The Meaning of Life

[LifeIsAbsurd]

LifeIsAbsurd:

I disagree. In the absence of an objective reason for my existance, I’m about to eat some soup because it tastes good, and I had sex this weekend because it felt good. And I found this forum because I felt a bit philosophical and it appeared in a Google search.

tonyrey:

You haven’t given reasons, just responses to instincts and impulses…

Reason: The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.

Those are the reasons I performed those actions, consistent with the dictionary meaning of reason (American Heritage). If you prefer a non-impulsive, non-hedonistic example:

LifeIsAbsurd:

If I win an important case and as a result earn a promotion that may have no ultimate value to Odin, Allah, Gaia, Isis, Christ, or whatever God happens to have sway in this universe if any, but it has value to me because I take pride in my work and the increase in income will make my life more enjoyable for years to come. You may have noticed, people both religious and not, tend to value such things.

Working towards a desired promotion often involves forsaking short-term, impulsive pleasures like a midday nap in favor of long-term rewards (pride in my work, a higher income). Of course, in either cases the end goal is my own happiness.

 

[tonyrey]

Reason: The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.

Those are the reasons I performed those actions, consistent with the dictionary meaning of reason (American Heritage).

The dictionary does not distinguish** freely chosen** motives…

If you prefer a non-impulsive, non-hedonistic example:
Working towards a desired promotion often involves forsaking short-term, impulsive pleasures like a midday nap in favor of long-term rewards (pride in my work, a higher income). Of course, in either cases the end goal is my own happiness.

Where you get the power to forsake?

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

Where you get the power to forsake?

I’m able to forsake an immediate, short-lived pleasure in favor of things that will make me happier long-term because of my ability to reason and my accumulated knowledge.

PS - A midday nap wasn’t the best example of something to skip since those can recharge you. Substitute your favorite non-work time-waster in its place.

Regardless of -isms where do you obtain the mind in your scheme of things?

“I think, therefore I am” says Descartes. Ayn Rand considers existance and consciousness axiomatic. I’m inclined to agree with both of them on this point.

 

[The_Exodus]

LifeIsAbsurd:

“I think, therefore I am” says Descartes. Ayn Rand considers existance and consciousness axiomatic. I’m inclined to agree with both of them on this point.

Yes, and Descartes got the most fundamental question in philosophy wrong (as the classical Thomistic-Aristotleans have been pointing out for the last few hundred years.) It is not thought that determines existence. It is existence that determines thought.

Cogito ergo sum is illogical, unless it is based on the assumption that the thinking subject is different from the thought-about object.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m able to forsake an immediate, short-lived pleasure in favor of things that will make me happier long-term because of my ability to reason and my accumulated knowledge.

Reason and knowledge alone are not enough to give you the power to forsake anything.** If** we are biological machines we are merely impotent spectators of events…

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

tonyrey:

Reason and knowledge alone are not enough to give you the power to forsake anything.

And why not? I explained clearly that my goal is happiness / pleasure that lasts for more than a couple hours, and working towards the promotion is a means to that end.

tonyrey:

If we are biological machines we are merely impotent spectators of events…

That doesn’t follow. Suppose what conclusions I draw are entirely determined by a simple set of factors such as my genetics, memory (of all sorts–automatic, abstract, visual-spatial), current state (ecstatic, drunk) and current environment (cruise ship, prison). I’m sure that’s oversimplified but it’s enough to proceed.That wouldn’t change that I have the power to act upon the environment, or that I’m actively feeling pleasure, pain, and engaged in the (deterministic) decision-making process.
The Exodus:

It is not thought that determines existence. It is existence that determines thought.

Thanks, interesting, I’ll have to ponder on that. Ayn Rand also takes issue with the way Descartes orders things and I wasn’t quite sure why.

 

[The_Exodus]

Thanks, interesting, I’ll have to ponder on that. Ayn Rand also takes issue with the way Descartes orders things and I wasn’t quite sure why.

Descartes’ position is self-refuting, and also an inadequate basis for epistemology, because it gives no reason or basis for drawing a distinction between thought and what is being thought about. After all, he starts off with, I think therefore I am. His “because” or “therefore” is determinately true because of his thought, that is, his thinking so. This is what I mean by saying Descartes thinks thought determines existence. Descartes is – why? Because he thinks he is. That is the (il)logical flow of the syllogism.

But how do we determine who or what is I? What thought do we have which separates our being – the I – from the being observed – the it? Since existence is being determined by thought, we have no basis outside of thought to determine this. But, if it is not outside of thought, there is no way to get outside the I, and separate the I from the it. I.e. if all our facts about “others” or “beings” are true because we think them true, we are saying nothing at all about those others. We are only saying what we happen to be thinking.

Further, suppose I cease to think about the fact that I exist…do I cease to exist? Or suppose I think God does not exist…does he therefore not exist? Surely you think God either exists or he doesn’t, regardless of what you happen to think about him?

Descartes is really the beginning of the end of the philosophy of being and metaphysics, and, taken to its logical conclusion, his thought ends in the schools of the absurd and radical, idealisitic existentialism.

Work your way up to J. Maritain. He does, in my opinion, a fine job explaining the crisis that springs from Descartes way of thinking.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes, and Descartes got the most fundamental question in philosophy wrong (as the classical Thomistic-Aristotleans have been pointing out for the last few hundred years.) It is not thought that determines existence. It is existence that determines thought.

Cogito ergo sum is illogical, unless it is based on the assumption that the thinking subject is different from the thought-about object.

Epistemology, the question of what one can know, is not the same as ontology. What can I know for an infallible fact? I think therefore I am. This cannot fail to be wrong. Thus I can know something through logic without science; since ones thinking and ones being in this context cannot be separate. Further inferences can be made on this foundation. The value of Descartes argument is being ignored, rather than being developed.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This is what I mean by saying Descartes thinks thought determines existence.

I don’t see why one must think that this ought to be the conclusion that Descartes was arguing for. And even if it is, this does not mean that the argument itself is in error, even if the conclusion is. “I think therefore I am” is a valid epistemological inference to existence. He is placing in syllogistic form that which ought to be self evident. A thinking person is an existing person. This we can know for fact.

 

[The_Exodus]

Epistemology, the question of what one can know, is not the same as ontology. What can I know for an infallible fact? I think therefore I am. This cannot fail to be wrong. Thus I can know something through logic without science; since ones thinking and ones being in this context cannot be separate. Further inferences can be made on this foundation. The value of Descartes argument is being ignored, rather than being developed.

Descartes should have said “thinking is evidence of my existence,” not “I exist because I think I exist.” This puts existence at the service of thought, when it is thought that is at the service of existence. I do not deny the fact that, when one is thinking – even doubting – his own existence, he is thereby confirming it. But the fact that he is thinking he exists does not determine the fact of his existence, anymore than thinking God exists determines God’s existence.

I think it is due to the fact that NO further influences can made on this foundation that led to the Enlightenment and Kant.

Descartes was brilliant. He started off epistemology on the wrong foot however.

 

[The_Exodus]

“I think therefore I am” is a valid epistemological inference to existence. He is placing in syllogistic form that which ought to be self evident. A thinking person is an existing person. This we can know for fact.

The problem is that one must assume “I” in the first premise, but, how does one distinguish the I from the it? Descartes would say that simply by thinking I, one affirms it and therefore validates it. But the validity of a thought is not determined by thinking of the thought alone. It is determined by thought being impacted by existence.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Descartes should have said “thinking is evidence of my existence,” not “I exist because I think I exist.”

To be honest, when I first came to knowledge of Descartes argument I did not have any difficulty in discerning what he meant, since his argument is clearly a question of epistemology versus solipsism.

This puts existence at the service of thought, when it is thought that is at the service of existence. I do not deny the fact that, when one is thinking – even doubting – his own existence, he is thereby confirming it. But the fact that he is thinking he exists does not determine the fact of his existence, any-more than thinking God exists determines God’s existence.

It is not evident to me that this is what Descartes intended, since the context which you infer from his argument is not evident in his argument. What does seem evident to me is that people have put words in his mouth and have successfully made him the farther of fallacies on the basis that people have drawn fallacious inferences from his argument in support of their faulty beliefs.

I think it is due to the fact that NO further influences can made on this foundation that led to the Enlightenment and Kant.

No valuable inferences or proofs can be made from the idea that if I think I exist therefore I exist because I think it. If that is what Descartes was really arguing for than i agree. If he was merely saying “I think therefore I am” (thinking being an add-hoc fact of his existence) in-order to emphasize the fact that a thing “thinking” cannot possibly be thought of as not existing at the same time; than I disagree with you; regardless of how poorly worded Descartes argument may be.

If anything, Descartes has provided an objective proof of impossibility through a subjective inference. It is a proof that everybody can know with out any degree of doubt.

He started off epistemology on the wrong foot however.

Sorry, I don’t see it. I think your criticism has gotten off on the wrong foot.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The problem is that one must assume “I” in the first premise, but, how does one distinguish the I from the it? Descartes would say that simply by thinking I, one affirms it and therefore validates it. But the validity of a thought is not determined by thinking of the thought alone. It is determined by thought being impacted by existence.

The “I” is self evident to the knower. It is not assumed. Perhaps Descartes should have said I “know” therefore I exist.

 

[The_Exodus]

The “I” is self evident to the knower. It is not assumed. Perhaps Descartes should have said I “know” therefore I exist.

If that is the case – if the I is self evident – then Descartes’ cogito means nothing; it is a tautology.

One must already come to the table knowing that I’s think. And, if that is the case, what follows from that - ergo, I am - is redundant.

If one is trying to prove the I, one cannot do so with Descartes. He assumes it, and then proceeds to prove what is already assumed.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If that is the case – if the I is self evident – then Descartes’ cogito means nothing; it is a tautology.

It is not a tautology. A tautology, in this context, is something that cannot be inferred from immediate knowledge, but is never the less internally consistent. You now at this very moment have immediate knowledge of your thinking, that you have a self or I, and thus you cannot fail to have knowledge of your existence since the process of thinking is of that which exists.

One must already come to the table knowing that I’s think. And, if that is the case, what follows from that - ergo, I am - is redundant.

This is false, as shown above. There is no basis for your claim. Your claim appears to me to be meaningless.

If one is trying to prove the I, one cannot do so with Descartes. He assumes it.

He does not assume it. Descartes merely states a knowable fact. A self evident thing is not an assumption and neither is it something that needs to be proven since it is self evident. It is a necessary factor of human personal experience to have an “I”, that is a self identifier. That is to say that it is in the nature of a person to have an “I”. In the face solipsism, Descartes merely points out that if one is thinking that one cannot also be thought to be not existing; since existence is required in-order for there to be the possibility of thought.

Does one need to prove that one is an “I” before they have debates as an “I”? No.

 

[The_Exodus]

mind:

He does not assume it. Descartes merely states a knowable fact. A self evident thing is not an assumption and neither is it something that needs to be proven since it is self evident.

Perhaps I should read more about Descartes’ criticisms and their supporters. I suppose, if one gets down to it, the experience of I is enough to justify existence, even if that experience is subjective.

Thank you for your great posts.