Descartes's perception on the world are very interesting. At base of his argument, “I think therefore I am” there is a subtler point of the idea of truth, what do we presume and what can we actually know. If our sense can deceived, both in the obvious of chemicals in Gatorade tasting like juice, and in a fantasy film appearing almost lifelike, as well as in the deeper sense of our instincts not being correct, then who is to say our sense of logic can not be deceived as well? Descartes claims that there are certain universal truths that are always existent, but the basic truth of who we are, comes to down to thought, thought which can be changed and altered, than who is to say that things such as gravity, or mathematics, do not only exist in a set way because we believe they do?
So why try to find truth if our entire existence is only based on logic which we have created? Humanity itself is tied to this truth. If we ignore this truth we ignore civilization, we ignore humanity, and we die. An ugly truth but while one can logic ourselves clear out of existence, it is tough to implement this knowledge and so we must grasps and live within the confines of society.
Adam, I'm not sure I follow your argument here, particularly when you say that 'So why try to find truth if our entire existence is only based on logic which we have created? Humanity itself is tied to this truth. If we ignore this truth we ignore civilization, we ignore humanity, and we die.' I'm sure you're onto something interesting here; I just can't grasp it.
ReplyDeleteIn defense of Descartes, he does offer reason to think that there is a clear difference between sensory information and logic/ math/ geometry. Perhaps it comes down to intuition, but we generally believe 2+2=4 no matter what happens in the world, and that 'If A then B; A; therefore, B' is always valid no matter what, whereas we are quite aware that if something, say, looks blue to one person under certain light, it may not to someone else under different light.
I think you have a really interesting point. It is all so much to think about and brings an interesting perspective to the world. I think that even if everything we have could just as well be wrong doesn't constitute stopping the search for what is real.
ReplyDeleteI like your title a lot :)
ReplyDeleteand I'd like to comment on what Charles said, "Perhaps it comes down to intuition, but we generally believe 2+2=4 no matter what happens in the world, and that 'If A then B; A; therefore, B' is always valid no matter what..."
In my Phil 101 class we've used that exact same example in some ideas that involve belief and truth. You cannot both believe something and know it is wrong. So if you know something is fact, you cannot say you believe it is contrary to that fact, you know?
In the same class, "If A then B; A; therefore, B' is always valid no matter what..." assumes that A is a true and valid thing. You cannot make that argument if A is something like "the sky is green," because then it can not stand as a sound argument.
It all gets so complicated, and I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but there you go....
Kelly, you're probing some good questions here, but just to clarify: no matter what we insert for 'A' or 'B' in the logic example, the idea is that the argument will always be valid -- ie, the *reasoning* will be good. So if I say:
ReplyDelete'If unicorns exist, then unicorns have a horn.
'Unicorns exist.
'Therefore, unicorns have a horn.'
the problem is not with the reasoning, but really just with the 2nd premise -- 'unicorns exist', which is a false claim about the world. The logic is unaffected.
(Sorry for the logic primer!)