Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge » Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge

Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 06/14/09 - 09:43 PM:	#11
I'm not a Descartes scholar but it is my understanding that in the final analysis it was only the cogito that he felt was clearly and distinctly true, beyond doubt. Please correct me if I am wrong. If I am correct then I agree with him. It seems to me that all else could simply be a fabrication of my own mind. I realize that this is not likely but as it remains a possibility I am forced to place it into the Cartesian doubt category.

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 06/15/09 - 10:35 AM:

#12

oag wrote:

I'm not a Descartes scholar but it is my understanding that in the final analysis it was only the cogito that he felt was clearly and distinctly true, beyond doubt. Please correct me if I am wrong. If I am correct then I agree with him. It seems to me that all else could simply be a fabrication of my own mind. I realize that this is not likely but as it remains a possibility I am forced to place it into the Cartesian doubt category.

I would not agree with this assessment. It wasn't Descartes' final analysis that the cogito was the only thing knowable. That was his initial analysis. That is, he started with the premise that nothing is knowable, but from that he recognized that that cogito was knowable. From that, he extrapolated the existence of God as being an entity that wouldn't be a deceiver. From that, he concluded that there was a world of physical bodies, which he distinguished from the mind. For an overview, see: http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm

A solipsist is someone who believes that all that can be known is one's own existence, and Descartes wasn't a solipsist.

"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House"
"I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 06/15/09 - 02:25 PM:	#13
Apparently I am a solipsist. I've only recently discovered this. Thank you for the link. It has been a long time since I did any book work on some of these guys so I am working from fuzzy memory. The only one I've reread since my college days is Kierkegaard, mostly because his writing style is so elegant and enjoyable. I will take a little time and reacquaint myself with Descartes.

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 06/15/09 - 02:45 PM:	#14
oag wrote: Apparently I am a solipsist. I've only recently discovered this. Yet a solipsist believes that nothing beyond his mind exists. . . so why would a true solipsist see the value in communicating with things that do not exist; me for example. Wikipedia wrote: Solipsism syndrome is a pathological psychiatric condition involving a dissociative mental state. This psychiatric condition is characterized by a detachment from reality --a state of mind in which a person begins to feel that all reality is internal and the remainder on the perceived universe is unreal or only exists in a dream state. The condition is not other than incidentally related to Solipsism as a philosophical world view. Developmental psychologists commonly believe that infants are solipsist,[1] and that eventually children infer that others have experience much like theirs and learn to experience empathy (see Infant metaphysics). [...] Solipsism is a philosophical theory that all activity takes place within the mind, and therefore there is no reality outside one's own mind.[3] As a philosophical theory it is interesting because it is said to be internally consistent and, therefore, cannot be disproven. But as a psychological state, it is highly uncomfortable. The whole of life is perceived to be a long dream from which an individual can never wake up. This individual may feel very lonely and detached, and eventually become apathetic and indifferent. [...] Some environments may be conducive to producing solipsism syndrome. This state of mind can be easily produced in an environment where everything is artificial, where everything is like a theater stage, where every wish can be fulfilled by a push-button, and where there is nothing beyond the theater stage and beyond an individual's control. The concept of Solipsism as a psychological state originated within discussion of future space environments at NASA, as these are seen as potentially being conducive to the development of this syndrome.[3] I believe all who can truely be called solipsists are those experiencing solipsism syndrome and that all others who call themselves as such are merely sympathetic towards it's theories. I recommend, The Myterious Stranger, by Mark Twain. It is a short story with a thrilling climax that you may enjoy.

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 06/15/09 - 03:11 PM:

#15

oag wrote:
Apparently I am a solipsist. I've only recently discovered this.

Thank you for the link. It has been a long time since I did any book work on some of these guys so I am working from fuzzy memory. The only one I've reread since my college days is Kierkegaard, mostly because his writing style is so elegant and enjoyable. I will take a little time and reacquaint myself with Descartes.

Generally, it is considered a criticisim of one's views to call them solipsistic, and it is typically a position that I would think one would want to avoid. It ends any philosophical debate if your position will always be "well, that's what I think, and I have no real evidence that you or your position even exists." Even if you wish to deny the existence of other minds, I think you still need to explain why other minds seem to exist to you and why there appears to be rules in the illusory world you seem to experience. That is, why can you consistently expect this Forum to be where it was where you left it, and why does pain seem to accompany your experience of stumping your toe? I would think you would at least be agnostic regarding the issue, meaning that you don't know in the absolute sense anything, but allow for the possibility that the world is actually as you experience it and then address the pragmatic concerns related to denying everything but your own mind's existence..

"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House"
"I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 06/15/09 - 03:20 PM:	#16
Crackers wrote: Yet a solipsist believes that nothing beyond his mind exists. . . so why would a true solipsist see the value in communicating with things that do not exist; me for example. I find value in the things that my mind invents like the songs and lyrics that I write. If you or my wife or my dog are all just inventions of my mind how does that affect the value that I place on any of you? I don't know that you are not. I can't confirm that you are not. However unlikely it seems it remains a possibility. To suggest that the unknowable, objective nature of reality has any effect on how I react/interact with my perceptions of it is ridiculous. My mere belief that my perceptions are not necessarily generated by anything other than my own mind doesn't change my perceptions in the least. I believe all who can truly be called solipsists are those experiencing solipsism syndrome and that all others who call themselves as such are merely sympathetic towards it's theories. So it is either a disease or a leaning depending on the degree of veracity one lends it...according to your assessment? Thank you doctor. Can you prescribe a treatment? Shall I take two objectively existing aspirin and not bother to invent you in the morning? I recommend, The Myterious Stranger, by Mark Twain. It is a short story with a thrilling climax that you may enjoy. Thank you. I will look for that.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 06/15/09 - 03:41 PM:	#17
Hanover wrote: Generally, it is considered a criticisim of one's views to call them solipsistic, and it is typically a position that I would think one would want to avoid. I've noticed. Bring it on. I can take it. It ends any philosophical debate if your position will always be "well, that's what I think, and I have no real evidence that you or your position even exists." That seems like a weenie response. Mine would be more along the lines of having no real reason to think that you have a better grasp on the true nature of reality than I do. Whether or not you exist in an objective sense or are an invention of my own mind isn't particularly germane to my interaction with you. I can't know which one of those is certain. I perceive you and that is all that matters, not how or why. That we can only speculate upon. Even if you wish to deny the existence of other minds, I think you still need to explain why other minds <em>seem </em>to exist to you and why there appears to be rules in the illusory world you seem to experience. Your sentence contains the only explanation necessary. It seems that way to me. I react accordingly. Nothing about that compels me to believe that everything or anything besides myself has objective existence. That is, why can you consistently expect this Forum to be where it was where you left it, and why does pain seem to accompany your experience of stumping your toe? Again, because it seems that way. It has always seemed that way. Everything about my subjective experience of reality has given me certain expectations and those are consistently met for some reason. I have no reason to suspect that my mind could not be perfectly consistent in generating a reality to meet my own expectations of it. I would think you would at least be agnostic regarding the issue, meaning that you don't <em>know </em>in the absolute sense anything That is true. However, an objectivist is in exactly the same position. He cannot know that there is an objective world apart from his mind beyond Cartesian doubt. That would render him an agnostic as well. Self-identification with a particular point of view does not imply that said POV has ever been confirmed beyond Cartesian doubt. It is a preferred perspective. but allow for the possibility that the world is actually as you experience it and then address the pragmatic concerns related to denying everything but your own mind's existence.. Since my only measure for how the world actually is remains my own experience of it what you have expressed here is recursive. I experience reality. That is all I know about it. I can't ever know how it actually is and any attempt to suggest how it actually is will be nothing more than an expression of my own personal experience of it. My experience of reality takes place entirely within the confines of my own mind. External reality is just theory.

NoodlesHighChief
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
Location: West Africa

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 43

Posted 06/17/09 - 11:22 AM:	#18
Hanover wrote: <p><br /> </p> <p>This does sound right as you've explained it because it was Descartes' belief that the existence of the self was not subject to doubt, meaning one is compelled to believe it. The question then remains when is something distinctly and clearly known to such a level that it is not longer subject to doubt. It would seem that the will would be critical in suspending judgment so that a decision would not be made too soon. It also seem that the will would be critical in deciding what other information/evidence were needed before making a judgment. Most knowledge cannot be deciphered a priori like the cogito, so I'm assuming that to some extent the will must be used to go out and gather additional evidence for whatever proposition that one is considering.</p> I believe to know a proposition to a level that it is no longer subject to doubt is to have eliminated all conceivable possibilities for falsehood of the proposition. When Descartes considers the proposition that he exists he examines the possible scenarios that would entail him not existing. They include him being deceived into thinking his is existing when he is really not existing and convincing himself that he exists when he is really not existing. But those possibilities are necessarily false for being deceived and convincing oneself entail existence. To achieve any other knowledge Descartes has to build upon the Cogito. But new clear and distinct knowledge can still be gained a priori in Descartes view. Another proposition that Descartes says is beyond doubt is the existence of God. Once proven that he exists, he is a thinking thing which has certain ideas, one of which is of God, and that ideas must come from sources which have at least as much formal reality which the ideas have eminent reality, he examines the possible scenarios which would entail the falsehood of the proposition that God exists. They include that the idea of God came from himself, a being less perfect than God, or God himself. He seems to say that the only way to have this idea without this idea coming from a source with less formal reality than the idea has eminent reality is that if the idea came from God which necessitates that God exists. By bringing forth a possibility for the falsehood of a proposition Descartes is doubting the proposition. Doubt is not just saying "I doubt God exists because I doubt God exists." There has to be a reason for why we say we doubt a proposition. Descartes then removes doubt by refuting each possibility which would invalidate the proposition in question. This refutation process is an act of the will. So the will is crucial for removing doubt and certainly plays a role in the acquisition of knowledge. But when all doubt is removed from a proposition we are confronted with a situation that leaves one "indifferent" with regard to its truth and we are compelled to consent.
"This morning, I will practice an extra twenty minutes of yogic discipline, after which the pain is banished to a cul-de-sac in a remote suburb of my conscious mind." - FBI Special Agent Dale Cooper

Rob
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 16, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 21

Posted 06/17/09 - 10:52 PM:	#19
Crackers wrote: Essence precedes existence. What is Bob (Bobness) is what makes Bob be Bob. Why does essence precede existence? are you saying that it just does and we should all accept it because it is better? I do not see how Bobness relates to free will. I know that, assuming humans are mortal, there is a finite set of actions that humans can take, but we can choose between different actions within that set. Also, just because someone has taken an action does not mean that that person had to take that action. I can imagine a person, Bob, that is bound to take certain actions, but why must we be like him. Oag wrote: Since the very bottom line is that everything we label as knowledge is always just very firm belief the question of free will becomes moot. We are free to choose not to believe. It may be folly to do so but that choice is always available. We have no knowledge beyond Cartesian doubt. What about binaries? What about the statement, "twelve planets exist in our solar system or it is not true that twelve planets exist in our solar system"? Can we know this statement to be true without a doubt? This conversation about solipsism is very interesting. Now that I've heard of it, I might become more of a solipsist myself

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 06/19/09 - 11:26 AM:	#20
Rob wrote: What about binaries? What about the statement, "twelve planets exist in our solar system or it is not true that twelve planets exist in our solar system"? Can we know this statement to be true without a doubt? No. That is the point. Let's go with binaries. X is true = 1 X is not true = 0 We can know that X is true = 0 We believe that X is true to such a high degree that we say we know it = 1 and therefor We believe X = 1 To my solipsist mind the only exception to this is the cogito. The reason for that is that I need to be here to examine or discuss any of this in the first place. Where and what here is are X and I can't know the truth of any of that. I can only say what I believe about it. What an objectivist wants to do is claim that if X = 1 then it always has and always will regardless of what we think or say about it. A quick attempt to plug in anything besides the cogito as X will demonstrate that the resultant binary representation of true or not true is nothing more than a human observation. It cannot be known to be one or the other. It is observed and believed to be one or the other, with varying degrees of compelling evidence.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.