0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Any new knowledge starts with inductive reasoning, in which a body of observations is synthesized to come up with a general principle. That's exactly what Descartes did: Quote from: DescartesAccordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; And because some men err in reasoning, and fall into Paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of Geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for Demonstrations; And finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be something;
Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; And because some men err in reasoning, and fall into Paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of Geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for Demonstrations; And finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be something;
Keppler formulated his laws from observational results of planets appearance positions through out many years. Newton formulated his universal gravitation from observing a falling apple and compared it to the moon orbiting the earth. Einstein postulated his constancy of speed of light from other scientists' experimental results.
None of the preceding text seems relevant.
I notice Descartes also eventually concluded God and soul, exactly as he was striving for since one was not really permitted to conclude otherwise back then. Sorry, I don’t have a strong opinion of philosophy from the era when the church had a stranglehold on all thinking.
Read the bit about the pineal gland, probably selected due to its immunity from investigation at the time.
Rejecting Descartes' conclusion means that we must doubt everything, including our own existence.
We don't reject someone's assertion just because he made mistakes somewhere else.
That doesn't follow. You are free to not doubt it if you want. I cannot think of a philosophical assertion that is necessarily true. By definition, they wouldn't be philosophy if they were. That does not mean that we must all be radical skeptics. You choose your beliefs typically to conform to your comfort. But that doesn't give you any right to assert that your beliefs are necessarily true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum#InterpretationAs put succinctly by Krauth (1872), "That cannot doubt which does not think, and that cannot think which does not exist. I doubt, I think, I exist."[33]The phrase cogito, ergo sum is not used in Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy but the term "the cogito" is used to refer to an argument from it. In the Meditations, Descartes phrases the conclusion of the argument as "that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind" (Meditation II).At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt—his argument from the existence of a deceiving god—Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence, he finds that it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon), one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for there is no way one could be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17)[y]There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he claims only the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Second, he does not say that his existence is necessary; he says that if he thinks, then necessarily he exists (see the instantiation principle). Third, this proposition "I am, I exist" is held true not based on a deduction (as mentioned above) or on empirical induction but on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition. Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to discover further truths.[40] As he puts it:Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable. (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)[y]According to many Descartes specialists, including Étienne Gilson, the goal of Descartes in establishing this first truth is to demonstrate the capacity of his criterion — the immediate clarity and distinctiveness of self-evident propositions — to establish true and justified propositions despite having adopted a method of generalized doubt. As a consequence of this demonstration, Descartes considers science and mathematics to be justified to the extent that their proposals are established on a similarly immediate clarity, distinctiveness, and self-evidence that presents itself to the mind. The originality of Descartes's thinking, therefore, is not so much in expressing the cogito—a feat accomplished by other predecessors, as we shall see—but on using the cogito as demonstrating the most fundamental epistemological principle, that science and mathematics are justified by relying on clarity, distinctiveness, and self-evidence. Baruch Spinoza in "Principia philosophiae cartesianae" at its Prolegomenon identified "cogito ergo sum" the "ego sum cogitans" (I am a thinking being) as the thinking substance with his ontological interpretation.
So my point was that the statement was presented as being necessarily true, and such a statement must be accompanied by a demonstration of that necessity, which it wasn't. He's not wording it as a premise, to be doubted or not at one's choice. Both of you present it as a necessity, and you still refuse to demonstrate that necessity despite multiple requests for that demonstration.
I came up with a counterexample, so unless you can find a flaw in that counterexample, the necessity of your statement has been proven wrong.If it's not necessarily true, then the statement is reduced to a mere premise, something that one is free to accept or decline as suits your fancy.
The only thing that I can't doubt is my own existence.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2021 03:51:22The only thing that I can't doubt is my own existence. What evidence do you have for it?
Wrong! Evidence and axioms are quite different. Evidence is what happens, axioms are the assumptions we make to model the evidence.
Galileo challenged Aristotle's gravity model by asking what happens if you attach a light object to a heavy one.
Galileo didn't present his argument as beginning with a doubt, but asking "what if" - the scientific test of a hypothesis. Sometimes we get the answer by experiment, but occasionally (as in this case) the question reveals an inconsistency that demands explanation or a variation of the hypothesis.