[ 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: 84 KB, 752x1024, l35zuYM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7397526 No.7397526 [Reply] [Original]

What are some flawed claims in pic related's Meditations? Are the there any? Why or why not?

>> No.7397527

Read Hume, you lazy motherfucker.

>> No.7397528

Jesus christ.

>> No.7397600

his statement on god being self evident and perception is thoroughly flawed, google it or some shit

meditation 3 is garbage

>> No.7397831 [DELETED] 
File: 83 KB, 427x458, smug voltaire.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7397831

>>7397526
Provide him the pussy.

>> No.7397846

Spinoza shittalked him in a funny way.
I wish I had the direct text where he says so.

>> No.7397864

>>7397526

>I think therefore I am.

Already terrible and wrong.

>> No.7397867

>>7397846
Liebniz and Spinny shit talked him while also building upon his work. They had a weird relationship.

>> No.7397869
File: 503 KB, 500x667, nietzsche stirner.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7397869

>Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the phrase in that it presupposes that there is an "I", that there is such an activity as "thinking", and that "I" know what "thinking" is. He suggested a more appropriate phrase would be "it thinks." In other words, the "I" in "I think" could be similar to the "It" in "It is raining."

>> No.7398120
File: 414 KB, 800x1000, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7398120

>>7397526

The principle that we have a concept of "infinite," and that this concept isn't produced by the concept "finite" and thinking of it as negated, as "non-finite." This is important to Descartes because if we have the concept of "infinite," but our human minds are limited rather than infinite, and we don't derive the concept of "infinite" from the concepts of negation and "finite" (each of which a finite intellect can produce from its own resources, he thinks), then we can only explain the derivation of our concept of "infinite" from an infinite mind - that is, from God. Thus, God would exist, and implanted the concept in our mind as a way of understanding existence.

But Descartes doesn't really make a substantive argument in dense of this principle, from what I can recall. Rather, he just says that he can clearly tell than the concept "infinite" is the concept of something too grand and contentful to be derived from the mere denying function of negation - but I don't think such a claim is self-evident at all, especially given his promise to abandon all principles inherited from previous philosophies and all assertions that aren't undoubtably known.

>> No.7398138
File: 185 KB, 791x606, 1429641490020.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7398138

>>7397526
My main gripe with Descartes is that his method is tainted by it's goal

Descartes never would have inferred the existence of an outside world if he weren't looking for a subject for his mathematics. Without reliable proof of an outside world his entire mind/body dualism falls apart.

He also takes a lot of Christian dogma as a given

Not to mention the fact that he also infers the existence of a thinking "I" with the cogito statement. As Bertrand Russell already pointed out all it actually proves is that there is thinking going on and that knowledge alone can't serve as a basis for anything.

This is all nitpicking of course, he was still probably a lot smarter than I will ever be and his philosophical system is nuanced enough that there's still a lot of value to be taken out of it despite (ironically enough) some of its fundamental assumptions are flawed

>> No.7399053

>>7397526
His ontological argument is dreadful (as are all of them). Everything else is very solid for the time I think.