--- On Wed, 10/22/08, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [epistemology 9667] Re: disambiguation of Descartes
> To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]>
> Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 10:16 AM
> I doubt Descartes is original in the manner you present him
> - Sextus
> Empiricus and others of his times perhaps required more of
> us in
> understanding subjective states.
============
G:
I don't present him as original, but as that who
defined current epistemology and science. Democrit
originated the concept of "atom", but for my model of
atom I'll look rather into the Quantum Field Theory.
And I don't know about "subjective states". I found my
Universe in (my) Awareness, so it is just one global
"subjective state" if you insist on this tautology.
Nice to see you appear in my subjectivity again.
Cheers
Georges.
============
Your are right, of
> course, that much
> criticism of him only works through misunderstanding him in
> the first
> place. My guess is that most people conflate objectivity
> with
> 'manners' and unexamined socially approved
> epistemic authority. The
> issue for me is how we develop the clear sense and passion
> and do not
> enter states in which we cannot even recognise there may be
> valid
> local knowledges, or eventually even voices like our own
> that are
> arguing in a valid manner because we have taken that form
> of
> subjectivity to which all others must be subject.
>
> On 20 Oct, 14:54, Georges Metanomski
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > DISAMBIGUATION OF DESCARTES
> > ===========================
> >
> > Google returns 1 200 000 hits for "descartes is
> wrong"
> >
> > Impressing collective effort of "negative
> thinking",
> > as a Hegelian dialectician would say. "Bottom
> up" as
> > well to satisfy populists. Actually, more
> "negative"
> > than "thinking". Random checks of 100 hits
> show that
> > the Bottom Negative Thinkers don't have the
> foggiest
> > of what they prattle about. Why this enormous effort?
> > Seems clear. What a satisfaction for a Bottom Negative
> > Thinker, or, as some would say, for a Village Idiot,
> > to feel that he is so much cleverer than Descartes.
> >
> > COGITO
> > ======
> >
> > Cogito is the most muddled part of this tsunami of
> > fatuity, so for people who try to keep their heads
> > over the flood, its disambiguation may be of some
> > assistance.
> >
> > Let's open a parenthesis:
> >
> > **Words don't carry meaning, but only point to it
> > and often hide it like trees hiding the forest.
> > Meaning emerges in beholder's mind, in his
> interpretation,
> > or, more often, gets warped or vanishes altogether in
> his
> > misinterpretation. And the more general and
> multivalued
> > the words, the more impenetrably they hide the
> particular
> > meaning intended by the utterer and the more good
> faith
> > and ingenuity needs the beholder to correctly
> interpret
> > them. Now, as well "Cogito" itself, as its
> introductory
> > considerations, are formulated with most multivalued
> terms
> > culminating in the empty copula "sum" -
> "am", whose
> > indirect meaning resides far beyond its face value.
> > Henceforth, we shall have to seek the most plausible
> > meaning of involved terms, beyond their often, if not
> > always, misleading face value.**
> >
> > Let's start with the terms of the crucial
> statement:
> > "Dubito, ergo cogito; cogito, ergo sum",
> > translated verbatim to the apparent nonsense:
> > "I doubt, thus I think; I think, thus I am."
> >
> > "I doubt". What about? In the light of
> introductory
> > arguments - about the certainty of my assertions.
> > I doubt about the (A)real existence of their objects,
> > due (A1)to sensory illusions and (A2)to the vague
> > separation of dreaming from awakedness. I doubt also
> > about (B)the intrinsic well-foundedness of my
> > assertions, as some "Malignant Demon" may
> confuse and
> > disarrange their underlying reason.
> >
> > Let's note that "reality" and
> "existence" of (A) do
> > not refer to any metaphysical, transcendental
> "beings",
> > but to unambiguous and not daydreamy percepts, objects
> > of knowledge. (B), still less metaphysical, but
> > apparently much more destructive, denies the certainty
> > of a priori deduction and mathematics.
> > It would seem that no assertion, nothing in the whole
> > knowledge can withstand this permanent, overwhelming
> > doubt. But paradoxically this very doubt provided
> > Descartes with the "one thing, that is certain
> and
> > unshakable", which he was seeking. (**Archimedes
> used
> > to demand just one firm and immovable point in order
> > to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great
> > things if I manage to find just one thing, however
> > slight, that is certain and unshakable.**)
> > Indeed, in order to err, to divagate, to doubt, I must
> > think and, however doubtful its objects, my thought
> > undoubtfully exists. (**cogitatio est**, the rhetoric
> > empty copula implying "exists").
> > Now, we have seen above that in Cogito's context
> > "existence" has no metaphysical claims, but
> denotes
> > the certainty of assertions' objects. So "my
> thought"
> > does not pretend to exist upon some transcendental
> > Olympus, but, more humbly and rationally declares that
> > "my thought and only my thought is certain".
> But who
> > arbitrates this certainty? Clearly "I",
> which denotes
> > (my) Awareness.
> >
> > Finally, "Dubito, ergo Cogito" means:
> >
> > ONLY AWARENESS IS CERTAIN.
> >
> > The more famous "Cogito ergo Sum" is, in the
> light of
> > what we said above, a rhetoric repetition destined to
> > stress the message. Its cryptic empty copula and
> > especially the absense of "dubito" - "I
> doubt" provokes
> > innumerable superficial, fanciful, metaphysical
> > misinterpretations.
> >
> > Cogito has no metaphysical or ontological claims
> > nor implications. It is strictly confined to
> > Epistemology, where it turned upside down all
> > traditional beliefs in transcendental "objective
> > reality" and established the preponderance of
> > subjectivity in cognition and science, which stayed
> > their cornerstone till our own days.
> >
> > It defined anew "existence/reality" in the
> way
> > still underlying our contemporary epistemology and
> > science:
> >
> > Exists for me that what I know (with matching
> > (un)certainty) (where "me", "I"
> imply Awareness).
> >
> > GENERAL IMPACT
> > ==============
> >
> > Addressing the Vienna Circle Popper said:
> >
> > ***
> > "The empirical basis of objective science is
> *nothing
> > absolute.*
> [1]
> >
> > Science does not rest on a rockbed. Its towering
> > edifice, an amazingly bold structure of theories,
> > rises over a swamp. The foundations are piers going
> > down into the swamp from above.
> [2]
> >
> > They do not reach a natural base, but go only as deep
> > as is necessary to carry the structure. One does not
> > stop driving them down because one has reached firm
> > ground. Rather, one resolves to be satisfied with
> their
> > firmness, hoping they will carry the structure.
> [3]
> >
> > (If the structure proves too heavy and begins
> tottering,
> > it sometimes does not help to drive the piers further
> > down. It may be necessary to have a new building,
> which
> > must be constructed on the ruins of the collapsed
> > structure's piers.)
> [4]
> >
> > *The objectivity of science can be bought only at the
> > cost of relativity.* (He who seeks the absolute must
> > seek it in the subjective.)"
> [5]
> > ***
> >
> > This vade mecum of current rational Epistemology could
> > have been written by Descartes:
> >
> > [1] and [5] are compatible with Galilean Relativity
> > armed by Descartes with exact mathematical tools:
> > Cartesian Referentials and algebraized Geometry which
> > founded Calculus and most of modern science.
> >
> > [5] is entirely contained in "Cogito", which
> turned
> > upside down all traditional beliefs in transcendental
> > "objective reality" and established the
> preponderance
> > of subjectivity in cognition and science.
> >
> > [2],[3] and [4] illustrate rational
> deductive/inductive
> > axiomatization such as it has been conceived by
> Galileo
> > and completed with Cartesian Doubt or Uncertainty.
> >
> > Ergo, standing on the shoulders of Galileo, Descartes
> > simply created the concept and the methodology of
> > science founding all subsequent rational Epistemology
> > till our own days. Unfortunately, rationality is far
> > from dominating our thinking.
> >
> > First Enlightenment did not entirely eradicate its
> > contemporary Dogmatism and soon collapsed under its
> > reactionary assaults. The reaction of Dogmatism went
> > on uninterrupted till our epoch which is dominated by
> > dogmatic obscurantism out of which is timidly emerging
> > the new Rationality of the Second Enlightenment.
> >
> > POSTSCRIPT
> > ==========
> >
> > Besides his crucial impact on epistemology and
> science,
> > Descartes, as it often happens to scientists, thought
> > up one of the most fatuous ontologies, not worthy the
> > effort of opening the book. It contributes largely to
> > misunderstanding his other prodigious achievements.
> >
> > Georges.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection aroundhttp://mail.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
