/lit/ - Literature

>>16754494
based dutchman

>I think therefore I am
>Presupposes I to prove existence of I
Cringe.

>>16754494
cartesian space has been btfo by physicists bitch boi

>>16754494
>the soul is connected to the body by the pineal gland. Why? Because I decided so using completely arbitrary determinations.

>>16754557
Buddhism was refuted by Shankara (pbuh)

>>16754561
If string theory is correct, then Descartes really did have a point.

>>16754494
couldnt solve the mind-body problem.and also how God acts on matter.also coulnd't explain passions enough.
but still based for fucking around with Princess Elizabeth.
>>16754533
he was french.

>>16754722
But he never proposed talking about God on matter.
But still, I get what you are saying. He was very Catholic and he used science to discover what "Gad had created".

We can say the same about his view about mind-body or even soul-body.

>>16754755
*God

Oh, and maybe he tried to avoid talking about God in that way because he saw him as an aspect outside human power or understanding.

>>16754494
How was this guy so fucking based but also so fucking cringe and probably managed to cause more mental illnesses with his dualism than any other schizo writer before him?

>>16754494
>>presented IRREFUTABLE evidence that proof the existence of God
Such as?

>>16754795
On "Discourse on the Method" he doubted about himself and everything. Starting from that, he proved his own existence and recognized that there must be something greater than himself and any other human being, because everything only can exist thanks by external and bigger forces. Therefore, he and everyone else was created by God.

>>16754494
>become the father of modern science
No

>>16754494

>>16754494
imagine being a mental midget and a simp doing it for free

lol

>>16754857
>he proved his own existence
How did he do that?

Descartes? More like da cart has enough food to feed the village!

>>16754557

yeah Beckett tore him apart. o

>>16754857
Retard
That's why /lit/ losers should stick to their Harry Potter Hemingway shit and let philosophy with /his/
It is pathetic when fiction-heads try to go into rigorous thoughts just because those are also called Classics
If mathematics was also put in the same book shelves, the English teachers here would think they are understanding Euler's Elements by interpreting the three sides of a triangle as an allegory to the holy trinity

>>16754494
>Evil is negative
Kek
Schopenhauer BTFO'd this cuckold

>>16754494
Based Shakeyspierre

>>16757987
Ugh creep get away from mee

>>16757987
But I never read Happy Potter lel

>>16754857
This proves nothing, unless God is meant in a metaphorical way and random events qualify as God. Also the conclusion is a paradox because it leads to an endless chain of 'but who created x' questions?

>>16754494
Retroactively refuted by Zhuangzi.

>>16757987
You didn't say anything nigger, /lit/ is allergic to most fiction and even if you were right about /lit/, /his/ is just Wikipedia junkies and third worlders circlejerking over online entries.

I am a mathematician, so of course I have great respect for Descartes, but he did not "prove" the existence of God. A discerning reader of the Meditations should see fairly evidently that Descartes simply began with the hypothesis of the Christian God and failed at every hurdle to extricate himself from his own self-delusion, despite that being the one goal of his work.

One day a philisopher will arise who can reach beyond Descartes' initital hypothesis of the illusory nature of all things, but they have not arisen yet.

>>16758839
I consider this as a metaphor rather that a reference to the biblical god. But Descartes more likely talked about the christian god literally.

>it leads to an endless chain of 'but who created x' questions?
I guess that's the point. We have to doubt about everything, which is an endless task but a necessary one in order to comprehend our world in a deeper way.

>>16758867

Spinoza got closer but the more I review the Ethics the less I'm convinced of his take on substance/attribute/mode.

>>16754601
Descartes as well though

>become the father of modern science

delete this right now, you fucking retard.

>>16754494
>>cucked the King of the Swedish Empire
I have never heard about this one. Tell us more.

>>16754557
"I think therefore I am" is not an argument, it's just a formula (in other terms, a motto) he used to denote something he proved to be evident (in the Second Meditation). He explicitly states so in the Objections too. The validity of the cogito is proven in the previous arguments.
It is not even clear that the "I" is to be meant in a psychological sense. Rather, the validity of personal identity is argued for later, once he establishes the veracity of God (at that point he just argues that personal identity appears evident to us, and if it was false, then God would be a liar - I'm personally much less sympathetic to those arguments, I think they can be too easily misconstrued to present as evident, and theredore true, whatever we might believe at a given moment).
>>16754580
The pineal gland hypothesis was purely speculative (and frankly, at the time it was scientifically plausible). He also offers another alternative, which is almost never mentioned by people who have not read him: the theory of substantial unity. Basically, the strict and confused union of soul and body brings light to a third substance, composed by the other two. That third substance will be a human being (rather than a separated soul). This alternative was speculative too, Descartes never assumed to have solved this problem.
>>16754774
Monism is far more schizo than dualism.
>>16754857
This is not his argument lmao.
>>16759294
Good luck doing modern science without mathematical analysis.
>>16758892
What does not convince you?

>>16758867

You're close, but you turned away from the truth at the last moment. Many European powers in Descartes's time would legally prosecute men for denying the existence of God. The question never asked is why is radical doubt reasonable?

>>16759455
Absolute doubt is not reasonable, that's what Descartes tried to argue for.

>>16759455
Please do tell, what is this truth that I have turned away from?

Why is radical doubt unreasonable in your opinion?

>>16759422
You don't need analysis at all outside mathematics and some parts of physics.

>>16754722
>he was french
yes i know that, but he looks like a dutchman in the portrait

>>16754755
>But he never proposed talking about God on matter.
if i recall correctly he talked about it briefly somewhere at the second half of his Meditations.

>>16757987
>That's why /lit/ losers should stick to their Harry Potter Hemingway shit and let philosophy with /his/
/his/ is more illiterate than Harry Potter readers you have no right to brag.

>>16758839
>Also the conclusion is a paradox because it leads to an endless chain of 'but who created x' questions?
>what is infinity
retard