Acting morally on atheism

[BryanH]

Didn't we have this discussion in another thread? I believe I asked you something like, who is doing the doubting? To which you replied "I am, but you can't prove that I am doing that".

I explained you last time as well, that thinking and existing don't go together all the time.

Another thing I told you last time: You can't think before you actually exist.

"I think therefore I exist" is basically a false statement.

Let's say that I do ignore and over look the inaccurate cause-effect relationship; thinking is not a mandatory condition of "to exist".

I give you that in same cases thinking is related to existence.

So to be honest I don't understand why all the fuss about this "Cogito ergo sum".

If you say "I think therefore I have a consciousness", well, that might mean something else.

[Beanybag]

Beanybag,

Yes, you understand. God, as it is in your understanding, is not a set. You're making yourself look foolish saying that. Limitations are imperfect, sir. You understand this just fine. I didn't say there was an infinity. Where did you get that? There is no perfect deception. That's an oxymoron. There is no perfect imperfection. That is again an oxymoron. Those words as they are understood are contrary ideas. They are not trivial like an indubitable idea.

I think perfect deception does exist, what then? I don't see how they are oxymoronic, I don't understand your meaning. You can assert that I understand (as well as assert everything else you asserted here) but that doesn't make it true.

I am not sure how your current objection regarding language has any bearing here. You're basically arguing semantics. You've fallen into a pitfall of questioning the linguistics itself. If a police officer pulls out a gun, points it at you, and tells you put your hands up. I seriously doubt you're going to refuse to do so until he explains the origination of the phrase to uphold that it actually means something.

Your ideas don't have any grounding for knowledge, since we're trying to come up with epistemic grounding. These ideas require words, where do the words come from? I've found, through Kant and Wittgenstein to find some need for an empirical basis for knowledge, rather than rational, or at least accounting for concepts from intuitions. If we're following Descartes' idea of denying all our knowledge, how is it he feels comfortable using words? Does he deny that language is a form of knowledge? It's not semantics when you can't prove how you came to hold this knowledge to begin with. Can you show that ideas of doubt & understanding of existence can exist without words? Who did you learn your words from and why? Language is important. I'm not saying you can't use language in your explanation, but you certainly have to account for it.

You say you don't accept a mental/non mental divide. Are you monist? Major problems there.

I don't reject it either. Maybe there's a third realm maybe there's none?

You say that your not making claims. Platonism remains a possibility? Again, I've explained its not unless you want to believe a phenomeomism system where numbers have informed you of their presence. Naturalism is, again, carries presuppositions that are unjustified (therefore, is phenomenonism).

Can you show that your philosophy wasn't ultimately learned through phenomenalism? I'm not so inclined to deny my base intuitions, although I recognize that they can't provide justification in of themselves.

I hope this gets thru to you beanybag.
In order to detect falsehood, you must know truth.

Why?

Descartes was a fantastic philosopher and mathematician, but he has not solved it. I wonder if any questions have even really been answered, or if we have just found flaws in the original questions?

[domokunrox]

I've been really busy, and I wanted to get back to you guys. Sorry for the long delay.

I explained you last time as well, that thinking and existing don't go together all the time.

You know whats interesting? I thought about this, and neither I nor Descartes has made such a claim. You'll see in a minute.

Another thing I told you last time: You can't think before you actually exist.

Another thing I told you last time. Thats not what the philosophy is actually stating.

"I think therefore I exist" is basically a false statement.

To more accurately put it because most people don't know this.

I think. I exist.

The formulation of the statement is not using the former to prove the latter.
Its stating that "I" is certain. Not because you think or because you are stating that you exist, but because you cannot doubt that you exist.

Let's say that I do ignore and over look the inaccurate cause-effect relationship; thinking is not a mandatory condition of "to exist".

Who ignored it?

I give you that in same cases thinking is related to existence.

So to be honest I don't understand why all the fuss about this "Cogito ergo sum".

If you say "I think therefore I have a consciousness", well, that might mean something else.

I just don't think you understand the statement anymore. Its not about the statement at all. Is a statement even necessary? Not at all. You can be absolutely certain of your existence without a single statement. He wrote the statement because he couldn't just not write anything at all. Explaining your existence is not adequate as a statement because its a reality that cannot be doubted. Not an idea that you put into words, but that we are certain and desire to express the reality.

I think perfect deception does exist, what then?

You're not thinking of something that is a perfection. Deception is ABSENT of truth. It is a perfection to be PRESENT, and it is an imperfection to be ABSENT.
Saying that perfect deception exists is sort of like saying that you are presently absent. Also, its not a trivial statement (like an indubitable idea).

I don't see how they are oxymoronic, I don't understand your meaning. You can assert that I understand (as well as assert everything else you asserted here) but that doesn't make it true.

It actually does. Anselm explained it quite well.

Therefore, Lord, who grant understanding to faith, grant me that, in so far as you know it beneficial, I understand that you are as we believe and you are that which we believe. Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be imagined.

Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is.

For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his understanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.
Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding.

And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater. Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be. There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality.

Your ideas don't have any grounding for knowledge, since we're trying to come up with epistemic grounding.

No, we're actually done with the epistemology. Where have you been? We are epistemologically certain of the reality of perfection. Once we are there, we're good. This is good.

These ideas require words, where do the words come from?

Its not an idea. Its a reality.
Also, you asked the correction question! Where do the ideas come from? They didn't come from us!

I've found, through Kant and Wittgenstein to find some need for an empirical basis for knowledge, rather than rational, or at least accounting for concepts from intuitions.

Well, Kant is wrong. If there is CERTAIN intuitive knowledge that we have, how are we supposed to learn this knowledge from experience? Empiricism (The most common version) is the position that ALL KNOWLEDGE comes from experience. You can't "experience" intuitive knowledge. Intuitive knowledge is UNDERSTOOD.

If we're following Descartes' idea of denying all our knowledge, how is it he feels comfortable using words?

Are you arguing Semantics or Semiotics?
First off, its not an issue regarding "comfort" (whatever you mean by that). Did you have something in mind? Can you explain another way to communicate without using writing or verbal?
Should he have sent a smoke signal? Semaphore? Aldis lamp?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqiUGjghlzU&t=01m04s

Does he deny that language is a form of knowledge?

Knowing how to communicate is not the same thing as knowing meaning.
Sounds like you're making an equivocation error.
I know how to speak in English, Spanish, and Japanese. Sometimes, some words and phrases have deep cultural background, but it doesn't get in the way once you get good at it.

It's not semantics when you can't prove how you came to hold this knowledge to begin with.

It is. Unless you can prove that language and grammar doesn't mean anything or is unable to express an idea, you're pretty much lost in your objection.
You're just begging the question here, bud.

I have to then ask, how do YOU KNOW that communication doesn't mean anything? Do we not understand each other? I find it baffling that we're arguing that we somehow cannot a) Understand each other OR b) Unable to properly express something really meaningful in communication. Either way, this objection is futile. Defeats itself immediately.

Can you show that ideas of doubt & understanding of existence can exist without words?

Who is doubting? Who understands?
The very fact that we can communicate, and you understand the communication proves the view to be true.

Is your next objection one where you argue for the deaf and/or the blind? Again, this is a futile objection where you'll keep moving the goal posts.

Who did you learn your words from and why? Language is important.

Listen, I don't believe language is unimportant, but this objection is begging the question. You're either arguing that words do not mean anything or there is a cultural issue in language. Its on you to prove that view. It is not mine.

I'm not saying you can't use language in your explanation, but you certainly have to account for it.

I have to account for communication? Well, first off, language does not exist in spatial extension similar to numbers. Therefore, it exists non-spatial. How are we informed of the existence of language and meaning? Meaning is intuitive knowledge. Langauge is developed for the purpose communicating something meaningful.

I don't reject it either. Maybe there's a third realm maybe there's none?

So, you're agnostic?

Well, Monism carries incredibly troubling problems for knowledge and our way of life. On one hand, if there is only objects that take up space, there is no meaning. On the other, if there is only non-spatial existence, experience is just an illusion (which is crazy, btw).
Dualist philosophy pretty much is responsible for the advancement of all civilization. Exclusively western, too.

Its not possible that there is "none". If there was nothing, then there would be nothing. However, there is something.

Its interesting that you said maybe theres something else because I do hold that position.
In Descartes Philosophy, existence falls into 3 categories.
1. Matter in motion (Spatial extension), its purpose is to take up space
2. Imperfect mental substances (Non-spatial), is given its purpose.
3. God (The mind with all possible perfections), gives purpose and meaning to everything else.

Can you show that your philosophy wasn't ultimately learned through phenomenalism? I'm not so inclined to deny my base intuitions, although I recognize that they can't provide justification in of themselves.

My philosophy isn't learned by phenomenalism because we first start off with doubt until we can no longer. Again, the short list of what we cannot doubt.
I must exist an imperfect mental substance
Ideas are indubitable as ideas
Perfection cannot come from imperfect minds
A Perfect mental substance exists as a fundamental reality (Not by the way of indubitable ideas)

From this point, all other knowledge is built onto.

Why? Descartes was a fantastic philosopher and mathematician, but he has not solved it. I wonder if any questions have even really been answered, or if we have just found flaws in the original questions?

Well, some philosophers and critics of Descartes first philosophy think that he is "partially circular reasoning." However, I think this is incorrect. Descartes first philosophy is the only one that isn't "completely circular reasoning."
If you don't believe actual infinities exist, Descartes isn't at all circular. He is spot on and its all airtight.
If you are uncommitted or believe in the existence of infinites, then Descartes is "partially circular". However, you're left with your view to conclude phenomenalism (which isn't any better, its far worse, IMO).