Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on Feb 26, 2005 21:25:20 GMT -5
I read something very interesting today in a small philosophy book I got from the library (written about Sartre). It basicly says, in one sentence (with these nifty parentheses I like using at the end of it) how the philosophies of Descartes (Rationalism - Truth can only be learned through reason) and Hume (Empiricism - Truth can only be learned through experience) when taken to the extreme, end in Solipsism (That nothing can be proved but the self and so "I alone exist"). I find this very interesting for three reasons.
One, because these two branches of philosophy and the men who are credited for their full elaboration are probably two of the most widely accepted systems of philosophy and philosophical minds of the last millenium.
Two, because it hints at the possibility that there is a whole other side to philosophy, and reality, that hasn`t been explored (to my knowledge, which is still immature). That other side, seemingly ironically, seems to be some kind of objectivity (Or maybe non-existence, I don`t know). In the end, both of these philosophies, and undoubtedly all other philosophies are Phenomenology (From what I know of the school of thought, tries to come to a conclusion by breaking down the phenomena we experience - You`d be better of using your personal definition of it if you have your own ideas or know exactly what it is, because I`m not 100%), and philosophy is destined to be phenomenologic forever.
Three, it's also a reason to assume that man is an egotistical creature. It humors me to think that the two biggest trains of thought both came to the conclusion "It is possible that I'm the only thing (not just the only being) that exists".
Man has been deemed many things by a plethora of thinkers. I think I`ll add to that list by naming him an egotistical and doubting creature (if it hasn`t been done already). I might add that looking over what I`ve written, it seems that deductive reasoning MAY have its flaws (of course, I`m just an uneducated child who could even be considered unqualified to even type these words and hope them to be recognized by smarter minds). I wouldn`t jump to that conclusion, but I thought it an interesting thought.
So what do you guys think of this? Is man doomed to end up considering himself as the pivot of existence as he tries to make sense of it all? Is man the pivot of existence? What do you think of Solipsism as a whole? I feel as if I`ve blundered through this whole thread, forgetting to say things here, forgetting to ask things there and just generally fucking everything up by sharing an incomplete understanding of basic concepts, but take a stab and share what you think. Critiques on the nature of reality, the psychology of the human mind and everything else pertaining to this thread are welcome.
-----
On a side note, I`ve always thought that real intelligence is how well you can take the things you learn, true or otherwise, and create furthur ideas from them, like how the author of the book compared Rationalism and Empiricism and how I made an observation (albeit not the most profound or notable) about deductive reasoning. Anyway, that`s a digression and I don`t even remember why I told myself to remember to add it. But it must have been for a reason.
One, because these two branches of philosophy and the men who are credited for their full elaboration are probably two of the most widely accepted systems of philosophy and philosophical minds of the last millenium.
Two, because it hints at the possibility that there is a whole other side to philosophy, and reality, that hasn`t been explored (to my knowledge, which is still immature). That other side, seemingly ironically, seems to be some kind of objectivity (Or maybe non-existence, I don`t know). In the end, both of these philosophies, and undoubtedly all other philosophies are Phenomenology (From what I know of the school of thought, tries to come to a conclusion by breaking down the phenomena we experience - You`d be better of using your personal definition of it if you have your own ideas or know exactly what it is, because I`m not 100%), and philosophy is destined to be phenomenologic forever.
Three, it's also a reason to assume that man is an egotistical creature. It humors me to think that the two biggest trains of thought both came to the conclusion "It is possible that I'm the only thing (not just the only being) that exists".
Man has been deemed many things by a plethora of thinkers. I think I`ll add to that list by naming him an egotistical and doubting creature (if it hasn`t been done already). I might add that looking over what I`ve written, it seems that deductive reasoning MAY have its flaws (of course, I`m just an uneducated child who could even be considered unqualified to even type these words and hope them to be recognized by smarter minds). I wouldn`t jump to that conclusion, but I thought it an interesting thought.
So what do you guys think of this? Is man doomed to end up considering himself as the pivot of existence as he tries to make sense of it all? Is man the pivot of existence? What do you think of Solipsism as a whole? I feel as if I`ve blundered through this whole thread, forgetting to say things here, forgetting to ask things there and just generally fucking everything up by sharing an incomplete understanding of basic concepts, but take a stab and share what you think. Critiques on the nature of reality, the psychology of the human mind and everything else pertaining to this thread are welcome.
-----
On a side note, I`ve always thought that real intelligence is how well you can take the things you learn, true or otherwise, and create furthur ideas from them, like how the author of the book compared Rationalism and Empiricism and how I made an observation (albeit not the most profound or notable) about deductive reasoning. Anyway, that`s a digression and I don`t even remember why I told myself to remember to add it. But it must have been for a reason.