Philosophy

Originally posted by @chaney3
Still, no need for you to act like an arrogant, smug SOB.

I try to communicate with you, but I think the problem is that you're, by nature, just a jerk, and a real turn-off to speak with.

Most posters would agree, as you well know.

It's interesting to note that you claimed ~ maybe less than an hour ago ~ to object to "name calling".

Originally posted by @chaney3
I thought you were an atheist now. Didn't know you left an option open for God.

I must have told you what my stance is with regard to the possibility of a god or gods at least half a dozen times in posts addressed to you that you read and replied to. How can you say you "didn't know"?

Originally posted by @fmf
It's interesting to note that you claimed ~ maybe less than an hour ago ~ to object to "name calling".

Yeah, I know.
You aggravate me, as noted in the other thread.

I always liked the Edie Brickell line 'Philosophy is the smile on a dog'.

Metacognition relates to ones understanding of worldy events or situations understood as metaphor.

Originally posted by @stellspalfie
I always liked the Edie Brickell line 'Philosophy is the smile on a dog'.

I believe the lyric is actually:

Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box
Religion is the smile on a dog

Originally posted by @fmf
[youtube]oTJGrGAa_wg[/youtube]

"When you think about it, thinking about thinking is the hardest sort of thinking there is. Which makes you think."

Is there a grain of truth in this?

I just watched the video. It was pretty amusing.

Originally posted by @fmf
[youtube]oTJGrGAa_wg[/youtube]

"When you think about it, thinking about thinking is the hardest sort of thinking there is. Which makes you think."

Is there a grain of truth in this?

Cogito ergo sum.

If so, then it follows that thought transcends material existence because thinking is knowing that I am because I think, not because I have a physical body.

This physical body doesn't think. It contains, or houses, that part of me that has the spiritual substance of that which gives me the faculty of thought not wholly characteristic of my physical frame.

Thought is the attribute of that part of my being that says "I am", which is distinct from that part of me I call my body.

I am a spiritual being, therefore I think.

Here, take this nickel, and the above, and buy a cup of coffee. 😉

Originally posted by @secondson
Cogito ergo sum.

If so, then it follows that thought transcends material existence because thinking is knowing that I am because I think, not because I have a physical body.

This physical body doesn't think. It contains, or houses, that part of me that has the spiritual substance of that which gives me the faculty of thought not wholly characteristi ...[text shortened]... being, therefore I think.

Here, take this nickel, and the above, and buy a cup of coffee. 😉

“Cogito ergo sum” begs the question. If all that is observed is“Cogitare est fieri” - “thinking is happening,” you need “Thinking happening implies there exists an ‘I’ doing the thinking.” With that, you can get to ‘ergo sum.’

Even that begs the use of the first person singular. Languages codify the assumption that their structure is the structure of the world. Established languages serve their establishment.

Originally posted by @js357
“Cogito ergo sum” begs the question. If all that is observed is“Cogitare est fieri” - “thinking is happening,” you need “Thinking happening implies there exists an ‘I’ doing the thinking.” With that, you can get to ‘ergo sum.’

Even that begs the use of the first person singular. Languages codify the assumption that their structure is the structure of the world. Established languages serve their establishment.

Well then, what is thinking, and who is doing it?

Thought is within the domain of the thinker. I think of mine own will. I think therefore I am. I am what I think I am, and maybe a few things besides. 😉

Originally posted by @secondson
Well then, what is thinking, and who is doing it?

Thought is within the domain of the thinker. I think of mine own will. I think therefore I am. I am what I think I am, and maybe a few things besides. 😉

I suggest the critique section of

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

One suggestion is to treat it like we treat “It is raining.”

Originally posted by @js357
I suggest the critique section of

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

One suggestion is to treat it like we treat “It is raining.”

Im not an astute philosopher, but isn't the following quotes affirming what I've said thus far?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

"And finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be something; And as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am, was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the Sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search."

"While we thus reject all of which we can entertain the smallest doubt, and even imagine that it is false, we easily indeed suppose that there is neither God, nor sky, nor bodies, and that we ourselves even have neither hands nor feet, nor, finally, a body; but we cannot in the same way suppose that we are not while we doubt of the truth of these things; for there is a repugnance in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks. Accordingly, the knowledge, I think, therefore I am, is the first and most certain that occurs to one who philosophizes orderly."

Otherwise I'm not at all certain what you're trying to tell me.

Originally posted by @secondson
Im not an astute philosopher, but isn't the following quotes affirming what I've said thus far?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

"And finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I su ...[text shortened]... e who philosophizes orderly."

Otherwise I'm not at all certain what you're trying to tell me.

I've been off my game. Maybe I'll try to describe my problem with Descartes' Cogito another time.

Originally posted by @js357
I've been off my game. Maybe I'll try to describe my problem with Descartes' Cogito another time.

Well, when you do I'd be very interested in discussing it with you, but keep in mind I'm fundamentally academically challenged. I'm not so schooled in the deeper meanings and concepts of philosophical thought.

Originally posted by @secondson
Well, when you do I'd be very interested in discussing it with you, but keep in mind I'm fundamentally academically challenged. I'm not so schooled in the deeper meanings and concepts of philosophical thought.

I took one semester of “philosophy 101” in college while rethinking my major, which went from chemistry to teaching chemistry and back to chemistry. Not schooled in philosophy but enjoy it.