"I think, therefore I Am."

[reen12]

quote: vern humphrey

If he’d been an Irishman, he’d have phrased it, "Sure an’ if I don’t exist, who’s askin’ all the damn’ fool questions?

I think you’ve said it better in the above than I did,
rattling on for innumerable paragraphs!

reen12

 

[slinky1882]

vern humphrey:

For the same reason your algebra teacher didn’t give you the answers and expect you to come up with the equations!

Descartes didn’t start by questionning his own existance. He started with a sceptical examination of all knowledge, looking for a rational basis. He was like a mathematician looking for a system with no axioms.

At each point, he found himself unable to establish a basis for reality because he kept asking himself, “How do I know the basis for THIS proposition is true?”

He finally arrived at the most fundamental question of all, “How do I know I exist?”

If he’d been an Irishman, he’d have phrased it, "Sure an’ if I don’t exist, who’s askin’ all the damn’ fool questions?"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Maybe to the first line, but this is pure speculation which follows here. Many philosophers would have had less to say if he had reversed the order. And this branches into the segment of Cartesian Dualism and how the mind and body as different “substances” affect one another. Didn’t Descartes say that this took place at the pineal gland??? Thanks and God Bless.

 

[slinky1882]

reen12:

Hi, slinky1882,

quote: slinky1882

I have no answer to offer on your first paragraph above.
I was underwhelmed by Descartes, and am not
surprised that questions are left over when finished
reading him.

As to your paragraph 2:

Are you thinking of Ivan’s Grand Inquisitor?
“Eeerie” is the word for it, in light of what occurred
in the twentieth century. Did you know that
existentialism really gathered steam because of
the experience [existenital !] of European intellectuals
during WWII ? Did they turn away from “community”
to the “self” in reaction to the war? I don’t know.

{I knew I had had an exchange over no-thing-ness
with someone on the forum!}

Maureen

Maureen,
Yes, I am thinking of the Grand Inquisitor and Ivan himself. The line from Ivan that roughly goes: “the more I love humanity, the less I love the man.” is a scarey indictment of secular humanism. I was aware that the two Wold Wars dramatically affected the existentialists. I have heard some say that Dostoevsky’s “Notes from the Underground” was the start of existentialism, but in reading that short work lately, I found that in Underground and the Possessed the author is actually warning of the the rise of secular humanism, Communism/Socialism and existentialism. As a comfort, I find the interview of Camus shortly before he died helpful as he was asked if he was an existentialist and replied “no”. One can trace a path similar to Dostoevsky’s path in Camus’s writing. Thanks and God Bless.

 

[reen12]

Hi, slinky1882,

Isn’t it funny? The character I best recall in
The Brothers is Aloysha [and Fr. Zossima].

Germaine Bree’s book on Camus I recall
as being well written. Have you read works
like The Rhinocerous? Took a course on
The Theather of the Absurd. Absurb just doesn’t
do it justice! Run for the exit! [no pun intended.]

I thought about referrencing WWI, but I believe
Camus would have been a small child at that
time, if not yet unborn.

I read part of a journal he kept on a voyage
en route to New York. I was bored. But
then he was comparitively a young man
when he wrote it, so I try to remember his
his actual works, by comparison. Honestly,
slinky, some of these individuals were
*insufferable *from my vantage point at age 59.
[Yes, there are perks as well as pains, in aging.]

Best,
reen12

 

[turboEDvo]

CanonAlberic:

right up there with my “Taylor Guitars” and “FUBAR” shirts!!

Peace.

Do you know what FUBAR stands for? Just curious, because if you don’t you might be very interested to know…you might not be so hot on wearing the shirt anymore

Eamon

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

MichaelLewis:

No, you could exist whether you realize it or not, whether you think or not. But you can KNOW that you exist because you can’ t help but know that you think, and to suppose that you don’t exist is incoherent, for who is doing the supposing?
You have to understand, Descartes doubted EVERYTHING at the stage in the Meditations where he introduced this idea. He certainly hadn’t developed his proofs for God’s existence yet, which allowed him to believe in an external world.

To suppose oneself exists is not incoherent if the supposing is simply going on - for, being aware of the supposing, does not prove that it has its source in one’s own intellect: still less that one has correctly identified the supposing as what it is. A sound like a gunshot may be from a gun, or it may be from a bird of paradise, or from an exploding tyre, or from a sound heard in a dream, or from some other source.​

The supposer could be the self - or it could be some entity other than the self: one’s consciousness - if one has anything that can intelligibly be so called - might have registered something from an independent self.

As for thinking - why does one suppose that one’s thinking is rationally consistent or intelligible ? It might have qualities - or seeming qualities - compatible with its being consistent & intelligible: but that *could *be an illusion.

The trouble with thinking is that no amount of it can prove the real existence of the self, because there is no proof of the existence of the self which does not at some point require the use of axioms regarded as beyond dispute. All reasoning rests upon some sort of assumption - which is what undermines a proof. No reasoning, no assertion, can possibly transcend itself - but it would need to, in order to be free from all objection.

One could argue, that the impossibility of transcending reason by reason, is what makes knowledge impossible to tell from supposition. ##

 

[slinky1882]

reen12:

Hi, slinky1882,

Isn’t it funny? The character I best recall in
The Brothers is Aloysha [and Fr. Zossima].

Germaine Bree’s book on Camus I recall
as being well written. Have you read works
like The Rhinocerous? Took a course on
The Theather of the Absurd. Absurb just doesn’t
do it justice! Run for the exit! [no pun intended.]

I thought about referrencing WWI, but I believe
Camus would have been a small child at that
time, if not yet unborn.

I read part of a journal he kept on a voyage
en route to New York. I was bored. But
then he was comparitively a young man
when he wrote it, so I try to remember his
his actual works, by comparison. Honestly,
slinky, some of these individuals were
*insufferable *from my vantage point at age 59.
[Yes, there are perks as well as pains, in aging.]

Best,
reen12

Maureen,
No, I am not familiar with the short story of the Rhinoceros. Of his shorter works, I am only familiar with “The Myth of Sisyphus”.

You are right that Camus would have been to young around WWI, but some of the other philosophers that were or bordered on existentialism were around including: Barth, Husserl, Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, Le Senne, Sarte (although, Sarte would have been really young during the war), etc.

Out of curisosity, what were your thoughts on Aloysha as I saw Fr. Zossima much better embody Christianity??? Aloysha seemed to sway a little at times, but it could have come from attachment or revulsion to his father. Thanks and God Bless.

 

[reen12]

Hi, slinky1882,

I’m not nearly as familiar with some of the individuals
you mentioned as you are:: Barth, Husserl, Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, Le Senne, Sarte. Read material by each of them
[except Le Senne…who is he?].

Also, I wasn’t clear in my last post, that Rhinocerous
was written by Ionesco, I think, and was a play.
Then, there was that cheering little number No Exit,
by Satre.

The thing about Aloysha was that he knew holiness
when he saw it [Fr.Zossima], and so the spiritual
father contrasted starkly with the behavior and attitude
of his earthly father.

So, you had 3 brothers: Aloysha [spiritual],
Dimitri [appetites] and Ivan- a true horror- [all ‘intellect’.]
And IMHO, it has been the self-described intellectuals
that offered the theories that delivered the 20th and
now the early 21th centuries into the hands of
moral receivership.

And, if Alyosha “swayed” a bit, he was the youngest
brother, affected by the emotional vortex of Dimitri’s and his
father’s ungoverened passions, while Ivan lent the
counterpoint of cold intellect, devoid of love, or
compassion or of a sense of humanity.

Fr. Zossima was “light”. Ivan was unadulterated “darkness.”

In short, the characters in The Brothers could be seen
to represent each human being…spiritual, intellectual,
animal [as in ‘rational animal’.], and the tradgedy that
results when intellect and appetite are ungoverened
by the spiritual. At least, that’s my view.

Or maybe it could be held that Fr. Zossima
embodies the spiritual, and Aloysha stands for
each human being, who ‘sways’ because of the
“pull” of each dimension of the human being,
vividly played out before him by his father,
his brothers and Fr. Zossima.
Best,
Maureen

.

 

[stubiegirl]

I am also a Catholic college student and I, in fact, just finished my course in Epistemology from Franciscan U. Descarte’s “i think therefore I am” is incompatible with Catholic teaching because it is incompatable with Reason. Well, that is, the proof that he used to arrive at this famous statement was faulty. And since reason cannot be opposed (and by opposed I mean contradictory) to Faith, this is faulty. If you want to look further into this “problem” I suggest going to the primary source first (ie. Descartes Meditations -excluding Meditation 5 because it is somewhat irrelevant). Have fun!! hehe

 

[Fidei_Defensor]

I don’t think Descartes is making thought an antecedent to existence. By saying “I think, therefore I am”, Descartes says that he exists because he has the ability to think, ie, existance is necessary before thought can occur. His statement is not a biconditional, (ie "I am if and only if I think"), he merely logically deduces his own existence. Decartes does not name thought to be the only, exclusive method of determining existence.

The statement does not imply that the ability to reason is the only method of determining existence; rather it names only one criterion where one must exist before the criterion can be satisfied. Indeed, I believe that Decartes implies that existence is in fact the antecedent to thought, not the other way around.

slinky1882:

Perhaps, but for clarity, why didn’t Descartes put the statement like “I am therefore I think”??? Curious. Thanks and God Bless.

Im my opinion, it’s because existence is possible WITHOUT thought. “I am therefore I think” implies that all existing things have the ability to reason. The ability to think is not a direct result of existence, yet existence is necessary to be able to think.

 

[reen12]

Dear Fidei Defensor,

quote: Fidei Defensor,

The ability to think is not a direct result of existence, yet existence is necessary to be able to think.

True, in the sense of the square of oppositon:
To exist does not imply “to think.”

But,
It can also be said, as vern humphrey put it:

quote: vern humphrey:

"“Sure an’ if I don’t exist, who’s askin’ all the damn’ fool questions?”’

This *removes *the issue from the realm of logic,
to the experiential realm, where the square of
oppositon seems a distorted view of “reality.”
Accurate, logically, but distorted.

Someone…in this case, Descartes, had to travel
down this epistemological road, investigating
as he went. Just as the logical positivists of
our own time had to travel a route…epistemological
“scouts” if you will.

The counter to Acquinas is Scripture.
The counter to Descartes is existentialism.

Acquinas and Descartes labored mightily and
brought forth a “logical”…mouse.
They speak to the “mind”, but not to the heart.

Just my assessment.

[And, BTW, the article in this month’s Crisis
magazine makes my identical point, vis -a- vis
the mind of Benedict XVI, in my opinion.
“Lose” Acquinas, [and, by indirection, Descartes].
Embrace Scripture.

“Lose” in the sense of stop emphasizing logic
and call upon the Word of God to evangelize,
and to “understand” reality.

Please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying.

For almost 40 years, I considered myself a
champion of the logical. I don’t dismiss or
derogate the activity. But it is, after all,
a human activity, pursued by men and women.

The Scripture speaks to the whole man.
Existentialism attempts to speak to the whole
man…and fails utterly.

The times they are a changin’…for the better, IMHO.

Just my thought,
reen12

 

[slinky1882]

reen12:

Hi, slinky1882,

I’m not nearly as familiar with some of the individuals
you mentioned as you are:: Barth, Husserl, Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, Le Senne, Sarte. Read material by each of them
[except Le Senne…who is he?].

Also, I wasn’t clear in my last post, that Rhinocerous
was written by Ionesco, I think, and was a play.
Then, there was that cheering little number No Exit,
by Satre.

The thing about Aloysha was that he knew holiness
when he saw it [Fr.Zossima], and so the spiritual
father contrasted starkly with the behavior and attitude
of his earthly father.

So, you had 3 brothers: Aloysha [spiritual],
Dimitri [appetites] and Ivan- a true horror- [all ‘intellect’.]
And IMHO, it has been the self-described intellectuals
that offered the theories that delivered the 20th and
now the early 21th centuries into the hands of
moral receivership.

And, if Alyosha “swayed” a bit, he was the youngest
brother, affected by the emotional vortex of Dimitri’s and his
father’s ungoverened passions, while Ivan lent the
counterpoint of cold intellect, devoid of love, or
compassion or of a sense of humanity.

Fr. Zossima was “light”. Ivan was unadulterated “darkness.”

In short, the characters in The Brothers could be seen
to represent each human being…spiritual, intellectual,
animal [as in ‘rational animal’.], and the tradgedy that
results when intellect and appetite are ungoverened
by the spiritual. At least, that’s my view.

Or maybe it could be held that Fr. Zossima
embodies the spiritual, and Aloysha stands for
each human being, who ‘sways’ because of the
“pull” of each dimension of the human being,
vividly played out before him by his father,
his brothers and Fr. Zossima.
Best,
Maureen

.

Maureen,
Le Senne, a French phsilospher and psychologists dealing with the dialectic of contradiction, was a pupil of Homelin whose dialectic went from subordinate categories eventually culminating in the absolute Counsciousness. Le Senne tunred the pyramid upside down and started with the Consciousness and worked down.

I am not versed in all of those, but perhaps someday if I can make it through all the depressing work or just out there. Thank you for clearing up the Rhinocerous part.

As for Aloysha, I think he may have best represented the author. The encounters with Ivan and the Grand Inquisitor mimic his early humanistic and largely atheistic days. In the camps, Dostoevsky tunred from his humanism to the purely animal at the harships of the gulags like Dimitri. But while he was in the labor camps, he encountered many "Fr. Zossima"s. Although swayed at times by his past, Dostoevsky saw the pure light of the Faithful and spent the rest of his days warning against the Dimitris, but primarliy against the Ivans. For Dostoevsky knew the graver danger of the Ivans to the body but ultimtely, the soul. Thanks and God Bless.

 

[slinky1882]

Fidei Defensor:

Im my opinion, it’s because existence is possible WITHOUT thought. “I am therefore I think” implies that all existing things have the ability to reason. The ability to think is not a direct result of existence, yet existence is necessary to be able to think.

Perhaps, but you and I and everyone on this board know that Descartes and our discussion deals with human beings as human beings are the only temporal creatures that can go “I am”. And from there, I would gather that all human beings can reason and are rational beings. A second point I mentioned above on Descartes conslusions related to the seperation of body and soul raising the question of how one affects the other and vice versa.

Maureen has brought up the bit that even though the line may be logical but as Descartes found out himself, how can we apply the knowledge to life??? I think this is where individuals like the Pope’s concern lies. Fine philosophical statement but now use it. I’d appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks and God Bless.

 

[Deus_Solus]

slinky1882:

A second point I mentioned above on Descartes conslusions related to the seperation of body and soul raising the question of how one affects the other and vice versa.

Actually, the separation between body and soul could have been even greater if Descartes has remained thoroughly logical throughout his proof of existence. He made a leap of logic when he equated his thought with his existence. His rationale was that, in spite of all doubts about perception, deception and even the existence of the outside world, he could not doubt thought. Therefore, a more truly rationalist logical proof would have been “Thought exists, therefore a thinking being exists”. Of course, there are other problems with his proof that Wittgenstein later noted, such as the existence of language.

slinky1882:

Maureen has brought up the bit that even though the line may be logical but as Descartes found out himself, how can we apply the knowledge to life??? I think this is where individuals like the Pope’s concern lies. Fine philosophical statement but now use it. I’d appreciate your thoughts on this.

Typically one of the arguments leveled against philosophizing is that there are no “applications” per se of its tenets. I would argue that products of philosophical thought are threads that are woven into the fabric of a society’s worldview, influencing its ideologies and goals. Descartes “proved” that one could arrive at these grand conclusions about self and the world (i.e. personal existence, existence of God, etc.) solely through introspection and largely without the aid of traditional knowledge. Showing that one could reach these conclusions without the aid of “authority” and “tradition” paved the way for empiricism and positivism as systems of thought.

John Paul’s concern with Descartes’s system of thought, I believe, is based in his implicit rejection of tradition as a mode of knowledge, not because free inquiry is wrong, but because it dualizes human nature and marginalizes argument from history. The last thing orthodoxy wants is for someone to believe they can arrive at valid theological conclusions with reasoning divorced from Tradition.

 

[reen12]

Dear Deus Solus,

quote: Deus Solus

Typically one of the arguments leveled against philosophizing is that there are no “applications” per se of its tenets. I would argue that products of philosophical thought are threads that are woven into the fabric of a society’s worldview, influencing its ideologies and goals.

Fortunately, I hauled my nose out of books on
philosophy, * and read
psychology, Judaic thought, and spent much,
much time on Scripture.

Philosophy is a chess game of the mind.
Unfortunately, “ideas have consequences,”
which is where it leaves the “chessboard”
and begins to negatively affect lives and
society as a whole.

quote: Deus Solus

John Paul’s concern with Descartes’s system of thought, I believe, is based in his implicit rejection of tradition as a mode of knowledge, not because free inquiry is wrong, but because it dualizes human nature and marginalizes argument from history.

John Paul the Great was right.

Kindest regards,
reen12

quote: Deus Solus

I would argue that products of philosophical thought are threads that are woven into the fabric of a society’s worldview, influencing its ideologies and goals.

Oh, I would, too. That’s why there is a need for
some to follow the various philosophies…in order
to counter most of them. {Aristotle, being the
exception]*

 

[Deus_Solus]

Hey reen,
Nice to see you again.

reen12:

Philosophy is a chess game of the mind.
Unfortunately, “ideas have consequences,”
which is where it leaves the “chessboard”
and begins to negatively affect lives and
society as a whole.

Isn’t that the truth. It really becomes a problem when someone dedicates their life to producing some all-encompassing theory in any field (biology, sociology, history, psychology, etc.). Its a knee-jerk human reaction to protect our ideas as our “intellectual children” so to speak. When you get someone whose livelihood depends on the perpetuation of their theory…you’ve got trouble.

reen12:

That’s why there is a need for
some to follow the various philosophies…in order
to counter most of them. {Aristotle, being the
exception]

Nicomachean Ethics is one of my favorite philosophical works.

 

[reen12]

Dear slinky1882

quote:slinky1882

Le Senne, a French phsilospher and psychologists dealing with the dialectic of contradiction, was a pupil of Homelin whose dialectic went from subordinate categories eventually culminating in the absolute Counsciousness. Le Senne tunred the pyramid upside down and started with the Consciousness and worked down.

Thanks for the information!

As for Aloysha, I think he may have best represented the author. The encounters with Ivan and the Grand Inquisitor mimic his early humanistic and largely atheistic days. In the camps, Dostoevsky tunred from his humanism to the purely animal at the harships of the gulags like Dimitri. But while he was in the labor camps, he encountered many "Fr. Zossima"s. Although swayed at times by his past, Dostoevsky saw the pure light of the Faithful and spent the rest of his days warning against the Dimitris, but primarliy against the Ivans. For Dostoevsky knew the graver danger of the Ivans to the body but ultimtely, the soul.

Very interesting, thanks for your assessment. I was never able to haul my way through Crime and Punishment. If you read it,
what did you think?

Best,
Maureen

 

[milimac]

I said no, but I suppose it is compatible, just incomplete. I think this is better:

I think, I am, thank you God.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Deus Solus,

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

 

[flick427]

dennisknapp:

It is putting Descartes before D’horse.

No really, the proper way of putting it is: I am, therefore I think.

Existence is an antecedent to thinking, it cannot come before.

Peace