Descartes (DAY-CART)
Sorry, english Language people will have to correct my phonetics, but that's how his name is said anyway!
Right well, Descartes was a philosopher trying to prove a lot of things, he took on a negative attitude towards all things in an attempt to find a fundamental beginning to everything (i.e. a "theory" of everything) the only problem with this is that one of these cannot really exist if, for example, i one day stumbled accross such a theory, "today everybody, matthew marshall has found a universal theory that can be applied to all science, he has won a nobel prize and will be forever remembered as the greatest thinker who ever lived" (not that i wouldn't be anyway!) well, say my theory of everything is: Y=3n/(4GLV)2 (as a disclaimer, if this actually DOES turn out to be the theory of everything, then i thought of it first ok!? so : p to you mr Hawking!!!) Anyway, point is if this WAS the theory, you'd still need a theory, or some form of working out what n, G, L and V were and indeed what are their components, and thus begins the never ending cycle that Descartes forund himself in, yet he didn't want a scientific formula but instead it would suffice for him merely to understnd the full and basic nature of life, not much to ask! So through his studies he asked questions like: "Is this chair really here, or is it just a perception?" to try and get to fundamental basics or what we can "know" for certain. Overall he concluded that one could never know everything, especially other people's perceptions of things (which was another major part of his work) I.e. if i look at my guitar i see red, yet someone else may see it as what i perceive to be blue, however to them that has always been red and will always be, but we will never know. So instead his only truth that he could fathom, to his overall question of "is life REAl" is that what he knew was all he could be sure of, the fact that he thought was his only freedom, he knew he thought, he knew for "certain" that what went on in his head is in many ways unconfined by the outside world and therfore free from the posibility that it is only a perception and not actually real. So to console himself, and to convince himself that he DOES actually exist he concluded: I think, therefore I am.
Well, at least thats how i understodd it, but reading it back it makes no sense, maybe we need another deep thinking session in the pub again gaz! Or if anybody else knows more about this than i do, feel free to correct me!!
Right well, Descartes was a philosopher trying to prove a lot of things, he took on a negative attitude towards all things in an attempt to find a fundamental beginning to everything (i.e. a "theory" of everything) the only problem with this is that one of these cannot really exist if, for example, i one day stumbled accross such a theory, "today everybody, matthew marshall has found a universal theory that can be applied to all science, he has won a nobel prize and will be forever remembered as the greatest thinker who ever lived" (not that i wouldn't be anyway!) well, say my theory of everything is: Y=3n/(4GLV)2 (as a disclaimer, if this actually DOES turn out to be the theory of everything, then i thought of it first ok!? so : p to you mr Hawking!!!) Anyway, point is if this WAS the theory, you'd still need a theory, or some form of working out what n, G, L and V were and indeed what are their components, and thus begins the never ending cycle that Descartes forund himself in, yet he didn't want a scientific formula but instead it would suffice for him merely to understnd the full and basic nature of life, not much to ask! So through his studies he asked questions like: "Is this chair really here, or is it just a perception?" to try and get to fundamental basics or what we can "know" for certain. Overall he concluded that one could never know everything, especially other people's perceptions of things (which was another major part of his work) I.e. if i look at my guitar i see red, yet someone else may see it as what i perceive to be blue, however to them that has always been red and will always be, but we will never know. So instead his only truth that he could fathom, to his overall question of "is life REAl" is that what he knew was all he could be sure of, the fact that he thought was his only freedom, he knew he thought, he knew for "certain" that what went on in his head is in many ways unconfined by the outside world and therfore free from the posibility that it is only a perception and not actually real. So to console himself, and to convince himself that he DOES actually exist he concluded: I think, therefore I am.
Well, at least thats how i understodd it, but reading it back it makes no sense, maybe we need another deep thinking session in the pub again gaz! Or if anybody else knows more about this than i do, feel free to correct me!!
posted by Freak | 15.1.06
2 Comments:
i thought it meant "i think, therefore i am (conscious/sentient)"
and im always up for some deep thought in a pub. name your place and time monsieur
didn't really get all of that but, as for the perception thing, isn't it just the same as saying the truth is subjective? Because what is true ('real') for one person is not always true for everyone? And so shouldn't the word reality have the same denotation as perception? Instead of something akin to 'The quality or state of being actual or true.' As there is no truth nor actuality that is beyond argument.
Weee, dunno if that makes sense because im still half asleep and most probably rambling.
hugsnhugs.
Post a Comment
<< Home