This is a short video about the philosophy and epistemology of René Descartes, discussing his "method of doubt" and his famous statement "Cogito ergo sum."
I listened to this teaching coming straight from my Critical and creative thinking Class. Our topic was about Descartes Philosophy and i was confused ,but now i got it very clear. thank you.
Great video. I'm currently in an intro to philosophy class and we are currently reading the meditations going through each one daily. This video has, without a doubt, helped me raise some interesting questions in class. Thanks and I hope you make some more videos.
The concept of perfection can come from the imagination, and does not necessarily need to come from some divine realm. I do think that this is a nice, well thought out video.
Great video! Easy to understand and short enough to remember! I hope Descartes will show up for tomorrows exam, so that I can use this as an inspiration for what I'm writing! Thanks!
Descartes felt that his initial idea, Cogito ergo sum, was so logically clear and distinct that it was irrefutable. So then he asked himself if he had any other such ideas which could be trusted. He then said that he had in his mind the concept of perfection. It was clear to him that, since he was not perfect, only a perfect being could have placed this concept in his mind.
@Brandonduboff This is a good question. In point of fact, the phrase "I think, therefore I am" was first written in French ("Je pense, donc je suis") and is found in Descartes' treatise called "Discourse on Method" which was written in French and published in 1637. His "Meditations on First Philosophy" were published in Latin in 1641, and later in French (1647), but he does not used that exact phrase in that work
@Brandonduboff The phrase "Cogito ergo sum" finally appears in Descartes' "Principles of Philosophy," which were written in Latin and published in 1644. Since this phrase summarizes his point, and since philosophers like to shorten it to just "the Cogito" when referring to this argument, the Latin version has become the most widely known version of the phrase.
@intermender - that certainly takes the philisophical point a little deeper. The question now on the table is the requirements for distinct existence. Consider 'THAT I AM NOT REAL', just a fragmentation in your mind. You can question me and probe my sentience, my agency, and challenge my existence beyond urself. But this is parradoxical since i can EQUALLY level the same charges at u. So in one way we could be part of something larger, but that larger would not exibit our qualities of the self.
I hope this answers your question, because I do not know how to make my point any clearer. It is obvious to most people that simply because we think an idea is "clear and distinct," that does not make the idea true. Descartes also was suspicious of rational thought as well. But in the end, he was a rationalist, and he believed his "proof" of God's existence was logically irrefutable, and for him, this was sufficient to convince him that he could, from that point, trust his reason.
Great video! Easy to listen to: Clear and Concise. Myself personally I might have mentioned the empiricists while touching base with the idea of rationalism. I just wonder where Descartes came up with the idea of perfection as being the explanation for god? I personally might argue that perfection is merely in the mind of the beholder, as I somehow feel you might agree with. Sounds almost like he was trying to not get in trouble with the church :-p
@Hythloday71 I will try one last time to clarify my point. Descartes did not say initially that all "clear and distinct" ideas are true. He said the Cogito was true, and secondly, the idea that only a perfect being could implant the notion of perfection was also self-evidently true. Descartes felt that this proved God's existence. Therefore, since God is not an evil demon, THEN, as a result, our rational thinking can be trusted. This is not circular reasoning.
Rene's idea of perfection is just his idea; him saying it was perfect was just his ego reflecting off it. "I think therefore I am" irrefutable logic? I have "scientifically"-supported reasons to question his idea of "I." I also have "scientifically"-supported reasons to question his idea of "think." I have philosophically-unsupported reasons to question "therefore." {No I don't - but I'm working on it.} thanks.
hi, Dr. Miller! I personally adhere to the idea that existence doesn't need to be proven. it is simply self-evident that existence exists and, therefore, needs no further-rationale' for a basis to owe it's existence, too. In my opinion, Descartes got it backwards. instead of: 'I think, therefore I am', it should be: 'I am, therefore I think'. by proving that he exists, Descartes is also proving the existence of everyone-else, and, ultimately, existence itself. we 'all' have at least the 'potential' to think, but obviously we can't think without existing, first. taking-it even a step-further, we can't even exist without existence already in place ( even 'God' can't exist without existence already being a fundamental-principle of reality ). what kind of god is it that 'must' rely on existence to exist in order that, like the rest of us, can exist, himself!? the answer is quite-clear to me. a non-existent one. a truly good, divine, and ultimate-deity shouldn't have to rely on existence in order to exist, in the first-place. yet, that seems to be the case. it just doesn't make any-sense, and is at least one of the reasons why I respectfully don't believe in God. thanks. sincerely, brian filley.
@Hythloday71 I was not defending Descartes’ argument about God’s existence. I was simply trying to explain that he was not using circular reasoning. Some have claimed that he was saying: “I know God exists because I have this clear and distinct idea, and I know that I can trust clear and distinct ideas because God exists.” This is not what Descartes was saying.
Descartes said "I think therefore I am". Is this true? Even thought we experience thought how do we know it is us that is doing the thinking since the thoughts we are having could be coming from somewhere else? How do we know that our thoughts aren't controlled by something else? Is "There are thoughts"more appropriate? Surely thoughts cant exist without a thinker to think them? Or is there such a thing as a self aware thought? If we are forced to have these thoughts by something else does that mean we have no reason and could not know anything?
@boardfu As a matter of fact, Descartes was trying to use reason and philosophy to provide a foundation for faith and for belief in Catholic doctrine. Unfortunately for him, even though he was trying to defend Catholicism, his theories were not universally welcomed by the Catholic Church.
@alifeofreason His influence is probably less known or harder to pinpoint because Spinozas work was largely banned after he died. But there's no doubt he's had a major influence on modern philosophy despite this, more than descartes though? Hard to say, but I'dd love to hear your opinion :) I'm writing a paper on the two philosophers and their infuence on philosophy and modern science.
Could anyone point me to the citation of Descartes in french, where he says; "There is not theory or opinion, however absurd or incredible, which has not been maintained by some one or other of our philosophers". ??? Thanks in advance.
Why couldn't the evil demon deceive Descartes' senses to the point where he believes that he is thinking, but in fact he is just being manipulated by the demon? Also, why couldn't Descartes' strong convictions about perfection be results of the evil demon's manipulation of his senses?
So, Descartes is not saying, initially, that all clear and distinct ideas can be trusted. It is only after he "proves" God's existence that he says that, THEREFORE, we can now trust our clear and distinct rational thoughts. Most philosophers do not agree with Descartes' logic regarding his proof for God's existence. Neither am I defending that position. I am only stating that FROM DESCARTES' POINT OF VIEW, he felt that he had proved God's existence, and therefore could trust rational thought.
There are two problems with Descartes' reasoning here. One is that most people do not find his proof of God's existence to be convincing. The second problem is that, even if God exists, and even if God created us, that does not rule out the possible existence of the evil demon. Hence, even if God does exist, there might still be an evil demon who fills our minds with bizarre thoughts and perceptions but also makes us think that those thoughts and perceptions are logically "clear and distinct."
the "I" In I think there for I am is a bit of an assumption ,also The concept of perfection stuff ... well where do you start on the flaws there :) but saying all that he was well ahead of his time .good video you're obviously well read .
Great vid except for the end, i don't think u explained 'what he really meant' as apposed to the opposition he faces. For me it is straight forward faulty logic. The properties of 'clear and distinct' do not endow truth on anything.
ive honestly thought this before.. but i was on alot of mushrooms or acid..i drew some wild stuff.. i wrote my thoughts down the next day, that what if this is all a dream.. or schizophrenic reality.... or what if this is afterlife?
Question: is something feeling logically clear and distinct any grounds for believing it actually is ? Do u agree that u make the case that Descartes WAS using this idea as central justification of a CONCLUSION. ? if so i understood u fully. if not, then not so. The confusion, is, if i understood u, i didn't get how this was framed as something as a mitigator in his defense.
sorry if I ask, but what is your full name W.Miller? and do you teach at an university? I really love your work , but am just asking this questions because my professor said me I should state my sources of information about a task I had!
Great video :) But I have to comment on how you phrase one thing. You talk of the perfect beeing as God, but Descartes didn't interprit his perfect beeing as God, but as a god. He doesn't have any distinct reference to a specific god as it sounds like you do in this video. But apart from that, a great video. Thanks :)
Descartes is most certainly talking about the Christian god, not "a god." He was a pious Catholic, and the original Latin title of the Third Meditation is De Deo, quòd existat. ("That God exists.").
Not at all, not at all. I wouldn't have gotten an A on my exam on that exact subject if Descartes depicted it as the Christian god. Remember the fact that Descartes doubted everything at start and used it as a factor to find truth. He didn't have any depictations of anything on beforehand and described at last only a allknowing beeing (since he wasn't allknowing, there must be something allknowing somewhere) and called it a god, but this was never reffered to as the christian god.
I'm glad you "got an A" on an exam, but that doesn't somehow demonstrate you're correct. Some of us are professors of philosophy, and have studied Descartes' philosophy for more than 20 years, and, therefore, have an advanced understanding of the issues that goes beyond undergraduate philosophical study. When you're fluent enough in Latin to read the original text, come back and we'll talk some more. Accessibility to the texts in their original language is necessary...until then, enjoy your A and keep up the work!
nahzrat still standing with the fact that Decartés was bot indeed tolking about a christian god, but an allknowing, perfect beeing. "Since I am imperfect, there has to be something perfect" But of cource, if you as a christian reader interprit this as your christian god cause you think he is perfect, that's your choice. This is what our professors, who may not be as narrowminded as you, has concluded with. Have a nice day
AndLunMusic I'm neither Christian nor narrow-minded. I'm simply pointing out what Descartes, himself, states in the preface to his Meditations, which is available for anyone to read.
Descartes saw this as the same kind of irrefutable logic as the Cogito and felt that this proved God’s existence. He went on to say that, if God exists, then God would not deceive us, and we should therefore be able to trust our clear and distinct (logical) ideas and, for the most part, our perceptions as well. If one accepts his proof of God's existence, then the corollary (we can trust our logic and senses) also is plausible, and, at the very least, is not a case of circular reasoning.
@wmiller24 - It seems to me your saying 'A'. I'm sorry ur still unclear to me. What matters, i guess, is i am pressing the point that he was guilty of fallicious reasoning. I need to be explicit and ask, do u think not ? I guess i need to clarify why i think so, i have given strong indictation i feel, i will clarify if u think u can defend the position. Ok, re-read again, a little clearer, but still, I AM NOT SAYING .... bla bla, still interested in ur position of his logic
@wmiller24 - "secondly, the idea that only a perfect being could implant the notion of perfection was also self-evidently true" - this conjunction in the antecedent is problematic for me. A def of circular reasoning is the containment of the premise in the conclusion .. is it not? For me this assumption, means he can NEVER logicall infer the existence of god, which is as u state in ur vid at least part of his goal. I accept in the above form the guilt is not circ but one of faulty assumption.
Descartes has blundered. There is a method by which you can transcend thinking. It is not a forced mechanic, it is something that does require a bit of practice but can be done. Since this can be done, when you actually cease thinking do you cease to exist? While in this state you do not fathom the self or that you are even there at all. There is no thought at all or connection to awareness as an observer. This leads me to believe that thinking doesn't constitute existence at all.
@Hythloday7 - but this completely re-iterates Descartes point. You can know nothing about the existence of other 'I' s . Only urself. I won't try to convince u that u R a figure of my mind, since it is actually beyond reasoning possibility for me to show. Like wise u 2 i. But, we can surmise, perhaps?, that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. I can probably say it is a duck. I am trying to say, that if minds are so convoluted that they create other minds, how decide which is primary
Listening to this as I am making a Rene Descartes wig out of yarn for my history class! This was very helpful.
Concise, well done. Descartes' influence has been tremendous. This talk helps understand why his thought is relevant today.
thanks , you summarized 100s of pages in 20 mints very well. and solved my problem.
Thank you, you do a wonderful job at engaging all minds.
I listened to this teaching coming straight from my Critical and creative thinking Class. Our topic was about Descartes Philosophy and i was confused ,but now i got it very clear. thank you.
THANK YOU!
Love, Respect and Appreciation.
Thank you for explaining Descartes kind sir :) it's now easier for me to read his work :)
THANK YOU! I did not understand this lecture at all and this cleared everything up for me.
Great video. I'm currently in an intro to philosophy class and we are currently reading the meditations going through each one daily. This video has, without a doubt, helped me raise some interesting questions in class. Thanks and I hope you make some more videos.
The concept of perfection can come from the imagination, and does not necessarily need to come from some divine realm. I do think that this is a nice, well thought out video.
Thank you Wayne. I just finished Discourse on Method. This is a concise overview minus the fluff. Appreciate it sincerely.
Nice to see you again on youtube, after your gap 2 years. I look forward to seeing yet more interesting philosophy videos from you shortly.
The bookshelf is a perfect backdrop to this video.
Thanks for the video! Please make more.
Thank you very much this really helped me understand descartes ... You made it sooo simple thanks again
Ah... that was a refreshing explanation of something that would have taken taken my present philosophy professor 2 hours to explain. I LOVE UA-cam!!!!
Love your explanation, it became easy 🙏
Very clear and explained it much better than my professor did ! :)
Thank You.
Great video! Easy to understand and short enough to remember! I hope Descartes will show up for tomorrows exam, so that I can use this as an inspiration for what I'm writing! Thanks!
Descartes felt that his initial idea, Cogito ergo sum, was so logically clear and distinct that it was irrefutable. So then he asked himself if he had any other such ideas which could be trusted. He then said that he had in his mind the concept of perfection. It was clear to him that, since he was not perfect, only a perfect being could have placed this concept in his mind.
Great video, and your easy on the ear.
Great video. A very thorough and helpful explanation of Descartes and his philosophy!
thank you this has help me understand a few things in my class now.
Thanks a lot, Sir ! It really helped me a lot in understanding his logic much better.
@Brandonduboff This is a good question. In point of fact, the phrase "I think, therefore I am" was first written in French ("Je pense, donc je suis") and is found in Descartes' treatise called "Discourse on Method" which was written in French and published in 1637. His "Meditations on First Philosophy" were published in Latin in 1641, and later in French (1647), but he does not used that exact phrase in that work
Thank you for explaining it so well!
Very informative! Thank you for explaining this!!
At 8.00 there is defined reason as that which partakes of abstract identity (the wax, any wax) through radical change.
@Brandonduboff The phrase "Cogito ergo sum" finally appears in Descartes' "Principles of Philosophy," which were written in Latin and published in 1644. Since this phrase summarizes his point, and since philosophers like to shorten it to just "the Cogito" when referring to this argument, the Latin version has become the most widely known version of the phrase.
THANK YOU SO MUCH!! this helps a lot for our defense
@intermender - that certainly takes the philisophical point a little deeper. The question now on the table is the requirements for distinct existence. Consider 'THAT I AM NOT REAL', just a fragmentation in your mind. You can question me and probe my sentience, my agency, and challenge my existence beyond urself. But this is parradoxical since i can EQUALLY level the same charges at u. So in one way we could be part of something larger, but that larger would not exibit our qualities of the self.
I hope this answers your question, because I do not know how to make my point any clearer. It is obvious to most people that simply because we think an idea is "clear and distinct," that does not make the idea true. Descartes also was suspicious of rational thought as well. But in the end, he was a rationalist, and he believed his "proof" of God's existence was logically irrefutable, and for him, this was sufficient to convince him that he could, from that point, trust his reason.
Great video! Easy to listen to: Clear and Concise. Myself personally I might have mentioned the empiricists while touching base with the idea of rationalism. I just wonder where Descartes came up with the idea of perfection as being the explanation for god? I personally might argue that perfection is merely in the mind of the beholder, as I somehow feel you might agree with. Sounds almost like he was trying to not get in trouble with the church :-p
Thank you enjoyed very much
Thank you!
Thank you.
@Hythloday71 I will try one last time to clarify my point. Descartes did not say initially that all "clear and distinct" ideas are true. He said the Cogito was true, and secondly, the idea that only a perfect being could implant the notion of perfection was also self-evidently true. Descartes felt that this proved God's existence. Therefore, since God is not an evil demon, THEN, as a result, our rational thinking can be trusted. This is not circular reasoning.
Very good! Helped me a lot. :)
Rene's idea of perfection is just his idea; him saying it was perfect was just his ego reflecting off it.
"I think therefore I am" irrefutable logic? I have "scientifically"-supported reasons to
question his idea of "I." I also have "scientifically"-supported reasons to question his idea of "think." I have philosophically-unsupported reasons to question "therefore." {No I don't - but I'm working on it.}
thanks.
hi, Dr. Miller! I personally adhere to the idea that existence doesn't need to be proven. it is simply self-evident that existence exists and, therefore, needs no further-rationale' for a basis to owe it's existence, too. In my opinion, Descartes got it backwards. instead of: 'I think, therefore I am', it should be: 'I am, therefore I think'. by proving that he exists, Descartes is also proving the existence of everyone-else, and, ultimately, existence itself. we 'all' have at least the 'potential' to think, but obviously we can't think without existing, first. taking-it even a step-further, we can't even exist without existence already in place ( even 'God' can't exist without existence already being a fundamental-principle of reality ). what kind of god is it that 'must' rely on existence to exist in order that, like the rest of us, can exist, himself!? the answer is quite-clear to me. a non-existent one. a truly good, divine, and ultimate-deity shouldn't have to rely on existence in order to exist, in the first-place. yet, that seems to be the case. it just doesn't make any-sense, and is at least one of the reasons why I respectfully don't believe in God. thanks. sincerely, brian filley.
Thanks!
@Hythloday71 I was not defending Descartes’ argument about God’s existence. I was simply trying to explain that he was not using circular reasoning. Some have claimed that he was saying: “I know God exists because I have this clear and distinct idea, and I know that I can trust clear and distinct ideas because God exists.” This is not what Descartes was saying.
@intermender - ur statement STILL 'requires' an 'him', hint, try re-writing without refering to the existence of 'him' / urself etc etc
Wow!!! Thank you!
@Hythloday71 - it is my contention that they all would EXist and have right to postulate correctly as Descartes does.
thank you so much loved it, very informative and very well explained :):)
Descartes said "I think therefore I am". Is this true? Even thought we experience thought how do we know it is us that is doing the thinking since the thoughts we are having could be coming from somewhere else? How do we know that our thoughts aren't controlled by something else? Is "There are thoughts"more appropriate? Surely thoughts cant exist without a thinker to think them? Or is there such a thing as a self aware thought? If we are forced to have these thoughts by something else does that mean we have no reason and could not know anything?
@boardfu As a matter of fact, Descartes was trying to use reason and philosophy to provide a foundation for faith and for belief in Catholic doctrine. Unfortunately for him, even though he was trying to defend Catholicism, his theories were not universally welcomed by the Catholic Church.
@wmiller24 - I am not saying 'A', Descartes was not saying 'A'
@alifeofreason His influence is probably less known or harder to pinpoint because Spinozas work was largely banned after he died. But there's no doubt he's had a major influence on modern philosophy despite this, more than descartes though? Hard to say, but I'dd love to hear your opinion :) I'm writing a paper on the two philosophers and their infuence on philosophy and modern science.
i have an exam on the meditations of descartes. i hope that it goes well =D
Could anyone point me to the citation of Descartes in french, where he says; "There is not theory or opinion, however absurd or incredible, which has not been maintained by some one or other of our philosophers". ??? Thanks in advance.
Why couldn't the evil demon deceive Descartes' senses to the point where he believes that he is thinking, but in fact he is just being manipulated by the demon? Also, why couldn't Descartes' strong convictions about perfection be results of the evil demon's manipulation of his senses?
So, Descartes is not saying, initially, that all clear and distinct ideas can be trusted. It is only after he "proves" God's existence that he says that, THEREFORE, we can now trust our clear and distinct rational thoughts. Most philosophers do not agree with Descartes' logic regarding his proof for God's existence. Neither am I defending that position. I am only stating that FROM DESCARTES' POINT OF VIEW, he felt that he had proved God's existence, and therefore could trust rational thought.
There are two problems with Descartes' reasoning here. One is that most people do not find his proof of God's existence to be convincing. The second problem is that, even if God exists, and even if God created us, that does not rule out the possible existence of the evil demon. Hence, even if God does exist, there might still be an evil demon who fills our minds with bizarre thoughts and perceptions but also makes us think that those thoughts and perceptions are logically "clear and distinct."
the "I" In I think there for I am is a bit of an assumption ,also The concept of perfection stuff ... well where do you start on the flaws there :) but saying all that he was well ahead of his time .good video you're obviously well read .
Please support "Armis For Schools Worldwide"
Armis is a high strategy brain game enjoyed online in 109 countries.
@Hythloday71 I didn't say I agreed with Descartes. I just said he was not guilty of circular reasoning.
Great vid except for the end, i don't think u explained 'what he really meant' as apposed to the opposition he faces. For me it is straight forward faulty logic. The properties of 'clear and distinct' do not endow truth on anything.
ive honestly thought this before.. but i was on alot of mushrooms or acid..i drew some wild stuff.. i wrote my thoughts down the next day, that what if this is all a dream.. or schizophrenic reality.... or what if this is afterlife?
The three titanic minds of Philosophy : Descartes, Hume, Husserl.
Question: is something feeling logically clear and distinct any grounds for believing it actually is ? Do u agree that u make the case that Descartes WAS using this idea as central justification of a CONCLUSION. ? if so i understood u fully. if not, then not so. The confusion, is, if i understood u, i didn't get how this was framed as something as a mitigator in his defense.
sorry if I ask, but what is your full name W.Miller? and do you teach at an university? I really love your work , but am just asking this questions because my professor said me I should state my sources of information about a task I had!
Doubt everything... That's my kind of philosophy... I doubt I even exist if I do I'm not typing this message to know I'm existing...
Great video :)
But I have to comment on how you phrase one thing. You talk of the perfect beeing as God, but Descartes didn't interprit his perfect beeing as God, but as a god. He doesn't have any distinct reference to a specific god as it sounds like you do in this video. But apart from that, a great video. Thanks :)
Descartes is most certainly talking about the Christian god, not "a god." He was a pious Catholic, and the original Latin title of the Third Meditation is De Deo, quòd existat. ("That God exists.").
Not at all, not at all. I wouldn't have gotten an A on my exam on that exact subject if Descartes depicted it as the Christian god. Remember the fact that Descartes doubted everything at start and used it as a factor to find truth. He didn't have any depictations of anything on beforehand and described at last only a allknowing beeing (since he wasn't allknowing, there must be something allknowing somewhere) and called it a god, but this was never reffered to as the christian god.
I'm glad you "got an A" on an exam, but that doesn't somehow demonstrate you're correct. Some of us are professors of philosophy, and have studied Descartes' philosophy for more than 20 years, and, therefore, have an advanced understanding of the issues that goes beyond undergraduate philosophical study. When you're fluent enough in Latin to read the original text, come back and we'll talk some more. Accessibility to the texts in their original language is necessary...until then, enjoy your A and keep up the work!
nahzrat still standing with the fact that Decartés was bot indeed tolking about a christian god, but an allknowing, perfect beeing. "Since I am imperfect, there has to be something perfect" But of cource, if you as a christian reader interprit this as your christian god cause you think he is perfect, that's your choice. This is what our professors, who may not be as narrowminded as you, has concluded with.
Have a nice day
AndLunMusic I'm neither Christian nor narrow-minded. I'm simply pointing out what Descartes, himself, states in the preface to his Meditations, which is available for anyone to read.
If Descartes did not exist, then whose senses would the evil demon be manipulating?
@93CuteGurl lol i have an exam on Thursday too about the same stuff. Good Luck !!!
Why did the Creator "allow" Rene to discover the cartesian system and not someone else?
#manyPiecesOfTheJigsawPuzzleOnTheTableNotCoonnectedYet
can someone highlight good books on philosophers to read.
Descartes saw this as the same kind of irrefutable logic as the Cogito and felt that this proved God’s existence. He went on to say that, if God exists, then God would not deceive us, and we should therefore be able to trust our clear and distinct (logical) ideas and, for the most part, our perceptions as well. If one accepts his proof of God's existence, then the corollary (we can trust our logic and senses) also is plausible, and, at the very least, is not a case of circular reasoning.
from plato.
santa talking about knowledge!
but i like it!
@wmiller24 - It seems to me your saying 'A'. I'm sorry ur still unclear to me. What matters, i guess, is i am pressing the point that he was guilty of fallicious reasoning. I need to be explicit and ask, do u think not ? I guess i need to clarify why i think so, i have given strong indictation i feel, i will clarify if u think u can defend the position. Ok, re-read again, a little clearer, but still, I AM NOT SAYING .... bla bla, still interested in ur position of his logic
@wmiller24
Probably a bit more well received than anything Luther had to say hm?
@wmiller24 - "secondly, the idea that only a perfect being could implant the notion of perfection was also self-evidently true" - this conjunction in the antecedent is problematic for me. A def of circular reasoning is the containment of the premise in the conclusion .. is it not? For me this assumption, means he can NEVER logicall infer the existence of god, which is as u state in ur vid at least part of his goal. I accept in the above form the guilt is not circ but one of faulty assumption.
His island is his subjective thoughs and views. How does he work out their is objective truths or facts.
He sounds like Bagpuss. Especially at 13:05 - 13:13. An American Pagpuss (:
Descartes has blundered. There is a method by which you can transcend thinking. It is not a forced mechanic, it is something that does require a bit of practice but can be done. Since this can be done, when you actually cease thinking do you cease to exist? While in this state you do not fathom the self or that you are even there at all. There is no thought at all or connection to awareness as an observer. This leads me to believe that thinking doesn't constitute existence at all.
@Hythloday7 - but this completely re-iterates Descartes point. You can know nothing about the existence of other 'I' s . Only urself. I won't try to convince u that u R a figure of my mind, since it is actually beyond reasoning possibility for me to show. Like wise u 2 i. But, we can surmise, perhaps?, that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. I can probably say it is a duck. I am trying to say, that if minds are so convoluted that they create other minds, how decide which is primary
@MrFlyingeclipse gl then =D
what if u don't think are u there.
Louis CK's long lost brother!
Evil demons? Really?
hyper bollocks hahahah