Descartes and Knowledge of Self

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
21

Agreed. If all matter and energy in the universe ceased to be, and there was merely a single meteor hanging in the empty space (ok, so there’s space and a meteor, so sue me) the meteor would be equal to itself, for all of eternity (so long as its atoms don’t break down, which we know is posssible, but we’ll set that aside for sake of argument).

So yes, for so long as A then A=A.

Ok, thank you. So, thus we’re basically in agreement here? I’m garnering more and more respect for the Buddha.

Should I take this as a compliment, or just a statement of fact? I’ll take it as both, since my ego doesn’t receive much of a boost on most occasions.

I don’t think I’ve encountered the “proof of Anselm.”

But when A becomes B, then B=B, and when it becomes C, then C=C. So the formula is never false, only the object changes, but any said object always shall follow Object=Object.

Question in regards to:

Ok, I’m entirely unfamiliar with Meinong, so take this for what it’s worth.

So what you’re basically saying is that, if I say, “The rock is hard.” The rock itself is not the property “hard” but is in and of itself simply rock, and hard is a property of the rock, but the rock is not itself “hardness.”

Does that work as an adequate example of your statement?

However, it doesn’t follow that if the rock were the only thing in existence, that it would cease being hard. What would happen, is that the rock would still be the rock, with all characteristics that it holds, but we would not be aware of its hardness.

For instance:

If A then B, and if B then C, they all must follow together, though A doesn’t = B and B doesn’t = C.

I think this is basically what you’re saying. Though I’m not sure it entirely applies to the cogito ergo sum case.

That is, we can’t readily define properties of thought. It does follow that thought = thought. But we can’t define that thought has the property of wetness, or hardness, or any such thing. So it’s more or less irrelevant what properties are associated with thought. Since we don’t understand the nature of thought (I’m assuming) nothing can follow.

I still think A=A works for this instance. And so the first part of your statement (the Buddhist postulate) seems to function. Whereas, we lack any relevant data to determine if the other statement can be useful in any sense.

Your statement could actually be used to prove my statement. That is, if Thought = Thought that’s fine. But, if we’re saying if Thought then Thinker, it doesn’t seem to follow, since Thinker cannot be stated to be relient upon, or a property of thought, from anything empirical.

Does that make sense?

22

For St. Anselm’s ontological proof of the existence of God, see here
wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

From the idea of perfection of God we infer His existence.

The case of cogito seems similar - from the perfect (apodictic, clear and distinct) idea of cogito Descartes infers the existence (sum) of Ego, while from the selfsame fact Buddha infers the existence of cogitata and calls them dharmas. What we call Ego is a name designating the particular collection of properties (dharmas) which we use to postulate as Self. In a sense, Buddha is more radical than Husserl in his direct psychological epoche, because he not only says that the Self is not identical with the body, but makes it clear that the Self is not identical with the feelings (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental impulses (samskaras), and cognitive states (vijnana).

23

Mathematics is a logical construct, two separate things are never in fact equal. They couldn’t, for instance, share the same space. As far as self identity goes, are you saying that a pear that has rotted two weeks later, is the same as the fresh pear of a fortnight before?

24

It doesn’t look like you paid close attention to my post.

A=A and B=B and C=C. Thus, the pear which is fresh is obviously not the same as the one which has rotted.

However: Fresh Pear = Fresh Pear and Rotten Pear = Rotten Pear

Make more sense?

25

As Pierre Gassendi (whose name I have taken) pointed out to Descartes, “I exist” also follows from “I walk” so Descartes could have also argued, “I walk, therefore, I exist.” (I could not walk unless I exist). Descartes’ reply to that was that although “I think” is certain, “I walk” is not. But, even if that is true, it misses the point. Of course, if you begin with “I X” then it follows that you exist. But, so what?

26

Anselm did argue (fallaciously) that because God was perfect, and because one of God’s perfections was existence, God existed. I don’t see how that has much to do with Descartes’ cogito argument.
Even if you give Descartes all his premises, I don’t see why his argument is analogous to Anselm’s. The only similarity is that Anselm’s conclusion is that God exists; and Descartes’ that he exists. But that is the only similarity I see. Descartes revived Anselm’s argument after about 600 years when Thomas Aquinas had rebutted it. But, Descartes never mentioned, so far as I know, any similarity of any kind between the Cogito argument and the Ontological argument. What Buddha has to say, I have no idea. I never knew that Buddha presented any arguments: or that it ever entered his head that he had to present any arguments for his views.

27

Yes, Desacrtes didn’t.

But I did. And we are now testing the plausibility of this conjecture. From the idea of the perfectly and flawlessly thinking subject, Descarts infers the existence of the substantially dualistic Ego.

Buddha preached over 40 years, and of course he used logical arguments:

orientalgate.org/article555.html

Otherwise the Buddhist logic of Dignaga and Dharmakirti would have been impossible.

28

From the idea of the perfectly and flawlessly thinking subject, Descarts infers the existence of the substantially dualistic Ego.

Descartes did not infer anything about his existence from the
idea of anything. He inferred it from the fact, or the proposition that he thought. The distinction is between the idea of this thinking , and his thinking. And, as I pointed out (or rather Gassendi did) he could have drawn the same inference from the porposition that he walked or that he breathed.

29

Sorry Shybard, my last post was intended for Kennethamy, i should have specified that. My point was that a thing is never equal to itself for any length of time. All being is becoming. “You can’t step in the same river twice.” (Heraclitus) To say that a=a is like taking a snapshot (a photograph) and calling that reality. It is a cheap imitation. Note that i am not saying that the photo album of Logic embellished with such great names as Boole, Russell, Frege, Wittgenstein is not a great thing. Logic is a very useful error, but nevertheless, seen from the perspective of life, an error. Nietzsche was saying that we give the World categories and when we look out at the World, sure enough, we see those categories. At bottom we get out of things exactly what we put into them. We invent something totally antithetical to life called logic and then expect logic to divine the truth of life!

30

To start with, Heraclitus was wrong. You can step into the same river as many times as you like, but since the river water is constantly flowing, you cannot step into the same water twice (unless you are very fast, and move quickly in the direction in which the water is flowing.)

Now, “logic is an error?” In what way? And it is a “useful” error. If it is an error, then how come it is useful? Could you give me an example of when logic is a useful error. If we talk in such abstractions I will never get the hang of what you are saying.

Everything is equal to itself for just the time it exists. And, when it changes it is no longer equal to what it used to be, of course! But it is now equal to what it is. So, if you mean that when things change they are no longer what they were, you are right. But I suspect that is just an empty truism. Isn’t that what “change” means? But you are wrong to say that things are not equal to themselves. For that is a contradiction-one of those “useful errors” logic talks about, I suppose.

“Logic is antithetical to life.” Well, when you next see a truck coming at you when you cross the street, and you wait until crossing because you reason:

  1. If I cross now, the truck is likely to hit me.
  2. I don’t want to be hit by that truck.
  1. Therfore, I won’t cross the street now.

I suggest you forget about all this logic. which you say is “antithetical to life”, and just go ahead and cross.

31

This fact, or proposition is actually the idea that accompanies every thought as a background transradiation. Kant calls is transcendental apperception. Ich denke, or Cogito in Latin.

There is no an “I walk” behind every our thought to serve as an apodictic basis for the existental inference of the Ego. The transcendental apperception, when realised, is just what Descartes searched for - the absolutely certain basis for starting the ontological reconstruction of the world.

32

And the fact that that “absolutely certain basis” is not very likely to be found is the whole origin and upshot of what i am saying. Which is not to say that we have not built very useful things upon the shaky ruins of demolished temples to avoid the rushing waters(or oncoming trucks) of the two rivers as the ancient Mesopotamians used to do.

You are already “zooming in” with your camera. The river will be different each and every time you step in it. Show me a place in the universe that is at rest.

33

(Sigh!) The Mississippi river is a geographical entity. It is independent of the flow of water in it. So, if step into any of the water flowing in that geographical location, I. thereby, step into the Mississippi. Stepping into the Mississippi is entirely independent of what waters I step into. As I said, we have to distinguish between the river and the water flowing in the river. We cannot, unless we are very quick, step into the same water, but there is no problem stepping into the same river. The river is not different each and every time you step into it. The water is different. So, Heraclitus, who failed to distinguish between the river and the water in the river was wrong.

As for your first point, I think that you are assuming that unless we are absolutely certain we are mistaken. But that is not true at all. What is true is that unless we are absolutely certain, we cannot be certain we are not mistaken. But, even if we are not certain we are not mistaken, we can still be not mistaken, and be. I may not be absolutely certain that I am awake. But if I believe that I am awake, and, in fact, I am awake, then I am correct in thinking that I am awake, whether or not I am absolutely certain that I am awake. I do not have to be absolutely certain that I am awake in order to be correct in thinking that I am awake. Why should I be? Whether what I believe is true or not has nothing to do with whether I am absolutely certain. I can be both right, and not absolutely certain I am right.

34

I am talking about a physical river and you are talking about your conception of a river. We are both right, each from our own point of view. Truth has many eyes.

No i am not assuming that. I am just trying to accept reality for what it is.

35

That’s not true. It is the very same pear, but it is now rotted. Something can have different properties, and still be the same as it was. If I paint a chair red after it was green, does that make it a different chair? No. It is just the same chair; now red when it was green.

36

No i am not assuming that. I am just trying to accept reality for what it is.

I don’t know how that’s a reply to my argument. You think that unless you are certain about something, you are mistaken about that something. But that is false. What is true is that unless you are certain about something, you may be mistaken about that something. But you also may be correct.

37

Yes. That is what Kant said. And, for all I know, he may be right. But that is irrelevant. It is Descartes argument that is under discussion. He thinks that I exist follows from I think. That is true. But, then, I exist follows from I walk too. So, I think is no more unique than is I walk.

38

to reiterate in case you missed out on that part

In what sense could it even remotely be the same except in our conception? The water has revolved, the banks have accumulated sediment or eroded. All of these names and relationships serve to reinforce the concept that we can capture reality, and we can to an extent, but the Mississippi exists independently of our conception of it. Show me the part of the “physical geographical entity” that is the same, hold it out in your hand.

39

Here is my Yes:

  • Yes, Ego sum follows from Ego ambulo, but only if the transcendental apperception Ego cogito appended. Otherwise you will not be aware of who is actually walking. No one can infer one’s existence from the fact of one’s simple walking. The cat is also walking, but is the cat aware of its existence?

BTW, I don’t see any difference between D’s Cogito and K’s Ich denke. The latter is a German translation of the former.

40

It is one and the same river (not conception of the river) , which persists through change. A thing can, and is the same thing, although it may have different properties. One and the same thing, say a chair, can be green at time t1, then painted red, at time t2 and can be the very same chair of which it is true that it had the property of being green at t1 and red at t2. And, in fact, that is how we talk and we think.