/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3915735]

So /lit/ do we know we exist?
How do we know?
Will we ever find an answer to the question, without making an assumption or instating circular reasoning?
Or will we just be making the movements of progress, without progressing? (lots of thoughtful jibber-jabber, which doesn't come to any new conclusions or indeed and conclusions at all?)

Have fun

[Anonymous No.3915744]

Cogito ergo sum < Kierkegaard
Cartesian dualism < Gilbert Ryle

Descartes status? #rekt

[Anonymous No.3915748]

dat troll image
dat feel when op have no idea what circular reasoning is
dat feel when op's post is full of kindergarten level ambiguities that could be interpreted in 100 different ways
dat feel when another thread to sage and hide

go get them, opie!

[Anonymous No.3915752]

why do people say dumb shit like 'have fun'

is that a command? or a request?
is it some kind of meaningless nonsensical farewell?

If I want to have fun, I will have fun.
If I dont feel like having fun then I wont, as simple as that.

I could not care any less about how you may feel or what you may say about it one way or the other.

such a retarded thing to say

[Anonymous No.3915755]

>>3915744
Ryle didn't #rek anything though; it's more complicated than that.

You must be a shallow and perfunctory reader if you think otherwise.

[Anonymous No.3915767]

>>3915755
Have you actually read this?

Ryle completely obliterated dualism. It probably went over your head and mind.

[Anonymous No.3915776]

>>3915767
That shit is wholly outdated you idiot. I presume you have no background whatsoever what followed after in analytic philosophy.

Le fedora wearing teenagers on my /lit/ face

[Anonymous No.3915779]

>>3915776
wow op really is a faggot

[Anonymous No.3915782]

>>3915767

Intro To The Philosophy of the Mind (J. Lowe) essentially strikes down Cartesian Dualism in the first section of the first chapter.

[Anonymous No.3915783]

>>3915776
And so the edgy postmodernists appear!

[Anonymous No.3915791]

>>3915776
Criticize one of its arguments.

[Anonymous No.3915794]

>>3915776
> I presume you have no background whatsoever what followed after in analytic philosophy.
What does is when analytic more than whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.3915798]

>>3915783
Yeah, like, analytic philosophy and postmodernism is wholly identical to each other! XD Le different senses for the same reference!

Go strawman elsewhere, faggot.

>>3915791
Type out one of its arguments first.

[Anonymous No.3915806]

agnostic : wouldn't be cool if there was an afterlife after all? not in a christian sense, bu-
modern physicalist : NO ! IT WOULDN'T BE COOL AT ALL !
agnostic : why not? i mea-
modern physicalist : IT'S STUPID WISHFUL THINKING
agnostic : but if you can imagin-
modern physicalist : NO I WANT TO DIE AND ROT ! NO EXCEPTIONS ! MY BODY THAT IS MY SOUL HAS AN OBLIGATION TO NOURISH THE EARTH WORMS !

[Anonymous No.3915928]

>>3915806
Are you saying it would be pleasant to live forever in some fairytale carnival without a physical body? I mean the first 100,000 years would be bad, but what about the 10 billion after that? Seriously, the idea of a heaven, with my soul captured by God and forced to endure eternity, is the most horrific form of torture I can imagine.

I'm not even an atheist, I just really hope that I'm not subjected to eternity.

[Anonymous No.3915951]

Can you present a hypothetical situation where you can both simultaneously think and not-exist?

[Anonymous No.3915963]

>>3915951
Unfortunately, my speculative powers are very restricted by the perceived laws and properties of the 'observable universe'. This is one of the problems with the notion of God; we invariably assign God properties that we are aware of and struggle to comprehend something external to our perception of reality. That said, yes, I can conceive of consciousness existing without a physical self (though it becomes hard to describe because of said problems, and no common reference points to explain.)

[Anonymous No.3915970]

>>3915928
Why are you thinking of 'God' and 'heaven' in the widespread Christian sense? What is it with you guys? Do you not read anything else?

For what it's worth it could be anything; even a Spinozean God of some parallel Mind

[Anonymous No.3915974]

>>3915798
You've yet to make an actual legitimate criticism.

[Anonymous No.3915975]

>>3915970
It's the idea of eternity. Where that eternal sentence is carried out is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.3915978]

>>3915963
Why bring god into this? And who gives a shit about whether you're a physical being or not? This isn't about dualism or religion. Even if you exist on some magical metaphysical sense, you still exist.

>where you can both simultaneously think and not-exist?
>That said, yes, I can conceive of consciousness existing without a physical self
>I can conceive of consciousness existing
>consciousness existing...
>consciousness existing...
>consciousness existing...
>simultaneously think and NOT-exist?
>I can conceive of consciousness existing...

[Anonymous No.3915993]

The reasoning is not circular. Descartes proves the existence of the self from the fact that the self is thinking. If you then have the objection that we're already assuming the existence of the self by saying "I AM thinking", that just goes to show that the existence of the self is a transcendental necessity. Denial of the self is, no matter how you look at it, just a transcendent gymnastic.

[Anonymous No.3915995]

>>3915928
You wouldn't "feel" eternity becase you would be out of space/time

[Anonymous No.3915997]

>>3915978
>Why bring god into this?
For a simple analogy.

>And who gives a shit about whether you're a physical being or not?
>Even if you exist on some magical metaphysical sense, you still exist.
Define exist first.

[Anonymous No.3916009]

>>3915974
How do you imagine me making an actual legitimate criticism if you haven't provided me with any premises and conclusions?

Go get that book of his and write down exactly what you want me to refute.

Posting a book you've read and saying something along the lines of
"It's amazing how X demolished Y, just read it and you'll understand what I mean," paints you intellectually dishonest and indicates your sophomoric attitude towards worthwhile discussions.

[Anonymous No.3916013]

>>3915978
>>where you can both simultaneously think and not-exist?
>>That said, yes, I can conceive of consciousness existing without a physical self

He's right. He's simultaneously not-existing as a physical entity, but managing to have consciousness. You are committing a category mistake.

[Anonymous No.3916014]

>>3915975
Do you really think the idea of eternity applies to all metaphysical speculations of afterlife?

Don't be naive.

[Anonymous No.3916017]

>>3915978
>magical
>'god' uncapitalized
These are wonderful keyword warnings for a potential fedora

[Anonymous No.3916021]

'I think therefore I am' is not the encapsulation of a metaphysical idea, it is a statement of academic and intellectual elitism. Thinking and being do not share a causal relationship, and the sentence cannot be taken at face value. Descartes was placing himself and his class of thinkers above mere animals, and, yes, the proletariat.

'I think therefore I am' in fact means, 'I am educated therefore I have a reason to be.' But is not a battle cry, because there is no battle and his voice is not raised. It is a sneer delivered by a thinking man from on high, and the stinking masses are not even listening because they cannot even comprehend a being superior to themselves. It is, in a short succinct nutshell, the /lit/ manifesto.

[Anonymous No.3916022]

>>3916009

"The first example is of a visitor to Oxford. The visitor, upon viewing the colleges and library separately, reportedly inquired “But where is the University?"
The second example is of Descartes. Who, upon viewing all of the individual actions of the brain, reportedly inquired "But where is the mind?"

It is a mistake to treat the mind as an object made of an immaterial substance because predications of substance are not meaningful for a collection of dispositions and capacities; minds are not conscious, but a collective predicate for a set of observable behaviours."

[Anonymous No.3916027]

>>3915997
It is, and/or it has a presences in some place (doesn't necessarily need to be a physical place), and/or it can influence other things (or itself).
I think you already know what "exist" means as a concept, and you're only making me define it so you can find a loophole in my armature explanation. Taking this into account, please know that I may add to this explanation and elaborate if I think the need arises, however I will not alter my existing subjective definition of "existence" just to thwart you

>>3916013
A pear is not-existing as a vegetable but it still exist. If we merely define "existence" as "exists as a physical entity" then we can easily and effortless create a billion hypothetical situations where countless thinking entities don't exist. It defeats the purpose of this discussion if you limit "existence" to just the tangible, especially when dealing with the hypothetical

[Anonymous No.3916028]

>>3915993
There is no reason to link that which thinks with the "self", or "I". It's an unnecessary step. At most you can say "it thinks", as in "it rains".

[Anonymous No.3916038]

>>3916022
The first example is of a visitor to McDonalds. The visitor, upon receiving his fries, reportedly singled out a large chip and proclaimed, 'this is a large chip.'
The second example is of Descartes. Who, upon receiving his fries and seeing the largest specimen, reportedly declared, 'this was a large potato.'

The manager of the store overheard this and immediately broke down crying. She gave all the workers hefty severance packages and immediately fired every one. A passing Wittgensteinian undergrad took out a measuring tape and upon determining the exact dimensions of the fry ran out to the road and dived in front of a bus. Descartes took two women under each arm and purportedly announced, 'peace, niggers' before absconding with the harem in a stolen chicken delivery truck.

[Anonymous No.3916041]

>>3916038

[Anonymous No.3916056]

>>3916038
Your analogy makes no sense, as the potato is the brain. Descartes is looking at the fries and making a statement about an apple.

[Anonymous No.3916067]

>>3916038
The first example is of a visitor to McDonalds. The visitor, upon receiving his fries, reportedly singled out a large chip and proclaimed, 'this came from a large potato.'
The second example is of Descartes. Who, upon receiving his fries and seeing the largest specimen, reportedly declared, 'this chip is an atheist.'

The claim that "Most Americans are atheists" is not a category mistake, since most Americans could be (contingently) atheists. On the other hand, "Most chips are atheists" is a category mistake. This is because chips belong to a category of things that cannot be said to have beliefs.

Cartesian dualism rests on a category-mistake. It is a semantic and ontological error in which "things of one kind are presented as if they belonged to another." Again, Descartes fallaciously treats the mind as an object made of an immaterial substance.

[Anonymous No.3916090]

Are there any good arguments against mind-body-soul-breath pluralism?

I thought so.

[Anonymous No.3916109]

The mind is a product of complex algorithmic processing in the brain. It is not a physical object made of matter. Therefore he was right about the duality.

[/sci/ No.3916171]

Why are philosophers so stupid? A 6-year-old could refute this pic and yet it's taken seriously among STEMless losers.

[Anonymous No.3916179]

>>3916171

And entirely possible for you to misunderstand it.

[Anonymous No.3916212]

>>3916109
This web page is a product of complex boolean processing in the CPU. It is not a physical object made of matter. Therefore he was right about the duality.

[Anonymous No.3916233]

>So /lit/ do we know we exist?

You are able to do things in a world that is able to have things done in it. You are able to have what are ostensibly other people observe and take part in you doing these things, and you are able to form ties with these people and improve your ability to do the things you do.

In any sense that matters, you exist.

Yes, even if you ARE actually a brain in a tank.

[Anonymous No.3916259]

[Anonymous No.3916270]

>>3916212
You haven't disproved my point. Think about it.

[Anonymous No.3916365]

If x thinks
and I am that x
therefore I think
therefore I am

[Anonymous No.3916410]

>>3916270
I have thought about it. Dualism must apply to computers too.

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.3916415]

It is not a circular reasoning, and considering it as such is only a proof of a misreading or simply not reading Descartes at all.

The Cogito is simply an answer to the fact that you cannot trust a physical world whose existence is only caused by your senses: even though you can always argue that the world is a dream or a simulation, you will never be able to argue that you are not, for you are able to argue.

However, I do not think that the Cogito is still relevant, as it is part of some great narratives no one really refers to nowadays.

[Anonymous No.3916434]

>>3916410
Exactly.

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.3916446]

>>3916233
>You are able to do things in a world that is able to have things done in it. You are able to have what are ostensibly other people observe and take part in you doing these things, and you are able to form ties with these people and improve your ability to do the things you do.

>evil genius

This is not a valid proof, and the Cogito is a superior proof to one's existence than this.

[Anonymous No.3916488]

Your own existence is the only thing you can be sure of, yet you can never find any proof of it.

The truth is, there is only once existence. You cannot find proof because the proof is everywhere, it's like finding hay in a haystack.

[AGlassDarkly No.3916498]

>>3915767
>>3915776
Ryle did some pretty good work to throw what he called the "official doctrine" off balance with some great analogies that suggested it was all the result of a "category error" (he didn't change things much, though, because his alternative doctrine, logical behaviourism, was not very compelling).

The official doctrine, of course, was not Cartesian dualism - that is, not substance dualism.

What he calls the official doctrine is simply the way people talk about the mind. They treat the mind and mental events as if they belong in the same logical category as physical things and events. They talk of the mind as if it is a 'thing', some ethereal organ which interacts with the body causally. That's the category error; it kind of leads to substance dualism if you take mental talk seriously and assume that it has real referents. What Ryle tried to argue is that the mind is in a whole different logical category; talk about the mind can be understood perfectly well, he thought, as talk about behavioural dispositions.

[AGlassDarkly No.3916523]

>>3916109
>The mind is a product of complex algorithmic processing in the brain.

Tell me more about this "complex algorithmic processing".

[Anonymous No.3917251]

OP here.
I think philosophy trolling is the new physics trolling.
Circular reasoning is where point 1 serves to justify point 2, whilst point two serves to justify point 1. Of course there are likely to be more than two points in many cases. See flowchart.
I said Have Fun, because I doubted you would have fun, as it was a crappily written troll thread.
My point, was that if Descartes realizes that in order to think, he must exist. Then when we as individuals apply this to ourselves, we consider ourselves to exist. Descartes can say we don't exist or, take our word for the fact that we think, and therefore apply the principal of that which thinks, exists or vice verca. If we stop thinking, do we continue to exist? or do we merely exist as a result of us thinking we do. Leaving us possibly to say we are subject to circular reasoning in this argument.
Also, yes I am a fag, and shit at writing.

[Anonymous No.3917276]

>>3917251
>If we stop thinking, do we continue to exist?

I think it was Locke who brought the concept of time into it, and the ability to recall from a previous period. He was trying to demonstrate that a child exists as the same adult 20 years later, even though they may not have the memories, and the bodies cells have all been replaced. Also dragged in later was unconsciousness, temporary death before CPR/resuscitation, and sleep.

I think your question is fundamentally a mistake though. Consider a person existing, dying for ten mins, being resuscitated, and subsequently existing as the same person. To question whether they existed during death on the grounds that they couldn't think (or posses consciousness) is silly, as all we have is the physical neural action taking a break. 'Exist' is just a linguistic term that is being inserted over the empirical action and confusing things.

[Anonymous No.3917279]

existence is a social construct

[Anonymous No.3917288]

Descartes' argument does not work because logic cannot work. All human logic is susceptible to faulty reasoning and general "bad logic"; we are also not omniscient beings so we cannot have any sort of perfect logic which could prove cogito ergo sum. Only evidence can lead to the likelihood that we exist because evidence is not susceptible to faulty reasoning or the paradox of non-omniscience. However, evidence is synthetic and a posteriori, as we receive it through our senses and arguably, there is no a priori knowledge (see the various hundreds of arguments for this). We could be being lied to through our senses (e.g.: The Matrix). Our "existence" could not be existence in a traditional sense (libertarianism, individuality, non-determinism, etc); we could exist as a dream of a bug in an alternate universe.We could be in a coma. We could be anything. As evidence can itself only gained through the senses and only lead to likelihoods, not certainties, it is only a likelihood we exist.

I would elongate this into my main, empiricist argument against cogito ergo sum/rationalist arguments for our existence, but it's 2AM.

Please criticize!

[Anonymous No.3917356]

Things can exist without being able to think, but a thing can not both be thinking and not exist.

[Anonymous No.3917415]

>>3917288
well justifying the non existance of logic requires giving proof...and therefore using logic to try and refute logic; which doesn't work so well...

[Anonymous No.3917440]

>>3916021
this

[AnalCrust !m9jxTLhLcw No.3917460]

>>3917279
Social constructs are a social construct.

[Anonymous No.3917470]

>>3916021
must be trolling
this reeks of murican anti-intellectualism. are you a republican, or a feminist?

[Anonymous No.3917516]

>>3917460

that's not problematic

why don't you acknowledge that dasein lets beings be through the openness of comportment?

further reading: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/question-on-heideggers-comportment-44675.html

[Anonymous No.3917555]

all we know is that thought exists
>le neetzsche face

[Anonymous No.3917573]

thinking requires being

[Anonymous No.3917595]

>>3917573
>thinking requires being
Genius. Absolute Genius. You sir, will be remembered in a few hundred years. Nobody will remember what you said, but a filtered instagram picture of your face will be associated with having intercourse with teenage girls, complete with a witty caption.

[Anonymous No.3917614]

>>3917595

thanks i just rephrased descartes statement such that people who didn't study logic could understand that there is no causal relationship between thinking and being but a logical one. ;_;

it truly is an honor

[Anonymous No.3917775]

One must exist to think. I am thinking. Therefore I exist.

Not sure how that's circular.

[Anonymous No.3917803]

I've always existed, but just in different parts scattered around the universe.

[Anonymous No.3918392]

>>3917415
It's irrelevant, though; if logic doesn't work when giving logic, that just exemplifies my point.

[Anonymous No.3918436]

>>3917276
>'Exist' is just a linguistic term that is being inserted over the empirical action and confusing things.

This. Completely.

"Cogito ergo sum," like most other things in philosophy and the scientific method is just a description of empirical things. The mistake is to think that the world runs on laws, instead of realising that laws are descriptive, and potentially leave out many aspects of reality.

"Cogito ego sum" becomes nothing more than the description of a flower; no matter how much you describe it, the description never becomes the flower, or manages to accurately account for every atom and variable impacting the flower.

For this reason it breaks down. It may be that Descartes' description is actually correct, but a description is always fallible.

[Anonymous No.3919759]

>>3917251
If you're not trolling (I'm not sure about that), I suggest you actually read Descartes so that you know what he's talking about.

(For the record: Descartes was wrong or at best sloppy, but it's good to know how and why.)