Truth & Descartes

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Post Reply
Relentless707
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:55 pm
Location: England, UK
Contact:

Truth & Descartes

Post by Relentless707 » Mon Jul 03, 2006 5:44 am

I have a couple of questions, one about myself and one about Descartes..

As for myself, I consider myself to be a Secular Humanist, from this does that make me less likely to find absolution ? if so why..

And as for Descartes, was he absolute and therefore a Genius in what he wrote with his famous quote, Cogito Ergo Sum, or was he completely wrong and far from the ultimate reality and enlightenment ?

I am looking forward to the replies

R. Steven Coyle
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Post by R. Steven Coyle » Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:52 am

Decartes axiom was a preliminary expression of Ultimate Reality; a stepping stone towards higher truth. "I think, therefore I am" recognizes that our thoughts shape our reality, but fails to express how our thoughts can construct reality. Decartes potentially limits himself through his own axiom, regarding it as an absolute within an absolute; as opposed to an absolute within a relative reality.
Last edited by R. Steven Coyle on Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:08 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Truth & Descartes

Post by Nick » Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:57 am

Relentless707 wrote:As for myself, I consider myself to be a Secular Humanist, from this does that make me less likely to find absolution ? if so why..
If you are satisfied with being a secular humanist, then like anything, it will not allow you to make further spiritual progress. The best thing to do is drop any affiliation with labels or organization, have the courage to allow Truth to destroy your ignorance, and have faith in reason
Relentless707 wrote:And as for Descartes, was he absolute and therefore a Genius in what he wrote with his famous quote, Cogito Ergo Sum, or was he completely wrong and far from the ultimate reality and enlightenment ?
I'm not familiar with Descartes, or the quote, Cogit Ergo Sum. I did look up the interpretation for it which was, I am thinking, therefore I exist. Coming to this realization is only a small Truth philosphy may provide. One of many small Truths to come, until absolute Truth can destroy all dillusions.

Judging by Descartes' statement alone is hard to tell how wise he really was. I'm assuming he meant that he was defining his being as something he could recognize through his thought process. Although what exactly did he mean by thoughts? Thoughts are not something we can lay claim to as something contained within ourselves. Our thoughts are a culmination of the infinite process of cause and effect. To use our thoughts alone as a way of defining who we are is a flawed concept. In this case he was nothing to get too excited about.

On the other hand if he is simply recognizing his own existence in relation to the infinite then he may have been on to something. Still, I don't think this was what he meant. Even if this was what he meant, as I previously stated, it is only one of many small Truths to come.

Relentless707
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:55 pm
Location: England, UK
Contact:

Post by Relentless707 » Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:20 am

If you are satisfied with being a secular humanist, then like anything, it will not allow you to make further spiritual progress. The best thing to do is drop any affiliation with labels or organization, have the courage to allow Truth to destroy your ignorance, and have faith in reason
Personally, I dont really look for labels as such, I was just browsing online on Wikipedia under Philosophy branches and found Humanism, and I could identify with a lot of its points particularly the idea of seeking the truth in people as for me, I believe were all capable of good & evil but again, its a circular debate as to what '' evil '' is or what '' good '' is. I dont want to just stop there so to speak but I believe we can find greater truth or understanding of life learning from others, but again it may depend upon your school of thought as such but I am also entirely open to other ideas too such as those debated on here, there is no point in having a closed mind, identifying with one label and sticking purely to that if you seek further knowledge or understanding because your just limiting yourself, I believe

As for Descartes, what I think he was getting at in my own perception was the idea of, I think therefore I am, therefore he does not entirely know if reality is real, he doesn't know or know for certain however he does know for certain that he is real due to him having a consciousness, therefore he '' is ''

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Post by Nick » Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:30 pm

Relentless707 wrote:Personally, I dont really look for labels as such, I was just browsing online on Wikipedia under Philosophy branches and found Humanism, and I could identify with a lot of its points particularly the idea of seeking the truth in people as for me, I believe were all capable of good & evil but again, its a circular debate as to what '' evil '' is or what '' good '' is. I dont want to just stop there so to speak but I believe we can find greater truth or understanding of life learning from others, but again it may depend upon your school of thought as such but I am also entirely open to other ideas too such as those debated on here, there is no point in having a closed mind, identifying with one label and sticking purely to that if you seek further knowledge or understanding because your just limiting yourself, I believe
What is good without evil? They are actually one in the same, you need one in order for the other to exist. I've never met a person who did something thinking it was an evil idea, rather than a good one. It all depends on the obvserver's own bias and intuition. This is why it's best not to look at things in a good or bad light. Rather, look at things in a logical light to gauge the ignorance involved in your's and other's actions. This of course requires you to keep an open mind otherwise you will be the one seeing things through the dillusions of ignorance.
Relentless707 wrote:As for Descartes, what I think he was getting at in my own perception was the idea of, I think therefore I am, therefore he does not entirely know if reality is real, he doesn't know or know for certain however he does know for certain that he is real due to him having a consciousness, therefore he '' is ''
That is similiar to what I believe him to have been thinking when he came to this realization. Nothing too significant about this saying of his. If he was as intelligent as some might say he is then he wouldn't have made such a big deal about it.

Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Post by Sapius » Mon Jul 03, 2006 5:33 pm

707, Hi!
As for Descartes, what I think he was getting at in my own perception was the idea of, I think therefore I am, therefore he does not entirely know if reality is real, he doesn't know or know for certain however he does know for certain that he is real due to him having a consciousness, therefore he '' is ''
Totally off the track in my opinion because you are thinking of it from an “I”, as in I, me and mine perspective.

Actually he is not even thinking about not knowing “reality” as such. All that he is interested in is KNOWING for certain, without any doubt at all, that what could undeniably exist, irrelevant of all sensually perceived things that can be proven not to exist, including some saying that consciousness is also a product emerging from things that may or may not really exist, hence consciousness may not actually exist itself, and can be proven to not necessarily exist, except as a mental construct.


So he rolls up his sleeves and starts deconstructing all that he could doubt, and finally left with knowing that however anything may be doubtful, one thing is absolutely certain that there is something consciously doubting, hence consciousness is the only and absolute thing that actually exists, not even “he”, for that would be only through sensual perceptions which he already knows is doubtful. So, ‘I think therefore I am’ is not statement from “him” or “his” mind, but, an absolute undoubtful thought, which he further finally decides is God, because apparently there are other minds around and all of them cannot be a Reality in their own right, hence there is ONE “consciousness” working through all minds which is Real, which of course then becomes debatable. He introduces God because of his own preconceived religious ideas and his original idea was itself to prove the existence of God through logical thinking and doubting.

Well, that is my take on it, and what Steven says here, is very correct.
Decartes axiom was a preliminary expression of Ultimate Reality; a stepping stone towards higher truth.
Now all that one has to do is find it, and then further realize... whatever that is...
---------

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Post by Nick » Mon Jul 03, 2006 5:49 pm

Sapius wrote:707, Hi!
As for Descartes, what I think he was getting at in my own perception was the idea of, I think therefore I am, therefore he does not entirely know if reality is real, he doesn't know or know for certain however he does know for certain that he is real due to him having a consciousness, therefore he '' is ''
Totally off the track in my opinion because you are thinking of it from an “I”, as in I, me and mine perspective.

Actually he is not even thinking about not knowing “reality” as such. All that he is interested in is KNOWING for certain, without any doubt at all, that what could undeniably exist, irrelevant of all sensually perceived things that can be proven not to exist, including some saying that consciousness is also a product emerging from things that may or may not really exist, hence consciousness may not actually exist itself, and can be proven to not necessarily exist, except as a mental construct.
It seems like you two are saying the same thing, but using different articulation and intellect.

Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Post by Sapius » Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:07 pm

It seems like you two are saying the same thing, but using different articulation and intellect.
Well, may be, Nick, but I really don't think so considering the second part of my post. The first is just an introduction so to speak.
So he rolls up his sleeves and starts deconstructing all that he could doubt, and finally left with knowing that however anything may be doubtful, one thing is absolutely certain that there is something consciously doubting, (and cannot be "something" since that would be doubtful) hence consciousness is the only and absolute "thing" that actually exists, not even “he”, for that would be only through sensual perceptions which he already knows is doubtful. So, ‘I think therefore I am’ is not statement from “him” or “his” mind, (for existance of a calculating "mind" can also be doubtful) but, an absolute undoubtful thought,
Hence what is doubting if simply put is, consciousness.
---------

User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh » Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:27 pm

I think Descartes was an idiot - he was French after all :)

I've read two inanities of his today - the big one we all know is the mind/body duality.

"No philosopher came close to solving the problem of guilt and weight until Descartes divided mind and body in two,"

The other thing I read was:

Animal Intelligence Resists Definition

"A prevailing view, which at least dates back to French philosopher Rene Descartes and was reiterated by noted behaviorist B.F. Skinner, holds that all examples of non-human intelligence are simply conditioned behaviors."

Decartes was just another person who defined things as a matter of emotional convenience and then made such convenient definitions "the truth".

Due to a lack of interest in his ideas I don't know much about him, but I don't think he saw the whole truth at all. I'm not convinced that any of the noted philosophers or buddhas have (I regard none of them as being enlightened, even my fav Nietzsche, though it is irrelevant if they were or not) - they are worth reading for their ideas, their ideas can help you form your own [greater] truths, which in the end is all that counts (well at least in reference to the word truth).

User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: Truth & Descartes

Post by DHodges » Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:54 pm

Relentless707 wrote:And as for Descartes, was he absolute and therefore a Genius in what he wrote with his famous quote, Cogito Ergo Sum, or was he completely wrong and far from the ultimate reality and enlightenment ?
You may want to take a look at the book The Transcendence of the Ego. It addresses this question pretty directly.

In short, Descartes (like Husserl) thought the ego had inherent existence. He was mistaken. The ego (the "I") is a mental construct. It exists within thought. Thinking does not prove the existence of anything other than thinking.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: Truth & Descartes

Post by Jason » Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:56 am

DHodges wrote:In short, Descartes (like Husserl) thought the ego had inherent existence. He was mistaken. The ego (the "I") is a mental construct. It exists within thought. Thinking does not prove the existence of anything other than thinking.
Do you mean that ego only exists within thought? If thinking can only prove the existence of thinking, ego might exist beyond thought, but you could never prove it using thought. If you can't conceptually prove that ego exists beyond thought, then why assume it doesn't?

User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Post by DHodges » Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:35 am

Jamesh wrote:Animal Intelligence Resists Definition

"A prevailing view, which at least dates back to French philosopher Rene Descartes and was reiterated by noted behaviorist B.F. Skinner, holds that all examples of non-human intelligence are simply conditioned behaviors."
People do have a tendency, and (it seems) a strong desire, to think of themselves as apart from (and above) other animals, as something very special.

This is spelled out very clearly in Christian doctrine, with man created in a separate step, and given dominion over animals. In religions with literal reincarnation, there is reincarnation "up" from an animal form to a human form.

I wonder if this is a holdover from hunting / farming days, when everyone worked closely with animals, and perhaps felt they needed a moral justification for exploiting them, that it was part of the natural order of things - the people over the animals, the king over the people, God over the king.

User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:29 pm

I wonder if this is a holdover from hunting / farming days, when everyone worked closely with animals, and perhaps felt they needed a moral justification for exploiting them, that it was part of the natural order of things - the people over the animals, the king over the people, God over the king.

I think that would have had an impact, when an excuse is needed it will be created. Of course they were far, far busier just surviving back then, so any thoughts of harming things-like-us would have to be dismissed. [which is not to suggest that I have a problem using animals for food or for beasts of burden - the entire universe is purely the result of dog-eat-dog processes]

Even the citizens of countries who have or have had significant conflict with other countries or desire their resources consider the other parties are mere animals - hence slavery and warfare. Geez even the inane distinction between soldiers who can be legitimately killed and citizens who can't is kind of a mental way of classifying soldiers as disposable animals.

I would say it is an inherent part of the nature of consciousness, which by default places a thinking being of any type at the centre of the universe. [edit: All thinking is an act of discrimination, we place a positive value on something identifiable that somehow matches with whats in our head, and dismiss the rest]

We see the same thing in the QRS's dismissive attitude to those who do not value wisdoms of reality, even their statement that masculinity = consciousness is akin to placing an 'animal value' on others - how an enlightened person could be dismissive, other than in a attempt-to-be-a-catalyst teaching role, is kind of beyond me. [edit: so as not to be hypocritical, I should mention that I have similar attitudes - I regard those who totally rely on emotions as being little more than animals - in particular I am thinking of those loud educated feminists types at Uni's who rationalise not with logic but with emotional values]

Post Reply