He’s right, you know.
you think?
>>25123701dualism is one of the worst ideas of all time
>>25123709Its actually the best idea. You're just a victim of hegemonic monism
>>25123701> God exists because im too perfect for my parents to have created mehes a stupid arrogant little shit and posts romantic bluster instead of arguments
>>25123709The problem with dualism is subscribing to the notion that it must be complete opposites
>>25123738But isn't everything?
>>25123709Dualism itself isn’t inherently a bad concept. Descartes just doesn’t explain how the two substances react with one another the cogito and exstensa. Like if the soul is located directly in the pineal gland how would you feel pain in your leg for instance?
>he thinks>>25123709This may have irreparably damaged Western Philosophy in many ways, but more articulate thinkers did a good job in patching it up should we say
I think Kant makes it clear that he makes a logical error in ascribing Greek metaphysics to things that follow from special metaphysics e.g. the soul.This dualism is largely an error since we cannot know special metaphysics. This is largely the post-Kantian landscape. I believe Nietzsche made a good account of this as well, arguing he should have said "thought" rather that "I think".What Descartes makes clear is that we know ourselves as an observer, from that subjectively the world, nothing more than Kant's revolution, just dressed up dogmatically as the "soul".How can you know such conceptions without arguing you know something greater than your intuitions? I think his argument for God is intuitive though, since we assume a reality that is not deceptive. This naturally predicates itself as reality is non-deceptive and hence something of it's nature. I think Descartes has left a profound legacy though, disregarding his dualism. He opened the idea that we are subjective, that reality may not be what we think it to be, which bears in mind modern simulation theory. All of this is Descartes.
>god is real because he's like a triangle o algocome on now
>>25123701you mean i should give her the dick?
>>25123701I gotta give it to Descartes. Few other philosophers make lit-bros sperg the way he does hundreds of years later
>>25123922> This may have irreparably damaged Western PhilosophyI’m a newfag when it comes to philosophy and have just begun to somewhat grasp Plato all through neo-platonism and also read a sort of overall synopsis of philosophers. I've heard this claim here a lot, that Descartes did damage to thought that came afterwards. Could you explain why?
>>25123701He thinks, he is.
>>25123709every materialist basically goes>IT JUST IS, OKAY?!whenever they try to describe how dualism ruined western society forever.
>>25123922Desharts merely formalized the dualist autism already running rampant in the west.For what it is worth, I think his project was overall useful in the history of philosophy. Especially cogito ergo sum, which he frames as that which he is unable to doubt. It seems to be a precursor fo the idea of truth as a relative degree of certainty with reference to the thing you are most sure of, which I think is a very good idea.
>>25124109>how do mind and matter interact?>umm… well… er…….. it’s…. t-there is no interaction !!! God just makes it so that everything lines up as to appear to interact!!!!99.99% of objectors to materialism are idealists, neutral monists, or a more niche view. Dualism is utterly retarded and recognized as such by everyone except your stupid ass.
>>25124112Dualistic "autism" began before Descartes though, with concepts like Plato's two worlds and Aristotle's form and matter, and Augustine's city of man and city of God.
>>25124121Well, Spinoza was evil, so there's that.
>>25124124Spinoza based his Ethics (his system for espousing monism) based on a set of mathematical principles. How is this evil? I always find the haters of Spinoza don't quite understand the _why_ he argued for monism. He did so using deductive logic, not some grand sort of intent. He drew his conclusions based on the Platonist metaphysics, so how is that evil? You would have to challenge Platonist thinking in order to challenge Spinoza, or perhaps his axioms of choice (which he states freely).
>>25124121>>umm… well… er…….. it’s…. t-there is no interaction !!! God just makes it so that everything lines up as to appear to interact!!!!literal strawman. stopped reading there.
>>25124153>Why is a determinist whose conception of god denies morality evil?Maybe you should stop being a braindead bot.
>>25124158I would argue any system espouses a God, if we were to assume the ontological argument of God to be true. Any system has a highest good, or highest principle in more secular grounds. He espoused that Nature is God essentially. An arguable panentheist, if you read he reads God is infinite in his modes, thereby rendering Spinoza's God to be any God, essentially. And this is the problem of Spinoza, his God is essentially unknowable, if you read Spinoza and not just try to endlessly polemicize. Spinoza, like most metaphysical philosophers, is somewhat incoherent, which would be a stronger argument than just saying "braindead bot."
>>25124164>nonsensical bot reply
>>25124164>if we assume my assumption to be true, then I'm right
>>25124173This is a general problem of epistemology, of knowing things. You have to assume certain things in order for it to be true. And this is up for debate. We are left with a stifling subjectivism which characterizes our age. That is simply the reality we live with. Thus I try to use principles that are argumentative, thereby trying to be sensical. You are free to critique it though, which you have. Fine by me.
>>25124173Why are you replying to a bot?
>>25124178The blind assertion that there is a god is far from sensical and has always been an argumentative dead end.
>>25124182cope
>>25124182You know I really don't know what to say about God. It is hard to define such a concept, and to talk about. It seems insane that people do so many things in the name of God though without even knowing what God is. That is all I can say on the matter. It seems to me that even knowing the "attributes" of God (the Catholic answer) that you cannot even make moves that "corresponds" to what "God" "wants". It seems to me an extraordinary leap of logic to know. You would have to assume what God is. That is the crux of my argument against the religious folks who claim to know, anyways, if you are curious. Who konws.I argue with theological AI to find these sorts of recursions. It is a curious topic.
>>25124197People like defining their own interests as something greater than reality because it gives them social leverage, it's pretty simple really.
>>25124122That’s what I said?
>>25124164>Any system has a highest good, or highest principleSpooked
>>25123701I gave it to her. Thanks, day-cart.
>>25124089He did away with Scholasticism where the church sets theology and replace it with Deist “god is more like a vague force or something” type stuff. He also thought animals were automatons without sense because parrots can speak but not form words showing lack of brain. The soul to Descartes is only in humans and resides within Pineal gland- how that interacts with human body ie sense perception - he never really explained. Dualism itself is the idea that two different substances interact with each other somehow and when taken with the above points it’s easy to see how Aristotlean hylomorphism and its connection with the church in scholastic times made more rational sense before Descartes usurped it with his modern errors.
>>25124153Spinoza is just secular Tikkun Olam. Attempting to explain cause and effect as expressions of the same substance. Its like saying "i am an orphan therefore I don't have parents" in a metaphysical manner.>>25124158Also this
>>25124121>God just makes it so that everything lines up as to appear to interactHoly strawman batman. I’m not necessarily a dualist but come the fuck on
>>25124155>>25125003>he thinks parallelism is a strawmanread some Leibniz or SpinozaEven if you are strictly referring to descartes, the nigga thought your soul was attached to your pineal gland. How the fuck is that better
>>25125003Descartes believed that the soul was the pineal gland and that all the other senses just somehow exist outside of it but interact with it somehow as opposed to the Aristotlean/ Scholastic view of the soul as the Form of the body.
How does an immayerial substance ionize a neuron? Where does the energy come from? Does it just create physical energy from nothing?We have also never observed anything that didn't look like the physical world is causally closed.
>>25125066>these pre-socratics thought fucking WATER or AIR was the arche of all things, lmao fucking retardskys manchild
>>25124122Form and matter is implicitly monistic, meaning their union is the actually higher reality and something longed for in both. Matter has the potential to become enformed, form has the impulse to illumine. One wants to be moved, the other wants to move. Together they realize the Good.
>>25125652common Democritus W
>>25125075Objective reduction = proto-consciouness hylomorphically immanent in the nature of quantum fields. Entanglement and reduction are identical to what soul is.And rememberFUCK EVERETT
>>25123701>>25123710>There are two substances: material extended body and immaterial thinking mind>'How come those two come in contact with each other despite being made of entirely different substances?'>Lets just insert God. Problem solved!This hominid irreversibly ruined entire western philosophy. You have simply low IQ If you think 'cogito ergo sum' or some shit like that is 'right'.
