun is hidden by the cloud. This information becomes a thought about how warm the sun is... or how the sun has just been hidden by the horizon. Therefore, it is only by way of thinking that I can verify the existence of the sun or of myself or of you etc.
"The mind is the source of all the diseases, but the heart is the cure." Osho @gorski: I'm not quoting a philosopher - I don't care about his level of cleverness - as long as he is stuck in his mind, to me he's incomplete and I feel sorry for the guy. You're like my language teacher which was stunned by my comment of a text, because he said: "you didn't write in your comment about X and Y opinion" and I replied to him that if he wanted their opinion on the subject, better read their books on it.
Ignorance is bliss, eh? I can see how that can be infatuating, since it doesn't oblige, in any way, such attitude... But that, again, is the secret of "post-modernity's" appeal to many...
"Ignorance is bliss" - another big mistake. Ignorance of self makes one incomplete, regardless the sum of scientific knowledge one has. "The secret" was with the humans from the beginning, it's just the humans "thought" they know better... . That's true, ONLY if someone lives in his own mind (unfortunately this is the plague of the 20th century).
You missed the point: the point your English teacher made and that I am making now is that one could learn from others. Not only "one can" but "one must". If one is to build one must understand how things work, so one must learn from others, not invent the wheel all over again... You could learn from others, in debate with others but you seem to be firmly locked in...
While doing philosophy one needs mind not heart. Philosophy is a broad term. A more specific context or philosophy would do better to discuss. For instance, on what 'subject' you want to compare the western and Indian philosophers or philosophy's take? If only consider the experience spirituality gives, It raises the question of "Who am I ?" and then makes one experience of oneself and peace with oneself. Philosophies like you mentioned, do the same. It leads the thinker to the question, "Who is thinking ?" and resolves it with "I think therefore I am".
Like you and others confine yourself or say themselves in the spiritual realm can only think like that, just remove your mystic veil and think with open mind and make an analysis what other people are saying before posting such absurd stuff. Western philosophy keeps its options open on questions that can not be answered while Indian philosophy makes sweeping assumptions like that of after life, existence of (and unity of) soul, etc to fulfill gaps in knowledge. What is the point? If i m born perfectly well and not blind or deaf, you agree that i won't yet grasp the world to its fullest. What makes you think so? On the contrary, you seems to have a firm belief of human being's inability of gathering and grasping knowledge about things you know better.
Descartes wanted to make philosophy perfect science like mathematics. He wanted to come up with a theory that no one could doubt. Being a thorough rationalist he started questioning everything. He did not believe in anything that did not have a logical explanation. While doubting he realized that 'to doubt there has to be a doubter' hence he came up with, 'dubito ergo sum', I doubt therefore I exist. On further thinking, he came up with 'cogito ergo sum' I think therefore I exist.This is the theory of self, by Descartes. That was the answer I studied in college. Its a short note to Descartes theory of self. for further referece see here: Descartes is often regarded as the first modern thinker to provide a philosophical framework for the natural sciences as these began to develop. In his Discourse on the Method he attempts to arrive at a fundamental set of principles that one can know as true without any doubt. To achieve this, he employs a method called methodological skepticism: he rejects any idea that can be doubted, and then reestablishes them in order to acquire a firm foundation for genuine knowledge.[3] Initially, Descartes arrives at only a single principle: thought exists. Thought cannot be separated from me, therefore, I exist (Discourse on the Method and Principles of Philosophy). Most famously, this is known as cogito ergo sum (Latin: "I think, therefore I am"), or more aptly, "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" (Latin: "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"). Therefore, Descartes concluded, if he doubted, then something or someone must be doing the doubting, therefore the very fact that he doubted proved his existence.[4] René Descartes at work.Descartes concludes that he can be certain that he exists because he thinks. But in what form? He perceives his body through the use of the senses; however, these have previously been proven unreliable. So Descartes concludes that the only indubitable knowledge is that he is a thinking thing. Thinking is his essence as it is the only thing about him that cannot be doubted. Descartes defines "thought" (cogitatio) as "what happens in me such that I am immediately conscious of it, insofar as I am conscious of it". Thinking is thus every activity of a person of which he is immediately conscious.
Oy. This will take time to reply. Next week I get new students /trainees to teach ....then spare time will be rare...but I already feel the temperature has increased again..haha... to be continued...
All SOCRATE_MMXII has done is taken assumptions and made them fact in his mind. It ends up a pointless argument when you are discussing with someone who makes up the stuff as they go along. Makes funny reading though Here is some interesting reading
@gorski & sid_16: I hope we're just discussing here and not fighting... @gorski: one learns from self-experience, not from just observing how others do it. My teacher followed "the program" developed in school, which I didn't follow, 'because I felt it's limitation in self-knowledge and development. @sid_16: 99% of science is disproved little by little...which means what? We were taught lies in schools and universities all over the world. And the lies are kept being spread. Now we know that what you teach a human being between the ages of 0 - 6 he will take it as the truth his/her own life no matter what. Let me ask you one thing: you seem to respect the "western" philosophers but you don't say anything about Hermes Trimesgistus or Plato or Socrates. I wonder why? I can tell you why...because those philosophers URGE you to look into yourselves, when poor Descartes was all empty inside...he had only his poor mind that commanded him: I think (a bunch of useless thoughts aka mind garbage) therefore I am, leaving his own spark in the dark. "One can see only with the heart, the essence is invisible to the eye." Antoine de Saint-Exupery.
What makes you think that "a programme" stops you from developing your own ideas?!? But you have not done that and so...
I wish you all the best for it. BTW: A major reason why one studies IS to be a working (attention double meaning, lol) part in a capitalistic society. Hurry up you have lost time already. Applause. Philosophy is a huge subject and I had to notice that you have picked out those who fit in well to your views and ignore those Philosophers or discount those, more to that later when it came to Satre. It’s yours assuming that I have still pride. It seems you cannot just accept that I post something to inform, I cannot change my Biography. My intention to study had been the same as yours (different petri dish!). But I know that what I have studied is neither capable to ‘find’ the ‘truth’ nor to give an answer of who I am. And your study won’t do it either. I hope now you get what I think of science concerning the question who am I and what is the ‘absolute’ truth. I respect Philosophy in the same way as any other science. Each science has set as its goal to find the truth, a goal which science never will achieve. The only difference to me is that you think Philosophy is able to. What is disturbing to me is your way to argue. You have not that open mind you try to persuade everybody here. And you have no idea of ‘eastern’ Philosophy. If Buddha has found the so wanted ‘truth’ then one does not need to know what you have studied to find it. The ’truth’ is beyond study….we are talking here about relative truths. And this topic is actually about Descartes sentence and not about Philisophy... You have found something valuable in western Philosophy. Anyway it seems your arrogance has only place for some hand selected Philosophers. Openness is needed here, too. Your openness! It’s funny. You are blaming me for things which I blame you for, too. Here I blame you for prejudice. I am not a Westerner. I came with talent in Chemistry and I would have been stupid not to study it with as little effort as possible. I live in Europe in a western society but I also have been in south east Asia. (altogether around a bit more than a year). I was disappointed that my study had left some questions about myself. Physics (a side subject studied, though) and Philosophy are not very different, especially concerning ideology and their history. During history Newton’s ideology (conception of the world) has been revised. I’d compare it with Descartes old fashioned ‘discovery’ and I compare Satre with Heisenberg and Schrödinger. From object to consciousness. THIS is the evolution of science, which is the evolution (back) to the Self. It seems you are stuck in objects, fixed terms paragraphs and everybody who does not use them (stereotyped) is not suitable to be a discussion partner or valuable opponent. No, my efforts don't have to be respected. I know what they are worth. They are here to have a function in a capitalistic society. Some scientists must have been not nice to you, saying why not respect the Philosophers, just the Scientists…it wasn’t me…lol. An attempt to make me upset. It failed. (You know the situation where you have no chance to argue, any direction will be negatively interpreted). I am flattered. I have only one problem. I am open and have a closed mind how can that work? I have found my way and when talking of it I am open. And because it is my way I exclude other ways. Quite simple…nothing I could change here….'My way' changes but its definition always excludes other ways. Progress can be, the mechanism of exclusion persists, though. Thanks for being open here. I know it’s rare. And I appreciate it. “An idea of existence does not proof existence. One who is existent creates an idea of existence, nothing else he did. And this idea is the ego (I) which appears as an individual.” Nope, sorry, see Sid's reply a few posts above... Missed the point, sorry... We cannot come here to an agreement, sorry. Nothing more to discuss. We are fundamentally different concerning existence, Iamness, ego. There is just one thing left we can discuss in that aspect: When you die, gorski, what happens then? All our discrepancies are based on the question Who am I. And we have here a little image of Western / Eastern Philosophy conflicts Look, it’s actually quite easy. We can discuss and discuss. There is a real indicator IF one is honest to oneself. The amount of own sufferings. The time will come where one knows what all the study was worth when the body has to go….there is no ‘escape’. Yes, without smilies it would be even more mono...
Problems with Platonism The main argument against Platonism is the following. If abstracta are mind-independent realities, then why do we have knowledge of them? It would seem that if this particular dualistic system is correct, then it would follow inescapably that there would be no way of relating the two worlds. Yet, we do have knowledge of abstracta. Hence, Platonism is false. Therefore, Conceptualism is true.
An other aspect came into my mind. (I was very busy during my last reply and probably a bit harsh....or 'short'..) I think therefore I am. (Topic). When I have now a look at a tree (oh yes the tree again), 'I' perceive the tree. Has the tree now a own existence? The tree itself cannot think that it exists, so it are my thoughts who give it 'its' existence. So the tree exists without to have own thoughts. And the tree does not exist when I do not think about (perceive) it. Did I a mistake in that conclusion?
OK, again, a systematic answer, not dodging the bullets, like you do... Not me, m8! I wanna be a civil servant, serving the community, not big business... We all have choices... But you are sure right about lost time. I made my choices and I paid dearly for it, in various ways, career-wise, having been uprooted, just as much as they enriched me and made me who I am today, in many other ways... Ach, you're now trying to get me upset... You failed! Hehe, no offence, m8, but you really do not know much about (Western) Philosophy... If you did you would have known that a philosophy is neither a piece of furniture to "have", nor a "gospel", i.e. an untouchable sacred cow, not to disagree with... We are free to exercise our judgement and that is the spirit of Western Philosophy. Do you really think that I have to agree with every scribbling author I run accross during my studies? C'mon, get yer arse in gear, m8 - unless this is meant to be very funny and I missed it... So, in the "West", no longer do we cow-tow to the Church and its institutions (Inquisition etc.), ideology etc. Even Capitalism, hehe... Unlike the old story with a "critic" in India "questioning" the local cosmology and asking "impertinent" questions about an animal on whose back the Earth rests. "And on what does it stand?" he asked... It went on a few times, whereby the authorities told him "on such and such an animal" until he was finally "assured" that the last animal was the real basis of it all and that further questions were "not needed"... Riiiiighhttt.... It sounded like there is still plenty of it left... at least somewhere, in some dark corner, locked away... Maybe I am wrong on this one but I hope I am not... Seriously! Some pride in one's ability and work is healthy! Not arrogance and vanity but pride! At least you seem to have 'some' pride regarding your immovable views on Descartes, no matter how ill-informed, ego and such like... (....part II to follow, following my need for smilies... )
Well, good on you that you do know that! For yourself. Science has a very limited portion of the Truth to deal with. It is always a small cut-out of it. Every scientific discipline is defined by its methodology and subject matter, and that is always a part/aspect of reality. Philosophy is the only intellectual pursuit which deals with the Truth as such/as a whole. That is NOT to say that it will get the "absolute truth", of course. It is in the effort and a manner of thinking that it excels... Some philosophers (of "old") do think they are getting the absolute truth (Hegel) but not for a long time. That time is gone. So, you misunderstood, as you will see a little later in this post - so, I am happy to say you're knocking on an open door... Btw, for the same reason I abandoned "Sciences" at the age of 14-15, having been a local maths champion and so on... I was adrift until I encountered Psychology, Logics, then Sociology and Philosophy! So, I do get you! Hmmm, see above, re. Philosophy, please... And no, Science won't, since it is partial in its subject matter and methodology - I agree with that. Nope, I do not. Things are not so black and white in that department... But a complex subject. I actually had it as a part of my course and had to pass an exam... So, sorry to disappoint but I do have a fairly good idea of the differences between the two civilisations. And sure, I know that my questions will not find answers in the East, for a variety of reasons, some of which I have mentioned already... So, you see, I am just as candid as you are! But I am also a lot more competent in Philosophy to be "uncritically minded" towards "Western Philosophy"! But you can't see it or accept it, it seems to me. You think I am somehow tribal about it. I am not. Western thought has many potential pitfalls, Modernity (Descartes and co.) has opened various possibilities and there is no guarantee of realiter "Liberté, égalité, fraternité"! But the principle has been established in EU and US and not in India, China and elsewhere - if we are honest for a moment... The model, though, rests squarely on interested and competent Subjects, not only intellectually and professionally but also politically and morally competent. Without us nothing changes and regression is also an option! One thing I have to note, though is: every time you say you do have an open mind on the subject - you immediately ask me to change my mind according to your ill-informed "idea" of Descartes' efforts and you seem to not want to open your mind to my arguments. So, who's close minded here? As I explained, and you seem to have ignored it, I have studied it long and hard and I do know more than you and Socrate. Not sorry for that! It's the truth. But I am giving you the respect for your effort/work in Science. However, if you do not open your mind to my arguments and efforts, then the reverse is not the case, it seems to me, when it comes to Philosophy... You want to have an equal standing when it comes to these matters and I know I can't compete with you in Chemistry! Only I do not tell you off in Chemistry, do I? Pity for all those deluded Philosophers... You should have told them off 2.500 years ago... Look, seriously speaking: this is absolutely false! The fact that Philosophy might not get the absolute truth, whatever that might mean, does not automatically mean the subject matter is impossible to grasp or that the effort is worthless! It seems to me that you are giving up because you can't be God (know "absolute truth"), which is not very productive... Adorno, for instance, insists contra Hegel that no such thing (absolute knowledge) is possible, that every truth is partial, depending on the social substratum lying behind such an "attempt at an insight"! But that by no means devalues the effort! It just makes one aware of various points of view in a given society! And then, one must make one's choices... If you remember, they are made according to one's character, what kind of a Man one is, one's values and so on... You see, if you knew any of this, I think, you wouldn't have written some of things you have written, based on various assumptions, as to what I said, when in fact you jumped to conclusions etc. etc. So, please, bear with me, ask questions, if you are not sure but don't rush to conclusions, wearing the 7 mile boots... As Plato says, spirit does not need wings but weights around the ankles, so we tread carefully... So say Adorno and co. - as I just stated - and they are as Western as you can get. For instance. Many more subscribe to it, also! See "Negative Dialectics" for instance! The two are not mutually exclusive. See above. One can not choose a philosophy like a piece of furniture. One is what one is and one's philosophy is held accordingly. On the other hand, subject matter does not make me the same as subject matter. In that case a veterinarian would be an ox or whatever the object of his study... It is there, when we talk about chemistry, IT and suchlike. Do teach me. But please don't try to teach me my profession, since you have - your words - not studied the subject matter anywhere near to what is needed for it to happen. It is too unbecoming of an intelligent person. Seriously! Go figure... Maybe it has something to do with all of the above? I must note that you elegantly avoid the uncomfortable passages from what I wrote - like how can you expect to debate these things on equal footing with a professional and what would you do to me if I were to come to debate things concerning chemistry, with you at your work place? How far would I get? Could I even get to see you, without credentials and specific purpose to my visit etc.? But you get easy access to me. Sadly, without an open mind... (...part III to follow...)