The First Amendment by Geonny Pawlick
April 17th, 2008 10:14 PMI question that I think. I think that I think, but I still have my doubts. I certainly can't prove it.
Moustaches aside, that Herbie Hatman fellow has got it all wrong.
You see, Descartes was a haunted robot who knew nothing about anything. But one thing he does have: a lot of the same letters in his name as Socrates. Now, Socrates, THERE was a guy who knew what the happy haps was. Socrates was all like "I don't know crap about crap, but neither do you, and I admit it, therefore I'm smarter." Run-on sentences were very popular in ancient greece.
Socrates is alleged to have said a whole mess of awesome stuff, like:
"I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others."
- He was all about Excellence, just like his friends Bill and Ted.
So, here I am exercising my two most basic natural rights.
1) The Right to Ignorance - I couldn't think of anything worthwhile to do for Li'l Al's task.
2) The Right to Question - Herbie Hatman, beautiful moustache or no, alleged himself to be in possession of knowledge of his own existence. Me, I doubt that either of us exist.
P.S. LATIN ALERT: That's actually very poor latin at the start of this text. Cogito is more "I ponder" than "I think" and "I think that I think" continues two very different forms of the verb "to think". One more of the "I believe" family and the other of the "I am capable of rational thought" family. I was once told the proper way to convey that phrase in latin, but I decided not to remember it as it doesn't get the point across in as clever a fashion as the improper one does.
4 vote(s)
Terms
(none yet)11 comment(s)
Sorry Mr. Hatman, but we are friends of So-Crates. Like, yeah.
If I may:
Cogito me cogitare ergo cogito me esse.
(Indirect statement.)
(I'm a geek.)
so wondering whether or not you're thinking does NOT constitute thought? i'm confused.
One thing that always irked me when reading philosophical texts as a lad was the arbitrary things people decided were obvious. I don't KNOW that I think. Therefore I don't KNOW that I am. I can only assume that I think (and, as follows, assume that I am.) But I don't see how people decided that thought was incontrovertable.
Worse than Descartes is Anselm, claiming existence greater than non-existence, and backing up this claim with a resounding "Because."
I absolutely share your frustration with arbitrary declarations of truth. And worse, philosophizing of that sort has no practical application that i can see. And yes, everything Descartes said after
Cogito ergo sum
was an arbitrary declaration of reality based on his subjective perception of certain ideas as "clear and distinct." But isn't it obvious, or should I say *clear and distinct* that you think? Or are you just a spectator in the movie theater of your mind?
I hesitate to ask at all, as a good rhetorician can deconstruct any argument- especially mine as I am an expert in nothing.
I am the last person to judge whether or not I objectively think. Don Quixote was certain that he thought, that he had free will. But he doesn't "exist". How can I be sure I'm in a better position than he? I can assume I'm not a fictional character in a book someone is writing, or a verse in a multi-dimensional poem some creature beyond my comprehension is composing, or somesuch, but I can never KNOW otherwise.
This thing that I assume is thought, might not be my own and it might not "exist".
But this gets us to the awful discussion of what qualifies as existence and the implications thereof, which is I why I like to say "Philosophy is for suckers." I've got way more important things to spend my time on, like Moustaches.
"If one knows little about anything, then I wonder how they know how others can be wrong."
I know only three things which are provably true:
1) That I know nothing (save for those three things which are currently being enumerated).
2) That you know nothing.
3) That you have something growing from out your upper lip that is indescribably spectacular.
You argued contrary to the second of these things that are provably true. Thus you were wrong.
"Additionally, if one knows little about anything, then how would he or she know that two of the natural rights given to humanity are the right to ignorance and the right to question."
He or she wouldn't. Unless he or she was exercising another natural right: the right to poke fun at another's praxis. Repeating the words of philosophers and then saying "See, look what I did".
Hugs and Kisses,
Geonny
I consider myself to be in the school of thought of American Pragmatism.
It is almost a sort of anti-philosophy. Damn near relativism, and that's a dirty word in most of the philosophy world.
I think that you may find Pragmatism to be a much more pleasant alternative to the school of Skepticism in which you seem to have found yourself. Skepticism is, though at times thought provoking, useless. To truly be a skeptic is to question everything. For example to question if one is really thinking.
Another example is of the skeptic waking up in the morning. The skeptic wonders "am I awake? Am I me? Do I have to pee, or is it just a sensation that is happening? Do sensations really exist?" So on and so forth until the skeptic is left there in a now very wet bed.
I don't like to wet my bed.
I am happy to admit that I know very little about the world and that there is far more information out there than I will ever be capable of learning. However, as an american pragmatist I also accept my perceptions as my reality. If I think that I have to pee, then it is likely true.
Pragmatism allows for shift in my paradigms of thinking (thanks Kuhn). It also allows me to understand that your premises about knowledge are paradoxical in the world of rational thoughts in which we partake.
As far as philosophy being for suckers. You're right. It is as masturbatory as this here sf0 game. It's a squandering of time. The only facets of philosophy which serve any Utility (thanks Mill) are Ethics and Logic.
I'm going to go ride bikes.
Best,
Herbie
I like this discussion.
I believe that to function as a human in this world we are forced to generally assume that some things are true. We assume that our perceptions are reality. We assume that we're thinking. We assume that anything that's happening is actually happening.
And while I, too, accept these things as truth in my daily life, I don't presume to accept them as truths on any higher plane. I don't presume them to be universal, or even actually true. They are just things I have to accept in order to survive and be happy. And I want to do both of those things.
When I wake up and have to pee I'm not thinking philosophically. I'm thinking "I have to pee" and I get up. But, after the fact, if I were to look at the incident in a philosophical light I would be the first to admit that my sensations were not necessarily reality. I just assumed they were so I wouldn't wet my bed.
Vote for mentioning Don Quixote.
It is an interesting thing to espouse that one may not know "crap about anything", and then to continue on to state (with self provided authority) that a different individual is wrong. If one knows little about anything, then I wonder how they know how others can be wrong.
Additionally, if one knows little about anything, then how would he or she know that two of the natural rights given to humanity are the right to ignorance and the right to question. Seems a bit paradoxical and logically unsound.
Best Regards,
Herbie Hatman