A friend pointed recently pointed me to Historical Tweets (which is hilarious and you should check it out if you haven’t), and I thought it might be fun to do something similar with famous philosophers. Hope you enjoy!
chaospet
Now updated every day that it is updated
Discussion (17)¬
Tweet
-
November 2024 S M T W T F S « Mar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
chaospet by http://chaospet.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
I doubt, therefore, I might exist.
And once you hit the third meditation it all goes out the window..
I never actually read his work. I need persuasion that it is worth reading.
If frustration and terrible terrible headaches somehow make you happy then you really should read it.
I could rant. But I won’t… this time. Because then I would have to dig up my copy and look at all the notes scribbled on the sides complaining about how circular this is, or unfounded this is or… etc.
I got the circular part alright. I read a biography of Descartes. It has a summery of the argument(s).
Descartes gets a lot of criticism (most of it just), but nonetheless there is good reason that The Meditations are still considered among the great works of philosophy. For example, he presents compelling arguments for skepticism, forms of which are still utilized today. And he also gives a couple of forms of arguments for mind/body dualism, varieties of which are still discussed today. So I’d say he’s worth reading, if only to see the origin of a lot of what goes on in contemporary philosophy.
During my exam I had the greatest urge to write: “And according to Descartes’ first two meditations this whole exam may not even be real, and since those are the only two meditations that I like, and as far as I am concerned he fails to prove otherwise, so I’m taking my chances. Done.” Then I would have ran out of the room screaming.
Sadly I didn’t do that.
As annoying as The Meditations were they did get me thinking quite a bit, so the experience was worth it. That said I did get headaches.
Though I really like the skepticism part. Reminds me of Theory of knowledge. Sensory perception can fool you! Like when you are playing a first person shooter game and it turns out that the projectiles are not actually coming from the guns but from the head region of the character you are playing as. Okay so that is designed like that but, there are other more pertinent examples. And maybe the actual world is designed like that to by a malevolent deceiver god thing! Like some kind of demented video game programmer!
And last time I said I wouldn’t rant. Grr.
If a student ever wrote that on an exam for me, I would give it an A without a doubt.
chaospet, you’d be a fun professor except for that distracting blood all over your face.
Just found this comic and enjoy it a lot 🙂
EveryZig, thank you! 🙂
I liked the old under headline better. “Updates about twice per week, unless it doesn’t”. Tautologies are nice.
You may enjoy reading these quotes. I found some of them very amusing.
http://rinkworks.com/said/courtroom.shtml
Ex.
”
* Lawyer: “Now, Mrs. Johnson, how was your first marriage terminated?”
* Witness: “By death.”
* Lawyer: “And by whose death was it terminated?”
“
That is absolutely hilarious. People say the greatest things sometimes.
If you’re a bit more geeky, then this will be very funny too!
http://bash.org/?top1
http://bash.org/?top2
Ex.
YOU ALL SUCK DICK
er.
hi.
A common typo.
the keys are like right next to each other.
So I have been wondering about The Meditations…
Premise-God is the creature and sustainer of all things, including my existance.
Premise-I think, Therefore I am .
Conclusion: I am God.
*In between thought is that if I did not think, I would not exist, therefore my existance is created and sustained from my action of thought. I realize that negating a truthful statement isn’t always (or usually) another truthful statement, but let’s examine that. If I could think without existing, then Premise two is false. If I can exist without thinking then again Premise two seems to be false. Did I just prove myself my own God, or is there a syllogism in my thought? If there is no syllogism, than which premise must Descartes rethink?*
DiogenesdelaPhyrron: It’s true that if you could think without existing then premise 2 would be false, but the converse doesn’t hold; it leaves open the possibility of existing without thinking. In other words, it is only stating that thinking is a sufficient condition for existence, not that it is a necessary one.
I was thinking about turning this into a whole discussion, but I’ll spare the world, and instead state: I no longer know I exist. Until I find proof that “existance” exists, then I cannot prove that I stand inside the pool of existance. But thank you anyways.