Can Anyone Save Descartes From the Cartesian Circle?

[Kanamori]

I can't say I've ever heard a good argument to save him from it, but have you?

Humor is always appreciated too~;)

[Byzantine Prince]

Would you mind writing the argument out in full. I have no idea about Descarte's Cartesian circle.

[Kanamori]

Basically, many people, myself included until I hear a good counter, think that Descartes' proof of God is presupposed by the statement "whatever I perceive clearly and distinctly is true." He uses the proof of God to show that "whatever I perceive clearly and distinctly is true." Basically, it is a big example of begging the question, or circle logic. It is in Meditations of First Philosophy, starting at the third meditation, although there is backround in the first two meditations, but I cannot recall if any of that backround is absolutely necessary to understanding the content of the third and on. Oh and if you are interested: Meditations of First Philosophy (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/ToC/Descartes%20Meditations%20ToC.htm). Haven't read from the source, but it looks complete from what I can tell (minuse some helpful footnotes of how the french version was translated from latin).

Edit: Would any Mod be kind enough to fix the poll so that it reads "God can," rather than "God"?

[Byzantine Prince]

I believe Descartes was in a lot of pressure from the church to not speak of atheist concepts.

That aside, I'm pretty sure Pindar will come up with a way to prove That god exists using that logic. Damn sophist! ~;p

The error comes from 'clearly and distinctly'. There is nothing in this world that we can percieve clearly and distinctly(except for one), not even our own existence(or else why would we doubt it?). Everytime we discover something clearly, more layers apear, and no end will come. Socrates was right when he said that 'he knows one thing, that he knows nothing'. :square:

Then again being convinced of one's own belief is quite different. ~;)

[Soulforged]

The error comes from 'clearly and distinctly'. There is nothing in this world that we can percieve clearly and distinctly(except for one), not even our own existence(or else why would we doubt it?). Everytime we discover something clearly, more layers apear, and no end will come. Socrates was right when he said that 'he knows one thing, that he knows nothing'. :square:

Yes there's. The phenomenums are percibable in their true way. Observation develops that image. The essence of things is not percivable, not with certainty and clearness.

"whatever I perceive clearly and distinctly is true."If when you say that he uses the proof of God to state this is what I think it is (ie. using God as a factor of change in reality), then the logic conclusion is false, because God doesn't exists. But perhaps there's more to that logic that I don't know. Didn't read the work, and I don't have time right now. Perhaps the previous meditations are needed. However the phylosophy has improved from those days, it will not surprise me if this is totally wrong.
In any case, when you ask if Descartes could be saved from this Cartesian Circle, you mean saving his points by adding arguments to it?

[ScionTheWorm]

I'll say no, but only guessing

[Kanamori]

Yeah, I was hoping for some humor maybe too, maybe asking for it ruins it:shrug: But my inclusion of 'God can' in the poll was an example of such attempts at humor. Aren't you laughing now?:knight:
~:joker:









Something tells me, 'no' is the aswer to that question.

~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry:

~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry:

~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry:

[Soulforged]

Yes....~D ~D I'm....~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~D

*Now that I realize that you're crying :devil:

[Pindar]

I can't say I've ever heard a good argument to save him from it, but have you?



Maybe, but I'm not going to tell you. That's would be too easy. ~;)

The process is as important as the final destination.

[Pindar]

That aside, I'm pretty sure Pindar will come up with a way to prove That god exists using that logic. Damn sophist! ~;p


We each have our place. My is to confuse. Yours is to be confused. ~;)

[Tribesman]

"whatever I perceive clearly and distinctly is true."
His perception might be clouded but he doesn't know it , what his clouded perception shows as distinct is really blurred .
So perhaps he isn't really going in a circle , he is going back and forth on the base of a triangle and has no perception of the apex of the triangle which he needs to get to , so as to really complete the cycle of his journey of understanding .

[Kanamori]

Maybe, but I'm not going to tell you. That's would be too easy.~;)

The process is as important as the final destination.


~:idea:

oh, nm.
~:(
Oh bugger that, i'm going back to bed until 12.~:cool:

[Byzantine Prince]

We each have our place. My is to confuse. Yours is to be confused. ~;)
Really? Your place is to make statements that lack clarity?

Do you understand why I call you a sophist?

[Reverend Joe]

Every system of understanding the world is based on an assumption. This assumption cannot- I just want to emphasise that, CANNOT- be proven wrong. This is why religion and our current system of science are incompatible- they are based on different assumptions. Science assumes that anything that cannot be scientifically proven is wrong; religion assumes that there are things that cannot be proven, and are intangible. Neither can disprove the other. In the same way, Descartes' theories cannot be disproven using our modern system, becuase they rest on an entirely different assumption.

Edit: I love these threads. They really liven up the backroom. Let's have more! :jester:

[Adrian II]

Science assumes that anything that cannot be scientifically proven is wrong (..)Science assumes that any statement that has not been scientifically refuted may be true. Only statements that have been refuted are considered wrong. Statements that are formulated in such a way that they could never be refuted fall outside the realm of science altogether. Many religious beliefs belong to the last category.

[Sjakihata]

Yes, AdrianII is correct. This is how refutation works and has been the best method. I think Karl Popper talked about this as well.

[Kagemusha]

All i can say to this issue is::gah2:

[Reverend Joe]

Science assumes that any statement that has not been scientifically refuted may be true. Only statements that have been refuted are considered wrong. Statements that are formulated in such a way that they could never be refuted fall outside the realm of science altogether. Many religious beliefs belong to the last category.

Well, yeah, that's kinda what I meant... unfortunately, Descartes also falls into that category- but that is a question of incompatibility. I have little experience with Descartes, but I do happen to know enough to know that his beliefs fall outside of our current line of scientific thought, such as questioning if we really know that something remains where it is when we cannot see it.

Another conundrum: if a tree falls in a forest and nothing is around to hear it, does it make a noise? Of course, any scientist would answer yes- but it all really depends on your definition of noise. If a noise is the vibrations in the air, then yes, of course it does. But what if these vibrations must be heard in order to be considered noise? What if, without being heard, it is simply considered to be vibrations in the ground and air? Can it not be argued, therefore, that a tree that crashes down in a forest with nothing around to hear it, does not really make a noise?

[Adrian II]

If a noise is the vibrations in the air, then yes, of course it does.Indeed.
But what if these vibrations must be heard in order to be considered noise?Then it doesn't.

If you define noise as vibrations being registered by a human ear, it does not make a noise if nobody hears it. You are playing with definitions. Nothing wrong with that. Only science does not examine (or experiment with) words.

Scientists observe a phenomenon, they give it a name, try to describe it, explain it, test their explanation, etcetera. For all they care, the phenomenon may be called 'x'.

The humanities all too often examine words, definitions, etymologies instead of real phenomena. It is one of their classic weaknesses that they tend to lose themselves in wordplay, however elegantly it may be presented.

BTW I stole this notion. Karl Popper first pointed it out.

[A.Saturnus]

Humor is always appreciated too

And here it comes:
*drumroll*
Descartes obviously didn´t know the Far Cry engine!

You asked for it.

[Reverend Joe]

If you define noise as vibrations being registered by a human ear, it does not make a noise if nobody hears it. You are playing with definitions. Nothing wrong with that. Only science does not examine (or experiment with) words.

Scientists observe a phenomenon, they give it a name, try to describe it, explain it, test their explanation, etcetera. For all they care, the phenomenon may be called 'x'.

I'm not sure if we are understanding each other (if you are, then I am not.) What I am trying to point out is not how to play with definitions. I am trying to point out that Descartes' theories cannot be tested by science because thay are not science. Science and Descartes have two different fundamental backings, and thus they are incompatible. You cannot apply a Cartesian circle or the scientific method to ideas that do not recognise these fundamental principles. It is like trying to tell a computer to "go **** itself". It will come out in a failure, either because the response was read as incorrect, or because the computer will tell you it does not understand. You have to work with the computer for it to respond correctly. Likewise, Descartes does not work in science because he is fundamentally seperated from the ideas that science tries to use to prove him wrong. Do not be mistaken- I am not anti-science. I just don't think science has any place with Descartes. Either you follow him or you don't.

[Byzantine Prince]

The real question is what does science have to do with this discussion? ~:confused:

[Reverend Joe]

I am trying to prove that Descartes does not have to be saved from the Cartesian circle because it works in his system. Can we really prove that anything that is proven wrong in the scientific system is actually wrong? No, because it is someone's construct. Follow it if you will; I usually follow the scientific construct myself. But it is a fundamental error to assume that this is true only because most people say it is, just as blind faith in god is wrong. You must consider the systems, and decide which suits you the best.

Also, why the Farcry engine? :confused:

[Kanamori]

And here it comes:
*drumroll*
Descartes obviously didn´t know the Far Cry engine!

You asked for it.

~:joker:

Unexpected direction is good.
~:cheers:

[Kanamori]

I am trying to prove that Descartes does not have to be saved from the Cartesian circle because it works in his system. Can we really prove that anything that is proven wrong in the scientific system is actually wrong? No, because it is someone's construct. Follow it if you will; I usually follow the scientific construct myself. But it is a fundamental error to assume that this is true only because most people say it is, just as blind faith in god is wrong. You must consider the systems, and decide which suits you the best.

Descartes went to great lengths to avoid the circle logic he is accused of committing.

[Reverend Joe]

Descartes went to great lengths to avoid the circle logic he is accused of committing.
So what's the problem?

[Byzantine Prince]

I am trying to prove that Descartes does not have to be saved from the Cartesian circle because it works in his system. Can we really prove that anything that is proven wrong in the scientific system is actually wrong? No, because it is someone's construct. Follow it if you will; I usually follow the scientific construct myself. But it is a fundamental error to assume that this is true only because most people say it is, just as blind faith in god is wrong. You must consider the systems, and decide which suits you the best.
Need I go into my old tirades about how philosophy is far superior to science. If you think that Descartes was thinking and making up his own illogical rules you would be mistaken. There are ways in which philosophers can prove others wrong by using pure reason, which is distinct in philosophy and affects everything.



Descartes will always be one of the most important thinkers for his Cogito Ergo Sum theory. No one else had been able to pinpoint existence as precisely and correctly as Descartes.

[Soulforged]

Need I go into my old tirades about how philosophy is far superior to science. If you think that Descartes was thinking and making up his own illogical rules you would be mistaken. There are ways in which philosophers can prove others wrong by using pure reason, which is distinct in philosophy and affects everything.Both are complementary. Not all phylosophy is based on metaphysical proportion, and not all science is based on empirism. I'll go as far as saying that science depends more on phylosophy than the other way, but in abstract both are equal to the other (that's in knowledge value).

[Reverend Joe]

If you think that Descartes was thinking and making up his own illogical rules you would be mistaken.

WHAT?! NO! NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! :wall:

I'm trying to prove that his system worked just as much as anyone else's- I am not saying anything about him making uo his own rules! If anything, I am trying to argue the exact opposite!

And yes, philosophy really contains a lot of boundless power, that is limited only by the knowledge of the man who is philosophising. But I can't understand why you think that I think that Descartes pulled all this stuff out of a hat. It's not wrong at all- it's just different.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

As far as the falling tree example is concerned, you don't have to be there to hear it. You can record the sound and even do a frequency analysis. This means that the falling of the tree does indeed produce a measurable effect.

[Reverend Joe]

As far as the falling tree example is concerned, you don't have to be there to hear it. You can record the sound and even do a frequency analysis. This means that the falling of the tree does indeed produce a measurable effect.

Ah, but are you hearing the noise, or a recording of the noise? And is not the frequency analyzer detecting the vibrations, and not actually hearing the noise? "Measurable effect" also falls in the realm of science. It does not work with the idea that noise is only that which is heard by someone or something that can speak about it- i.e. an intellegent being. This is outside of the scientific pathway, and onto another. It crosses onto the "Cogito Ergo Sum" idea created by Descartes.

[Quietus]

Another conundrum: if a tree falls in a forest and nothing is around to hear it, does it make a noise? Of course, any scientist would answer yes- but it all really depends on your definition of noise. If a noise is the vibrations in the air, then yes, of course it does. But what if these vibrations must be heard in order to be considered noise? What if, without being heard, it is simply considered to be vibrations in the ground and air? Can it not be argued, therefore, that a tree that crashes down in a forest with nothing around to hear it, does not really make a noise? There's no conundrum though. Sound (inside your head) and soundwaves are two different phenomenon. Soundwaves are converted in your ear and the signal is sent to the brain and interpreted as a sound (eg. boom, clang, pow, etc.)

Think of your Ear and Brain as a Store and the Soundwaves as Money.

Your fifty dollars is converted to a RTW CD inside the store. If there are no store, then your fifty dollars remain fifty dollars.

Hence if there's no person in the forest, the soundwaves remain soundwaves, but there's no sound.

Sound only happens inside your head.

[Reverend Joe]

That is the first time I have heard that distinction.

[A.Saturnus]

Sound only happens inside your head.

But where inside your head? The ear nerve, the thalamus, the auditive cortex or the temporal lobe?