+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 183

Thread: Thread Drift - pros & cons?

  1. #161
    Join Date: Jan 2009

    Location: Essex

    Posts: 31,859
    I'm openingabottleofwine.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hamish_gill View Post
    That's why I think fact is a very strong word... It gets banded around alot without much thought!
    In fact if you take a certain philosophical view the only real fact is your self... anything else can be debated... One can even qeustion one's own existence down to the point of only really knowing you must be fact because you can think! Cogito ergo sum....

    Barry - as for the sky blue thing... I agree wholeheartedly
    Descartes’s dictum; Cogito ergo sum, is oft quoted and usually misunderstood. What Descartes was trying to say was what is known as Cartesian ‘doubt’, expressing doubt on the question of reality. How do we know what is real? How do we know that our perception of an external reality is not just a figment of our imagination – a hallucination or no more than a daytime dream? Descartes even went so far that there was a malevolent demon assigned to everyone, whose job it was to deliberately lead us astray, deceive us in our perception. To pursue this problem further, Descartes asked "is there anything that I can be sure of?" Yes, the fact that no matter what the malicious demon could do, the fact that Descartes was thinking about this was indisputable – hence ‘I think therefore I am’ (Cogito ergo sum).

    Descartes was then able to go a little further, having accepted doubts about the sensory perception of the material world and expressed it as the Cogito, Descartes realised that none of the apparent features of the human body was necessary in the this process, so all that is left is thought itself, so Sum res cognitans: ‘I am a thing that thinks’.

    Now you might think that Monsieur Descartes was now still ‘locked or trapped inside’ his body with no more than the contents of his mind (which may or may not be distorted by the ‘malicious demon’). However the clever Mr Descartes realises one concept that he has, along with everyone else, is the concept of God. The concept of God is Descartes’s ‘Get out of prison’ card. His actual argument, or 'proof', of God’s existence is somewhat specious (more or less running along the lines of St Anselm’s ontological argument), however Descartes’s God is a Christian God and Descartes’s successive reasoning runs roughly as follows:

    “Because God created me and is benevolent, he is concerned with my intellectual welfare as well as my moral one. If I do ‘my bit’, then God will validate the things which I am very strongly disposed to believe. Now I find that however much criticism I make of my ideas, however carefully I think out what is involved in my beliefs of the physical world, although I can suspend judgement in the doubt (I wouldn’t have got to this point if I could not), I do have a very strong tendency to believe that there is a material world. And since I have this disposition and I have done everything in my power to make sure that my beliefs are not founded in error, then God will at the end make sure that I’m not fundamentally and systematically mistaken. That is, I can rightfully believe that there is such a (material) world”.

    (Quoted with very slight modification from Brian Magee, ‘The Great Philosophers’, OUP, 1987, ISBN 0-19-289322)

    Clever Old Descartes! This is what comes of staying in bed until midday (Descartes’s modus operandii).

    Now I ought to go and play some ‘intellectual’ music, something like: Schoenberg’s, Verklarte Nahct’ perhaps. No, on second thoughts it will be Ian Dury and the Blockheads, ‘New Boots and Panties’ (steady Marco, steady…). This says just as much about the human condition as anything else.
    Barry

  2. #162
    Join Date: Mar 2009

    Location: Elland

    Posts: 6,922
    I'm David.

    Default

    im not sure i like the whole "god get out clause" it seems to go back on what he has said in the first meditations
    i also question his reasons for turning to god in the way he does ... his proving of a god seems a bit religiously biased to me. the whole point of the first meditaions is saying there might be an evil demon.. so then why not say that there might be a god? it just seems a bit of a thin argument to me
    (and thats comeing from me, someone who does have faith.. although not nessasaryly in the god decartes is talking about)
    im not sure im clever enough to put accross my point properly here without digging out the book i got this all from in the first place... so i hope it makes sence??
    CS Port TAT2 - Benz LPS - Funkfirm Houdini - DS Audio Vinyl Ionizer - CS Port C3EQ - Kondo G70 - Kondo Gakuoh II - Maxonic TW1100 MKII - Isol-8 SubStation Integra

  3. #163
    Join Date: Jan 2009

    Location: Essex

    Posts: 31,859
    I'm openingabottleofwine.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hamish_gill View Post
    im not sure i like the whole "god get out clause" it seems to go back on what he has said in the first meditations
    i also question his reasons for turning to god in the way he does ... his proving of a god seems a bit religiously biased to me. the whole point of the first meditaions is saying there might be an evil demon.. so then why not say that there might be a god? it just seems a bit of a thin argument to me
    (and thats comeing from me, someone who does have faith.. although not nessasaryly in the god decartes is talking about)
    im not sure im clever enough to put accross my point properly here without digging out the book i got this all from in the first place... so i hope it makes sence??
    You have to understand Descartes's argument for the existence of God and how that concept is different to Descartes's concept of the 'malicious demon'. You also have to understand that everybody at that time in France, had more or less the same image or concept of God. And if they didn't believe in God, they could and would be so persuaded by Descartes's arguments. Skating on thin ice indeed!
    Barry

  4. #164
    Join Date: Mar 2009

    Location: Elland

    Posts: 6,922
    I'm David.

    Default

    ok...... so im right in thinking, or at least understanding, that the god he turned to was just because he had previously belived in god. and as such just decided to prove his own belives. that doesnt sit well with me, it is an alterior motive. not to mention the fact that as i understand it in those days doing anything that might disprove god was a major no no and might end up in a loss of a head!
    CS Port TAT2 - Benz LPS - Funkfirm Houdini - DS Audio Vinyl Ionizer - CS Port C3EQ - Kondo G70 - Kondo Gakuoh II - Maxonic TW1100 MKII - Isol-8 SubStation Integra

  5. #165
    Join Date: Jan 2009

    Location: Essex

    Posts: 31,859
    I'm openingabottleofwine.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hamish_gill View Post
    ok...... so im right in thinking, or at least understanding, that the god he turned to was just because he had previously belived in god. and as such just decided to prove his own belives. that doesnt sit well with me, it is an alterior motive. not to mention the fact that as i understand it in those days doing anything that might disprove god was a major no no and might end up in a loss of a head!
    I’m not sure that other members of AoS are particularly interested in this theological debate and I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable to take it much further, but I’ll quote some more from Magee’s book (actually a series of discussions with specialists on various philosophers. In this case Bernard Williams of the University of California).

    “…at the earlier stages of the proceedings the most obvious way of inferring the world from his experiences isn’t valid. He’s now got to give you a way to which he claims is valid. Having got to the point at which he recognises nothing except the contents of his consciousness, its obvious that if he’s going to put the world back he’s got to do it entirely out of the contents of his consciousness – there is nothing else available to him. So he got to find something in the contents of his consciousness that leads outside of himself. He claims that what this is, is the idea of God. He discovers among the contents of his consciousness the conception of God. And he argues that this is unique among all the ideas that he has; among all the things that are in his mind, this alone is such that the mere fact he has this idea proves that there really is something corresponding to it, that is to say, there really is a God.”

    The argument that Descartes uses relies on a supposedly necessary principle to the effect that the lesser cannot give rise to, or be the cause of, the greater.

    “Descartes is sure that he has an idea of God, and that is an idea of an infinite thing. Although in itself it’s only an idea, the fact that it is the idea of the infinite thing demands a very special explanation. Descartes claims that no finite creature, as he knows himself to be, could possibly have given rise to such an idea, the idea of an infinite being. It could have been implanted in him only by God himself: as Descartes memorably puts it at one point, as a mark of the maker on his work. God as it were, signed him by leaving in him this infinite idea of God himself. When he reflects on that the lesser cannot give rise to the greater, he realises since he has this idea of God, it can only be only because there is actually a God who has created him.”

    By asserting that the world with which philosophers and scientists deal with is given to us by a God whose existence and benevolence are self-evident, Descartes has not so much answered the sceptic as tried to pre-empt him.

    “ it is essential to Descartes position that he believes that these arguments that introduce God will be assented to by any person of good faith who concentrate on them enough. That’s absolutely essential. It would ruin his whole position if he accepted the idea that whether you believe in God is a matter of culture or psychological upbringing, and that perfectly sensible people can disagree about whether there’s a God or not however hard they think about it. For Descartes, to deny the existence of God when confronted with these arguments would be as perverse and as totally in bad faith as it would be to deny that twice two is four. The idea is that if you put these proofs before the sceptic and lead him to properly through them, and if the sceptic is an honest person, and is not just mouthing words or trying to impress must assent. Some people have not assented because they haven’t thought hard enough; they have not treated these questions in an orderly manner. A lot of sceptics are no doubt fakes, who simply go around making a rhetorical position and don’t really think about it. But if you you’re in good faith and think hard enough about it, then you will come to see this truth and then you cannot consistently deny the existence of the external world. That’s what Descartes believed.”
    Barry

  6. #166
    Join Date: Apr 2009

    Location: Sheffield

    Posts: 2,026
    I'm Confused.

    Default

    Hi you (two) guys,
    For me, please keep this thread going - I can't claim to understand or follow a lot of it but I do find it interesting, ney fascinating - and who knows, some of it may sink in and I may become a little wiser .
    Cheers,
    DaveK.

    My System:
    Power: Belkin PF40, Custom.hifi.cables Hydra and DC PSUs.
    Sources: Self built HTPC with Xonar ST sound card, NAD T585 multi disc player, Sony BDP-S350, Squeezebox Touch, Techncs SL1210 (mod'd) + Nagaoka MP30, Thomson Sky HD box.
    Amps etc.: 2 x Mini-T amps, MF-X10D Valve buffer clone, StanDAC 7520/Caiman (mod'd).
    Speakers: Mission 774s with added super tweeters
    Cables: best I can afford and likely to change except Homar's RF attenuated co-ax's and Mark Grant USB and HDMI cables. I also like silver i/cs and speaker cable.

  7. #167
    Join Date: Mar 2009

    Location: Elland

    Posts: 6,922
    I'm David.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barry.d.hunt View Post
    I’m not sure that other members of AoS are particularly interested in this theological debate and I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable to take it much further, but I’ll quote some more from Magee’s book (actually a series of discussions with specialists on various philosophers. In this case Bernard Williams of the University of California).

    “…at the earlier stages of the proceedings the most obvious way of inferring the world from his experiences isn’t valid. He’s now got to give you a way to which he claims is valid. Having got to the point at which he recognises nothing except the contents of his consciousness, its obvious that if he’s going to put the world back he’s got to do it entirely out of the contents of his consciousness – there is nothing else available to him. So he got to find something in the contents of his consciousness that leads outside of himself. He claims that what this is, is the idea of God. He discovers among the contents of his consciousness the conception of God. And he argues that this is unique among all the ideas that he has; among all the things that are in his mind, this alone is such that the mere fact he has this idea proves that there really is something corresponding to it, that is to say, there really is a God.”

    The argument that Descartes uses relies on a supposedly necessary principle to the effect that the lesser cannot give rise to, or be the cause of, the greater.

    “Descartes is sure that he has an idea of God, and that is an idea of an infinite thing. Although in itself it’s only an idea, the fact that it is the idea of the infinite thing demands a very special explanation. Descartes claims that no finite creature, as he knows himself to be, could possibly have given rise to such an idea, the idea of an infinite being. It could have been implanted in him only by God himself: as Descartes memorably puts it at one point, as a mark of the maker on his work. God as it were, signed him by leaving in him this infinite idea of God himself. When he reflects on that the lesser cannot give rise to the greater, he realises since he has this idea of God, it can only be only because there is actually a God who has created him.”

    By asserting that the world with which philosophers and scientists deal with is given to us by a God whose existence and benevolence are self-evident, Descartes has not so much answered the sceptic as tried to pre-empt him.

    “ it is essential to Descartes position that he believes that these arguments that introduce God will be assented to by any person of good faith who concentrate on them enough. That’s absolutely essential. It would ruin his whole position if he accepted the idea that whether you believe in God is a matter of culture or psychological upbringing, and that perfectly sensible people can disagree about whether there’s a God or not however hard they think about it. For Descartes, to deny the existence of God when confronted with these arguments would be as perverse and as totally in bad faith as it would be to deny that twice two is four. The idea is that if you put these proofs before the sceptic and lead him to properly through them, and if the sceptic is an honest person, and is not just mouthing words or trying to impress must assent. Some people have not assented because they haven’t thought hard enough; they have not treated these questions in an orderly manner. A lot of sceptics are no doubt fakes, who simply go around making a rhetorical position and don’t really think about it. But if you you’re in good faith and think hard enough about it, then you will come to see this truth and then you cannot consistently deny the existence of the external world. That’s what Descartes believed.”
    to be fair when put that way, its a fairly good agument!
    i quite like the idea of infinity being a makers mark, but surely that in its self could just be a product of the evil demon's trickery... im fairly certain that this argument against decarts god is know as a cartisian circle...

    but yeah, i too am not sufficiantly educated to go much ferther than this... sorry dave
    i can recomend a book called "think" by simon blackburn if you are interested... its the only way i know anything of what i speak. and i only really rememberd decarts meditaions because i used to particuly like the idea of questioning my suroundings/perseption in the way he does.. trying to find answers for my self etc
    ironically the answers i personaly have found, that personally sit best with me, aren't actuallly explainable.. and that for me is what makes them the answers... after all it would be to easy if we could just explain it to each other ....
    i think i might well be most of the way to being branded a hippy at the mo so i shall leave it there i think!
    CS Port TAT2 - Benz LPS - Funkfirm Houdini - DS Audio Vinyl Ionizer - CS Port C3EQ - Kondo G70 - Kondo Gakuoh II - Maxonic TW1100 MKII - Isol-8 SubStation Integra

  8. #168
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: gone

    Posts: 11,519
    I'm gone.

    Default

    “Descartes is sure that he has an idea of God, and that is an idea of an infinite thing. ..... Descartes claims that no finite creature, as he knows himself to be, could possibly have given rise to such an idea, the idea of an infinite being. It could have been implanted in him only by God himself:.”

    Personally, I think that this is where the whole argument falls flat. 'Infinite' is merely a word - the actual concept of infinite is as beyond real human understanding as ever. As far as I am concerned, he has deluded himself into believing what he wanted to believe in the first place.

    I speak as an astronomer by education (degree and 3 years postgrad research and life-long fascination) so mayhap I have more of an idea of the limitations of the human grasp of the infinite than some! It really is BIG out there, guys.
    .

  9. #169
    Join Date: Apr 2008

    Location: Cheshire, UK

    Posts: 2,829
    I'm Clive.

    Default

    Next we can discuss Aleph Zero, Aleph One etc....

  10. #170
    Join Date: Mar 2009

    Location: Elland

    Posts: 6,922
    I'm David.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jandl100 View Post
    “Descartes is sure that he has an idea of God, and that is an idea of an infinite thing. ..... Descartes claims that no finite creature, as he knows himself to be, could possibly have given rise to such an idea, the idea of an infinite being. It could have been implanted in him only by God himself:.”

    Personally, I think that this is where the whole argument falls flat. 'Infinite' is merely a word - the actual concept of infinite is as beyond real human understanding as ever. As far as I am concerned, he has deluded himself into believing what he wanted to believe in the first place.

    I speak as an astronomer by education (degree and 3 years postgrad research and life-long fascination) so mayhap I have more of an idea of the limitations of the human grasp of the infinite than some! It really is BIG out there, guys.
    that would apear to be a qoute from "think"

    i guess he referd to underderstanding infinity as a concept in the same was as understanding god as concept.. you cant really do it .. and i think that in its self is part of his point


    welcome back to your thread
    CS Port TAT2 - Benz LPS - Funkfirm Houdini - DS Audio Vinyl Ionizer - CS Port C3EQ - Kondo G70 - Kondo Gakuoh II - Maxonic TW1100 MKII - Isol-8 SubStation Integra

+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •