|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 7 minutes, 22 seconds
|
How did Descartes miss something so obvious?
#28602135 - 12/29/23 11:26 AM (30 days, 2 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I have convinced myself that there is nothing in the world — no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Doesn't it follow that I don't exist? No, surely I must exist if it's me who is convinced of something. But there is a deceiver, supremely powerful and cunning whose aim is to see that I am always deceived. But surely I exist, if I am deceived. Let him deceive me all he can, he will never make it the case that I am nothing while I think that I am something. Thus having fully weighed every consideration, I must finally conclude that the statement "I am, I exist" must be true whenever I state it or mentally consider it.
Descartes was trying to eliminate any thought that might not be true. Yet he just assumes that the thought "I am" is true, just because it apppears (maybe I'm missing something here).
It seems obvious here that "I", "am" and "I am" are just thoughts. Is this not obvious?
For example, if these had some existence outside of thought, we could obsevrve them with our senses. How much does and 'I am' weigh? What color is it? How could a thought be mistaken for an thing in the world other than the thought?
|
B Traven
Stranger



Registered: 03/10/20
Posts: 2,479
Loc: Central Megalopolis
Last seen: 56 minutes, 49 seconds
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: Freedom]
#28602139 - 12/29/23 11:31 AM (30 days, 2 hours ago) |
|
|
It's just the point that you're able to have thoughts at all, of any kind, true or false. So from the window of my consciousness, it's that consciousness itself which gives me evidence of my own existence, and nothing else. And, of course, without that consciousness, what difference would it make, anyway?
I don't know a ton about Deacartes, but I feel like, given the time period in which he wrote, this may have been a roundabout way to say "there's no god and we all just cease to exist when we die" without getting executed for it.
I'm also not sure how much stock I put in an English translation of Renaissance French. Seems like the original language and context might be crucial here.
-------------------- Beware of advice- even this.
Edited by B Traven (12/29/23 11:34 AM)
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: Freedom]
#28602189 - 12/29/23 11:59 AM (30 days, 1 hour ago) |
|
|
Quote:
How did Descartes miss something so obvious?
Maybe it was too far off the grid?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: Nillion]
#28602234 - 12/29/23 12:28 PM (30 days, 1 hour ago) |
|
|
Descartes did not understand that this type of thinking is a matter of talking to oneself and expecting results.
We all may fall into that sort of thing from time to time, but it is not the high point of my life I must say.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
DisoRDeR
motional



Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: redgreenvines]
#28602302 - 12/29/23 01:23 PM (30 days, 33 minutes ago) |
|
|
Falling into the solipschism and climbing out again may be a philosophical right of passage
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 7 minutes, 22 seconds
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: B Traven] 1
#28602437 - 12/29/23 04:27 PM (29 days, 21 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
B Traven said: It's just the point that you're able to have thoughts at all, of any kind, true or false. So from the window of my consciousness, it's that consciousness itself which gives me evidence of my own existence, and nothing else. And, of course, without that consciousness, what difference would it make, anyway?
I don't know a ton about Deacartes, but I feel like, given the time period in which he wrote, this may have been a roundabout way to say "there's no god and we all just cease to exist when we die" without getting executed for it.
I'm also not sure how much stock I put in an English translation of Renaissance French. Seems like the original language and context might be crucial here.
could there be thoughts without a thinker?
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 7 minutes, 22 seconds
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: Nillion]
#28602438 - 12/29/23 04:29 PM (29 days, 21 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nillion said:
Quote:
How did Descartes miss something so obvious?
Maybe it was too far off the grid?
I think its fascinating that our thoughts may be limited by our cultural context
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: Freedom] 1
#28602530 - 12/29/23 06:08 PM (29 days, 19 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said: ...
could there be thoughts without a thinker?
that is the Buddha's doctrine of no-self (anattata) The mind-body union is nama-rupa, and all forms and concepts are reflected in the mind part of that nama-rupa construct.
there is no way to stop a sensation that begins on the skin (without something like amputation or spinal injury) or in the eye from becoming part of an experience in mind (i.e. mental contents), or from forming part of a memory.
and there is no way to stop a perception or idea from emerging in response to the current mental contents (sensory or memory based).
We cannot stop reflexes because they are directly connected as are all body-mind things. There is no self to get in between the reflexes.
Indeed the body and reflexes more or less are what makes one person seem different from another.
If a person can directly see what nama-rupa is and how anatta is related to it, they will realize that to help change their reflexes (to something more dignified) they will need to practice meditation as a way to introduce a relaxing pause to memory cascades and reflexes that are unbecoming.
However even if a person cannot understand the idea of no-self, if a person can at least see the sense of doing something positive, like loving kindness or compassion etc, then a range of different reflexes can be cultivated in meditation, especially ones towards relaxation and kindness.
etc blahblah and blah.
The long and the short is that all thoughts are without a thinker per se, but the habits of nama-rupa - which does the thinking reflexively - are quite defensive about something like that, and the use of language and social interaction makes it hard to sidestep the cascades of linguistic resonance to "Why did you let that goat in the house again?".
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 7 minutes, 22 seconds
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: Freedom]
#28602539 - 12/29/23 06:21 PM (29 days, 19 hours ago) |
|
|
Thats a great description. I've been trying to understand something lately and what you write fits. I've noticed I can notice the reflexive responses without engaging them. I take some time to observe them, and in that observation they become less compelling. Then I observe the situation of the moment, and somehow in the observation of the moment, with the normal reflexes less compelling, a new response appears, and that response appears to be more sane and appropriate, because its comming from an intention of responding appropriately or kindly or lovingly or helpfully to whomever/whatever is part of that moment.
Its very simple and ordianry in a way but so different from most of how i've operated its mindblowing for now
curious what else you might say about it
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: Freedom]
#28602618 - 12/29/23 07:13 PM (29 days, 18 hours ago) |
|
|
ok, so here is the brilliant thing that works with meditation:
Many (most) people do not understand the idea of anatta, (ever,) so they retain all kinds of habits and theories about ego etc, and get tangled up in remorse-fullness and denial about ego etc. etc. Even as dedicated monks for 50 years and more this still happens. (I probably should repeat that anatta is not about ego, or egolessness, its about the reflex nature of nama-rupa, AKA habit or knowledge, experience, familiarity)
But these people still benefit from (samatha vipassana) meditation hugely and in the same way as those who do understand anatta (by developing tranquility).
So understanding one's (not) self may be best, but just practicing right mindfulness and right action and right speech, relieves many problems of denial and remorsefulness just the same.
and how about this one which really ties the buddhist string of concepts into a strictly logical knot:
When I reflect upon the fact that anatta is about the reflex nature of nama-rupa I am actually looking at the whole notion of how one thing associatively reflexes to another in mind either by similarity or having happened at the same time/or in the same scene. Now when I say that mind forms are associated I am talking about the fact that they cling together or adhere reflexively (in spite of any unenlightened efforts to the contrary). (that is the way) So when I talk about associative mind I reflect on the matter of clinging together or how things are automatically co-joined in mind, (which like anatta is not about how people wont let go of their toys, or possessions, ) I am thinking about how everything is naturally connected in nama-rupa (by similarity or having happened at the same time/or in the same scene.).
Therefore, mental existence itself - that endless chain of experiencing and perceiving - one thing reflexing into the next - is suffering, because the very act of having thoughts is a matter of notions clinging together, even prejudice, habit and knowledge itself, all of that can be wonderful but still may be interpenetrated with suffering because those links are reflexive, and only loosen up when relaxed through anapanasati or vipassana. Then they relapse if the practice is abandoned.
Nothing is ever totally dropped/forgotten.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: Freedom]
#28602669 - 12/29/23 07:38 PM (29 days, 18 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said:
Quote:
Nillion said:
Quote:
How did Descartes miss something so obvious?
Maybe it was too far off the grid?
I think its fascinating that our thoughts may be limited by our cultural context
I agree, but I was making a terrible pun. Descartes invented the Cartesian coordinate system, which is a grid. I make more use of this than I do his philosophy.
Redgreenvines, I love it. I am reminded of the Diamond Sutra which is my favorite Sutra, if I had to pick one.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: Nillion] 1
#28602675 - 12/29/23 07:41 PM (29 days, 18 hours ago) |
|
|
for me to see it in action I have to watch for sub second events among mental contents while breathing, that's my diamond sutra
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 7 minutes, 22 seconds
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: Nillion] 1
#28602707 - 12/29/23 08:11 PM (29 days, 17 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nillion said:
Quote:
How did Descartes miss something so obvious?
Maybe it was too far off the grid?
I think its fascinating that our thoughts may be limited by our cultural context
I agree, but I was making a terrible pun. Descartes invented the Cartesian coordinate system, which is a grid. I make more use of this than I do his philosophy.

that should have been an easy one to see lol. but maybe not so off the mark, the grid assumes a central point, 0,0:
Quote:
(from chatGTP) The Cartesian point (0,0) and the Buddhist concept of self share certain similarities in terms of emptiness, interconnectedness, and the idea of a starting point.
Emptiness (Sunyata):
Buddhist Concept: In Buddhism, there is the concept of "sunyata" or emptiness. It suggests that the self (and all phenomena) lacks inherent, independent existence. There is no permanent, unchanging essence at the core of an individual. Cartesian Point: Similarly, the point (0,0) on the Cartesian grid represents a location devoid of content or value on its own. It is not defined by any specific characteristics or attributes. Interconnectedness:
Buddhist Concept: Buddhism emphasizes interconnectedness, asserting that all things are interdependent. The self is not isolated but connected to everything else in the universe. Cartesian Point: The point (0,0) is part of the Cartesian plane, and its location is defined in relation to the axes. It illustrates the idea that a point's meaning is tied to its context within the coordinate system. Starting Point and Potential:
Buddhist Concept: The concept of self in Buddhism is not a fixed entity but is considered a process. It evolves over time through various experiences and conditions. Cartesian Point: (0,0) can be seen as a starting point from which coordinates extend in different directions. It represents the potential for movement and development along the axes. Dynamic Nature:
Buddhist Concept: The self in Buddhism is dynamic and constantly changing. It is not a static, unchanging entity but is subject to impermanence. Cartesian Point: The Cartesian plane allows for movement along both horizontal and vertical axes, symbolizing the dynamic nature of a point's position.
|
The Blind Ass
Bodhi


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,657
Loc: The Primordial Mind
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: Freedom]
#28602815 - 12/30/23 12:04 AM (29 days, 13 hours ago) |
|
|
@ OP, who or what made what mistake? I kid, I'm teasing ya.
I think he made an honest take, just kinda fumbled near with it somewhere along the way, as we all seemingly do at most, if not many points in our life. It isn't like he had wikipedia or an internet connection, you know?
I wonder, if - and if so - how much exposure he had to other modalities wrt philosophical speculations on the nature of mind, matter, nature itself, and or 'oneself' - ie - had he a copy of the Tripitaka? maybe enough time comparatively "thinking it over & through" while beshroomed, too? ? I don't think so. ....If he had then perhaps things would've been a tid bit different, maybe!? Idk.
-------------------- Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps
Edited by The Blind Ass (12/30/23 12:11 AM)
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 7 minutes, 22 seconds
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: The Blind Ass] 1
#28602819 - 12/30/23 12:16 AM (29 days, 13 hours ago) |
|
|
Descartes with Wi-Fi sounds like a moneymaker book title
|
The Blind Ass
Bodhi


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,657
Loc: The Primordial Mind
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: Freedom]
#28602865 - 12/30/23 01:41 AM (29 days, 12 hours ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: The Blind Ass]
#28602959 - 12/30/23 05:33 AM (29 days, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
a la carte?
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
The Blind Ass
Bodhi


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,657
Loc: The Primordial Mind
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: redgreenvines]
#28603437 - 12/30/23 03:10 PM (28 days, 22 hours ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps
|
Ferdinando


Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,664
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: redgreenvines]
#28604314 - 12/31/23 08:20 AM (28 days, 5 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: Descartes did not understand that this type of thinking is a matter of talking to oneself and expecting results.
We all may fall into that sort of thing from time to time, but it is not the high point of my life I must say.
 
oh i didn't get to say happy new year happy new year! and to all peace 
may we all do as good as possible next year and be as good as possible and of as high a quality as possible
and be peaceful
and have peace
-------------------- with our love with our love we could save the world
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 7 minutes, 22 seconds
|
Re: How did Descartes miss something so obvious? [Re: Ferdinando]
#28604317 - 12/31/23 08:22 AM (28 days, 5 hours ago) |
|
|
may the closed loops open
|
|