Mind and Body
Descartes separated his body from the world around him. Everything that validated his existence was his thoughts. That's why he loved math; it's so linked to pure thought.
Is this the right way to go? What about emotions? Doesn't Descartes' idea make us like human computers? A computer thinks, therefore it is.
Is this the right way to go? What about emotions? Doesn't Descartes' idea make us like human computers? A computer thinks, therefore it is.
posted by Unknown | 11:25 AM
6 Comments:
You might argue that other people think, for that matter, therefore they are. But it's not thinking that provides verifiability (or inescapability), it's the I thinking. Plenty of things might exist. Like other people or computers. But only one can be certain.
I don't think Descartes disliked things that were not thoughts for their impurity... he was just looking for certainty, a path to concepts that weren't guesses.
Welcome to the blogosphere, Bobby.
Hey Cool Bobby =)
Long time, no hear.
Nate is right on that the thinking provides certainty. That's the whole key of it, methinks. If Descartes were post-Kant he might have commented that the only way he KNOWS that he thinks is via his experience, and thus the "cogito, ergo sum!" is, to some extent, derivative of a more fundamental statement, "sentio, ergo sum!" -- "I experience, therefore I am!" Throughout his thought experiment, the inescapable is the I (as Nate pointed out). When the deceiver deceives, there is an I to be deceived. In the end, even without rational thought, there are grounds for the certainty of existence... whenever there is experience. But the certainty doesn't grow from the fertile ground of experience until cognition -- because certainty is a function of cognition, no? =)
You rock, CB.
I used to think, but then I became certain of nothing. So then I just was, which makes me think I've something to do with I AM.
Where are the posts, Bobby?
Where?
where aren't the posts... that is the question
Thanks Nate. I left my blog and then forgot about it for months. Not on purpose. I'm just forgetful. Good point. I still stubbornly think that emphasis is on the thought and not on the I, but maybe you are right.
You have to admit (I think), there is not a lot of "me" or "you" or "I" in mathematics, which is the paradigm of certainty for Descartes. A certainty that does not depend on externals. A closed, deductive sytem.
If it's the I that is the key, then you loose all hope of objectivity. Truth becomes completely subjective. Cogito ergo sum would be true only for Rene Descartes and in that sense "a waste of my time." Would you agree? Maybe that's put too strongly.
Post a Comment
<< Home