Well like we were discussing in the sister thread, Descartes does make certain claims that perfect indefeasible knowledge is impossible without a prior awareness of a perfect non-deceiving God.
On the other hand he says the cogito is indeed the first item of knowledge...just maybe not completely immune to all skepticism, at least when not being considered directly.
He also says several times that the cogito is the first item of knowledge. (Med. 3, AT 7:35, Prin. 1:194, AT 8a:7).
Also, "perfect" knowledge for Descartes means 'indefeasible' knowledge, and you're right, there is some question as to whether the cogito counts as this. I'm actually leaning toward your view though. From the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy:
Other texts can be cited in support of the interpretation of the cogito as indefeasible Knowledge. For example, we have seen texts making clear that it resists hyperbolic doubt. Often overlooked, however, is that it is only subsequent to the introduction of the cogito that Descartes has his meditator first notice the manner in which clear and distinct perception is both resistant and vulnerable to hyperbolic doubt: the extraordinary certainty of such perception resists hyperbolic doubt while it is occurring; it is vulnerable to hyperbolic doubt upon redirecting one's perceptual attention.
It's got to be a clear and distinct impression to qualify...which also leads to the question of how and when we have clear and distinct perception of a non-deceiving God.
It sounds like what your saying is that modern philosophy is different from what the Greeks were doing -- sort of like how alchemy is different from chemistry, but alchemy was the direct ancestor of chemistry.
Insofar as philosophy for the greeks just was "the love of knowledge" then yes, modern philosophy is a different ballgame. Modern analytic philosophy involves a way of reasoning about things that is directly rooted in concepts like logical validity and soundness. That's why modern philosophers spend so much time trying to spell out how things are in principle, no matter what branch of philosophy they're studying.
". The foundation of philosophy is logic, and true, provable argument..."
No, it isn't. "In Ancient Greek philosophy, these five broad types of questions were respectively called analytical or logical, epistemological, ethical, metaphysical, and aesthetic." So even in the Western tradition, the Greeks thought that logic was only one of the five topics in philosophy. 'Philosophy' literally means 'love of wisdom'. It is not logic.
Good for the ancient greeks, but in modern analytic philosophy, validity and soundness (logical concepts) are at the heart of just about every argument about epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, and even aesthetics. You start with premises, and work to a conclusion. Without valid argument, analytic philosophy wouldn't function.
And while the word 'philosophy' can be defined as just the love of knowledge, the academic field of philosophy is something different.
So yes, the foundation of philosophy is logic, whether the greeks completely recognized it or not.
As for DesCartes, if you look at how he reached the conclusion of Cogito, you'll find the religion behind it.
Well, the only religion in the cogito comes from the attempt to define the "I". What we can get from the cogito is that a thinking thing exists. That can't be denied. But what *can* be denied is that a subjective self is doing the thinking.
What I expect Christians to appreciate more than the average/.er is that these issues touch on at least three areas: science, theology, and philosophy. Your education in biology maybe qualifies you to speak to the issue from one of these perspectives. (For example, to critique specifically scientific claims.)
I'll give you my take from a philosophical perspective (have an M.A. in philosophy, and am working on the PhD):
So are you telling me it's good to rob your neighbor of his money to give SOME of it (not all) to some stranger just because "you're feeling nice today"?
Yeah because the unions IBM has to deal with in Europe and the USA are legendary in their neighborliness.
Not that I think IBM's being nice or mean either way. They're not outsourcing to India to be altruistic. But they're also not doing it to be mean and wretched. The fact is that India is being raised from 3rd world status because of moves like this, whatever the motivation.
Plus no one is being robbed. No one is entitled to a lifelong job with benefits at IBM just because they have a CS degree. Maybe they should teach that in CS 101.
Another score for capitalism!!!! If you want Socialism, go move to North Korea or China where the government thinks it knows best.
Capitalism is what made the USA the most powerful and free nation in the world....
...And is what's pulling India out of third-world status. But fuck them. They're brown and their food smells funny. Your CSCI degree means IBM owes you a lifetime position with benefits.
In terms of on-and-off screen body count, this movie will dwarf Sin City and Kill Bill (both volumes combined, plus Pulp Fiction just for fun) by orders (plural) of magnitude.
Well, only like 8 people die in Pulp Fiction, so it doesn't really help the body count that much.
Let's see...
Flock of Seagulls Brett That guy hiding in the bathroom Marvin The Gimp Maynard Zedd (presumably dies off screen) Vincent
Butch kills that guy in the boxing match (which we never see).
Plus that woman at the car wreck gets shot in the hip. But she doesn't die.
Dukat Garek Sisko (once he shaved his head) O'Brien Dr. Bashir had his moments that evil changeling/founder woman Odo was okay Dax Worf! General Martok
I'm sick of people bitching about all the sex shit in Enterprise. You people must have forgotten about all those aliens Kirk got with. Half TOS was about Kirk screwing green chicks or romulan captains, fellow crew members etc. They even filmed chicks through lenses smeared with vasaline to make them look 'softer'. Yeah, sex definitely wasn't on the mind of trek-makers back then.
Seriously, not a damn thing has changed. Just more belly buttons.
But the thought of God is perfect...Descarte conclused that since we are imperfect beings, how can we concieve of a perfect God unless that knowledge was seeded in us at birth. Descarte also wrote, that God would never decieve us. God is Truth.
First of all, his name was Descartes (with an 's'). Secondly, what the hell does "the thought of God is perfect" mean?
Also,
What that means is that they could judge like God judges, they could pick what was good and evil. And that is where all human suffering origniates from.
Except for suffering caused by natural evils like tsunamis.
Evil is defined as the absence of some good. And since only God knows true Good, we must live according to his definition, and not ours.
Who defines evil like that? I might as well define good as the absence of evil. And how do we know what his definition of good is? Please don't say, "Read your Bible."
There's a lot more I could say about your post, but I have to work on a paper, while trying to deal with the 'hole in my life', my suffering, and my longing for something more satisfying and Good (capital G!) than the choices that have made me a graduate student with a pretty bright future. Except the going to Hell part. I guess that sucks.
Even though I'm totally, ridiculously hostile to all things religious, I will reply with just one simple observation. When you say:
Only by an intelligent designer, i.e., God could much of this be plausibly explained.
you should have said 'e.g.' instead of 'i.e.'
Even if the world is meticulously designed (I don't want to bother debating the merits of that theory here), there is zero reason to suppose that it was done by *cough*, "Our Heavenly Father".
But you won't listen anyway. Nor will any other hardcore religious guys. But I just thought I'd point it out to satisfy my own conscience.
so you are saying that a human is a parasite that needs to be eradicated when it is inconvienent to someone?
Actually I'd say it is exactly a parasite (by the definition of parasite), and that it is only a potential human until the cord is cut. But you won't care, I know. Maybe we just have a different idea of what common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Where is StarWars VI?
On the list of gayest space movies.
Hell has a special corner for people like you. /hates puns
It's making a point in favor of common sense. There's a fine distinction.
No I think he was referring directly to Sartre...
Checkmate.
Well like we were discussing in the sister thread, Descartes does make certain claims that perfect indefeasible knowledge is impossible without a prior awareness of a perfect non-deceiving God.
On the other hand he says the cogito is indeed the first item of knowledge...just maybe not completely immune to all skepticism, at least when not being considered directly.
See here
WEEELLLLLL,
He also says several times that the cogito is the first item of knowledge. (Med. 3, AT 7:35, Prin. 1:194, AT 8a:7).
Also, "perfect" knowledge for Descartes means 'indefeasible' knowledge, and you're right, there is some question as to whether the cogito counts as this. I'm actually leaning toward your view though. From the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy:
Other texts can be cited in support of the interpretation of the cogito as indefeasible Knowledge. For example, we have seen texts making clear that it resists hyperbolic doubt. Often overlooked, however, is that it is only subsequent to the introduction of the cogito that Descartes has his meditator first notice the manner in which clear and distinct perception is both resistant and vulnerable to hyperbolic doubt: the extraordinary certainty of such perception resists hyperbolic doubt while it is occurring; it is vulnerable to hyperbolic doubt upon redirecting one's perceptual attention.
It's got to be a clear and distinct impression to qualify...which also leads to the question of how and when we have clear and distinct perception of a non-deceiving God.
Check it out
It sounds like what your saying is that modern philosophy is different from what the Greeks were doing -- sort of like how alchemy is different from chemistry, but alchemy was the direct ancestor of chemistry.
Insofar as philosophy for the greeks just was "the love of knowledge" then yes, modern philosophy is a different ballgame. Modern analytic philosophy involves a way of reasoning about things that is directly rooted in concepts like logical validity and soundness. That's why modern philosophers spend so much time trying to spell out how things are in principle, no matter what branch of philosophy they're studying.
". The foundation of philosophy is logic, and true, provable argument..."
No, it isn't. "In Ancient Greek philosophy, these five broad types of questions were respectively called analytical or logical, epistemological, ethical, metaphysical, and aesthetic." So even in the Western tradition, the Greeks thought that logic was only one of the five topics in philosophy. 'Philosophy' literally means 'love of wisdom'. It is not logic.
Good for the ancient greeks, but in modern analytic philosophy, validity and soundness (logical concepts) are at the heart of just about every argument about epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, and even aesthetics. You start with premises, and work to a conclusion. Without valid argument, analytic philosophy wouldn't function.
And while the word 'philosophy' can be defined as just the love of knowledge, the academic field of philosophy is something different.
So yes, the foundation of philosophy is logic, whether the greeks completely recognized it or not.
As for DesCartes, if you look at how he reached the conclusion of Cogito, you'll find the religion behind it.
Well, the only religion in the cogito comes from the attempt to define the "I". What we can get from the cogito is that a thinking thing exists. That can't be denied. But what *can* be denied is that a subjective self is doing the thinking.
Something like that anyway...
What I expect Christians to appreciate more than the average /.er is that these issues touch on at least three areas: science, theology, and philosophy. Your education in biology maybe qualifies you to speak to the issue from one of these perspectives. (For example, to critique specifically scientific claims.)
I'll give you my take from a philosophical perspective (have an M.A. in philosophy, and am working on the PhD):
Creationism is ridiculous.
That is all.
So are you telling me it's good to rob your neighbor of his money to give SOME of it (not all) to some stranger just because "you're feeling nice today"?
Yeah because the unions IBM has to deal with in Europe and the USA are legendary in their neighborliness.
Not that I think IBM's being nice or mean either way. They're not outsourcing to India to be altruistic. But they're also not doing it to be mean and wretched. The fact is that India is being raised from 3rd world status because of moves like this, whatever the motivation.
Plus no one is being robbed. No one is entitled to a lifelong job with benefits at IBM just because they have a CS degree. Maybe they should teach that in CS 101.
Another score for capitalism!!!! If you want Socialism, go move to North Korea or China where the government thinks it knows best.
...And is what's pulling India out of third-world status. But fuck them. They're brown and their food smells funny. Your CSCI degree means IBM owes you a lifetime position with benefits.
Capitalism is what made the USA the most powerful and free nation in the world....
Dey took ar jerrrrbs!!!1
Companies don't give a damn about the people. No matter how evil and wretched is what you're doing, just make sure it's not illegal, and you're fine.
Ask the 14000 newly employed Indians if IBM is evil and wretched.
Wow, that's deep.
In terms of on-and-off screen body count, this movie will dwarf Sin City and Kill Bill (both volumes combined, plus Pulp Fiction just for fun) by orders (plural) of magnitude.
Well, only like 8 people die in Pulp Fiction, so it doesn't really help the body count that much.
Let's see...
Flock of Seagulls
Brett
That guy hiding in the bathroom
Marvin
The Gimp
Maynard
Zedd (presumably dies off screen)
Vincent
Butch kills that guy in the boxing match (which we never see).
Plus that woman at the car wreck gets shot in the hip. But she doesn't die.
2K3
DS9 had, well maybe Odo
Nah, DS9 had the best characters. Here's a list:
Dukat
Garek
Sisko (once he shaved his head)
O'Brien
Dr. Bashir had his moments
that evil changeling/founder woman
Odo was okay
Dax
Worf!
General Martok
And the best character in any Trek ever: Weyoun
I'm sick of people bitching about all the sex shit in Enterprise. You people must have forgotten about all those aliens Kirk got with. Half TOS was about Kirk screwing green chicks or romulan captains, fellow crew members etc. They even filmed chicks through lenses smeared with vasaline to make them look 'softer'. Yeah, sex definitely wasn't on the mind of trek-makers back then.
Seriously, not a damn thing has changed. Just more belly buttons.
Bingo. I liked the original one a lot. And the one from the last two "alternate universe" episodes.
But the thought of God is perfect...Descarte conclused that since we are imperfect beings, how can we concieve of a perfect God unless that knowledge was seeded in us at birth. Descarte also wrote, that God would never decieve us. God is Truth.
First of all, his name was Descartes (with an 's'). Secondly, what the hell does "the thought of God is perfect" mean?
Also,
What that means is that they could judge like God judges, they could pick what was good and evil. And that is where all human suffering origniates from.
Except for suffering caused by natural evils like tsunamis.
Evil is defined as the absence of some good. And since only God knows true Good, we must live according to his definition, and not ours.
Who defines evil like that? I might as well define good as the absence of evil. And how do we know what his definition of good is? Please don't say, "Read your Bible."
There's a lot more I could say about your post, but I have to work on a paper, while trying to deal with the 'hole in my life', my suffering, and my longing for something more satisfying and Good (capital G!) than the choices that have made me a graduate student with a pretty bright future. Except the going to Hell part. I guess that sucks.
Even though I'm totally, ridiculously hostile to all things religious, I will reply with just one simple observation. When you say:
Only by an intelligent designer, i.e., God could much of this be plausibly explained.
you should have said 'e.g.' instead of 'i.e.'
Even if the world is meticulously designed (I don't want to bother debating the merits of that theory here), there is zero reason to suppose that it was done by *cough*, "Our Heavenly Father".
But you won't listen anyway. Nor will any other hardcore religious guys. But I just thought I'd point it out to satisfy my own conscience.
Thats the funniest thing I've seen in days. Bravo.
so you are saying that a human is a parasite that needs to be eradicated when it is inconvienent to someone?
Actually I'd say it is exactly a parasite (by the definition of parasite), and that it is only a potential human until the cord is cut. But you won't care, I know. Maybe we just have a different idea of what common sense.
That wasn't always the case. Back in the late 80's, Nintendo used to have third-parties sign a contract to develop games exclusively for the NES.
Ya, and look how that worked out.