Thread: Meditations

Originally Posted by Subaru

I'm studying Descartes' "Meditations" in Philosophy class and I decided to have a discussion about them. I personally, even though the idea and mind behind the texts are brilliant, I think they are utter rubbish and slightly dull.

What are everyones' thoughts?

About the same. Descrartes was a brillant guy, and he is still widely respected for his 'cogito ergo sum'. And he is still seen as the father of dualisms (the people that believe in the non-physicalness of the mind, i.e. the soul). But the whole god-trick he pulls to get out of the doubting-everything-but-the-cogito is widely accepted to be pretty lame. As are his theories about the pineal gland, and about 'spiri animaux' or whatever his vision on the nervous system wronfully was.,

I think people are very fast to write off Descartes' ideas because they are a bit far-fetched compared to the commonly held structure of existence created by the scientific community. He had it right, though. I mean not true, but his head and thought processes were in the right place. I don't see why people can't have an idea anymore without having a mountain of evidence to back it up. Criticism is good, but you also need to look at an idea and see what's good about it, not just see how it can be best destroyed.

I think I agree more with Elisabet Satouris' opinion on Descartes' ideas. He had the right idea when he said "forget everything you've learned, what do you know?" but then he separated consciousness and matter and invented the pineal gland theory and yeah, you know the story from there.

I'm also studying Descartes in a Philosophy class at the moment. His ideas are sound until he gets to the point about anything that he can "clearly and distinctly perceive" is truth. He was headed in the right direction at first, but he ended up getting god involved in it somehow(in a really absurd argument) and it all went to shit.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I think people are very fast to write off Descartes' ideas because they are a bit far-fetched compared to the commonly held structure of existence created by the scientific community. He had it right, though. I mean not true, but his head and thought processes were in the right place. I don't see why people can't have an idea anymore without having a mountain of evidence to back it up. Criticism is good, but you also need to look at an idea and see what's good about it, not just see how it can be best destroyed.

I think I agree more with Elisabet Satouris' opinion on Descartes' ideas. He had the right idea when he said "forget everything you've learned, what do you know?" but then he separated consciousness and matter and invented the pineal gland theory and yeah, you know the story from there.

That is kind of exactly what I said. I don't write Descartes off completely. I think nobody, no philosopher, completely writes it off. It's just 10% still-relevant great philosophy, 90% bullshit.

Newton wasted a lot of his time doing alchemy. We rightfully ignore all his nonsense (alchemy) theories, and only respect and learn his brilliant, correct, theories.

I thought Descartes was very interesting, and I learned a lot from reading one of his works, especially his thoughts on the concept of doubt and certainty and God showed me a better way of thinking. His whole argumentation about God isn't really about weather God exists or not but it's more about the most efficient use of the rational and logical mind imo.

Originally Posted by Neruo

About the same. Descrartes was a brillant guy, and he is still widely respected for his 'cogito ergo sum'. And he is still seen as the father of dualisms (the people that believe in the non-physicalness of the mind, i.e. the soul). But the whole god-trick he pulls to get out of the doubting-everything-but-the-cogito is widely accepted to be pretty lame. As are his theories about the pineal gland, and about 'spiri animaux' or whatever his vision on the nervous system wronfully was.,

The pineal gland business isn't actually in the meditations themself though is it?

The meditations are awesome, he even puts forward a half decent Ontological argument. Of course by todays standards the Ontological argument fails, but for his time that was brilliant.

Meditation 1, up to the end of the evil demon scenario, is some of the best philosophy ever.

Originally Posted by Omicron

The pineal gland business isn't actually in the meditations themself though is it?

The meditations are awesome, he even puts forward a half decent Ontological argument. Of course by todays standards the Ontological argument fails, but for his time that was brilliant.

Meditation 1, up to the end of the evil demon scenario, is some of the best philosophy ever.

Yeah, I might be wrong in acting like Descartes whole work = mediations. Still. His god argument is LMAO-shitty. But gotta love the evil Demon-scenario. In George Orwell's 1984, the part where the main character is being 'convinced' 2+2=5, kind of reminded me of it.