/lit/ - Literature

>I think therefore I am
What a fucking idiot, didn’t he realize that science could and would disprove the self?

>>22952377

Are there any philosophers that will help you think clearly? I'm guessing Hegel does not fit the bill.

386 years, still no valid counterargument against Cogito.

Cartesian philosophers HATE this Theravada Monk!
https://www.youtube.com/live/gdFeyYRr-84?feature=share

>genius mathematician
>such a retarded philosopher that the retarded simplicity of his philosophy revolutionized philosophy forever
how the fuck did he do it?

I finished reading another Rene Descartes book: Meditations on the First Philosophy. I enjoyed reading it.

I'm going to give epistemology a try.

Why is he hated so much today? Why do they hate his mind-body dualism? I read more novels and poetry, so I don't pretend to know much about philosophy, but I see a lot of cringey types hate Descartes which makes me want to like him.

>i'm dubious and imperfect
>imperfect mind cannot create the idea of perfection
>therefore god really exists
Did I understand Descartes well? Was this actually his argument? Because if it was, it's really cringe.

mind - body dualism
free will
any freshman college course you have taken that made you believe that you're a 'deep' thinker.

Descartes, I love Descartes.

In the 3rd meditation, his argument for God boils down to the necessity of the objective existence of an infinite substance that would manifest as its representation, or the idea of God, in himself. But why is it that this idea of God could not be a chimera, an idea of something that doesn’t exist brought by the combination of existent things, of the negation of finite substances? I’m aware that Descartes address this point himself in the 3rd mediation by arguing that we must know of perfection before being able to comprehend imperfection (i.e. in order to lose or lack something you must first have it in your possession). However, this does not convince me entirely. It seems to me that it is possible to arrive upon infinite attributes through the negation of the finite alone. I know my own bank account information, but I don’t know Jeff Bezos’. This leads me to believe that I am capable of knowing things but there are boundaries to it. Yet I can conceive an idea of myself that knows the funny numbers on the back of Jeff’s credit card, I can conceive an idea of myself that possesses knowledge without limitations. In other words an omniscient, infinitely knowledgeable version of myself. In this manner, it should be possible to create ideas of all the infinite characteristics that Descartes describes God with.
I’m not particularly well versed in philosophy so bear with me if I’m making a simple mistake bros.

>>19698438
That there are truths unknowable to us, which must forever remain mysteries, does not inherently contradict rationalism.

Discourse on the Method.

I like frogs :^)

> (ego) cogito, ergo sum.
> I think, therefor I am.
NOOOO!!!!! YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT YOU CAN'T DOUBT YOUR OWN IDENTITY!!!!!!

Why? It's inherent to the substance of the thought, no?

'I think, therefore I am'.
or
'I am, therefore I think'.

It's a chicken and egg senario perhaps, sorry for the hyperbole. But maybe there is something to unpack there in similarities/differences?

Any thoughts my chan friends?
Didn't see a "philosophy" board, thought this might be my best bet.

Too fucking based.
I recommend his unfinished work: Rules for the Direction of the Mind.

>>19508966
Descartes being on this list alone refutes your claim.

Step 1: think really really hard. The harder the better. Really thrust into to those thoughts. Eventually you will feel the pressure of an epiphany coming up. This is the loosh accumulation from your thought thrusting. Once you reach the max loosh capacity of your mind the pressure will be to much and the ideas will rythmically violently burst out. Your body may feel really good.
Step 2: write down idea.

>be me
>read book by this fag
>become obsessed with making sure everything isn't just the evil demon fucking with me
>pro tip: you can't
>become schizo
>girlfriend tells my mom
>mom tells everyone
>everyone avoids me now
>lose my job
>lose my girlfriend
>get on meds
>life is in shambles

Books for this feel?

>There is undeniable existence. For there to be anything to consider, even if it is denial of known or observable existence, there must be existence for that agent to do the act. A skeptic can deny everything except self-existence. Even self-understanding, the idea of any senses or even, indeed, individuality, but none of these can disprove the fact that things exist.

>Things which exist must occupy dimension, as a thing cannot contain itself, since the principle of non-contradiction is required to make any statement.

Is statement 2 really logical? Hell, is statement 1?