(Untitled)

Dec 04, 2002 16:00

Personally I believe what the philosopher Decartes said is true, "I think, therefore I am" but this put a nifty twist on things. I found it interesting anyway ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 5

the_bishop December 4 2002, 19:50:18 UTC
i firmly believe the most profound statement in philosophy would be nietzsche with 'god is dead'.

yet, on the topic of descartes: i cannot say i really agree with his statement. i decline to imagine a world rendered by our thought (which is strange coming from a poet, i'd imagine). if the external world was the work of our organs...then our body, as part of this external world, would be the work of our organs (mind)! But then our organs themselves would be - the work of our organs! It seems to me that this is a complete reductio ad absurdum, assuming that the concept of a causa sui is something fundamentally absurd. consequently, the external world is not the work of our organs ( ... )

Reply

cwatucf December 5 2002, 18:42:55 UTC
It has been a while Bishop since we had our lunchtime conversations (and I have such a craving for "Super-Sub's" Calzone right now.) Anyway...

If you put nietzsche and decartes ideas together you will come out with an abbsurdum situation. However, Decartes believed that in God's mind all objects, including non-thinking objects, exist. Not that we exist because we believe in ourselves. Whereas the fact that you exist is not contingent on God believing that you exist, but rather the non-thinking world exists because God has it in his mind.

While I've never read keat (imagination is the ultimate truth), I'd like to ask this question... is truth only true if it is accepted in one's mind?

To everyone else... this post was made because I was going threw my old philosophy notes. If your in college now you really should take Intro Philosophy (I want to take philosophical reasoning later... perhaps in my senior year).

Reply

the_bishop December 5 2002, 20:33:11 UTC
well, i, firmly believing in the non-existence of a singular, tangible god; but rather, the existence of a puerile and metaphysical god, which when the tapestries of theos and legend isexamined, is substantiated purely by own own existence. the god to which i attest is, as cambellian reasoning suggests, the god of our product and our being: the need for humanity to press the reality that we are so reliant on upon the metaphysical. e.g., the greeks, with their polygomy in dieties, deeply understood in their mythology the non-existence of a GOD or a throng of GODS, yet affixed each god, as a catholic would affix a saint amidst vespers, to their own mythos - their being. when judeo-christian theology comes into play, with the distillation of a host of gods to a singular god, an almighty god, the course of theology was horrifically changed. singularily placing the status of the metaphysics, the ethereal and uncorporeal, upon a singular form uncouthly wrought this being as something of the tangible! when man first presumed this god to be ( ... )

Reply


dicky584 December 4 2002, 23:02:40 UTC
what the fuck dude????????????

Reply


knightstar December 5 2002, 18:09:54 UTC
Mon Cher
I love you =-P Don't try to think too much ... j/k... think all that you want....

Reply


Leave a comment

Up