Episode

[@matejasuban2393]

The quote: "Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know." belongs to Michel de Montaigne, according to the internet. The podcast is amazing though! I am a fresh philsophy student and these podcasts are such a delight. I am eternally thankful for your work ❤

[@rozlinmiyashiro2410]

i want to cry after this

[@Solanza]

"I was willing to admit I was a dumb kid" I envy that, cause it took me years before I reached that point.

[@christinemartin63]

You just gotta love a guy who even attempts to de-program himself in such a methodical way.

[@Over-Boy42]

"A deceptive thought is still a thought" wow

[@frankcommatobe8009]

Racism is not an issue of rationality. It is an aesthetic one.

[@foamersimpson6690]

21:36 - 21:39. TRUUU

[@alsara2k]

Well, the naive simplicity is the point. It's basic observation, 'the source' right there, that is Descartes M.O which is great. In my opinion, rationalism is a system of wasting your own time, by getting involved in details where they're not needed. I see the same analogy between rationalism as an intellectual time sink as with the more creative pursuits where being a perfectionist and constantly tweaking things is a mistake. So, you can essentially write down your observations and if you treat them as observations without bias, it's true. You don't need to add context to it and speculation because that'll add falsity, but if you keep a notepad of just observations, it'll always be true because that's what you observed.

[@elijaguy]

I learned Decartes in highschool some 60 years ago. Can you kindly refer to an idea I mentioned in another comment in another pod. that "I doubt" (Dubito) and "I think" (Cogito) rather than "I believe" (Credo in the Dogmas), and "I am" (sum) as the origin cartesian zero point for researching reality rather than blindly accepted idea of God and the Trinity, form a formidable rebellion against the catholic church, on line with the questioning of Socrates, the Heliocentric principle, of Copernicus and Galilei (Idont include Aristarchus and similar, because they werent under the threat of the deadly church). BTW Some years ago I read that newly found evidence showed that Decartes was poisoned to death in the church with strychnine in the holy bread by the representative of the church in Sweden.

[@michellenomrios]

M

[@rustyghd3571]

Hi I am new how are you

[@cockycookie1]

*Wachowski sisters

[@Sakhmeov]

Wrong. Simple as that. Old rennie was wrong, and because he is the father of modern philosophy, we've been wrong ever since. "I think therefore I am" is an inane statement.

[@steveme49]

Can you clarify? What was he wrong about? Who was right instead?

[@Sakhmeov]

@@steveme49 Simple; the statement "I think, therefore I am" is a crock. It's not really getting to the bottom of things, and the plague of self-referentiality that the type of view he forwarded there has brought on Western civilization is at the root of the disgusting puddle-shallow moral philosophy of today. Firstly, have you ever heard of agnosias? Anton's syndrome or hysterical blindness? Hemineglect? Radical personality changes as a result of brain trauma? We have it on the books, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the human mind is very much divisible. It's a whole slew of processes operating in layers and in sequence. Even more simply put; have you ever been of two minds about something? And you can't have a mirror reflect itself, or turn a radiotelescope on itself and expect it to make a sensible picture without loss either through context or inaccuracy. That would be like trying to make something model a quantum system without replicating it. And we know increasingly well from computer science and the study of other creatures that intelligence and awareness are also quite separate categories, linked most likely only by a necessity of minimum brainpower... Descartes was not rid of the contextual bias of perspective itself. He got to the second lowest level, but that is pretty much tantamount to the most wrong thing in that it is almost right but misses the point on such a fundamental level that it will likely lead to the worst outcome. The most convincing lies have a grain of truth to them, see? And so, the most destructive lies are the ones that are maximally close to reality and thus maximally difficult to disprove, yet which manage to crucially still make the actors perform in the most truth-opposed fashion. The most evil are always the second best; that kinda deal. It's only when you're _almost_ at the top that you can be proud yet still have reason to envy and hate... The correct statement is; "I think, and think to question myself and my perception of everything. Therefore, the prerequisites to think - to assign category and dimension such that thought can come into being - exist. And the question is unavoidable and necessary." If there is anything indivisible to the human mind, then it is the moment out of time, when the question is asked. When doubt is entertained and the observations are made. You may be built on and may define yourself according to a platform of memory, but the _you_ reading this in the very instant is the running process on top of that. The step between steps of questioning in order to attain some data which can be committed to memory and sub-process. But all the more importantly, this tells us that _existence exists._ However abstract and nonsensical a thought, however unworkable or vague, it must have dimension. It must have category and definition. It must start and end. Not necessarily in terms of time, but in terms of concept. It doesn't even have to be so complex as something like an Escher Staircase; merely the thought of a color is confined by its own concept. It doesn't matter if it's a simulation, or an evil demon, or your uncle telling stories; the universe _is,_ and it has definite properties. The very question proves it. It has a beginning and an end, a most and a least. Again, no matter if it merely exists outside of time - which isn't a proper dimension, as Einstein quite handily proved, but rather something like steps to a computer program or frames in a film reel. It _is,_ and it is by necessity definite, finite and in its foundation immutable, its laws determinate. And it has the necessary property of end singularities... Existence is, and you are the thing doubting it, but in doing so rather doubting yourself. A necessary trait for anything meant to be running a continuous process _through_ that existence. The Universalists and Monists are closer to correct. And the fact that the West is failing as a society is, to me, not the least bit surprising, since we are building upon moral foundations and political ideas convoluted out of dualist or even hedonist perceptions having turned into an unavoidable downward spiral, if not in terms of epistemology then certainly axiology and teleology. There's another name for this self-importance, where you weigh your own success for itself or happiness for itself as more to the center of the categorization of what is "right"; it's called Pride. One of the universal laws of that definite existence? It's simple, and known to engineers, technicians and programmers everywhere; "You cannot make a complex system run with any accuracy or continuity, if it is ultimately self-referential. In the end, that goes boom."

[@steveme49]

@@Sakhmeov What if you're missing the point of that statement? What if you're only taking into account the effect since then; but not the context itself? What if he was trying to, just like Socrates before him and Derrida after, deconstruct the abstractions? And we know our senses and reason are faulty; so how can you be so sure of your own monist/universalist abstractions? They are only projections and abstractions just like any other shallow philosophy, don't you think?

[@Sakhmeov]

@@steveme49 The point of the statement is from one point of view the grounding of the existential view, where I believe it fails for the reasons I have explained; from another point it doesn't matter, when applying something more like a Foucauldian or more contemporary contextual analysis, where again it fails for the reason of the pattern that it lays foundation to due to its rather fundamental ontological level... If there's a particular angle of attack you're taking here, then I welcome it. The context is a bit difficult to get outside, for reasons of that same property of ontological fundamentality; we're discussing _everything_ here, through the lens of the question of the relation between the individual perspective and all of reality itself. And as for the historical context... Yes, I get that it's a long train of thought running back way earlier than Cartesius himself. But, again, look to how he _is_ counted as something of the father of modern philosophy, and was quite instrumental to the further lines of thought that would follow him, throughout the Enlightenment and into Existentialism, leading into Postmodernism; at the very least he is a "node" or an important "fork in the road". That's what I'm getting at. I'm making a _systemic_ analysis more than a historical one, to be frank and clear; the _instrumentality_ of the statement and the core logic that it serves as a purported justification of is the important thing, and the thing that I am criticizing. It is the fact that it doesn't properly serve as a deconstruction, being that in this context the perception of existence by virtue of its own limitations represents a still needlessly entangled concept, that I am precisely pointing out. And what motivations I have for doing it, frankly, aren't germaine either; please don't claim otherwise, since that's... well, mostly just a sophisticated form of Adhom. Logic is logic, and it's only the more contrived segments of neo-PoMo who claim that you can _actually_ prove that 2+2=5. I'm not sure of any abstractions, since I am not in this here line of thought placing any burden upon my own thought nor existence. I'm not assuming my own existence, and neither should you be. For the purpose of this, we might as well treat me as a Zombie; that is irrelevant to the reasoning. And the question is too simple to mistake and/or throw personal spin into, precisely _because_ of its aforementioned fundamentality. Hell, worst case I can just let you take the opposite side and then fail, as illogic is illogic and cannot work anywhere outside of specific circumstances set up to make it work at cost, which themselves then must bear the cost until it inevitably becomes too much for them, and they themselves also fail. In a sense, this is what is happening throughout the world already. The only problem is that the implosion of the illogic appears sufficiently great to take down the isolated pockets of logic with it as collateral.

[@steveme49]

@@Sakhmeov You are either a troll, or needlessly convoluted. You praise logic, yet disregard the fact that Descartes was the establishing figure of the continental rationalists. You expound your abstractions with such pride, but try to deprecate your point of view. It doesn't make sense.