Philosophy Now Forum

yiostheoy wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Just to clarify, I don't agree where Descartes went with his philosophy, but I do agree with the starting point. As uwot and I have said before, there is thought, and there are things. And speaking for myself, the further one goes, the further one strays into territory we are only guessing at. So the steps must be well reasoned.

Correct. I agree as well.

How is it we can agree here, yet elsewhere, you become an unreasoned loon? Clearly, you have the brains to know where to begin, yet you make unwarranted assumptions, and completely derail.

yiostheoy wrote:...

He also stumbles with the idea of God-ness and so he invents his own version of Anselm's "ontological proof" vis a vis "if I can imagine it then it must exist" -- unfortunately unicorns rule this out. ...

No it doesn't as this is not what Descartes said or did, it's not about imagination but clear and distinct ideas.

yiostheoy wrote:...
We certainly can tell -- feel -- that we have consciousness. ...

Nothing to do with Descartes.

And we can conclude that with our consciousness we can think and plan and move and do things and change the environment around us same as a beaver can build a dam and thus dam up the stream and make itself a nice habitat while changing the habitat completely around it. We can do that as well as human animals. Since I am thinking, someone must exist to do the thinking. Since my thinking results in plans and actions and a change in the environment around me, obviously I exist, and obviously the environment exists as well. ...

He's obviously not read Descartes, as the only bit that applies here is, "Since I am thinking, someone must exist to do the thinking." and even then its incorrect, it's more "I am thinking therefore I must exist".

yiostheoy wrote:Descartes began his analysis doubting everything including God. ...

Where?

In the 3rd stage of his analysis he created his own version of Anselm's ontological proof for God as well.

But not until AFTER Descartes first affirmed his own existence and then the nonexistence of the Evil Genius.

He affirmed his own existence logically, the Evil 'God'/Demon was not denied until he had a proof of 'God' as it was this proof that allowed him to reconnect to the world and others, something he could not do just from his 'I Am'.

You need to read about Descartes again and this time pay closer attention.

Instead of reading about Descartes you should try actually reading him.

Has no one read it yet? Should I just start a fresh post since this got off to such a bad start?

wirius wrote:Hello all. I've come to these forums because I have a knowledge theory I've been working on for years. I would like others to take a look at it and give their thoughts. Its uh, a little big so I'm dividing it into two parts.

EDIT: I posted this last night with the intention of attaching part 1 on my next post. Unfortunately it needed mod approval first, and so I missed my window as it finally posted this morning. I'll see what I can do.

SO, I'm going to link to a google doc if it isn't against forum rules. Its the entire thing so its just going to be "Part this"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17cH ... sp=sharing

So Why Should I Read This?

1. This theory recognizes and finds a solution to the age old problem: "How do I reconcile the idea of an objective methodology of knowledge within a subjective world?"

Is this your undergrad dissertation?
If it is then your bibliography is a little small, and you style a little bit too pedestrian. Picking up a baseball bat? Really? You could precis this into a single sentence.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: If it is then your bibliography is a little small,

The man can't help the size of his bibliography and I think it rather cruel of you to draw attention to it.

Harbal wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: If it is then your bibliography is a little small,

The man can't help the size of his bibliography and I think it rather cruel of you to draw attention to it.

Fer' nar

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Fer' nar

I'm of the generation that grew up with the Carry on Films. It left it's mark.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

wirius wrote:Hello all. I've come to these forums because I have a knowledge theory I've been working on for years. I would like others to take a look at it and give their thoughts. Its uh, a little big so I'm dividing it into two parts.

EDIT: I posted this last night with the intention of attaching part 1 on my next post. Unfortunately it needed mod approval first, and so I missed my window as it finally posted this morning. I'll see what I can do.

SO, I'm going to link to a google doc if it isn't against forum rules. Its the entire thing so its just going to be "Part this"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17cH ... sp=sharing

So Why Should I Read This?

1. This theory recognizes and finds a solution to the age old problem: "How do I reconcile the idea of an objective methodology of knowledge within a subjective world?"

Is this your undergrad dissertation?
If it is then your bibliography is a little small, and you style a little bit too pedestrian. Picking up a baseball bat? Really? You could precis this into a single sentence.

What you may call pedestrian, I call simple. I wished for clarity and relatableness. Sophistication and fanciful writing are a veneer for the logic. Perhaps I should put something shiny in front of my logic, but why bother if my logic is trash?

As for my bibliography being tiny, I'm confident that though it is small, it is used effectively. Size alone is not an indicator of effectiveness of a bibliography. Again, I have several logical arguments. If you stated, "You could expound upon your argument with reference to this author," I would be pleased to work on expanding the list. Other good critiques are if you point out any misuse of the bibliography. I really am open to criticism, but it has to have more behind it then sizing up a man in passing.

wirius wrote:Has no one read it yet? Should I just start a fresh post since this got off to such a bad start?

Easy Tonto. Given its taken you years a little patience should be easy.

Harbal wrote:I'm of the generation that grew up with the Carry on Films. It left it's mark.

Infamy! Infamy! ...

One of the greatest screen gags ever written.

Just so far,
I think this is wrong, "Descartes claimed he had unshakable certainty in the Cogito because the existence of a good and active God would not deceive him.". The 'God' bit was to allow him to return to the external world and others with certainty, not for his Cogito as that appears to be one of your 'deductive justifications' as denying it leads to a logical contradiction.

This is a bad analogy,
"The totality of the sensory input is like a basic camera taking a picture. A basic camera’s shutter merely experiences the input; the camera cannot identify. The picture takes on no identity without the ability to part and parcel this picture into things. This “picture” is the totality of undefined experience. ..." . The senses don't work like this, perception is more complicated, it's a hard read but try Mearleu-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception.

" Because I do not know if other people even exist, their opinions and language are not considered." But you do know, as if you are using a language to think or write with then there must be an other. This was my take on how Descartes could have reconnected without needing a 'God'.

wirius wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

wirius wrote:Hello all. I've come to these forums because I have a knowledge theory I've been working on for years. I would like others to take a look at it and give their thoughts. Its uh, a little big so I'm dividing it into two parts.

EDIT: I posted this last night with the intention of attaching part 1 on my next post. Unfortunately it needed mod approval first, and so I missed my window as it finally posted this morning. I'll see what I can do.

SO, I'm going to link to a google doc if it isn't against forum rules. Its the entire thing so its just going to be "Part this"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17cH ... sp=sharing

So Why Should I Read This?

1. This theory recognizes and finds a solution to the age old problem: "How do I reconcile the idea of an objective methodology of knowledge within a subjective world?"

Is this your undergrad dissertation?
If it is then your bibliography is a little small, and you style a little bit too pedestrian. Picking up a baseball bat? Really? You could precis this into a single sentence.

What you may call pedestrian, I call simple. I wished for clarity and relatableness. Sophistication and fanciful writing are a veneer for the logic. Perhaps I should put something shiny in front of my logic, but why bother if my logic is trash?

As for my bibliography being tiny, I'm confident that though it is small, it is used effectively. Size alone is not an indicator of effectiveness of a bibliography. Again, I have several logical arguments. If you stated, "You could expound upon your argument with reference to this author," I would be pleased to work on expanding the list. Other good critiques are if you point out any misuse of the bibliography. I really am open to criticism, but it has to have more behind it then sizing up a man in passing.

No, simple is straightforward.
Pedestrian is spending 300 words on something everyone knows is obvious.
So does the essay have any academic purpose?

Harbal wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Fer' nar

I'm of the generation that grew up with the Carry on Films. It left it's mark.

Mark? - it left stains a plenty.