**Philosophy thread** round II new argument "ontological God Argument"

1,425
12
Joined Jun 3, 2007
I know there are some psuedo-intellectuals on here. I would like to think I'm not the only philo major on this board, or atleast the only person whoregularly read philosophy books. Since it's summer and I no longer have anyone to talk to about philosophy I decided Niketalk might want to be put on game.

Topic one
Rene Descartes, 2nd meditation on 1st philosophy The "Cogito" argument
Pretty much taking the "I think therefore I am" with a new twist. Descartes sat down and meditated(hence the name) and doubted everything fromsenses to reality. The first thing he realized he couldn't doubt was the fact that he existed. This is because in order to think about existence you haveto exist, otherwise you couldn't think about anything for that matter.

Agree/disagree/ understand?
 
4,754
186
Joined Dec 29, 2005
Hmm it's been a while. I'll jump onto this thread when the ontological argument arises...
 

tmukg21

Banned
4,017
10
Joined Apr 23, 2008
Originally Posted by socluis90

Hmm it's been a while. I'll jump onto this thread when the ontological argument arises...
*looks up said word*

any more terms, in the philosophical word, like this would be nice, no really
 
1,088
18
Joined May 26, 2007
taking psychology as an elective in university next year, see you then

but for now i'll just read
 
1,425
12
Joined Jun 3, 2007
Originally Posted by socluis90

Hmm it's been a while. I'll jump onto this thread when the ontological argument arises...
Not a big fan of that one, it's super weak to me. I'll post that one(from a Cartisian view) 2morrow. I semi like where this thread isgoing.
 
17,280
2,373
Joined Mar 14, 2006
I actually agree w/ the "Cogito" argument. In order for you or something to exist, it does not have to be there physically, just the mere thought ofits/ones existence creates them b/c w/o the thought of existence then exist something/someone would not.

And I have a feeling I'll be hittin the bookshelf in the dining room at some point in this thread
 
487
78
Joined Jun 10, 2007
I'd also like someone to engage in philosophical discourse with. OP, I'm actually re-reading some Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, the latter being one ofmy favorites. Nietzsche seems to be pretty popular but if you haven't read/been "put on" to Schopenhauer, I strongly urge you to read/check outThe World as Will and Representation.

As for your topic, I think I understand it but do not necessarily agree. It's been a while since I've discussed Descartes/the "Cogito"argument though.
 
294
10
Joined May 20, 2006
I took some introductory Philosophy classes that really interested me. Existence is probably the most complicated concept to understand. There are also manylevels of existence and consciousness. I highly recommend this crazy book by the name of DMT: The Spirit Molecule by Dr. Rick Strassman. Some of the stuff inthat book had me like
 
17,280
2,373
Joined Mar 14, 2006
Originally Posted by SneakerLips

I took some introductory Philosophy classes that really interested me. Existence is probably the most complicated concept to understand. There are also many levels of existence and consciousness. I highly recommend this crazy book by the name of DMT: The Spirit Molecule by Dr. Rick Strassman. Some of the stuff in that book had me like
Care to give a summary of it? I generally don't like to look at anything post argument (Cogito) b/c to me it's just a interpretation ofwhat the argument means from the authors point of view. However, I'm open minded to give it a browse.
 
24
10
Joined May 4, 2009
Originally Posted by bboy1827

I know there are some psuedo-intellectuals on here. I would like to think I'm not the only philo major on this board, or atleast the only person who regularly read philosophy books. Since it's summer and I no longer have anyone to talk to about philosophy I decided Niketalk might want to be put on game.

Topic one
Rene Descartes, 2nd meditation on 1st philosophy The "Cogito" argument
Pretty much taking the "I think therefore I am" with a new twist. Descartes sat down and meditated(hence the name) and doubted everything from senses to reality. The first thing he realized he couldn't doubt was the fact that he existed. This is because in order to think about existence you have to exist, otherwise you couldn't think about anything for that matter.

Agree/disagree/ understand?
At the risk of veering away from your original post, this reminds me of a Theory of Knowledge course I took where the goal was to find and defineknowledge according to Plato's "justified true belief."

How can one justify the things they claim to know? How do you know something is truth? Is it through logic, revelation, faith, memory, authority? How can youprove it's a legitimately justified belief? A justification for this knowledge can also be self-awareness which delves back into your Cogito argument.Wonder how we can interconnect philosophies here...
 

cwk

786
23
Joined Jan 14, 2001
I would HIGHLY recommend this book to anyone interested in Philosophy. There's a section on The Cogito argument as well as Cartesian Dualism.

 
1,425
12
Joined Jun 3, 2007
Originally Posted by LadyIntellect

Originally Posted by bboy1827

I know there are some psuedo-intellectuals on here. I would like to think I'm not the only philo major on this board, or atleast the only person who regularly read philosophy books. Since it's summer and I no longer have anyone to talk to about philosophy I decided Niketalk might want to be put on game.

Topic one
Rene Descartes, 2nd meditation on 1st philosophy The "Cogito" argument
Pretty much taking the "I think therefore I am" with a new twist. Descartes sat down and meditated(hence the name) and doubted everything from senses to reality. The first thing he realized he couldn't doubt was the fact that he existed. This is because in order to think about existence you have to exist, otherwise you couldn't think about anything for that matter.

Agree/disagree/ understand?
At the risk of veering away from your original post, this reminds me of a Theory of Knowledge course I took where the goal was to find and define knowledge according to Plato's "justified true belief."

How can one justify the things they claim to know? How do you know something is truth? Is it through logic, revelation, faith, memory, authority? How can you prove it's a legitimately justified belief? A justification for this knowledge can also be self-awareness which delves back into your Cogito argument. Wonder how we can interconnect philosophies here...
There is the world in our head and the world outside of our head. According to most philosophers we can know the world in our head but not outsideour head. So the only thing we can truly know is that we exist. There are two types of knowledge, a priori (anaylitic, or through pure mental scrutiny) then apostoriori( empiracal, knowledge we know through experience) Pretty much the only knowledge we can know is a priori knowledge becasue the world(emperical) maydecieve us. So pretty much math and logic are the only things that we can have knowledge of because we know them a priori. the reason that we can know this andis realiable is because it doesn't depend on n e thing else besides the mind. i.e we as humans are built in such a way that we see the world inmath(arithmatic and geometry[kant]). If you have 2 things then you have two things.

I dont know if that answered your question or helped at all
 
9,856
766
Joined Nov 11, 2007
How about the topic of attraction? It may sound like nonsense but I always just think of the idea of my body as just a machine while my brain is really thetrue "essence". I ask in general why am I so focused on another "machine" when the real attraction is what's inside the head?
meh
 
294
10
Joined May 20, 2006
Originally Posted by Dathbgboy

Originally Posted by SneakerLips

I took some introductory Philosophy classes that really interested me. Existence is probably the most complicated concept to understand. There are also many levels of existence and consciousness. I highly recommend this crazy book by the name of DMT: The Spirit Molecule by Dr. Rick Strassman. Some of the stuff in that book had me like
Care to give a summary of it? I generally don't like to look at anything post argument (Cogito) b/c to me it's just a interpretation of what the argument means from the authors point of view. However, I'm open minded to give it a browse.

It isn't a philosophical book in a traditional sense, but the message sure as hell is. It's basically about a non-bias experiment a doctor conducted on60 volunteers. Each volunteer was given certain amounts of this chemical called DMT(look it up) and then they talked about it. Apparently this drug takes thehuman mind to other realms of existence and redefines consciousness. It's crazy because DMT is the most illegal substance in the world yet it is producednaturally in the human brain and is responsible for our dreams. Definitely a good read
 
242
10
Joined Apr 25, 2005
I disagree. It's "I am therefore I think." Since NT does not like text, I'll keep this short.

Spinoza, one of Descartes' contemporary, took it the opposite way. The existence of man -- or rather the consciousness of being real -- comes strictly fromthe biology rather than the mind. He says that the mind is an after effect of the biological acting and reacting happening inside our bodies. Antonio Damasio,a neurobiologist, did some studies and found out that the conscious mind actually comes from the change in our internal bodies. Whenever a person is consciousof something, that consciousness comes out of the biological self -- either by changing body states such as blood flow, heartbeat, nutrition, and/or anexternal stimulus.

The function of the mind, however, is to tie together every single bodily functions happening in our body and keeps everything in an optimal state. Theconscious mind allows for an integration of every complex systems in our body -- something that the biology itself would not be able to do.

I am therefore I think.
 
1,425
12
Joined Jun 3, 2007
Originally Posted by cucumbercool

How about the topic of attraction? It may sound like nonsense but I always just think of the idea of my body as just a machine while my brain is really the true "essence". I ask in general why am I so focused on another "machine" when the real attraction is what's inside the head?
meh
Thats classical Dualism. Can't remember but it may be Locke(I doubt it's him but can't think of who it is and I like his name).Whoever it was believes this exact same thing. I suggest Descartes as a basis for dualism, then Kant as a contrast alternative(he's not a dualist or arationalist but somewhere int he middle)
 
1,425
12
Joined Jun 3, 2007
Originally Posted by Jsmilez

I disagree. It's "I am therefore I think." Since NT does not like text, I'll keep this short.

Spinoza, one of Descartes' contemporary, took it the opposite way. The existence of man -- or rather the consciousness of being real -- comes strictly from the biology rather than the mind. He says that the mind is an after effect of the biological acting and reacting happening inside our bodies. Antonio Damasio, a neurobiologist, did some studies and found out that the conscious mind actually comes from the change in our internal bodies. Whenever a person is conscious of something, that consciousness comes out of the biological self -- either by changing body states such as blood flow, heartbeat, nutrition, and/or an external stimulus.

The function of the mind, however, is to tie together every single bodily functions happening in our body and keeps everything in an optimal state. The conscious mind allows for an integration of every complex systems in our body -- something that the biology itself would not be able to do.

I am therefore I think.
See I find this a hard stance to take. because what if our bodies were false? It is true that we are decived many times by our (bodies)i.e when something is inthe distance it looks small when in reality it isn't When we put a straw in a glass of water than it appears to have broken into two different pieces, butin fact it is whole. You can go the science route and say it's because of physics, but what is the basis of physics?
Experiments, because it has happened before it will happen in the future. Thats not strong enough; what makes that the case? How can the past have an absolutecause on the future(this is one of the things I truly believe from Hume; check Hume on causality), if you were to say math, than that would be a differentstory, but science isn't founded on math it's founded on experiment and empirical evidence.
So what is it to be a mind? Minds exist independently of the body imo. There is no mind body connexion. The body is part of the mind, the mind isn't isn't neccesary a part of the world. it's something more for the simple question that I asked before. What is a mind? it's more than justbiological functions, chemical reactions. I'd like to think of my mind as more than just a bunch of biology, becasue that would mean(as stated before)nothing about me can be consistent, if science, namely biology is based on experiments, my mind must be based in science, so my mind is based off empericalevidence; is the logical conclusion but how is it that I can know when I have two things that it equals two; without having any prior experience of it?
 
127
10
Joined Nov 18, 2005
on a tangent - semi response.. more so a kind of vent
----
if our bodies were false, we wouldnt know it at all...
If a mind exists independently of the body, then there would be no point for the body. If a mind is self contained and powerful, then what possible use couldit have for such a thing?
If its true, that our minds are as powerful as some of us wish they could be, then honestly, I, with my "mind"..... could create the very world thatYOU are living in...
But, there's just no way to know, the two opposites cancel each other out and leave us with this gray area that make it hard to find out if this answerexists at all.

There's one very interesting subject that I want to bring up when we're talking about knowledge and existence: (bear with me please... i read all ofyou guys' responses)

I cant be the only one who this has happened to, but by some random act of chance... I was asleep and dreaming once.. I cant tell you the exact nature of thedream and what was exactly going on in it, but as I recall there was a very important problem that had to be solved. This wasnt a weird far off and trippydream mind you, it was very rooted in this "reality" that we all think we live in. As it goes, this problem was solved with intricate knowledge ofsome sort of mechanism and logic, now, as far as I remember, I havent had this kind of knowledge and information exposed to me. BUT, awaking from this dream,the answer to the problem.. the intricate solution, still held true in this "real" world.
Now, is this pure chance, pure luck, pure BS, or is there something more to it?

Could it be, that our minds.. our single minds, know more than we allow them to manifest?
If we were to lift up this "veil" that might exist.. what would happen, what would we see? Could it be possible that by pure instinct, evolution,w/e, innate ability... we are already in tune with something larger.. something more complex?
 
5,340
11
Joined Aug 7, 2005
Originally Posted by chrisl5mavs

Could it be, that our minds.. our single minds, know more than we allow them to manifest?
If we were to lift up this "veil" that might exist.. what would happen, what would we see? Could it be possible that by pure instinct, evolution, w/e, innate ability... we are already in tune with something larger.. something more complex?
I hear we only use 10% of our minds. I think it's God's way of keeping the wrong people from being smart.
 
1,425
12
Joined Jun 3, 2007
Originally Posted by chrisl5mavs

on a tangent - semi response.. more so a kind of vent
----
if our bodies were false, we wouldnt know it at all...
If a mind exists independently of the body, then there would be no point for the body. If a mind is self contained and powerful, then what possible use could it have for such a thing?
If its true, that our minds are as powerful as some of us wish they could be, then honestly, I, with my "mind"..... could create the very world that YOU are living in...
But, there's just no way to know, the two opposites cancel each other out and leave us with this gray area that make it hard to find out if this answer exists at all.

Could it be, that our minds.. our single minds, know more than we allow them to manifest?
If we were to lift up this "veil" that might exist.. what would happen, what would we see? Could it be possible that by pure instinct, evolution, w/e, innate ability... we are already in tune with something larger.. something more complex?
What if we lived in a matrix like existence? Then our bodies wouldn't matter at all, because it is what the mind sees. Take that one scenewhere the dude is eating the steak, and he says "I know I'm not really eating this steak" This should prove simply that our minds play a hugefactor in everything that we see in the world.

That is how the world could be viewed.The body is an useful tool from evolution. The body needs to eat, the body needs to sleep, otherwise we don't reallyhave use for a body outside interacting with the outside world, that may or may not exist. Berkely believes that we are nothign but ideas in someone elseshead(God's head), it could be true that we are all the creation of you. Much like a child with an imaginary friend, just on a greater scale.

We can never truly know what we see in the world either way, because everyone perspective on things are different, not objective but intersubjective(Kant).Pretty much we all see something and agree upon it, but taht doesn't mean that something has an objective truth(hard concept to grasp I know).

As for your second point, we don't know what we would see. Our minds do know more than we allow ourselves to "manifest" as it were. Think ofthis, we can never create an object with 1000 sides, but our minds can concieve of it through math. That is our minds coming up with an answer for a questionthat we can never see or even imagine, but it is conciveable.

And the third point. "in tune with somethign more complex" Are you suggesting God? if so that could be the case. I personally believe "God"in the sense that most people talk about him was invented, yet I still pray to him because it helps me in my life.
 
1,425
12
Joined Jun 3, 2007
Alright let's try this again.Let's talk about this God thing.
The on-to-lo-gi-cal argument goes like this(Cartisian version, as I understand it)
AS A DISCLAIMER WHEN I TALK OF GOD I SPEAK OF THE TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN OMNISCIENT OMNIPOTENT AND ALL GOOD GOD
God exist.
"Whatever I know I know because I percieve it clearly and distinctly, because God makes it so
I know God Exists clearly and distinctly"

I know it sounds weird worded like that and I would like someone to word it better, but thats what I got.

To me this argument is clear circular reasoning. I'm a Marxist when it comes to God. I.e God exists as a tool of the disparaged to give hope. But then I amthe disparaged so I believe in God. I recognize that my view makes no sense, but my view of God as "The great mover" makes more sense, somethingcan't come from nothing, so something had to start everything. And if you call that something the big bang than cool. but what started that? I'mcontent with a supreme starting point being some old guy that said "let there be light"
People speak of dinosaurs and such, and evolution actually fits together to me. "Time wasn't when man was not" is something my mom told me. To mepeople evolving was just the extended version of the creation story. They dont' have to conflict as long as you understand that time is a human construct.

What are your thoughts?
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now