Harry Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 My subjective experience is not proof of anything. It is just a subjective experience. It seems to me thinking is proof of thinking, Existence itself is proof of existence. I'm thinking that is circular logic Perhaps one would find "I am" is not logical. It is a priori. No more can be said of it. Logical truths are a priori (necessary, certain and universal - anyone would deduce the same results ) Perhaps, i still have said nothing nor explained anything. Oh well, Peace. Joseph Joseph, I think we have both been as clear as we can be for the time being. Peace back at you. Harry, BTW, Your story above may be inspirational to others here. Perhaps it could go well in more detail under the Stories and Journeys section of the forum if you get the time to share more. It may help others on a similar journey. Sorry, I have digressed you from the topic of faith here. I will consider that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted June 7, 2011 Author Share Posted June 7, 2011 Harry, Was reading back over posts and thought i would try one more pass with you Not to beat a dead horse but reconsider the statement of Descartes. "I think therefore i am." The word "therefore" in English means as a result of or as a consequence of. I do not think and as a result of that thinking exist. It may be proof that I exist, but it is not correctly stated in English. Therefore the correct statement in my view without regard to any thing other than the common sense of language. "I am therefore I think" is a more correct statement. I am and as a resut of that being, I think. Without that I am there is no one thinking or smelling or etc. The "I am" would properly come first when using the word " therefore" here. Is that logical Harry. I rest my case Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Harry, Was reading back over posts and thought i would try one more pass with you Not to beat a dead horse but reconsider the statement of Descartes. "I think therefore i am." The word "therefore" in English means as a result of or as a consequence of. I do not think and as a result of that thinking exist. It may be proof that I exist, but it is not correctly stated in English. Therefore the correct statement in my view without regard to any thing other than the common sense of language. "I am therefore I think" is a more correct statement. I am and as a resut of that being, I think. Without that I am there is no one thinking or smelling or etc. The "I am" would properly come first when using the word " therefore" here. Is that logical Harry. I rest my case Joseph I think you are correct but not more correct. The choice you make in the way you make the statement does not change the correctness to a greater truth. you could say: If A + B = C , or C = A + B, then A = C – B or B = C – A. All are correct but none is more correct than any other You are using a literal translation of a Frenchman's logical statement which has been stated in other forms as well. In written logic his statement would be called an "if then" statement: Such as "if (A = B and B = C) then (A = C). The literal English translation replaces "then" with "therefore". You have focused on the meaning of "therefore" and that makes your argument seem correct but "then" and "therefore" are not exactly the same as you show by the definition of therefore. The original statement as he wrote it was "Cogito ergo sum". The literal translation to English is: "To think on account of (or because of) to be. This translation is no more correct when stated "Sum ergo cogito". I think the problem in translation lies in the word therefore being defined as "the result of". This would lead one to believe (and I don't believe) that it was the thinking that made someone pop into existance. If they stopped thinking would they disappear, poof? LOL The thing I like most about "I think therefore I am" is the way it was used as proof of existence. As I stated in earlier posts, everything that exists doesn't think (meaning doesn't reason with self consciousness as we understand it) but it exists in our minds because we think it exists. There are things that exist in our minds that may not actually exist and there are things that actually exist that we are not aware of or don't think exist. The truth Descartes was stating that was "a priori" knowledge that because of his self consciousness he could reason that he existed. Anyone would come up with the same conclusion through deduction. Other such "a priori" knowledge is found in mathematics 1 + 1 = 2 etc. Empirical knowledge comes from our senses and our senses can fool us. Empirical knowledge is "posteriori" and not always reliable Here is the phrase as explained in Wikipedia: "He, (Descartes), is perhaps best known for the philosophical statement "Cogito ergo sum" (French: Je pense, donc je suis; English: I think, therefore I am; or I am thinking, therefore I exist or I do think, therefore I do exist), found in part IV of Discourse on the Method (1637 – written in French but with inclusion of "Cogito ergo sum") and §7 of part I of Principles of Philosophy (1644 – written in Latin)." "In a mathematical proof, the therefore sign (∴) is a symbol that is sometimes placed before a logical consequence, such as the conclusion of a syllogism." "A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός – syllogismos – "conclusion," "inference") or logical appeal is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form, i.e. categorical proposition. In Prior Analytics, Aristotle defines syllogism as "a discourse in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so." (24b18–20) Despite this very general definition, he limits himself first to categorical syllogisms (and later to modal syllogisms). The syllogism was at the core of traditional deductive reasoning, where facts are determined by combining existing statements, in contrast to inductive reasoning where facts are determined by repeated observations. The syllogism was superseded by first-order predicate logic following the work of Got lob Free, in particular his Begriffsschrift (Concept Script) (1879)." I hope I haven't added confusion to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted June 7, 2011 Author Share Posted June 7, 2011 Not at all Harry. Thanks for the lesson in logic. Perhaps they should have done a better job in translation to English. I concur with thinking being proof of existence but believe the English statement as translated is incorrect and this is correct " I am therefore I think." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Wow! This is a great thread! It's going to take me awhile to reread and really process so much good stuff...but its worth it. The only thought I will add at this point is one I've been working over in thoughts actually several years now...that is of separating, isolating, "faith" from the common for "faith in----." When that "in ---" gets tacked onto "faith", the focus shifts to what ever that "----" happens to be, instead upon faith itself, as itself, of itself, and only itself. Most often we hear this in common religious talk as having faith in some human construct, some religious belief or beliefs system...in which case, as already noted here, questioning, examining, beliefs becomes as challenging, attacking the believer's faith, and even the believer him/herself. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Not at all Harry. Thanks for the lesson in logic. Perhaps they should have done a better job in translation to English. I concur with thinking being proof of existence but believe the English statement as translated is incorrect and this is correct " I am therefore I think." This is where we shall leave it then. I'm good with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Wow! This is a great thread! It's going to take me awhile to reread and really process so much good stuff...but its worth it. The only thought I will add at this point is one I've been working over in thoughts actually several years now...that is of separating, isolating, "faith" from the common for "faith in----." When that "in ---" gets tacked onto "faith", the focus shifts to what ever that "----" happens to be, instead upon faith itself, as itself, of itself, and only itself. Most often we hear this in common religious talk as having faith in some human construct, some religious belief or beliefs system...in which case, as already noted here, questioning, examining, beliefs becomes as challenging, attacking the believer's faith, and even the believer him/herself. Jenell I have often stated I am a skeptic, I wasn't always a skeptic but became one over a period of 20 years. It was a long and thoughtful process and I feel much more at peace with my humanity because of it. If I were to have faith in anything it would be faith in the logical process of analytics and that the process will continue to enlighten us as we evolve. In order to have faith as defined almost everywhere I've looked a person must "believe" something with no proof. It is different to accept the possibility of something that might happen than to flat out believe it will happen. Throughout my life I have always tried to learn the truth and the truth I've learned is there is no reason to believe anything that cannot be reasonably presented and argued. Nothing about the various religious creeds of any religion I'm aware of can be reasonably argued. Having faith in the irrational is not a gift to be treasured but a weight to be discarded so people can be free to think for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soma Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I also like this thread. I feel reason and faith are compatible if they begin with evidence and reason instead of a religion that predetermines the conclusions. I think skeptics are good at this because they are willing to listen to the other side. Science saves me from religious fossilization and with evidence tamed my intellect so I could experiment in my mental laboratory and experience the Divine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I'm glad this thread was resurrected, I didn't notice it before. The meanings of faith that are personally relevant for me are "entrusting" and "faithfulness". Neither directly connote belief in certain propositional matters, therefore do not necessitate 'certainty' about them. I don't see the quest for certainty as misguided. Elusive, yes, but indeed a very powerful and potentially fruitful motive if approached with skillful wisdom. Certainty, for me, is about how I have come to see things more than about the 'what' of what I see. Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I'm glad this thread was resurrected, I didn't notice it before. The meanings of faith that are personally relevant for me are "entrusting" and "faithfulness". Neither directly connote belief in certain propositional matters, therefore do not necessitate 'certainty' about them. I don't see the quest for certainty as misguided. Elusive, yes, but indeed a very powerful and potentially fruitful motive if approached with skillful wisdom. Certainty, for me, is about how I have come to see things more than about the 'what' of what I see. Peace, Mike Mike, That is confusing to me can you give an example in less vague terms? Are you saying that faith doesn't require certainty? Is faith with you a trust based on past experience or existing knowledge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Hi Harry, Thanks for the question. Forgive me for I do enjoy being somewhat ambiguous, it's part of the way I see life itself as being. Faith for me is learning to entrust myself, my ego, my sense-of-reality, to reality just as it is unfolding in each moment. "Faithfulness" sort of encapsulates my devotion to practice and realization, which I perceive to be meaningful and sacred. I'm not the kind of person who can muster much faith in abstract propositions about that which may or may not exist. For instance, God is often seen as an object among other objects. If that is how we approach God, then we should be able to detect him as an object among objects, and if we cannot, then we don't have much reason to accept his existence just as we do not accept the existence of objects for which we have no evidence. I'm less interested in objective statements about reality than I am about my own mode of being in reality. Hopefully that clarified my opinion to some degree. Peace to you, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Hi Harry, Thanks for the question. Forgive me for I do enjoy being somewhat ambiguous, it's part of the way I see life itself as being. Faith for me is learning to entrust myself, my ego, my sense-of-reality, to reality just as it is unfolding in each moment. "Faithfulness" sort of encapsulates my devotion to practice and realization, which I perceive to be meaningful and sacred. I'm not the kind of person who can muster much faith in abstract propositions about that which may or may not exist. For instance, God is often seen as an object among other objects. If that is how we approach God, then we should be able to detect him as an object among objects, and if we cannot, then we don't have much reason to accept his existence just as we do not accept the existence of objects for which we have no evidence. I'm less interested in objective statements about reality than I am about my own mode of being in reality. Hopefully that clarified my opinion to some degree. Peace to you, Mike Mike, It does clarify your method of communication somewhat but I consider ambiguous communication as being really poor communication. Your words make whole sentences but because they are ambiguous they make puzzling sentences to me. Why try to communicate if you’re not interested in objective statements? What is your objective if you are only interested in your own mode of reality? What do you have to share? What are your ideas? Please don't be shy about sharing ideas; I'm sure you have them and I hope you would like to have others reflect on them. The stealth technology developed by our war machine was developed so we could go into a territory undetected with no reflection of radar, drop our bombs and move out unharmed and undetected. I for one would like to detect what you think because some of the ambiguous statements you made provoke further discussion. I'll start by saying that I don't believe in a god separate from us that loves us and wants us to earn our way into his good graces; to me that is irrational and I don't entertain irrational faith. What say you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Hi Harry, Language itself can be irreducibly ambiguous, much as I feel that reality can be, or is. There can be more to communication than the intent to establish propositional statements corresponding to objective fact. I believe that there is more to being than objectivity, and this is something I'm personally fine with. This isn't to say language is arbitrary, but its job doesn't involve figuring out the essence of things. We are more prone to invent the essence and work backwards. I'll start by saying that I don't believe in a god separate from us that loves us and wants us to earn our way into his good graces; to me that is irrational and I don't entertain irrational faith. What say you? I wholeheartedly agree - in fact, you could have ended it at "I don't believe in a god separate from us". Thanks, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 hmmm... it seems to me that "I think therefore I am (exist)" works as evidence of (my) existance, the other statement, "I am (exist) therefore I think" does not. To have capacity to think is pretty good basis for existance. However, many things exist but do not think or have the capacity for thought. As in, a rock is (exists) but it cannot be assumed that since it is (exists) that therefore it thinks. The statement could only remain valid when turned around if both conditions, thinking and existing, were neccesarily always present together. But they aren't. To think, we are assuming we must exist, in that case, it is neccesary that we exist to be able to think. But we do not assume existence is a sufficient cause for thinking. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 hmmm... it seems to me that "I think therefore I am (exist)" works as evidence of (my) existance, the other statement, "I am (exist) therefore I think" does not. To have capacity to think is pretty good basis for existance. Janell, While thinking may be one of many proofs of existence to many, when you use the word "therefore" it means when used as a sentence connector , as a result of or consequence of. Since the "I am" had to come before thinking then properly spoken it should say "I am therefore I think" , I am therefore I smell, etc. "I am" is not a consequence or result of thinking but rather thinking is a consequence of " I am" That is my only point. While i may agree with you that rocks do not think, we would agree they exist. Existence always proceeds sensation or the capacity to think therefore "I am" or being, is the substratum of existence and should in English proceed the consequence . However , if you object to my reasoning.... i yield to you, Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 In Meditations II Descartes says, in reference to G-d: Then I exist if he [G-d] deceives me, and let him deceive me as much as he will, he can never cause me to be nothing as long as I think I am something ... I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time that I pronounce it, or that I mentally conceive it. Compare this to the petition in the Lords Prayer "Lead us not into temptation ..." Myron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 "I think therefore I am." and "I am therefore I think." are not equivalent ways of saying the same thing. I think we can all agree on that. It occurred to me that we are emphasizing the wrong word. We could say I am or we could say I am. Was Descartes deducing his physical material existence or was he deducing the existence of his conscious reasoning self or his ego. The ego includes perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive functions. Conscious awareness resides in the ego. If he was referring to the existence of his ego, which I think is correct, he stated it correctly "Cogito ergo sum". He (his cognitive, perceptual, intellectual self) exists as a result of his thinking. Ego cannot exist without thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 Harry, There is i and there is I. there is self and there is Self. One requires thinking and is temporal. the other is essence and eternal and cannot be proved but can be subjectively experienced.. In my subjective experience their is no ego in the Big I only in the litlle i. The big I is hid in Christ and egoless. But that is not an arguable point at least with me. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornet Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Some people think that the word "faith" means "to believe in something for no reason" or "to believe in something that you know isn't true", but this is not what the Bible teaches. Hebrews 11:1 says, "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." In other words, having faith means that you are confident that you are going to get what you were promised. You have a firm conviction that what is promised will take place. The Christian knows that God is trustworthy and that the Bible is a trustworthy source of information so he has a good reason for placing his faith in God and in the Bible. Moreover, there is enough evidence that God exists and that the Bible is the word of God to provide a good justification for these beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 While I think that Descartes belongs in this thread, it is for different reasons - beyond the extraction of "I think, therefore I am" from his metaphysicalal system. Descartes is, primarily, a rationalist and his approach is best described as "the method of doubt". Rationalism requires coherency and coherency holds that no proposition can be considered apart from the network of other propositions in which it is embedded. Rationalism also holds, generally, two additional background assumptions contained in the following: Active Mind. " ... a mind equipped with genetically determined categories or operations that are used to analyze, organize, or modify sensory information and to discover abstract concepts or principles not contained within sensory experience. The rationalists postulated such a mind (Hergenhahn, 1992)." Descartes is also well know for his bifurcation of "mind" and "body" as duality of substance which, in the end, is perhaps a grand illusion. Whitehead disagrees with Descartes when he notes that each time Descartes pronounces "I am, I exist" the 'ego', or the actual occassion which is the ego, is different. The "I" which is common to the two 'egos' is an eternal object or the 'nexus of successive occassions (Whitehead, 1929, p. 75). Myron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Good point Myron, If the ego is what Descartes sought to establish, then I think his analysis is flawed. My bigger problem with Descartes is with his mind/matter dualism you mention; I feel it is unfortunate that his metaphysics was so influential in this respect. Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Good point Myron, If the ego is what Descartes sought to establish, then I think his analysis is flawed. My bigger problem with Descartes is with his mind/matter dualism you mention; I feel it is unfortunate that his metaphysics was so influential in this respect. Peace, Mike Mike, If you are interested in Whitehead, I can provide some insights into his work not directly stated in Process and Reality. When Whitehead moved from England to assume a position at Harvard he found a close friend in none other than William James. This led to (or confirms) a rich exchange of ideas, some of which appear in Whithead's later works. I am referring here to several notions for which James is well known: 1) The James-Lang theory of emotion, 2. Consciousness as a highly selective stream, and 3)... Over a hundred years ago, in his Principles of Psychology (1890), William James put forward a fascinating account of the self. In that theory, he makes a distinction between two aspects of self, the self as subject, or the "I," and the self as object, or the "Me." James goes on to investigate the nature of these two aspects of self. He concludes that the me comes in three basic types: the "material me", the "social me", and the "spiritual me." As for the I, James concludes that, at least for the purposes of psychology, there is no need to postulate a subject of experiences, a metaphysical I that goes beyond the physical being who does the thinking. Rather, he concludes that 'the passing thought ... is itself the thinker' (1890, p. 401). This quote is from an article I just started reading From "the thought is the thinker" to "the voice is the speaker" William James and the Dialogical Self http://jbarresi.psychology.dal.ca/Papers/Dialogical_Self.htm Just can't help connecting the dots I quess. Peace, Myron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Harry, There is i and there is I. there is self and there is Self. One requires thinking and is temporal. the other is essence and eternal and cannot be proved but can be subjectively experienced.. In my subjective experience their is no ego in the Big I only in the litlle i. The big I is hid in Christ and egoless. But that is not an arguable point at least with me. Joseph Well then let's just say that Descartes was talking about the little i and I will drop the subject with the satisfaction that he had it right and so do i. Argument over. (At least with me) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (Soma) ""Faith is to believe what we do not see; and the reward of this faith is to see what we believe." St. Augustine" This one just feels risky...it strikes me as perhaps confirmation bias? Self-fulfilling prophecy? Circular reasoning? ? Thomas theorum: That which we believe is real is real in it's consequences. (without regard to whether what ever it is meets any rational criteria for being real or not) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soma Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 ""Faith is to believe what we do not see; and the reward of this faith is to see what we believe." St. Augustine" Jenell, I like St. Augustine, but not that quote. I feel faith has light for those who want to believe, but it also has shadows to blind those who follow. I feel a person with real faith is a skeptic with passionate awareness. It starts with suspicion and ends with awareness and perception. For these individuals their faith is strengthened with reason so they don’t need a sense of control. They seem to trust or have faith in instinct, intuition, hunches and insight so they get with the flow. Delight and benefit are the symptoms they are on the right path. It seems fear is a factor that brings some to faith. This seems to stiffen their mental process making them rigid and strong in the negative sense. I feel these individuals are singing when it is dark so attract many followers, but the shadows and darkness makes them blind. “Faith... must be enforced by reason.... When faith becomes blind it dies.” ~Mahatma Gandhi "Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother." ~Kahlil Gibran There are so many fine lines that make this discussion go back and force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.