Log in |
Register
Well. My only intention was to make a point about masochism. A person with an unstable sense of self will seek to anchor it to another person by any means possible, and someone's desire to hurt or dominate might be most easily available or the most familiar option. This is why abusive relationships are so stable, because the target or the victim derives a sense of self from the abuse. The reason why it's so difficult to leave an abusive relationship is this loss of self, more than loss of love, money or convenience.
I did not mean at all to touch upon what Descartes really said or believed. It was just a joke. Of course I am not trying to stop anyone else from having this discussion. But I personally find hard to see him as relevant for simply being a name in history. In the worst case he didn't say anything meaningful or believe in anything workable or coherent. To me the very fact that he was an atheist or that he tried to cover it up makes this no different.
zarklephaser4:
Well. My only intention was to make a point about masochism.
You may not have expected your joke to go off in this direction, but in the end, it elicited a very good response. Well said.
zarklephaser4:
I did not mean at all to touch upon what Descartes really said or believed. It was just a joke.
Yes, I understood your joke. Regardless, I made an aside comment that became a larger tangent.
If you're going to misquote Descartes, which is the norm, you risk someone snidely raising their index finger and interrupting with "Actually!! ...". That person is me. Lol
zarklephaser4:
In the worst case he didn't say anything meaningful or believe in anything workable or coherent.
The majority of 5/6th's (~83%) of Decartes' Discourse On Method is one of the all time, most celebrated and revered works of philosophy. I'd say that qualifies as "meaningful", "workable", and "coherent".
Don’t have much to engage with on this topic yet, other than inserting some facts to correct what appeared to be some ongoing misconceptions.
Descartes was not an atheist, much of his fundamental work addressed questions about the context of humans, their imperfections, relationships to nature and perfection, and the concept of a perfect God.
Also, Descartes was quite an influential mathematician, and his exploration of ideas was crucial to the dissemination and development of Cartesian geometry in western academe.
The basic idea that I've got is that in Aristotle's thinking and medieval theology, God or gods or uncreated ideas were the highest reality that brought forth the material world. Then human mind or psyche abstracts from the material world, these abstractions being in order lower than it, but is able to grasp God or gods or ideas through this process. This is why it was held that art was by default less real than the physical reality it depicted.
Then somehow early modern thinkers flipped it so that now God or gods or ideas were directly present in psyche or mind, which in turn became inserted between the uncreated and matter. Now you did not need to go through a separate step of elevating the mind, which itself was held to be part of the material world, to contemplate the uncreated. The mind or psyche was already there, by this new definition, participating in the uncreated or ideas or divine or whatever.
Another possibility is that what has here been called "appeasement" was an attempt to create confusion for the sake of it.
Is there any short summary, maybe five printed pages long, on what Descartes actually said and believed?
In all seriousness, given your past exploratory writings, I truly thought you would be familiar with this topic.
As a general recommendation, do look into epistemology.
Descartes certainly believed that one’s own senses could not always be trusted to determine what is real or rational. In the process of attempting to discover fundamental truth, he concluded his perception that he exists must be true, because he is capable of thinking so.
As for your Descartes request, voila: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesianism
I think it's highly unlikely Descartes was an atheist. His entire philosophy is based on the existence of the ego (cogito ergo sum) and the subsequent ontological proof of God. Saying that the ontological argument was just an appeasement is very cynical unless in some letter or some note he says something very explicit.
Discussion on the nature of God was of course a subject open to argument, so if he doesn't make mention of God as often as other scholars of the time, this would imply he believes in a God that is less involved in the day to day working of the cosmos. Saying that God created the universe and the laws of nature (deism as opposed to theism) is different yet not that far from what many theologians believe, even though they may call such a belief heresy. I think calling Descartes a Deist, who had a unique conception on the nature of God, is more appropriate, especially because very few if any intellectuals of the time doubted the existence of God. People, even revolutionary philosophers, don't generally stray so far from the believes of their time. If they do, there should be ample evidence for this. If there is no good evidence, you shouldn't jump to a conclusion that fast.
As for your Descartes request, voila: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesianism
This actually looks like what I've believed about his thought for years now. The reason I seem confused is because from what phenoms says about the Discourse I get the idea that there is something deeper or different. For example that Descartes secretly was an atheist and a materialist who only talked about God to fool the Church.
This assumes that the Church is dumb enough to fall for any confusing talk about God, though it is obvious from literature and history that they had quite detailed understanding of what they believed and why. Only take a look at Summa or any catechism of that time. To an atheist any talk of God may be like any other talk of God and he may easily project this by mistake. The alternative then is that Descartes actually believed in his dogwhistling, which did not fool anyone but for some reason neither merited any definitive action. At least I fail to see a third possibility.
Actually I do see one. Descartes was working for or even related to the ruling secular powers of his time, and his supposed thought was intended to be no more than a propaganda weapon. He did not go from one rich and famous person to another rich and famous person because they thought he was so smart, but because he was related to them. And useful too. Also the conclusion of his thought, that somewhat resembles a generic Gnosticism, is that God is some kind of spark within human psyche, and is potentially within every man, rich and poor, despite their choices and actions. It practically means secularism, where money and political power, which is what his friends and relatives had, gets to rise to the top.
Oh my goodness! I had no idea that such high-brow discussions occured on this website.
would you expect anything less? the greatest minds assemble here and they have excellent taste in females i might add
would you expect anything less? the greatest minds assemble here and they have excellent taste in females i might add
Hahaha! You have made a very good point Thatguy888!
Being a mathematician in my daily life, seeing Descartes show up on GWM has me disjointed....
"WORLDS COLLIDING JERRY!!! WORLDS COLLIDING!!"
You are not alone Dc3rd!
Mods, since this is unrelated to female muscle, "Subcommunities" seemed like the best place to put this. If I got it wrong, kindly move this thread to the appropriate section of the forum as you see fit.
This is a continuation of a tangent from another thread. I've carried over the relevant tangent posts from the other thread below. Please keep any further discussion regarding Rene Decartes here in this thread.
phenoms:
phenoms:
phenoms:
I'm saying that most of the entire section before and after Cogito Ergo Sum were appeasement, as were small mentions of "God" sprinkled throughout. He built two cases: His true premise, and his appeasement. The Church heard it's requisite dog whistles, and Decartes got to live to the ripe old age of 53 and died of pneumonia. That Cogito Ergo Sum is so often misquoted is a fluke. It wasn't some great finish. It's just another line buried in the middle of his primary appeasement.