Does Philosophy Accept Self-Evident Truth?

[badhat]

What does a "self" (subject) look like on its own, separated from "self" (object)?

 

[Namekian Maranantha]

What does a "self" (subject) look like on its own, separated from "self" (object)?

Could we say....The former looks like that... *points to the unspeakable reality of processes* ??

The latter looks like the various superficial memories categorized by this process called language ??

 

[badhat]

On the latter, we can say that other entities have "selves", and it makes sense.

For the former, when you say it's a reality, unspeakable or otherwise, that seems to be leading us right to Descartes.

 

[Namekian Maranantha]

When you say "I AM" self-reflexively, who is the subject? Who is the object? If the answer is "self" for both of these questions, are they the same "self", or are we looking at two different things, mistakenly grouped together?

Some may argue that Descartes is mistakingly grouping two different "things" together...

On the latter, we can say that other entities have "selves", and it makes sense.

For the former, when you say it's a reality, unspeakable or otherwise, that seems to be leading us right to Descartes.

How does what i previously stated lead us to Descartes?

 

[badhat]

Some may argue that Descartes is mistakingly grouping two different "things" together...

That's a fair assessment.

How does what i previously stated lead us to Descartes?

By virtue of the statement "I think therefore I am" being able to accept the self as a subject, combined with your definition of the subjective self as a reality, it makes the statement a proof of ontological existence. To argue that existence still isn't an objective truth, we have to attack the foundations of that statement logically preserving truth value, which is a lot dicier.

 

[Namekian Maranantha]

By virtue of the statement "I think therefore I am" being able to accept the self as a subject, combined with your definition of the subjective self as a reality, it makes the statement a proof of ontological existence. To argue that existence still isn't an objective truth, we have to attack the foundations of that statement logically preserving truth value, which is a lot dicier.

I am suggesting there may not be a subjective self.
Descartes is suggesting there is a subjctive self by identifying it with thought.

To say "i think therefore I am" is to identify reality (as a subject) with thought (as memories / 'eperiences'/ language / as an isolated personal 'OBJECT'). Which is questionable in my opinion.

The definition of the subjective self put forth as a unspeakable reality of process / change, was not to suggest that the subjective self is that, but was to point out what philosophers such as descartes are doing.. They are assuming that the unspeakble reality of change is the subjective self by identifying it with thought, or the thinking process.

 

[badhat]

Then when you parse "(I think therefore) I am", what would you say is acting as the subject of that statement, if not the self?

 

[Namekian Maranantha]

The 'illusioned self' has no choice but to be the subject of that statement.

This is why i posed the question earlier in this thread "I wounder what descartes would have said if asked, If you are not thinking, are you there?"

What would you say?
What would you say is acting as the subject of such a statement? feel free to through your 2 cents in..

 

[badhat]

I think I agree with Descartes by the methodology I've been forwarding.

The two methods that immediately come to mind are digging deeper into Being as a primary ontology, a la Heidegger, and questioning language's relationship to rationality, a la Rorty (maybe combine the two and use some Levinas). I feel like it's a tough sell either way, and I don't think I'm convinced yet.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

@VMR thoughts?

Ive finally started to digest the glorious Seahawk victory so Im here now.

First of all, Ive heard/read many people and legitimate sources that say Descartes statement was inaccurately translated..and it is actually "I think, I am". Not "I think therefore I am". Doesnt seem like too big of a difference but, in reality, its the difference between him saying that because he thinks he exists, rather than he thinks and he is.

He has many objections and possible scenarios presented that blur perception vs reality (including the great deceiver which essentially thinks for him and leads him to the possibility that he might not be thinking his own thoughts). To me, his main and final conclusion was that the only thing he could prove was that he is a "thinking thing" (which doesnt even go into proving that any other human/being are also thinking things). He can only say that he is a "thinking thing" because he does not share the same perspective or consciousness as any "thing" else (so he cannot vouch for any other thing also being a "thinking thing"). When he starts going on and eventually proving God..he strays further and further from that line of logic and I have largely rendered it useless and pretend he didn't even write it.

Let's start with a Cartesian conception, cause that's a pretty well worn common ground, even if it's not immediately satisfactory.

What does it mean when you say "I AM"?

To whom is it directed?

Only the person saying it.

That phrase also has a long religious/scriptural significance but Im not sure if Descartes intended for that connection to be made.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

The reason I think Descartes' famous point can be critiqued (fairly) was because he linked it to a thought and thought in general., those who've taken a much more observational and empirical stance (not philosophers in that sense) suggest it is the priori we all share, but more as, "I exist" (un-thought perception) therefore " I AM" (utterly self-evident), no deduction required. That's its intrinsic self-evidence,. anyone who argues against this may be in the "ridiculous" position of debating his or her own existence. Well that may be what extreme skeptics do. To me that suggests a sort of self divided madness, To doubt your own existence does not seem reasonable.

Thats where Descartes would say that he can only say that he thinks and he exists (somehow in whatever way)..He is doubting the exact status of his existence but went far enough logically to establish his philosophical proof of it...but not far enough to prove that, from his perspective, other seemingly similar thinking things are actually thinking things as he is.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

And as to the question in the title...some philosophies do and some don't. I wouldnt say the whole field does.

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

nothing is self evident other than what you feel.
you feel, therefore you are.

everything else is questionable.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

nothing is self evident other than what you feel.
you feel, therefore you are.

everything else is questionable.

What do u mean by "feel"?

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

What do u mean by "feel"?