|
 buttonion
Calmly Watching
Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
|
 Descartes = Question Beggar 
#3143676 - 09/16/04 01:27 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
He, he,
Not new at all, but I just thought I would throw this out there. I can't believe I didn't independently figure this one out earlier. Descartes says, "I think therefore I am." "I think" assumes there is an "I" to think in the first place. It assumes the conclusion that is supposedly being drawn from it. So, if you want to establish your own existence, look elsewhere.
--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein
|
 ElfWizard
Wizard
Registered: 09/08/04
Posts: 70
Loc: The middle,Outside,nowher...
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: buttonion]
#3143821 - 09/16/04 01:50 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
well it misses the point many forms of spirituality try to get across they want you to drop the "I think" for the pure experience of "I am" then going to the next step of "AM" droping the ego of "I" it points out the dogma of science buy have you seperate you from everything and then goes one step ferther by makeing one need proof "therefore". I think he must have been geting heavly into theories of the unvivers and was scared by the loss of individiality and had to prove that "he" was. One last grab by the ego not to be lost in the gradure of the universe in my opinion.
--------------------
"Fear is the Mind Killer"
Frank Herbert's Dune
"Shoot straight, conserve ammo and never cut a deal with a dragon"
Shadowrun street Proverb
To announce there must be no critisism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile but is morally treasonous to the american public
Pres. Theodore Roosevelt
|
Source
Remainder of anUnbalancedEquation
Registered: 07/28/03
Posts: 667
Loc: Outer Darkness
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: ElfWizard]
#3143918 - 09/16/04 02:02 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
ElfWiz,
That was awesome!
--------------------
What you're searching for is what's searching.
|
sox24
member
Registered: 06/17/03
Posts: 905
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: buttonion]
#3143943 - 09/16/04 02:06 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Did you just bitch slap Descartes? Come on it's such a joy.
|
BleaK
paradox
Registered: 06/23/02
Posts: 1,583
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: sox24]
#3144084 - 09/16/04 02:32 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
cool thought elf,
i dont know if descartes was trying to prove anything accept that he was.
its jsut a statement of existence. i exist enough to question my existence.
I, doesnt nessisarily seperate one from many, maybe he already assumed the many as one.
i think therefore i think.
--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: buttonion]
#3144209 - 09/16/04 03:06 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
A safer statement would surely be "there are thoughts".
|
BleaK
paradox
Registered: 06/23/02
Posts: 1,583
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: deafpanda]
#3144219 - 09/16/04 03:10 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
or we are thoughts, i am thought. thought is. I is..
--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: buttonion]
#3144387 - 09/16/04 03:43 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
The philosopher Descartes believed he had found the most fundamental truth when he made his famous statement: "I think, therefore I am." He had, in fact, given experession to the most basic error: to equate thinking with Being and identity with thinking. The compulsive thinker, which means almost everyone, lives in a state of apparent seperateness, in an insanely complex world of continuous problems and conflict, a world that reflects the ever-increasing fragmentation of the mind. Enlightenment is a state of wholeness, of being "at one" and therefore at peace. At one with life in its manifested aspect, the world, as well as with your deepest self and life unmanifested -- at one with Being. Enlightenment is not only the end of suffering and continuous conflict within and without, but also the end of the dreadful enslavement to incessant thinking. What an incredible liberation this is!
--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
teen
Yeee Haaww
Registered: 02/13/04
Posts: 242
Last seen: 18 years, 1 month
|
|
No I think Descartes was right. The only thing that defined Descartes was his thoughts, he deduced that he existed as a "thinking thing". I don't think the oneness of being has anything to do with Descartes working out who he was.
I agree with the thread starter that this seems now like something I should have figured out on my own. It came as a surprise that I never deduced my own existence in those terms.
What bothers me most about Descartes was that later in his life he did a 180 on this theory based on an assertion that god exists, and that god wouldn't deceive Descartes.
--------------------
Don't give me that load of bunk~!
|
Gomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: buttonion]
#3144837 - 09/16/04 05:49 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
there is no "I" before someone thinks of it..
who that someone is, is "I", so we are stuck in a circle her right?
not that i belive, i don't know what to belive, and therefor i do not? hihi im crazy. but loosing "yourself" may prove to be "the thing to do" some time  hehe
what i see is assumptions at work :P
but as mentioned above, i may or may not be beliveing what i see, i simply dont know? 
--------------------
--------------------
Disclaimer!?
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: teen]
#3144874 - 09/16/04 06:01 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
The only thing that defined Descartes was his thoughts
So if you believe this, then I could assume that you believe you are simply 'your thoughts' and nothing more?
This would be identifying yourself with your mind. Identification with your mind causes thought to become compulsive, and living in complete memory and anticipation of the future, in ignorance of the eternal present and Now.
Not to be able to stop thinking is a dreadful affliction, but we don't realize this because almost everybody is suffering from it, so it is considered normal. This incessant noise prevents you from finding that realm of inner stillness that is inseperable from Being. It also creates a false mind-made self that casts a shadow of fear and suffering.
Thinking has become a disease. Disease happens when things get out of balance. For example, there is nothing worng with cells dividing and multiplying in the body, but when this process continues in disgregard of the total organism, cells proliferate and we have disease.
The Mind is a superb instrument if used rightly. Used wrongly, however, it becomes very destructive. To put it more accurately, it is not so much that you use your mind wrongly -- you usually don't use it at all. It uses you. This is the disease. You believe that you are your mind. This is the delusion. The instrument has taken you over.
There is the presence, and there is the thought. Thinking and consciousness are not synonymous. Thinking is only a small aspect of consciousness. Thought cannot exist without consciousness, but consciousness does not need thought.
Enlightenment means rising above thought, not falling back to a level below thought, the level of an animal or plant. In the enlightened state, you still use your thinking mind when needed, but in a much more focused and effective way than before.
I wrote some more in-depth on this subject here:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...;o=&fpart=1
I suggest you read it before you decide to make any reply. 
Also -- There is a book I recommend on this subject, "The Power of NOW".
--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis
Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: Gomp]
#3144875 - 09/16/04 06:01 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
"well it misses the point many forms of spirituality try to get across they want you to drop the "I think" for the pure experience of "I am" then going to the next step of "AM" droping the ego of "I" "
well put.
(psst... proofread your stuff before posting! losing good ideas to bad spelling is a shame!)
GOmp, your a smart guy, i just read your signature. And if that is you as a baby you were one of the cutest babies EVER
--------------------
Everything I post is fiction.
|
Teragon
Noddy
Registered: 02/20/01
Posts: 36,253
Loc: Lost in the Patterns
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: teen]
#3145440 - 09/16/04 08:15 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
teen- You are right. Descartes concluded exactly that- that he could only be sure that he was a thinking thing- and nothing more. (with that statement anyway)
Now I don't believe Descartes claimed to be enlightened or in a state of no-thought and I don't think we can assume this was the case either. I also entertain the idea that Descartes's introduction of God into his ideas was just to placate the Catholic church- a lot of things contradict the god thing, but also some of his ideas are justified by the presence of this being(??)- just a possibility.
Ok- so both deafpanda and Gomp are right- a safe statement is "there are thoughts" and that is exactly what Descartes believed- you can't assume "I" (just like Gomp said).
So if thoughts exist- which we can agree upon (I hope), then there must be something to do the thinking. And you can't be sure of outside material objects or your reality b/c it could be a dream. So the only thing left is a you (or everything/the universe if you wanna look at it that way) to do this thinking.
The mental intuition of self-awareness is indubitable based upon the existence of thoughts.
So its more like "There are thoughts, therefore something exists to create them"
Descartes saw it as himself (ego), but you and I perceive it as a collective consciousess/being instead of a separate being.
Get it? Want more? Go to Descartes Stuff.
--------------------
need that cash to feed them jones.
|
ElfWizard
Wizard
Registered: 09/08/04
Posts: 70
Loc: The middle,Outside,nowher...
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: Teragon]
#3145617 - 09/16/04 08:57 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Am, but has to go through I which has to add Think Then you end up AM I THINK sounds more like a poorly worded question then a statement but for me it's truer then Descartes but only because I have learned thought years of practice to stop thinking (kinda like people can talk without thinking  )I still exist (I hope I do who's doing the typing j/k) So one can exist without thought maybe not function in todays world (yes some things tied to existence do require thought) The Whole point of many Zen masters is to do away with thought do they wish to not exist NO they only wish to do away with the ego we are not created by our thoughts we create them it is simply a function of ego and "There are thoughts, therefore something exists to create them" seems to be working backward and still dealing with Therefore how about "something exists There are thoughts" But I'm still amazed at the ego feeding "The mental intuition of self-awareness is indubitable based upon the existence of thoughts" am aware but do not need thoughts to say this do not even need to know just "BE" (I took out all the I's in that last statement to see how it worked and changed "tell me" to "say" funny how that could be done without the ego of I) just a few thoughts  
(yes thanks Moonshoe still working on my spelling prob. even spell Check can't make heads or tails of what I tried to spell sometimes )
--------------------
"Fear is the Mind Killer"
Frank Herbert's Dune
"Shoot straight, conserve ammo and never cut a deal with a dragon"
Shadowrun street Proverb
To announce there must be no critisism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile but is morally treasonous to the american public
Pres. Theodore Roosevelt
|
Viaggio
ChemicalConsumer
Registered: 07/05/03
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 18 years, 25 days
|
|
"So dreaming lets you know reality exists?"
"No, just my mind. I don't know about everything else." -Animatrix, Matriculated 
"Beyond the senses is the mind, and beyond the mind is reason, its essence." -Katha Upanisad 6.7
--------------------
"...yet another in a long series of diversions an attempt to avoid responsibility."
|
Teragon
Noddy
Registered: 02/20/01
Posts: 36,253
Loc: Lost in the Patterns
|
 Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: ElfWizard]
#3145961 - 09/16/04 10:04 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
ElfWizard-
I really enjoyed your first post.
Yet my assertion(or rather Descartes) based upon the existence of thoughts is what we call a logic inference step or deduction. You can not logically conclude that you exist for you to be able to use it the way that you do- you confused me w/ your first sentence, although it seems you are assuming that "I" or the ego exists before thought. As I said- from an epistemologic standpoint it can not be logically concluded that "I" exists- it can however be deduced from the indubitable(apparent beyond any doubt) existence of thoughts that something exists to create this.
Now this is just the logic of it and you have to perceive it from a very limited knowledge base from back in the day. I do however agree that you do not NEED thought to exist, but this was how Descartes LOGICALLY proved that he existed. This isn't a debate about whether thought actually defines your existence, but about how Descartes used it to do so.
Also how is this "The mental intuition of self-awareness is indubitable based upon the existence of thoughts"- ego-feeding? It is merely another way to say it- Here is another- "Knowing you exist is apparent beyond all doubt because thoughts exist."
You even said it yourself you just have to look at it from a purely logical viewpoint-
"we are not created by our thoughts we create them it is simply a function of ego "
The statement in bold is logically equivalent to "If thoughts exist, there is an ego to create them."
So Descartes realized this and then thought (no pun intended) "Thoughts do exist" therefore "I must have an ego to create them" (I exist).
Questions or other ideas?
--------------------
need that cash to feed them jones.
|
ElfWizard
Wizard
Registered: 09/08/04
Posts: 70
Loc: The middle,Outside,nowher...
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: Teragon]
#3146209 - 09/16/04 10:55 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
no I actually lack the Background to disprove or even prove some of it. as you pointed out Now this is just the logic of it and you have to perceive it from a very limited knowledge base from back in the day. my knowledge is all self taught and I focused on other fields and lack some "common" knowledge you learn in College "yes I never went still raising a kid and my wife was almost done so she went. if anything I was just trying to get a point across about the fact we "think" to much and end up limiting ourselves by empowering our egos sorry the second post wasn't as good as the first Just trying to be a sign post on the road we call life and point people in the direction I see as correct (not that it is but as a sign post its not my place to say what is or isn't just to point a way) This is not an excuse just an explanation Thanks to you and others I continue to learn and grow
--------------------
"Fear is the Mind Killer"
Frank Herbert's Dune
"Shoot straight, conserve ammo and never cut a deal with a dragon"
Shadowrun street Proverb
To announce there must be no critisism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile but is morally treasonous to the american public
Pres. Theodore Roosevelt
|
Teragon
Noddy
Registered: 02/20/01
Posts: 36,253
Loc: Lost in the Patterns
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: ElfWizard]
#3146350 - 09/16/04 11:27 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
"Thanks to you and others I continue to learn and grow "
This same message holds true from me to you.
--------------------
need that cash to feed them jones.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: Teragon]
#3146630 - 09/17/04 12:37 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Teragon said:
it can however be deduced from the indubitable(apparent beyond any doubt) existence of thoughts that something exists to create this.
It is the same to deduce that the existance of thoughts inevitably means that something exists to create said thoughts as it is to deduce that the existance of animals, planets, stars, etc. inevitably means that something existed that created them. This implies a lot... where is our physical God that created these cosmos with his thoughts?
Are thoughts a natural flow of energy that take on extremely complex shape, or are they simply the chosen expressions of some seperate diety? I personally feel that my thoughts flow independantly of me, and that any direction "I" give them is merely other thoughts directing more thoughts...
I feel I cannot identify with the thoughts themselves, as they come and go, evolve and change, and take on so many forms that they really don't work to define me.... the only thing I feel I can identify with is the awareness, the state of being, the observer along for the ride... sort of like how a river doesn't get its identify from the constant rush of water running through it, but rather the idea of the river itself, and not even its physical bed, because that constantly changes as well, albeit not as swiftly as the water running through it.....
So perhaps I'm not the water, or the location where the water flows, but the idea of the river, the archetype of the river.. the presence of the river in a space beyond the physical realm..... *shrugs*
 
Peace. 
--------------------
 
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
  
 
|
Teragon
Noddy
Registered: 02/20/01
Posts: 36,253
Loc: Lost in the Patterns
|
Re: Descartes = Question Beggar [Re: fireworks_god]
#3146869 - 09/17/04 01:49 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I should be in bed- but here is a very brief follow-up. May add more tomorrow-
"to deduce that the existance of animals, planets, stars, etc. inevitably means that something existed that created them"
This can not be logically deduced because it is not known that these animals, planets, and stars actually exist- they could be but mere thoughts of dream- That is why Descartes is justified in only that specific conclusion (pertaining to his thoughts) and no others. If you want to get into Descartes proof for extended spacial objects (material things around us) you should read my prior link- this goes way into depth about the presence of a supreme being and such- quite intriguing. Night!
--------------------
need that cash to feed them jones.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Bulk Cannabis Seeds 
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder 
North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies 
Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
UrQuattro
1 2 3 4 all )
Lord_of_Fungus
Cognitive_Shift
silversoul7
automan
Kaneda
minusrestraint
Room4Shroom