am i correct in my analogy or cartesian skepticism and the nature of reality? i recently spoke to an expert...

Question

it has been shown that cartesian philosophy is flawed. for example his proof of god is very weak and easily argued and his idea that we can never know other minds or reality is in a way true and false. the only thing that is truly valid his his famous "i think therefore i am", which is the only thing we can truly prove empericaly.

but his doubt of the world is nowdays outdated. luckily we hav come along way since him and show over whelming EVIDENCE of other minds ESPECIALY wittgensteins private language argument against solipsism and putnams arguments against the brains in a vat.

it is shown that even though we can know through the use of common sense and rationality and logic used in there arguments makes it clearly evident that there are other minds.

the ONLY thing that hold the skeptics philosophy skepticism is the fact that even though we can show through logic that there is a reality we still canot rely on our senses thus not being able to prove anything EMPERICALY

Additional Details

49 seconds ago
in conclusion we can sho that obviousely there is a reality and other minds. however we can nver prove anything empericaly because in order to that we must use our senses. so the only thing that we can PROVE is that we exists.

so realy solipsism and skepticism are flawed obviousely. but we cant never PROVE it flawed. do you know what i mean?

its like arguing for the existence of unicorns or monsters but not being able to use our senses to disprove there existence.

Answer 1

Hello! Please forgive me, but it's rather difficult to identify just what your question is. Your question as typed makes no sense to me, but I gather from your comments that you're convinced Cartesian philosophy is flawed and that you don't like skepticism/solipsism.

There is, however, a sentence you typed that prompts my reply. You say, "so realy [sic] solipsism and skepticism are flawed obviousely [sic]. but [sic] we cant [sic] never [sic] PROVE it flawed. do [sic] you know what i [sic] mean?"

Skepticism's family is self-refuting and, as such, cannot be taken seriously. One does not *need* to refute the existence of unicorns, etc. The lack of evidence for such creatures renders every affirmation of their existence pointless. This is what we call a *bald assertion*. It is irrational to accept unsupported claims and unsupported claims need no refutation because no proof is offered in support of them.

A skeptic says he/she knows enough about reality to know one cannot be certain (or know) anything about reality; but if the skeptic *knows* something about reality, then how can he/she claim nothing can be known about it? And if the skeptic knows nothing whatsoever about reality, then he/she has no basis for making any claim about it. The skeptic cannot run to *negative* knowledge -- that he/she knows what reality IS NOT -- for one cannot say *this* is not *that* without presupposing knowledge of both. I cannot say milk doesn't taste like Pepsi unless I know what both taste like; and if I have no knowledge whatsoever of what "Pepsi" is, then I cannot legitimately compare it with milk.

The skeptic makes an irrational claim and then grins because nobody can refute it. Such a posture is illogical and, consequently, no rational person should adopt it.

Best wishes,
Scalia

Answer 2

descartes was using skepticism as a tool, however i do not think descartes would say that there are not other minds.

by doubting everything, descartes was hoping to see what we know for sure vs. waht we think we know. He thought that this would help him get at the truth of the siutation.

furthermore, descartes was trying to show that the a human is two things the mind and the body (thougth they are one thign when together). so by showing that we cannot deny our mind even when we doubt the corporeal world he is working toward his distinction.

Answer 3

It's precise philosophically, however no longer in train. I are not able to say with sure bet that "bread does no longer motive any form of melanoma". However, if anybody got here to me at the same time I was once consuming my sandwich with the declare "Bread explanations melanoma" with out offering a sew of proof to help it, I'd write off the declare and retain to consume my sandwich. For the entire identical causes, if anybody involves me claiming "God exists" with out offering a sew of proof, I'd write off the declare and retain not to worship. The factor is, rational people have an curiosity in making the nice choices viable centered at the present proof. I have a option to make. Is bread Ok to consume? I have no idea for definite, but it surely looks that it's, so I will consume it. If new proof comes alongside, I'll difference my conduct. With gods, I actually have a option to make: Should I are living my lifestyles as though a god exists, or no longer? I have no idea for definite, but it surely looks as even though gods are imaginary, so I is not going to worship them. If new proof comes alongside, I'll difference my conduct.

Answer 4

No matter what angle you take or reject in "discussing" "debating" or "comparing" views,
all our perceptions are based on "faith" that our judgment is correct, that we are discerning what is true and false correctly, or what is for the common good, or what is right.

Once we accept that everything is based on faith on some level, then whether or not what we believe is true or not, the point is whether we can get along, based on what we believe, if we can communicate with others to correct any clash in facts or perceptions that we uncover, and at least "agree" how to act (or, where we have conflict, we could agree to separate jurisdiction where we don't impose on each other but allow both ways to work in harmony).

The most we could do is reach a point where everyone on earth "agrees" how we will talk or view or work with each other, and how we will handle conflicts where we disagree, such as agreeing to resolve conflicts by mediation and consensus, instead of imposing or oppressing or competing to overrule the other, or agree to separate in case of differences that cannot be reconciled.

We could still all be wrong, and be misguided in what we think is the point of agreement, but at least we will be in harmony. If that is the most we could achieve, that isn't a bad goal.

I actually believe that is the ultimate state of maturity and understanding that humanity is meant to develop. And by even agreeing in our minds that that is the goal is enough to pull together the faith, the positive ideas and communication and relations that it will take to create a peaceful cooperative world. I believe the process starts in the mind and the spirit, and as peace and resolution and healing takes place there, on a mental psychological level, then it collectively spreads and the energy produced through thoughts, words and actions then manifests changes in the physical world and society.

So all these so-called "hypothetical" debates and discussions are humanity's attempt to resolve this issues on one level, to join our perceptions on a positive focus, and then apply that to the physical world to make peace a reality.

I don't think the discussions are pointless, but part of a learning and understanding process. It is very important that people perceive and visualize common goals and potential if we are ever going to achieve them in real life.

Since humans are prone to error and correction, there must be faith in the human conscience to know the difference and to be able to discern and resolve conflict. First we must have faith in our own perceptions, based on what our "conscience" indicates to us through a combination of emotional/unconscious intuition and conscious logic and knowledge, for us to be at peace with ourselves and our decisions; and then faith in relation to other people, that we can communicate and resolve perceptions with others in order to have good working relations; and finally faith in relation to humanity collectively, by the nature of connection by conscience, if there is a conflict or error that we overlook, ignore, or oppress, then another person or group will react or protest or question, as a natural check and balance.

The more enlightened or aware minds recognize that blocking, denying or perpetuating unresolved conflicts bars the shared conscience from reaching a full and complete understanding of greater truth. So in seeking to resolve differences and conflicts, this remove both errors and emotional blocks, and allows "truth" to be established to the maximum level that is humanly possible -- based on mutual faith and agreement.

Answer 5

there is only one reality. self awareness! knowing what we are,not empirically, but by understanding the meaning of self, will make all things clear. no one can either prove or dis-prove anything unless the reality is known. the senses are limits, but the knowledge of reality removes all limits, thus no senses are used to understand the self. only awareness is able to clear our true vision and allow us to see what is, and isn't real.

Answer 6

Welcome to a philosophical cycle. Truth itself cannot be empirically proved. Reality is an objective perception. Around this merry carousel we can frolic in argumentative posits of profound comedy. We are so therefore we think.

Answer 7

I am therefore I think would be a better statement. We perceive because we have senses. We know we exist because we can touch, smell, see, taste, and hear. But using thinking would be a fallacy of sorts--how can you prove you really think and not dream?