Café Philosophique

[Darnoc]

It was René Descartes in his book "Meditationes de Prima Philosophica", he lived in the 16th/17th century and the sentence is "Cogito ergo sum" - "I think therefor I am".

 

He thought about tearing everything he believed in and building on a new fundament. He first mistrusted his senses (the senses can trick you), then his conscisnous (you can't know if anything is just a dream and dreams are the reality) and at last his own existence. Then he thought that he couldn't deny that he is doubting. So, when he can't deny that he is doubting, which means that he is thinking, he at least must exist. With this he means that every person can be sure that he/she at least does exist.

 

Now, this argument of Descartes was later disproved, many centuries later. The first one to criticise Descartes were the Empirists, but their models even had more flaws than the one of Descartes and they couldn't really disprove them. Until Immanuel Kant came.

 

He said that neither rationalist, like Descartes, nor empirists were right. They looked the wrong way at things. We look at an object and try to gain an "objective" knowlegde about this object. We were "circling" around this object like people in former times believed the sun was circling around the earth. What Kant now did suggest was like what Copernicus suggested for Astronomy, therefore his suggestion is called the "corpernical reversal of philosophy".

 

He suggested that we can't circle around those objects and try to gain knowledge this way. It is the just the other way round: Objects are "circling" us and we look at them from our position. Practically this means: Objects look different when you are a different person, because every person has a different position (not just physically). It is not possible to gain any knowlegde about the objects themselves but only of the appearances of those objects, which is determined by our point of view!

 

Kant now defines three fields of existence: The objects themselves, the appearances of these objects and the subject looking at those objects. The objects themselves we can't observe, this matter is for beliefs and religions. This means, science and philosophy are only looking at the appearances of objects.

 

Now, what has this to do with what Descartes did say? He said the same, didn't he? No, he didn't. Descartes said that you could be sure that you existed. Kant didn't say that. Why? Because when you are looking at yourselve you are no longer the subject, you are somehow stepping outside of yourselve and so you are again looking at the appearance of an object which appears (depending on the point of view) to be you. What Descartes calls "I" and what Kant calls "The Subject" isn't the same. The subject is undefined, is something outside of what we are observing. If now Kants theory is true, we can't be sure if we do exist and so therefore Descartes is disproved.

 

Kants theory of the "copernical reversal of philosophy" is nowadays accepted by most philosophers to be true. It's just because we can observe this in our everyday life. You can't gain any knowlegde about the real world, it is impossible.

 

The next argument, which I used to disprove what Descartes said, came in the 20th century. It was the argument, that it is not we who are thinking but someone else. So when we aren't thinking at all, we can't be sure that we do exist. I even continued this in saying that perhaps we are only thoughts and imagination of someone else (the super-being I mentioned). When we take Kants theory as base of any observation, this could be acctually the case. Because we can't gain any knowlegde about reality, everything is possible. We can simply and honestly say: "We don't know!" This probably the only absolute true thing that we can say.

[Tinduriel]

Yeah well you can't deny the existense of toughts can you. You say they don't exist themselve. If that was the case they still existed. Therefore if I just exist as a tought of a suberp beeing, I still exist on some level don't I.

 

And there has been some critic towards Kant too. Kant says you can't gain any knowledge of beeings themselve but still he says they exist. Isn't there a little controversy here. How can you know the beeings themselve exist if you can't know anything about them. But I still am pretty much for him. :)

[Darnoc]

Yeah well you can't deny the existense of toughts can you. You say they don't exist themselve. If that was the case they still existed. Therefore if I just exist as a tought of a suberp beeing, I still exist on some level don't I.

 

I'm a writer (really!!) and I invent a story. I invent a world, characters, the feelings of these characters and their thoughts etc. etc. Now, when what you say is correct, then these characters inside my head really do exist. But they don't, they are part of me. Those characters are acctually myself thinking that I am more than one person (this doesn't mean that I am shizophrenic).

 

Now, apply the same to us humans. What is, when it is the same with us? When I am just a character in the head of someone else? Then not I do exist, but the other being exists. So, you'll have to reformulate the statement of Descartes into "I think therefore someone must exist, who does think (but not necessarily myself)".

 

Yes, Kant says that the objects are existing themselves, even when we can't observe them. What I think to be illogical, then how can you know that they exist, when you can't observe them? This was suggested by a philosopher in the 20th century, I don't remember his name. He immagined that a scientist put several humans into a tank, connected their brains to a super-computer and sent thoughts, feelings etc. in form of electrical signals towards their brains. Nothing what those humans would experience would be of their own, not even their thoughts. This guy invented the idea of "Matrix" :D

[Tinduriel]

Those characters are acctually myself thinking that I am more than one person (this doesn't mean that I am shizophrenic).

Well if those characters are you yourself in some way. Then I am the one thinkin and creating the novel or whatever in some way. So I must exist. I'm not saying that I must exist as I perceive myself, but I have to exist on some level.

 

By reading your previous posts I'm pretty sure you know Witgenstain's(sp) "language games" (don't know what's the term in english that's a direct translation from the finnish term). I'm not sure we are playing the same game. :)

 

(Off-Topic):

Yeah well I'd say the core tought of the Matrix had been invented before. But that is pretty darn close the idea in a whole. BTW. The third matrix movie was the most boring experiense in a movie theater I've had in a while.

[Darnoc]

@Tinduriel: Not quite. The novelist-character-picture you musn't apply to yourself but to the super-being inventing us. I reformulate it a little clearer. I invent a story. I invent characters for this story. Those characters don't exist as seperate, independet beings but as thoughts of myself (the inventer). Now, apply this to what we have called the super-being (could be god). The super-being is inventing us as I am inventing the story and the characters of the novel. We do not exist in this case, at least not as seperate independet beings, but only as thoughts. And because thoughts do not really "exist" (in materialistic terms), we do not exist. So we can only say that something must exist, but this hasn't necessarily to be us.

 

And yes, I have read a little of Witgenstein (but not a lot, we just beginn to talk about him in philosophy; all these thoughts are my thougts and aren't influenced by Witgenstein)

[SimVig]

What about this point of view: Suppose we live in a computer worlds, but we are actually computer programs with artificial intelligence. To take your novelist idea as a base, then the programs should be the creations and thus parts of the programmer. However, as we (supposedly) have good enough artificial intelligence to think for ourselves, then we are no longer the thoughts of someone else. So if that is the case, do we exist or not?

[Darnoc]

Then we would probably exist somehow. But a program has an amount of freedom, which a character in a book doesn't have. The actions, feelings and thoughts of a character, even the existence of the character are only determined by what the inventer is thinking. A program exists as something seperate and when you make it very complex it can even decide what to do in certain situations. So when your possibility is correct (which is a possible possibility, as is any other) then we would in fact exist. But this wouldn't be the case with my novelist-example.

[Tinduriel]

Well I wouldn't go for purely empirical POV, that way you cannot even be sure that the world outside your room exist. So it all still comes down to how you define the words "to exist". It is a POV to say that toughts doesn't really exist. Then it wouldn't ofcourse be sure that I exist in your novelist theory. But it is alternatively and evenly logical choise to think that toughts do exist. In this way I would exist in your novelist theory. Its like debating about the existense of god. You can follow a path of logic and come into conclusion that god must exist, and it still is a correctly done logical conclusion or vice versa. Its like one of Kants antinomies I guess.

 

So you are right I cannot know for 100% sure if I exist. :ranting:

But how about this then, and I think that you even said it yourself: "Something must exist", is that then 100% sure?

[Breton Thief Oriana]

But how about this then, and I think that you even said it yourself: "Something must exist", is that then 100% sure?

well, if you didnt exist at all, you wouldnt be here to debate wether you exist or not. so therefore you must exist. and therefore i must exist to counter your argument that you might or might not exist. but if you didnt exist, and werent here to tell me so, then you wouldnt care at all. something must exist in order to tell us that we exist, and in order to give us will to doubt if we exist or not.

[Tinduriel]

[Chat]So have we come to an conclusion that something must exist. Wow it didn't take even a week for that. And some people say that philosophy is a blah blah sciense.[/Chat]

 

Well I'd better stop this useless chatting now and go get some sleep or some angry mod will kick my non-existing butt.