18

Death is not the opposite of existence. The opposite of existence of is non-existence, and the opposite of death is life. Existence does not necessarily entail life, but life necessarily entails existence. So when philosophers argue for the existence of God, they're not arguing that he is "alive", and thus the notion of death is not applicable.


14

It is common nowadays to distinguish substance from property dualism. No major philosopher has advocated substance dualism since Descartes himself, but a large number of philosophers have advocated property dualism. This is a view which classifies the properties of objects as being of two kinds, physical and mental, while maintaining monism or quietism ...


14

This might seem strange to you but I've always thought that the best mathematical analogue of the cogito is some fixed point theorem, let's say Brouwer's fixed point theorem (the point can be made with most of them.) In its simplest form this states that any continuous function f from a closed disc to itself has a fixed point. So the idea is that any way you ...


11

Disclaimer, some of this post may not make sense to you, as the OP has rewritten his argument numerous times, and I am not deleting any of this so, skip to the end for newest most relevant information. Descartes has made a mistake in logic which has not been caught for the past 350 years. No, he hasn't. You are falling into a fallacy of false premise, ...


10

You're reading Descartes out of context; he doesn't just say "cogito ergo sum" and go home, he says it in the course of an argument. I'm not going to rehearse all of the steps of the argument here-- the Meditations on First Philosophy are readily available, and easy to read-- but in broad strokes, he's asking: what do we know indubitably? Is there any kind ...


10

Descartes was the modern founder of what is called foundationalism about knowledge, the idea that we must find a secure self-evident ground from which all the rest of our knowledge can be justified. Many classical philosophers (e.g. Plato, Kant, Frege, Husserl) shared this belief, and some continue to share it. The alternative, they believe, is universal ...


9

Does thinking imply existing? Descartes argues yes: it is impossible for anything to think which does not exist. Does existing imply thinking? Most people would say no. Most would say that a rock exists, and the rock does not think. Therefore it is possible for something to exist which doesn't think. As such, the basic claim doesn't go both ways. ...


8

What is the analogous mathematical/logical expression to the last sentence? Why would there be one? Wittgenstein famously gave up the project of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus when he saw that there was no logical form to the Sraffa gesture; this led to the realization that there are all kinds of things which cannot be reduced to a mathematical or ...


8

Touch is just another form of sensory input subject to imperfect reading of the world like any other sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactile_illusion The whole phantom limb phenomenon involves massive deception, not sure whether this fits in your categorization of "tact". (Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind - fascinating and ...


8

To suggest a different perspective, Whitehead writes the following: (page 8-9) The Reformation and the scientific movement were two aspects of the historical revolt which was the dominant intellectual movement of the later Renaissance. The appeal to the origins of Christianity, and Francis Bacon's appeal to efficient causes as against final causes, were ...


7

There was a revolution in mathematics because of Descartes, back in the 1600's. He invented the method of using the mapping from geometric objects to coordinates and algebraic equations, where a quicker rote symbolic proof was possible in comparison to many synthetic proofs (like those in Euclid). What's great about mathematics is that we learn it all in ...


7

Following John Cottingham, I would suggest the answer has to do with what is called the "Cartesian Circle." While Descartes is often associated with radical doubt, the reality is that his Meditations escape from doubt pretty quickly. And the key to that is God. Meditation 1 ends roughly at the idea that he could be deceived by an evil demon and everything ...


7

Many would are argue that you are right, the demon is still successful in his deception. DesCartes claims in the cogito that he has proven the existence of an "I", since for there to be deception, there has to be thinking, and for there to be thinking there has to be an "I" that does the thinking. Hence "I think, therefore I am". Several philosophers, ...


7

Descartes' Meditations (1641), III.2 : illud omne esse verum, quòd valde clare & distincte percipio. John Veitch English translation of 1901 : all that is very clearly and distinctly apprehended (conceived) is true. See also Principia Philosophiae (1644), Pars prima, XXX : omnia qua clare percepimus, vera esse.


6

Does the concept of existence entail the concept of death? Absolutely not. The concept of "immortality" clearly demonstrates that it doesn't.


6

If the simulation trilemma is correct, it is also trivial Reading through the Bostrom paper the first time, I missed his definition of "posthuman". Thankfully, the term is defined: The simulation argument works equally well for those who think that it will take hundreds of thousands of years to reach a “posthuman” stage of civilization, where humankind ...


6

The distinction between formal and objective reality in Descartes is elucidated on Brown's web page. Formal reality refers to the reality of an object by virtue of the kind of thing it is (infinite, finite, modes/thoughts). Descartes view of formal reality is encapsulated in this online commentary: "When Descartes speaks of things as having more or less ...


6

The thing is, that for the early Wittgenstein the Cogito Ergo Sum was just not true. So the Cogito could not be true a priori for him. Like David Hume, Wittgenstein believed that the Cartesian Ego, the thinking subject, was nowhere to be found. 5.631 There is no such thing as the subject that thinks or entertains ideas. If I wrote a book called The World ...


6

From meditation 1: , sed genium aliquem malignum eundemque summe potentem et callidum omnem suam industriam in eo posuisse, ut me falleret: (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23306/23306-h/23306-h.htm) genium malignum --> evil genius or possibly genius malignus depending on how he's doing his declining of Latin. In translation: but some evil genius ...


6

Mechanist (or mechanical) philosophy, in the original sense, meant the rejection of "substantial forms", i.e. forms with causal powers, such as souls, postulated by scholastics (who drew on some vague passages from Aristotle's De Anima). For a detailed discussion of substantial forms see How can the soul be a form in Aristotle's metaphysics? From the modern ...


5

The description here offered suggests that God Himself can not change His will. Isn't this account contradictory with His nature? Not really. What could cause an omniscient, omnipotent being to change its mind? Surely there can be no new information or surprises to respond to; the passage of time would be irrelevant. Also, regardless of this apparent ...


5

There are two questions here. The first is the title question: "Is the Cartesian methodological doubt deeply flawed?" There are some folks who would argue the answer to this is "Yes", and would argue this for various reasons, depending on their own philosophical projects. The second, however, is the narrower question referred to in the text, which is the ...


5

But Descartes clearly indicates that he actually had this thought in winter 1619 under very special circumstances Actually, the circumstances are even more special than you indicate; Descartes had a series of three dreams on the night of November 10, 1619, which he viewed as a divine sign, and which directly inspired the project that consumed the rest of ...


5

I doubt there are any direct analogs. Capturing the essence of "doubting" (which is a manifestation of human emotion(s)) mathematically or logically is a very tricky thing to do, if not impossible. For example, what is the mathematical or logical equivalent of anger, happiness, confusion? At any rate, I believe the underlying process by which the conclusion ...


5

For example he said that you cannot know your pain because you cannot doubt that you are in pain. I don't quite understand this thinking and am wondering if anyone can clarify this concept. I'm not sure I can write it any more than Wittgenstein, but I'll try to unpack it a bit: Another way in which the grammars of "I have toothache" and "He has toothache"...


5

My understanding of Descartes' contribution to geometry is the observation that curves can be expressed as algebraic formulae. If you have taken a bit of schooling, this observation has almost certainly impacted you (e.g. you will learn that plotting y = x^2 with the appropriate coordinate system gives a hyperbola, x^2 + y^2 = 1 gives a circle, ...). ...


5

I believe you're referring to the fallacy of inferring the “sum” (or “I am”) part from the “cogito” (or “I think”) part, right? The “ergo” (or “therefore”) makes it sound like Descartes is expressing an argument which has as its premise that he thinks, and the conclusion that he exists. The potential fallacy in this representation of the Cogito statement ...


5

Yes, of course. This idea is most famously discussed in Nick Bostrom's Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? Note that "Roko's Basilisk" is doing no real work for you here – you don't need any esoteric forms of decision theory to accept Bostrom's argument.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible