Cartesian axioms

[Frankie]

I read on waitbutwhy that 'In our lives, the only true axiom is “I exist.” Beyond that, nothing is for sure'.
I tried to argue that the only true axiom in life is 'I die', by reasoning that we're not even sure of our existence (The Matrix?).
But then I thought, to die, I would have to exist; but I don't have to die in order to exist. It turns out that everything that dies, exists (humans), but not everything that exists dies (The universe?). Thus, existence is a constant; whereas, death is variable.

It's like I'm going around in circles once I ask questions like:
-Is existence guaranteed (fertilisation)? If so, what guarantees it?

Please help me out of my misery
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/11/the-cook-and-the-chef-musks-secret-sauce.html#2

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Re: 'Circular reasoning'

There are no axioms. Everything ever said and thought is an attempt at simplifying the reality.

The only true thing, is the impossible to describe experience of consciousness that everyone is imparted with.

Your existence will be eternal, because at no point you'll feel anything else than that.

There were no transitory states, no beginning and no end to your consciousness, despite it being limited in time.

Existence is validated by the only thing an intelligent being has, by its state of mindfulness of any single thing.

 

[Hadoblado]

Renamed. Please be more specific when making a title. Circular reasoning would imply a discussion of abstract logic, or possibly even geometry :P

I'd argue death is inevitable but not guaranteed. As in, yes you will die, but no, not necessarily everything does. One could tactically demarcate terms to define a product that never expires. For instance, maybe the universe dies, but does the potential for a universe die? Does a multiverse die? When thinking in 11 dimensions, how can anything truly cease to exist?

Waitbutwhy is certainly incorrect in stating: 'In our lives, the only true axiom is “I exist.” Beyond that, nothing is for sure'. Existence is A predicate of thought in any example where the above sentence holds true. Every time someone thinks they exist, they think. Therefore, both thinking and existing would be axiomatic by any definition that included existence. It can't be true that existence is the only axiom.

The matrix is not sufficient counterexample to existence. If you're a simulation, you still exist, just not in the same way you understand it. That's still existing.

Finally, all of this Cartesian deconstruction assumes logic and meaning. So if thinking and existence are axioms, so is logic (if I'm being chartiable, if I weren't, I'd argue that presupposing logic eliminates them as possible axioms). Since we can't be sure of logic, as Blar said, there are no perfect axioms.

 

[Yellow]

Is existence really required for consciousness? It seems that consciousness (defined as the force that leads us to ask these questions) is the only thing we can be sure of. Everything else can be an illusion (like the matrix), or it can be relative (like we are characters in someone else's story). In that way, we can't know if death is even a thing. It could be a fabrication that occurs when our consciousness ceases to recognize a thought or line of thinking. We can't even be sure if we are in control of our consciousness. All we can know is that it is.

 

[Haim]

Exist is only a concept in the brain,when we say exist we are really referring to the idea of existence,the way we experience the world.If we were to live constantly in a dream the meaning of exist won't stay the same,I am saying that "exist" apply only to context our universe and not to theoretical Matrix universe.In the end all this discussion is meaningless,we are limited by the way the brain is structured,the sole reason of this discussion is some error or paradox in the way we look at it.Axioms itself is also human concept and because it is other limited thing as ourself,because it is only part of ourself we can declare it exists because exist itself is also limited and not obsolete.
We can not go beyond words,trying to go above it will still make you use words and make you the false idea that words can ever truly absolutely exist outside our brain,that way you create a paradox in the brain like "what is the meaning of life",assuming meaning can exist outside your subjective brain.

 

[JimJambones]

What is most interesting to me is that if it were any other of my father's sperm that fertilized my mother's egg, I would be someone else and wouldn't exist or have any consciousness whatsoever.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Descartes was full of shit and the only reason people on the street still know his name is the despicable state of higher education.

"I exist"? No. Enter "skeptic demon" or whatever (like he said he would) and suddenly we're not sure if it's really I that exists. All we know is that that which exists exists, which is trivial semantic shuffling and not some basis for anything, especially not for whatever.

Descartes has absolutely no value to offer this world.

 

[QuickTwist]

I think the only thing we really know is that there is "a" consciousness. It shouldn't be defined by mine, yours, ours whatever. The only thing we know is that there is something causing a consciousness somewhere, by something. Nothing else can be truly determined.

 

[Hadoblado]

Descartes was full of shit and the only reason people on the street still know his name is the despicable state of higher education.

"I exist"? No. Enter "skeptic demon" or whatever (like he said he would) and suddenly we're not sure if it's really I that exists. All we know is that that which exists exists, which is trivial semantic shuffling and not some basis for anything, especially not for whatever.

Descartes has absolutely no value to offer this world.

I think Descartes is great for teaching philosophy. I'm not really sure how many people take his meditations etc seriously. The impression I got from my professors was that people don't. For what it's worth I think he was asking the right questions, but talked himself up too much about the rigor with which he'd approach it. His doubt really wasn't that radical, and he ended up huffing up a chain of circular reasoning.

His failure is a study in delusion.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I think Descartes is great for teaching philosophy. I'm not really sure how many people take his meditations etc seriously. The impression I got from my professors was that people don't. For what it's worth I think he was asking the right questions, but talked himself up too much about the rigor with which he'd approach it. His doubt really wasn't that radical, and he ended up huffing up a chain of circular reasoning.

His failure is a study in delusion.

So why do students need to learn extensively about these old, stupid, inane theories? "Learn from history" is a dangerously over-extended heuristic.

How about teaching them the "important mistakes" of physics instead of... physics? No, that's not how it's done. But in philosophy it is.

It's irrelevant how seriously people take old nuts like Descartes. The problem is that they're even required or encouraged to know about useless theories just because they happened to end up in history. People think he's somehow important. Well, why is that? Let's talk some more about circularity...

 

[Analyzer]

It's irrelevant how seriously people take old nuts like Descartes. The problem is that they're even required or encouraged to know about useless theories just because they happened to end up in history. People think he's somehow important. Well, why is that? Let's talk some more about circularity...

Yeah also a lot of these theories from 1500 onward are just rehashed concepts from antiquity."Cartesian axioms" is just Aristotle 2.0 mixed in with some sub-developed ideas about science. Descartes was like the first academic philosopher, he studied ideas from the past and framed them in his own way. He was a fuck because he would say "only trust your own senses, write about things that haven't been written". Sure it might be nice to understand people from the modern era who have been deemed influential, but if you really want to understand history of philosophy studying the classics gets 80% of it out of the way.

 

[Yellow]

It's irrelevant how seriously people take old nuts like Descartes. The problem is that they're even required or encouraged to know about useless theories just because they happened to end up in history. People think he's somehow important. Well, why is that? Let's talk some more about circularity...

I think a diverse study of thinking is generally important for the youth. It gives us new thinks to think before we're too old to accept new thinks, which is a very real problem for a lot of people (especially those who aren't really into thinking as a rule). So the wider variety of thinks that can be crammed into their heads when they are young and open to thinks, the more thinks they can think when it's time for them to do their own thinking. Granted, there are a lot of good thinks to think from recent decades, but it is also good to know how the thinks came to be. For that, we need some of the older thinks too. Thinks. Thinks. Thinks.

 

[Haim]

So why do students need to learn extensively about these old, stupid, inane theories? "Learn from history" is a dangerously over-extended heuristic.

How about teaching them the "important mistakes" of physics instead of... physics? No, that's not how it's done. But in philosophy it is.

It's irrelevant how seriously people take old nuts like Descartes. The problem is that they're even required or encouraged to know about useless theories just because they happened to end up in history. People think he's somehow important. Well, why is that? Let's talk some more about circularity...

Just want to comment that you have bad example.we did learned,in high school,some of the important past mistakes of physics(like the model of earth and sun rotations),it is important in science specifically,in order to doubt current formal theories and see that it is possible for huge amount of people to believe stupid things(as we know today they are stupid) and it does not say the stupid things are likely to be correct.

 

[Yellow]

Spoiler

It's irrelevant how seriously people take old nuts like Descartes. The problem is that they're even required or encouraged to know about useless theories just because they happened to end up in history. People think he's somehow important. Well, why is that? Let's talk some more about circularity...

... I just wanted to quote this quote one more time for good measure.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Just want to comment that you have bad example.we did learned,in high school,some of the important past mistakes of physics(like the model of earth and sun rotations),it is important in science specifically,in order to doubt current formal theories and see that it is possible for huge amount of people to believe stupid things(as we know today they are stupid) and it does not say the stupid things are likely to be correct.

I was mainly referring to college/uni level.

Sure, geocentrism, heliocentrism, Newtonian space-time - these may be mentioned during intro. But the study of physics isn't largely the study of old failed physics. You're examined on reasoning within current, corroborated models. In philosophy the entire first course is history. You're examined on old dudes who were wrong because it's "important to understand where we're coming from". Well what about the actual subject? The framing implicitly undermines the validity and legitimacy of the field. Coincidentally this field is the crucial field of abstract reasoning. It's not good.

This may differ by locale but i believe my observation holds true in general. The problem is that the pseudo-science humanities have co-opted the foundational science of philosophy.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I think a diverse study of thinking is generally important for the youth. It gives us new thinks to think before we're too old to accept new thinks, which is a very real problem for a lot of people (especially those who aren't really into thinking as a rule). So the wider variety of thinks that can be crammed into their heads when they are young and open to thinks, the more thinks they can think when it's time for them to do their own thinking. Granted, there are a lot of good thinks to think from recent decades, but it is also good to know how the thinks came to be. For that, we need some of the older thinks too. Thinks. Thinks. Thinks.

So you advocate more meta-topic history in all educational subjects?

Otherwise you fail to argue why philosophy in particular should be bogged down by its past.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I can't contend your criticism of how humanities are taught, because I haven't attended philosophy courses, but for me it seems obvious that in order to understand the flaws in one's reasoning it's important to know what they were trying to say about the world.

So a fair groundwork needs to be done in order to dismiss past thinkers and use whatever useful things they had to say in addition to exploring existing ideas.

I'm not sure how falsifiable a philosophy is, other than by judging its application to reality. Philosophy is definitely much more focused on history, rather than applying scientific expectations to every school of thought.

About the curriculum material, it also varies. Most certainly, a truly dedicated student would have met the demanding competition of the market, after they finished a philosophy course, they would have to go above and beyond their bare bones of lectures and show real proactivity.

 

[Frankie]

If we define Philosophy as the study of general and fundamental problems and if we agree that there are no true axioms, then it makes sense to learn the history of philosophers and their different methods of reasoning, because one is exposed to different approaches to thinking and one learns the flaws in some of these approaches, so that they can be avoided.

 

[Yellow]

So you advocate more meta-topic history in all educational subjects?

Otherwise you fail to argue why philosophy in particular should be bogged down by its past.

When you put it that way, no. I am unreasonably repulsed by the prefix "meta". This isn't a rational disgust. I can't justify it.

But every subject is subject to the subject of the past and past subjects within the subject. It's just that the subjects of the subject go past it when the subject of the past has passed. I don't think the subject of philosophy is past that.

... oh my jellybean, I never realized how fun this could be!

 

[JimJambones]

"I think, therefore I have neural tissue."

 

[kora]

I read on waitbutwhy that 'In our lives, the only true axiom is “I exist.” Beyond that, nothing is for sure'.
I tried to argue that the only true axiom in life is 'I die', by reasoning that we're not even sure of our existence (The Matrix?).
But then I thought, to die, I would have to exist; but I don't have to die in order to exist. It turns out that everything that dies, exists (humans), but not everything that exists dies (The universe?). Thus, existence is a constant; whereas, death is variable.

It's like I'm going around in circles once I ask questions like:
-Is existence guaranteed (fertilisation)? If so, what guarantees it?

Please help me out of my misery
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/11/the-cook-and-the-chef-musks-secret-sauce.html#2

(didn't read thread in a lesson)

I don't get you, am I missing something? You are still certain you exist even if matrix scenario, even if all perception is illusion there is something the illusion is happening too, which means that your consciousness exists. This is the point of the axiom, as the first and only complete certainty. Nobody is a serious solipsist though.

Descartes talks a lot of shit but you can't (really) fault this.

 

[JimJambones]

Whether Cartesian axioms are true or not, they certainly have had an affect on modern thought and it would be important to know the ways in which older ideas spawned newer ones. If not true, I think it is important to know why they are largely rejected today and how to avoid similar pitfalls when creating new ideas with similar axioms.

 

[kora]

plz someone disprove "I think therefore I am" for me

 

[kora]

Descartes walks into a bar and asks for a drink, the barman gives him one and he downs it, the barman then asks him if he would like another, to which Descartes answers "I think not."


... And so he vanishes.

 

[JimJambones]

plz someone disprove "I think therefore I am" for me

Well science has advanced considerably since Descartes time and has demonstrated quite well that there does seem to be a world that exists independent of our conscious awareness of it. I think most reasonable people believe there are laws that when violated would end your conscious awareness of such laws. Such laws must exist prior to your awareness of them. Your existence is not all one is capable of proving.

 

[Seteleechete]

Well science has advanced considerably since Descartes time and has demonstrated quite well that there does seem to be a world that exists independent of our conscious awareness of it. I think most reasonable people believe there are laws that when violated would end your conscious awareness of such laws. Such laws must exist prior to your awareness of them. Your existence is not all one is capable of proving.

This doesn't really disprove "I think therefore I am" it just suggests that there is more to reality than you can comprehend.

As for there existing more to conscious reality than we can describe, it really seems like a Schrodinger's cat issue.

Also on the topic of Schrodinger's cat I have always found the idea of it existing and not existing at the same time confusing. Wouldn't something like "it may exist or it may not" be a more fitting description?

The status of its existence is unknown but so is every other possibility, for all we know a fox might be in the box instead, should we then consider that this hypothetical fox exists in the box and doesn't at the same time?

Reasoning it like "it exists and doesn't at the same time" seems absurd to me as the very statement is a contradiction for something that can be described without causing one.

 

[emmabobary]

Hmmmm
But axiom ≠ truth!
There are not true axioms.
If such a thing would exist then science wouln´t be needed to find the truth
There are statements we take for granted. As the idea of "whole"
Lacan says that when faced with a mirror the toddler is blitzed with the image of a body as a WHOLE. So in order for the self to be created, it`s structure has to lay in a couple of fundamental assumptions; in the ilussion of a whole.
So this is an axiom. The idea of whole-complete doesn`t exist in reality, at least we can`t prove it. But this is an assumption we`ve made in order to understand reality.
Therefore there is no such a thing as the "ultimate assumption".
Philosophy developes axioms, to describe a system that might fit in the collective reality.
........

If I want I can build a trascendental personal truth upon the idea: "the only truth is I don`t exist".


..............
.....................hmmm what was the thread about?
ok!
existence is not guaranteed,
not even in the symbolic.
It`s a matter of our system of beliefs.

 

[~~~]

plz someone disprove "I think therefore I am" for me

You don't think therefore you are not.

 

[Seteleechete]

You don't think therefore you are not.

One of my sayings is "I die when I stop thinking" if I think, I am and if I am, I live. I use it as a basis in regards to afterlife/clone/teleportation/mental degradation/cyborg/reincarnation/etc. issues in regards to death/self-identity.

 

[JimJambones]

This doesn't really disprove "I think therefore I am" it just suggests that there is more to reality than you can comprehend.

As for there existing more to conscious reality than we can describe, it really seems like a Schrodinger's cat issue.

Also on the topic of Schrodinger's cat I have always found the idea of it existing and not existing at the same time confusing. Wouldn't something like "it may exist or it may not" be a more fitting description?

The status of its existence is unknown but so is every other possibility, for all we know a fox might be in the box instead, should we then consider that this hypothetical fox exists in the box and doesn't at the same time?

Reasoning it like "it exists and doesn't at the same time" seems absurd to me as the very statement is a contradiction for something that can be described without causing one.

I'm just using methodological skepticism to doubt ideas that can reasonably be doubted....haha.

With regards to Schrodinger's cat. It is just a thought experiment to demonstrate how random quantum mechanics is and that it is like exising and not existing at the same time, not that it actually is.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

plz someone disprove "I think therefore I am" for me

You don't think therefore you are not.

This is not a valid negation*, because "I think therefore I am" doesn't explicitly assume that's the only possible state of existence, it merely posits one possibility.

If I think then I exist is not the same as If and only if I think then I exist. The latter could be disproved with your contraposition.

*Assuming you were trying to prove the contradiction as per Higs request.

 

[kora]

Well science has advanced considerably since Descartes time and has demonstrated quite well that there does seem to be a world that exists independent of our conscious awareness of it. I think most reasonable people believe there are laws that when violated would end your conscious awareness of such laws. Such laws must exist prior to your awareness of them. Your existence is not all one is capable of proving.

If you read Descartes you will see that he does not say the external world doesn't exist, he says only that this is the first most immediate and certain truth, and to be honest this is correct, our first and most direct access to the world is our own consciousness, he says himself that no one is seriously solopsist. Actually he is trying to ground science in certainty, and does "prove" the external world a few chapters later, although the rest of his reasoning is pretty shaky, requires God intervening and ontological argument and stuff.

Solopsism not disproved by modern science either, in the end our only direct access to the world is through subjective qualia, the best argument I have found against it to date is to repeatedly hit solopsist in question screaming DON'T WORRY I'M NOT ACTUALLY HITTING YOU THE EXTERNAL WORLD IS AN ILLUSION

 

[Seteleechete]

This is not a valid negation*, because "I think therefore I am" doesn't explicitly assume that's the only possible state of existence, it merely posits one possibility.

If I think then I exist is not the same as If and only if I think then I exist. The latter could be disproved with your contraposition.

*Assuming you were trying to prove the contradiction as per Higs request.

Wouldn't it also work with "if and only if I think then I exist" just with the conclusion being in flux. When you think you exist and when you don't think you don't exist(from your own perspective, you can cease existing when you stop thinking and start existing again when you start thinking again).

So it wouldn't necessarily disprove that statement either? Though it does depend on from which perspective "existence" is decided.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Wouldn't it also work with "if and only if I think then I exist" just with the conclusion being in flux. When you think you exist and when you don't think you don't exist(from your own perspective, you can cease existing when you stop thinking and start existing again when you start thinking again).

So it wouldn't necessarily disprove that statement either? Though it does depend on from which perspective "existence" is decided.

Binary logic doesn't assume perspectives, unless otherwise stated. A proposition is either true for all cases, false for all cases, or cannot be assigned a truth value and doesn't constitute a valid logical sentence.

I disagree; I can feel my existence even without thinking, I still have my consciousness.

 

[Seteleechete]

I disagree; I can feel my existence even without thinking, I still have my consciousness.

Can you "have"(idk what word is best) consciousness without thinking? I kinda just bundled all those concepts together and called them thinking.

Also, I wasn't really trying to use formal logic(or know how it works anyway). Tough I guess it has to be an invalid statement unless it's (much)more extensively defined then.

 

[kora]

^

#teamBlarraun

 

[kora]

Can you "have"(idk what word is best) consciousness without thinking? I kinda just bundled all those concepts together and called them thinking.

I think later on he goes on to say "I think therefore I am" works in any other way, "I walk therefore I am", "I dance the macarena therefore I am" whatever. Your conscious experience proves you exist, basically. It sounds quite trivial in a way but I like it.

 

[redbaron]

The only old cunt worth reading is Kant.

 

[kora]

To be honest he talks quite a lot of crap too, but I <3 him very much.

 

[redbaron]

Kant is the bestest anyone who disagrees is scum.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I think later on he goes on to say "I think therefore I am" works in any other way, "I walk therefore I am", "I dance the macarena therefore I am" whatever. Your conscious experience proves you exist, basically. It sounds quite trivial in a way but I like it.

Yeah, that's funny, again it shows how a single thing one person said is being used to overshadow their complete work or conclusions.

Similar to how E=mc^2 or "insert famous quote" are being used out of context.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I wonder what people on this forum think of Kant's divine command theory.

As for "I think therefore I am", that's actually more of a evolutionary derivative from "I am who I am" from Exodus. GASP! history of ideas...

As for philosophy being an obscure 'subject' all what it is is just a bunch of ideas about the world. The problem more comes from the metamorphosis of the interpretations and readmission of those same ideas in different cultural-historical terminology.

There's also a possibility that most philosophers are actually talking about the same thing.

Btw that link in the OP (which no one gave a reply to) seems just like another rehash of the Hero's Journey meta(narrative).

 

[emmabobary]

To be honest he talks quite a lot of crap too, but I <3 him very much.

Hmmmmm
He talks a lot of crap compared to who?
I admire Kant, what he wrote finaly broke up with the idea of the individual as an object that can be known. Therefore, crated another level of reflexion kind of like tha MOI and the JE of Lacan.

*cough*-cut it out with that guy!- *cough*

 

[Brontosaurie]

The only old cunt worth reading is Kant.

Immanuel Cunt

 

[JimJambones]

If you read Descartes you will see that he does not say the external world doesn't exist, he says only that this is the first most immediate and certain truth, and to be honest this is correct, our first and most direct access to the world is our own consciousness, he says himself that no one is seriously solopsist. Actually he is trying to ground science in certainty, and does "prove" the external world a few chapters later, although the rest of his reasoning is pretty shaky, requires God intervening and ontological argument and stuff.

Solopsism not disproved by modern science either, in the end our only direct access to the world is through subjective qualia, the best argument I have found against it to date is to repeatedly hit solopsist in question screaming DON'T WORRY I'M NOT ACTUALLY HITTING YOU THE EXTERNAL WORLD IS AN ILLUSION

I am just saying that existence is not the only thing that cannot be doubted. Descartes said it was. It may very well be the first thing one cannot doubt to exist, but it is not the only thing.

 

[Stagename]

It's like I'm going around in circles once I ask questions like:
-Is existence guaranteed (fertilisation)? If so, what guarantees it?

Existence is guaranteed when the question is asked by the subject in question, and directed at himself. Perspective matters, as always.

 

[Haim]

I will reparse what I said earlier.
"I think,therefore I doubt,therefore I am."
But "I am" is only saying I can be sure the my idea of me existence is true.That is a circular logic error,if your idea of your existence was not true in your brain,than you would have had other idea.
It is saying I can be sure me idea is true,of course you think your idea is true otherwise you wouldn't had him.The statement is no different than the proving that if "I think my idea is correct" then it is correct in your mind.
Because "I am"("I exist") depends on your interpretation of existences idea,it is not meaningful.

 

[Brontosaurie]

phililosophy image

 

[Stagename]

But "I am" is only saying I can be sure the my idea of me existence is true.That is a circular logic error,if your idea of your existence was not true in your brain,than you would have had other idea.

P1: If I think, then I am.
P2: I think.
C: I am.

This is not circular. The statement that "I think, therefore I am" is viewed in regard to solipsism, which is the idea that no one can really know that anything outside of their own thoughts is real. You might be a figment of my own imagination, and there is no way to prove your existence to me. This is because every aspect external to my mind is interpreted by my mind. And so is any illusion that might appear. As long as I am fooled by an illusion, I cannot tell that the illusion is not real.

I know that I think, but I can never know if you think, or of you are merely a philosophical zombie which only reacts automatically to your environment without conscious awareness. I cannot experience and inspect your qualia. Only my own. Therefore the subjective evidence for my existence is only valid to myself, as I am the only one who can inspect premise 2 above. So, it is not circular. The premises are valid, and they are evidently sound when regarded from my own perspective. However, when regarded from any other perspective, P2 is not convincing, and its soundness cannot be verified.

Because "I am"("I exist") depends on your interpretation of existences idea,it is not meaningful.

Existence means that something actually is, and not merely appears to be. The quote by Descartes does not specify type of existence, only fact of existence.

 

[Haim]

Existence means that something actually is, and not merely appears to be. The quote by Descartes does not specify type of existence, only fact of existence.

Without being sure what existence is,saying you have existence isn't really saying anything meaningful at all.
So you exist,but what is exist?if you can not be sure of it you are stuck to the same problem.What are you saying be saying you exist?
Where?what is I?if all the world is illusion what exist is?