Certainty, Adding to Descartes

[meditationyoga]

Certainty: Adding to Descartes


Thinking that “I” do not exist, is proof that “thinking” exists. As well as thinking, order exists, the order being those thoughts. Those thoughts are either the world, or a representation of the world. So because those thoughts have order, and they reflect attributes in this world, (numbers, comprehensive order, ect) the world exists. Either as thought or as some other way. Either way, we know that existence exists, as thought or as material is to be disputed. But we can be sure that something with order exists.

Another way to describe it would be,

I can be certain that the world exists because it appears as a complex structure with patterns. Because of it’s complexity and apparent order of pieces, I can conclude from this, that it is not nothing. If I remove certain pieces I can change the order. Thus I can not change something that doesn’t exist. I can only change something that exists.

Anything not existing would not have patterns, pieces or interwoven parts, and would not have structure. Thus the world exists.

I can be certain that I exist because I am a great deal of order and complexity myself. Whatever that may mean. I have pieces and exist interconnected with this world of complexity and order. And I can change the order of this world. Thus because I am part of a whole, I exist just as that whole exists.

I understand that there are many different views regarding this issue. As well, most of these views are very ancient, and some such as Descarte’s rely on the existence of God. But Logical propositions and all the rules that have evolved in Philosophy simply limit man’s inherit natural intelligence. Following ancient rules regarding language and grammar are highly confining and limited. Thus because of these reasons, we have limited definitions when we want unlimited knowledge. Aristotle’s “unmoved mover” and reason, and logic in general. All of these things leaving out many pieces which keep our knowledge stifled and in hand cuffs. When man’s mind wants to venture into unlimited dimension.

So if the coming Philosophers are to be at all courageous and adventurous, they will abandon much of Philosophy altogether as historic remains of an ancient language. And in order to break free of these rules, man will let himself roam wild. And Philosophy will be a release from conformity and exclusion. No rules or confinement will be suggested. Otherwise we create more problems and fall back on ancient habits.

I understand that man will feel naked, without any footing or security. But this is how he is supposed to be. So I understand my argument might have ancient rules that forbid it to occur, but it is quite simple to understand. And anyone with a natural intelligence untouched by modernity, will think clear, that order, complexity, pieces, and attributes suggest “existence.” And anything “not existing” would not have any of these features, or it would neccesarily declare it’s existence.


Kevin Thomson

[vectorcube]

So because those thoughts have order, and they reflect attributes in this world, (numbers, comprehensive order, ect) the world exists.

The ordered pattern in our thought does not follow that there is an external world that imposes those thoughts, or a external world at all. Seen the movie matrix?

Anything not existing would not have patterns, pieces or interwoven parts, and would not have structure. Thus the world exists.

Existence is different from "patterns". Existence is ontological.

I can be certain that I exist because I am a great deal of order and complexity myself. Whatever that may mean. I have pieces and exist interconnected with this world of complexity and order. And I can change the order of this world. Thus because I am part of a whole, I exist just as that whole exists.

You are using complexity in a vague way. This is bad philosophy.

I understand that there are many different views regarding this issue. As well, most of these views are very ancient, and some such as Descarte’s rely on the existence of God. But Logical propositions and all the rules that have evolved in Philosophy simply limit man’s inherit natural intelligence. Following ancient rules regarding language and grammar are highly confining and limited. Thus because of these reasons, we have limited definitions when we want unlimited knowledge. Aristotle’s “unmoved mover” and reason, and logic in general. All of these things leaving out many pieces which keep our knowledge stifled and in hand cuffs. When man’s mind wants to venture into unlimited dimension

How much do you really know? I bet you never read anything about. Give me details, and show me you really know the standard arguments.

I understand that man will feel naked, without any footing or security. But this is how he is supposed to be. So I understand my argument might have ancient rules that forbid it to occur, but it is quite simple to understand. And anyone with a natural intelligence untouched by modernity, will think clear, that order, complexity, pieces, and attributes suggest “existence.” And anything “not existing” would not have any of these features, or it would neccesarily declare it’s existence.

Is this philosophy for you. Jumping from topic to topic. You seem to like the mind-body problem. Doubting the existence of the external world. Not really interesting philosophy. You could doubt the external world, or 2=2. Nothing can stop you from doubt. Neither is there really a argument that for why you are not a brain in a vat. Is these questions really important? I think if you gain some sanity, you do think there is an external world. You don` t need an argument at all. I accept that there is a external world, and i try to make sense of the world using whatever methods i could use.

---------- Post added 07-09-2009 at 05:52 AM ----------

I think people who say the don ` t need to learn anything, and recreate everything for themselves to be idiots. Forget about what you see in the movies. In the real world, it takes alot of learning to advance knowledge. You can use vague words, and make it sound important. It makes me laugh.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by meditationyoga

Anything not existing would not have patterns, pieces or interwoven parts, and would not have structure. Thus the world exists.


Kevin Thomson

I wonder how you would know that. Have you ever examined anything that does not exist?

[jgweed]

"But Logical propositions and all the rules that have evolved in Philosophy simply limit man’s inherit natural intelligence."

I don't think this statement is historically correct. If anything limits "natural intelligence" is is nature, and not philosophy. Considering that once logic (and the use of philosophical reason) was introduced and codified, rather than hinder human progress, it was its main vehicle.

"...we can be sure that something with order exists."
I am not sure that from the existence of order (say in our minds as the argument suggests) one can conclude that this order exists outside of the mind, or that it "reflects" an order in the non-self world. Since I am chained to the philosophic tradition of reason and logic, I might be wrong, though.

"So if the coming Philosophers are to be at all courageous and adventurous, they will abandon much of Philosophy altogether as historic remains of an ancient language. And in order to break free of these rules, man will let himself roam wild."

I fail to see how philosophy, or any kind of articulate thinking can occur outside of language. Even Greek has adopted itself to a growing world and found new ways to express new ideas, just as has English or German or French. It can be argued, not without justification, that the evolution of language has made possible the evolution of thinking. At the very least, there is a growing and reflexive relationship one with the other.

I am afraid that, these "rules" once broken free of, man will certainly roam wild, and BE wild. His freedom will be the freedom of brutes and savages.

[meditationyoga]

Quote:
"The ordered pattern in our thought does not follow that there is an external world that imposes those thoughts"

I said that the order can exist in our thoughts, mind, or in the external world. What I mean to declare is that something exists with order. This thing, (world) having order declares it's existence. What it is made out of is not important right now. First off the fact that you and I are communicating in such a complex fashion proves that we both exist in this world. Otherwise you would not be able to understand or respond to me.

Quote:
"You are using complexity in a vague way. This is bad philosophy."

Complexity is very simple. We are writing about it now.

But my whole purpose is to prove that thoughts have order. And come after Descartes "I think therefore I am." I have proved this to be valid and it would be hard to argue against it, because you would be arguing with ordered thought. However I much appreciate your valued criticism.

---------- Post added 07-10-2009 at 11:50 PM ----------

Quote:
"I wonder how you would know that. Have you ever examined anything that does not exist?"

I understand what you are saying. But this is not necessary. You and I are talking in complex order, in a complex way. So therefore we both exist, plus this computer and miles of wires that are connected and so forth. Whether it is physical, matter or not does not matter. This world exists in some fashion.

---------- Post added 07-11-2009 at 12:01 AM ----------

Quote:
"I don't this statement is historically correct. If anything limits "natural intelligence" is is nature, and not philosophy."

Nature is man. You cannot separate man from nature.

Quote:
"I am not sure that from the existence of order (say in our minds as the argument suggests) one can conclude that this order exists outside of the mind, or that they "reflect" an order in the non-self world."

We don't have to be sure if the world is mind or matter. Just that this existence that we live in has order. And that thoughts have order. And this means that this would add on to Descartes "I think, therefore I am."

---------- Post added 07-11-2009 at 12:09 AM ----------

Quote:
"I fail to see how philosophy, or any kind of articulate thinking can occur outside of language. Even Greek has adopted itself to a growing world and found new ways to express new ideas, just as has English or German or French."

I am not against language or Philosophy. I am for a new man, not bound in chains by tradition. Those chains are on his mind, and he is caged in society like an animal.

Quote:
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

I am not against any Philosopher,(Wittgenstein). I am for the present man. Luddwig was famous for this but, he was wrong. I am greater because I know there are ways to write and convey silence. Words can be used to convey silence to the listener. Just like a composer writes notes, and gaps in music.

[rhinogrey]

A thing only declares its own existence through death. Existence is synthesis of opposites, flow, change from ice to water, life to death. Order in nonexistence is conceivable.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by rhinogrey

A thing only declares its own existence through death. Existence is synthesis of opposites, flow, change from ice to water, life to death. Order in nonexistence is conceivable.

Who would have supposed such a thing!

[meditationyoga]

I understand what you are saying. But I think life gives us more information about ourselves as opposed to death.

[jgweed]

Originally Posted by meditationyoga

Following ancient rules regarding language and grammar are highly confining and limited. ***** So if the coming Philosophers are to be at all courageous and adventurous, they will abandon much of Philosophy altogether as historic remains of an ancient language.

Isn't this kind of argument self-defeating in that it would force philosophy not only to abandon the tradition because it is written in an ancient and foreign language, but to abandon the use of any kind of language, even modern, because it is also and in the same sense bound by "confining and limited" rules and grammar?
One could, in addition and given the view expressed, argue that an English-speaking philosopher should abandon any attempt to understand contemporary French or German philosophers. What happens to philosophy if it abandons any claim to universality?

Doesn't this kind of argument cloud the distinction between understanding "ancient" or indeed "foreign" philosophers and "following" them? And is it not more limiting and less adventurous to purposely ignore perspectives that might suggest new ideas or allow us to consider some different (and different just because they are separated in time and space from us) from our own, to be confined to the rules and grammar of our own language? A philosophy without historical perspectives and roots is surely less confident of itself and its purpose in the human world.

And lastly, is it not the examples of the Greek and Roman philosophers, from Socrates to Sextus Empiricus, that have given philosophy the goal to challenge the common thinking, to be "disturbers of the peace" as Jaspers writes, or the "gadfly" as Socrates calls himself.