Thinking is part of reality

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
Coberst,

You made a mistake in just accepting Descartes' quote.

What he said is not logical.. his statement assumes that there is an "I" thinking, and then he uses thinking as his proof, whereas the only logical thing he has established is that there is thinking, but not that there is an agent doing it!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are correct. As I recall when I took the class 35 years ago I read an article that said essentially the same thing.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs… Correspondence theory traditionally operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying "objective reality" and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols.” (Quickie from Wiki) This theory implies that there is a reality and that our task is to recognize that reality. Truth is a representation that we create in our mind indicating what reality really is.

Most Americans fail to recognize that thinking and reality are inseparable.


[/ QUOTE ]

"Pure Thinking" is not the placing of 'tags" on sense bound reality but the living in "pure thought". Sense bound reality does not "define" the "thought" but in actuality is consequential to "thoughts" which live in the realm of "pure thought" better unknown to most as the "spiritual world".

Language is very much involved with the placing of "tags" on sense bound reality but even here behind the genius of language is the again unknown to most area of thoughtfull realities known as the spiritual world.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking is part of reality

[/ QUOTE ]

A very obvious, yet very important point to make. As you say, more often than not we don't think of our own thinking as real.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
Coberst,

You made a mistake in just accepting Descartes' quote.

What he said is not logical.. his statement assumes that there is an "I" thinking, and then he uses thinking as his proof, whereas the only logical thing he has established is that there is thinking, but not that there is an agent doing it!

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think it is coherent to have thoughts without a thinker? Why?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
All that exists IS energy.

Everything we "see" is an illusion. There is nothing inherently wrong with illusions, so long as we are not fooled into thinking they are "real".

Everything is made up of one invisible energy. This energy has always existed and always will. It can't be destroyed nor created.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous as this may sound on the surface, I think he's absolutely right.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it is coherent to have thoughts without a thinker? Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

Did you actually read Descartes? The same propositions he uses (correctly) to dismiss everything else as possible illusions, can be used (correctly) against his cogito ergo sum argument.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it is coherent to have thoughts without a thinker? Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

Did you actually read Descartes? The same propositions he uses (correctly) to dismiss everything else as possible illusions, can be used (correctly) against his cogito ergo sum argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I have read Descartes.

I think the onus is on those who claim that it is coherent to conceive of there being thoughts without a thinker, since our common sense and prima facie understanding of thoughts does presuppose a thinker.

The incoherence in the claim that there can be thoughts without a thinker would be similar to the incoherence in the claim that there can be an instance of pain without something that is the subject of that pain. Do you think that there can be instances of pain without something that is in pain? If so, why?

Descartes obviously did not think that his method of doubt would itself undermine the cogito. Why do you think it does?

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the onus is on those who claim that it is coherent to conceive of there being thoughts without a thinker, since our common sense and prima facie understanding of thoughts does presuppose a thinker.

[/ QUOTE ]

This presupposes that you know the origin and methodology of thought creation.The question I have is :In as much as man is involved in thinking who is this thinker that is presupposed?

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the onus is on those who claim that it is coherent to conceive of there being thoughts without a thinker, since our common sense and prima facie understanding of thoughts does presuppose a thinker.

[/ QUOTE ]

This presupposes that you know the origin and methodology of thought creation.The question I have is :In as much as man is involved in thinking who is this thinker that is presupposed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not presupposing anything, I'm claiming that our everyday concept of thought itself presupposes a thinker.

Also, Descartes himself pointed out that the cogito did not warrant any inference as to the metaphysical/ontological nature of the "I".

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:

Quote:
I think the onus is on those who claim that it is coherent to conceive of there being thoughts without a thinker, since our common sense and prima facie understanding of thoughts does presuppose a thinker.



This presupposes that you know the origin and methodology of thought creation.The question I have is :In as much as man is involved in thinking who is this thinker that is presupposed?



I'm not presupposing anything, I'm claiming that our everyday concept of thought itself presupposes a thinker.

Also, Descartes himself pointed out that the cogito did not warrant any inference as to the metaphysical/ontological nature of the "I".


[/ QUOTE ]

That is the question, isn't it? You question Midge as to how can he state that one can conceive of thinking without a thinker and definitely did imply that it was absolutely necessary. You came to the wall and stepped back, no more than a dodge. Aside from "our everyday stuff" the question is : do human beings create thoughts?

In your possibilities either Man creates his thoughts or they are produced by some nebulous being which you refuse to approach, even piecemeal.

OK, being fair, the Ego is that which in Man thinks and in this the Ego perceives and experiences thoughts and in fact brings "thoughts" in coordination with the sense bound reality in the form of concepts. The Ego weaves a tapestry of connections between concepts(which are the obverse of sensible reality) and in this is a creative thinker. Therefore he "experiences" these connections and in this Man grows into a creative natura.

The consequence of this is that when one looks out onto sensible nature the "knowledge" of which we are all so proud is not complete until the "concepts" which are supersensible realities(or beings) are brought together by Man as his sensible perceptions are external manifestations of these thoughtfull realities.Another way of saying this is that the world is not complete in reality until the supersensible exegesis(dynamic, activity) is connected in thinking.

Another approach is that Man is a being "thought" within a thoughtfull world and one lives within "thoughts" and in growth upward Man works experiences the same. This is the counterpoise of the so called rationalist approach which posits a "G" word, assumes or disassumes(is there such a word?) its qualities then argues over its assumptions(religious and atheist alike).

Another important consideration is "thinking" itself. There are "thoughts" which are supersensible realities and there is "thinking" by which Man or his Ego follows in perceiving this supersensible world. At this point I can only say that "thinking" is a gift given to man through his "Ego" or "I" in that he explores the realities of these worlds.