Posted by alexandra_k on May 12, 2005, at 1:09:21
In reply to Re: and the key to my depression as well » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on May 11, 2005, at 22:04:51
> Descartes believed he had found the most fundamental truth when he made his famous statement: 'I think, therefore I am'.
Yes. He was writing around the time that the sciences were getting underway. Scientists were claiming that they were coming to know things about the material world. But scepticism was a threat to the whole project. The scepticism being 'but isn't it possible that the scientists are mistaken?'
Descartes tried to doubt everything that could possibly be doubted in order to see whether there was anything that was immune from doubt. Whether there was anything that he did know for certain. The point of the whole project was that he wanted to demonstrate that human knowledge rests on foundations of certainty - thus rescuing the sciences, and indeed the whole of human knowledge from sceptical worries forever.
To defeat the sceptic once and for all.
So when he found the cogito 'I think therefore I am' he must have been delighted :-) There is something that it is impossible to doubt. Whenever I think 'I exist' I confirm that I do in fact exist. But then the question remains WHAT am I? What is my nature? If I am certain that I exist then what sort of thing is this I that certainly exists?
Descartes 'equates thinking with Being' to the extent that he considers that whenever something thinks then it confirms its existence... And he 'equates' identity with thinking when he says that whenever something thinks then it confirms its existence - AS a thinking thing.
Descartes found that when he thought 'I exist' then it was certain that he did exist. When he asked himself 'what am I?' he found it was certain that he was a thing that thinks.
But what else is he???
He doesn't conflate being with thinking, because he doesn't rule out the possibility that non-thinking things (ie most material objects) exist. It is possible that they dont, but then it is also possible that they do... We can't be certain either way. So all thinking things exist, but then non-thinking things might exist too... He doesn't rule out the possibility that he has a body. But he says that he can't be certain that he does.
Whenever he thinks the thought 'I exist' his existence (as a thinking thing) is confirmed. He can doubt he has a body. He cannot doubt he has a mind.
Descartes then uses that as an argument for Dualism (the idea that there is the mind / soul / spirit on the one hand, and body / brain / the material world on the other).
His argument relies on Leibniz' law which goes something like this:
If we have x and y
And we want to know whether x and y are the same thing
Then if we can find one property that x has that y lacks
Then we have shown that they cannot be the same thing.
Because (at any given moment in time) a thing must be identical with itself.So all he needs to do is find one property that the mind has that the body lacks and he has shown that mind and body are two different kinds of things.
He says:
1) The mind has the property of indubitable existence (I cannot doubt that I am thinking - that I am a mind if you like)
2) The body does not have the property of indubitable existence (I can doubt that I have a body - or that I am a body if you like)
_______________________________________
Therefore: The mind is not the body.So Descartes argues that one is more properly identified with ones mind than ones body. One has immediate and direct access to the state of ones mind but not the state of ones body.
To see that we typically tie identity to mind more than body consider the notion of life after death. If it is possible for me to survive the death of my body then my identity seems to be tied more to my existence as a thinking thing rather than my existence as a physical thing. Suppose, on the other hand that I am lying in my coffin and all conscious experience or mind ceases with the death of my body. There is a sense in which I don't exist anymore. Even though my body is right there - still existing. 'I' am not my body. Rather, it seems to be true that I HAVE or POSSESS a body.But is it true to say I HAVE or POSSESS a mind?
Or is it better to say I AM a mind?> Identification with your mind creates an opaque screen of concepts, labels, images, words, judgements, & definitions that block all true relationship.
So he wants to say the former.
I have a mind.
Not I am a mind.Ok. I have to say that I find the extract hard to understand...
Supposedly...
>It [saying you are mind rather than you have a mind] comes between you & yourself
If I am not a mind then what am I?
> You practice mindfullness meditation Alex as do I, and what are we striving for? No mind.
I couldn't do it when I strove for that.
You can't will yourself unconscious!
What I strive to do is to focus on one thing
One thought
To the exclusion of all else.
To direct all of my attention on that one thought
So that one thing became everything.
And distinctions were all lost.
All that I was aware of was one thought.
I have meditated on the cogito :-)
I also quite like
'I am an active information processor'.
Even though that might be false....>In those moments we achieve this, do we cease to exist?
I'm not sure that we get there in meditation. But we surely do in a dreamless sleep. Because Descartes thought that what one was was a thinking thing then it would follow that when we stop thinking we fail to exist. Yup.
Note: that is just to say
'I exist - as a thinking thing'.
'When I stop thinking - I stop existing as (or being) a thinking thing'.
It might sound odd.
But that that follows, yeah.Descartes concluded that the only essential property that he was certain he had was existence as a thinking thing.
But.
Surely he could have other essential properties.
It is just that he would never be in a position to be certain that he did or did not have others.So.
While it is certain that we exist as a thinking thing.
That thinking is sufficient (enough) for existance.
It is still possible that thinking isn't necessary for existance - though it is fair to say that thinking is neccessary for existence as a thinking thing.
So while we are certain that we are thinking things.
It is not certain that that is all we are.
It is not certain that there aren't other characteristics that are also essential to our identity.
There might be
There might not be.
If there are some others then we might get to continue to exist right through dreamless sleeps.
Though not as a thinking thing.
Not if we stop thinking,
Nope ;-)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:494272
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050503/msgs/496727.html