Quote:
|
Originally Posted by qprogeny79
descartes made a fatal error. it should be "sum ergo cogito."
that said, i hate existentialism. objectively speaking, the power of our belief cannot make ANYTHING real. a thing is real only if it does not depend for its existence on our conscious mental states or activities (unless, of course, those things are the mental states themselves -- which does not make them ontologically inferior to more tangible existents). that said, the same applies to personal identity -- we are real independent of our own perception of reality. alyasa's posts, while interesting, i think conflate metaphysical questions with ethical questions -- just because we have nothing else for which to live does not mean we cease to exist or that our existence supervenes on our experience.
it is an intriguing question, however, whether we could define ourselves in meaningful terms if everything we value were suddenly ripped away from us. presumably we value our own lives, and our lives would be devoid of meaning or purpose without something to value (be it a person, a thing, a principle, etc.), so wouldn't the best among us have all the more reason to fight to get back that for which we so fervently wish? didn't the founding fathers, in the face of tyranny and under the threat of fierce retribution, write the declaration of independence? didn't galileo stare straight in the face of the omnipotent catholic church and challenge the entrenched ptolemaic doctrine of the earth as the center of the universe? didn't martin luther king jr. fight for equal protection under the law even when confronted with a bigoted populace intent on keeping entire segments of society as second-class citizens? wouldn't the man who had everything he worked for years upon years to achieve forcibly seized from him, not give up until he found a way out of his padded cell? wouldn't any man worth a damn, having truth and justice on his side, do the same?
|
Capitalization!
With "I think therefor I am" Descartes wasn't saying he was self-conceived, he conjectured only a perfect being could be self-conceived, and that he was fully aware of his imperfections. His thought was merely proof that he existed. "I am therefor I think" is nonsensical. A coma patient exists, a dead body exists, do they think? Existence can't create thought, but thought can prove existence.
By the way, Glice, your last 2 posts were very good and well capitalized. I owe you some rep, but I gotta pass it around first.
Lastly, with the regards to happiness, happiness comes from having some form of control in a world of chaos. So a man with a good job, a beautiful and loving wife, several wonderful children, and a house that is fully paid off would be happy. He feels that he feels he has a life that is under control within his own realms. Take everything away from him, odds are he will be depressed, because he will realize that he never really was in control. To regain his happiness, he must create a new sphere of control. He may turn to artistic output. He regains happiness. Now lets paralyze him and remove his 5 senses as well, but put him on an IV drip. This man will now be incredibly depressed, but perhaps, he can realize that he still has his thought. He can visualize and hear things in his head. Perhaps he can create a world in his head where he is still functioning, where his wife is alive as well as his children, he has his house, and he can even quit his career to become an artist. His mind is his last refuge of control, and he can still be happy with it.
From that, one can say that if hell exists, it is a place where you cannot even control your thoughts.