[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.14 MB, 817x1000, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12345294 No.12345294 [Reply] [Original]

how do I know that anything which I myself can't prove empirically isn't controlled by a devil?

>> No.12345299
File: 271 KB, 1009x1317, Kant_gemaelde_3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12345299

>> No.12345301

>>12345294
well ya gotta prove that the devil is real, first

>> No.12345303

>>12345294
Descartes literally refutes this position you mongrel

>> No.12345304

>>12345301
If he was real and he was tricking you into thinking he wasn't how would you know?

>> No.12345305

>>12345303
well he uses faith to side step it, he never actually solves the problem

>> No.12345341

>>12345294
You can't.
Neither can you prove you aren't living in the matrix

>> No.12345360

>>12345341
reality is too fundamentally advanced to operate on a matrix

>> No.12345366

>>12345299
how do we know all synthetic judgements weren't given to us collectively by a devil?

>> No.12345399

You cannot prove that anything you yourself "prove empirically" isn't controlled by a devil, for the devil could be making you believe invalid methods of proof are valid, such as thinking 2+2=4 when in reality it is 5. Furthermore he already said that "empirical" ie sense-perception based proof is insufficient because you could be dreaming all of the sense-impressions.
Sounds like you need to read Descartes more closely before criticizing him for using faith.

>> No.12345400

>>12345304
I'm pretty sure I'm smart than the devil.

>> No.12345425

>>12345399
>the devil could be making you believe invalid methods of proof are valid, such as thinking 2+2=4 when in reality it is 5
he can't do such things. I can perform operations on reality with my own two hands to prove the method of proof that makes "2+2=4" a valid statement on those axioms empirically valid.
>criticizing him for using faith
let's be clear: I'm not criticizing him at all

>> No.12345432

>>12345360
Wow, you know the level of technology humans are ultimately capable of. DOUBT ITTTTTT.

>> No.12345476

>>12345425
>I can perform operations on reality with my own two hands
This is the very first thing Descartes calls into question with the dream and it is easy to imagine a demon fooling you. If your reason for believing your method of deductive mathematical reasoning is because it is empirically demonstrable as you've just said then you have zero case.