"I think, therefore I Am."

[Deus_Solus]

reen12:

You want to know the reality of things?
I’ll bet you know a* lot* more about philosophy
than I do!

And, I read one of slinky1882’s posts above,
and wouldn’t be surprised if he knows a lot
more philosophy than I do, too!

If you have the time, would you give me a
few words on Wittgenstein?

I’m telling you, Descartes wore me out.
I read the work of other philosophers
[though there are some solid gaps in
my knowledge, for sure.], but I don’t
think my heart was in it!

I’m enjoying the exchange, Deus Solus,
reen12

I am enjoying the exchange too. I think there is a lot to be gained in dialogue about ideas. I would be happy to give you a couple words about Wittgenstein, and a link that would provide you with a broader outlook on the man and his works.

Trying to define Wittgenstein is hard, because he held systems of philosophy in contempt. He is also probably the most dense philosopher to read since Kant (and also rivals Kant in importance philosophically). One of his two great works, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, simply began “1. The world is all that is the case.”

He essentially believed that mathematics and logic were analytic and that philosophy was aimed at clarification, not truth-finding. As such, he held that language itself was a public construct and there was no such thing as private language (which is part of his critique of Descartes, since Descartes did not doubt language: over the course of his “radical doubt” he continued to use the language given to him by his society).

You can find a great (fairly short) summary of him here:
iep.utm.edu/w/wittgens.htm

 

[reen12]

Hi, Deus Solus,

quote: Deus Solus

He essentially believed that mathematics and logic were analytic and that philosophy was aimed at clarification, not truth-finding. As such, he held that language itself was a public construct and there was no such thing as private language (which is part of his critique of Descartes, since Descartes did not doubt language: over the course of his “radical doubt” he continued to use the language given to him by his society).

Many thanks. I’ll look at the link this evening.
[Yes, “dense” is* the descriptive of Kant’s work.]

quote: Deus Solus, re: Wittgenstein on Descartes

“…over the course of his “radical doubt” he continued to use the language given to him by his society).”

You know, I came upon that thought years ago,
and have been mulling over it, ever since.

One of the loveliest things in life, to me, is to
find people I can learn from.

Thanks, again,
reen12

 

[marty1818]

St. Augustine said something similar to Descartes cogito. What he said was something to the effect that “I error, therefore I exist”. In looking at Descartes philosophy, I do not find it to be that valuable. He never really answers important questions because he is always doubting everything with his idea of radical skepticism. In his radical skepticism he was never able to build any base to furthering his philosophy.

Matt

 

[CheesusPowerKid]

how about,

God is flippin’ awesome and decided to make me…therefore I am

 

[Deus_Solus]

reen12:

One of the loveliest things in life, to me, is to
find people I can learn from.

Thanks, again,
reen12

Isn’t that the truth. Sometimes we get so caught up in being right that we neglect learning from others.

Incidentally, I found another point of Wittgenstein’s disagreement with Descartes’ doubt. From Wittgenstein’s Tractatus:

6.51 Scepticism is not irrefutable, but palpably senseless, if it would doubt where a question cannot be asked. For doubt can only exist where there is a question; a question only where there is an answer, and this only where something can be said.

Essentially, asking a question implies that there is an answer, and doubt without asking questions is senseless.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Deus Solus,

Well, got home from the family picnic and started to
read the webpage you indicated on Wittgenstein.

I wanted to stop for a moment and say that I’m
certainly going to read Wittgenstein. I’ve gotten
to the part where the author is discussing the
fact that Wittgenstein is claiming that most
“problems” philosophical are not really “problems” -
*

As an aside, some of Eastern philosophy is
of interest to me, in this regard. In addition,
there were two sentences by existentialists,
one by Camus and one by Sartre, that have
always stuck in my mind:

The one by Sartre refers to the “distance” he
experiences when just looking at a tree.
[or rather one of his fictitional characters.]

The other, from Camus, has Mersault thinking,
with reference to the prosecutor in a trial:

“He kept referring to her as ‘the prisoner’s
mistress’, whereas, to me, she was just Marie.”

---

When I read Heidegger on “bracketing”, I
wondered *how *that could be done.

And again, as I’ve noted elsewhere, when
a child is taught the “name” of a thing,
something is “lost.” [Is that where Sartre
experiences the “distance” in terms of
looking at the tree…that he can no longer
“experience” it, *unmediated *by “language.”?
i.e. “concept” = “with the head”].

In terms of the “immediacy” of experience,
the only thing I’ve ever read that comes
closest to ‘regaining’ the immediacy of
reality, is in Eastern thought.

You were right in saying that this webpage is
a “great” summary of Wittgenstein. The
biographical information was short and to
the point. When I got as far as the “problems”
philosophical are, for the most part, not problems,
I wanted to stop and send you this post.

Many, many thanks, Deus Solus, and I hope
that you’re having a fine holiday weekend.
Best,
reen12

 

[Deus_Solus]

reen12:

And again, as I’ve noted elsewhere, when
a child is taught the “name” of a thing,
something is “lost.” [Is that where Sartre
experiences the “distance” in terms of
looking at the tree…that he can no longer
“experience” it, *unmediated

by “language.”?
i.e. “concept” = “with the head”].
I think that is an interesting concept. When we “experience” things without attempting to classify them, it engages a different aspect of self, though the act of classifying isn’t necessarily bad in and of itself. (Adam, in his pre-fall state “named” the animals). This reminds me of the principle within quantum physics wherein the act of observing a phenomena alters the phenomena itself. To truly engage the universe is to experience it with both reason and emotion.

Even after having learned the names of things, I believe we are still able to engage the world apart from our learned classication of it. I doubt Sartre’s character would have the same view of the tree if he climbed it and silently sat in it for an hour, listening to its earthy creaks and its leaves rustling in the wind (a very Eastern idea, I know). Anyway, I will quit my ramblings on this subject for now.

reen12:

You were right in saying that this webpage is
a “great” summary of Wittgenstein. The
biographical information was short and to
the point. When I got as far as the “problems”
philosophical are, for the most part, not problems,
I wanted to stop and send you this post.

Many, many thanks, Deus Solus, and I hope
that you’re having a fine holiday weekend.
Best,
reen12

Thanks Maureen. I admit my knowledge is paltry at best, but I am always willing to share grains of it where I can. I greatly appreciate our discourse. Take care.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Deus Solus,

quote: Deus Solus

This reminds me of the principle within quantum physics wherein the act of observing a phenomena alters the phenomena itself.

Heisenberg?

quote: Deus Solus

I doubt Sartre’s character would have the same view of the tree if he climbed it and silently sat in it for an hour, listening to its earthy creaks and its leaves rustling in the wind (a very Eastern idea, I know).

You’ve stated the answer I’ve been looking for for all
these years!

I knew that the answer lay in Eastern thought,
and here you’ve served it to me on a platter.
Of course!

quote: Deus Solus

I admit my knowledge is paltry at best, but I am always willing to share grains of it where I can. I greatly appreciate our discourse.

“Paltry” Surely, you jest.
I, too, have found this discourse of great benefit.
Many thanks,
reen

 

[MamaGeek]

I voted that it is imcompatible with Church teaching. There are many living humans who cannot think: the unborn, the mentally disabled, the brain damaged. They are no less alive and human. A more Catholic version would be, “I am loved by God, therefore I am.”

 

[Deus_Solus]

Hello again, reen!

reen12:

Heisenberg?

Schrodinger, actually, though he built on Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. I believe the principle itself is known as the principle of superposition or quantum indeterminacy.

reen12:

You’ve stated the answer I’ve been looking for for all these years!

I knew that the answer lay in Eastern thought,
and here you’ve served it to me on a platter.
Of course!

Glad I could help :tiphat:. I must add, though, that there is a rich tradition in this vein of thought in the West as well, though it is more evident in literature than it is in philosophy (e.g. Wordsworth and Emerson).

reen12:

“Paltry” Surely, you jest.
I, too, have found this discourse of great benefit.
Many thanks,
reen

I find that the more I know, the more I realize what I don’t know (Socrates said something to the effect that his wisdom was based on his ignorance). I’d rather have a teachable spirit than pride in my knowledge.:yup: Even so, I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion like this thread.

 

[john_doran]

Deus Solus:

Schrodinger, actually, though he built on Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. I believe the principle itself is known as the principle of superposition or quantum indeterminacy.

it’s both Schrödinger and Heisenberg, actually: observation collapses the wave-function, and observation of one of the properties of a particle makes the other indeterminate. in each case, observation affects what is being observed.

 

[reen12]

Dear john doran,

quote: john doran
it’s both Schrödinger and Heisenberg, actually: observation collapses the wave-function, and observation of one of the properties of a particle makes the other indeterminate. in each case, observation affects what is being observed

Yes, this is what I was referring to, though I had
forgotten Schrodinger.

The reason I recall this, was that I remember thinking
at the time: So much for man’s overweening claim
to be able to reach ‘certainty.’

While I have a great respect for the scientific method
[when it’s actually applied, untainted by agendas],*
in my view, Science has become “religion” for many
individuals.

When I hear the word “Scientist” pronounced in
some television programs, the* inflection* often makes
me think of the reverence with which many Catholics
pronounce the word “Priest.”

The background music seems New Age in some
programs, and, as it reaches a crescendo - the
scientist looking for all the world like noble man,
incarnate: I think:
“Are we having a religious experience, yet?”

Just a view I’ve often wanted to share.

Best regards,
reen12

 

[reen12]

Hi, Deus Solus,

quote: Deus Solus

I must add, though, that there is a rich tradition in this vein of thought in the West as well, though it is more evident in literature than it is in philosophy (e.g. Wordsworth and Emerson).

Now there’s an area in which I am highly deficient in
knowledge [literature].

quote: Deus Solus

I find that the more I know, the more I realize what I don’t know (Socrates said something to the effect that his wisdom was based on his ignorance).

You know, that was the exact thought that I had, the
day they handed me a diploma, all those years ago.
All that the 4 years had done was to acquaint me
with my abysmal ignorance, in the technical sense
of that word.

But at least it provided me with a map of same!
and the knowledge base to launch from, for the
next 35 years of research.
My motto is: I can learn from all, and, for that,
I’m grateful.

Best wishes,
reen12

 

[tem2]

Isn’t it possible that God is thinking therefore the universe exists? I don’t see how it could be otherwise. God had the urge to create based on a plan He conjured up. He made us in His image and likeness in the sense that we too can create based on plans which we conjure up.

 

[reen12]

Hi, tem2,

quote:** tem2**

Isn’t it possible that God is thinking therefore the universe exists? I don’t see how it could be otherwise. God had the urge to create based on a plan He conjured up. He made us in His image and likeness in the sense that we too can create based on plans which we conjure up.

An interesting view.
How about this?

God, being God, is not subject to “urges.” That would
be projecting onto God a human experience.

I believe that God does not “think” in the manner
that human beings “think.”
He is omniscient…all reality is present to Him
*now…*past, present, future, eternity.

If anything, I would hold that creation was an
act of Will…unlike anything that I can understand,
for “willing” presupposes a ‘before’ and an ‘after’
and God is not ‘confined’ by time [with the exception,
of course, of the God-Man, Jesus.]

I think you’re pretty close to the reality, when you said:

quote: tem2

Isn’t it possible that God is thinking therefore the universe exists?

To put it in human language, if God withdrew His
‘attention’ from me, I believe I would cease to exist.
God ‘holds’ me in existence, now and in eternity.

What do you think?

Kindest regards,

reen12

Any familiar with Aquinas want to critique my thought?

 

[zhoudu]

I think that statement (I think, therefore I am) is not incompatible with Catholicism. I think it is almost irrelevant to Catholicism, but not incompatible with it. It is like a mathematical statement, which is irrelevant to Catholicism, but not incompatible with it.

What that statement says is that it is inferred that I am from that I think. Here, the word “therefore” means inference, not cause. This statement doesn’t mean that my thinking is the cause of my existence, which is incompatible with Catholicism, because Catholicism maintains that God is the cause of my existence. Instead, that statement means that from that I think, it can be inferred that I am. This is because, if I am not (doesn’t exist), I don’t think, so, if I think, I am. That is a proof of my existence.

In fact, I am a Catholic, but I also agree with that statement. I think that statement is wonderful.