• hakase@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The worst part of this comic is that philosophy bro is clearly not even very good at his field, since there’s a much better Cartesian parallel to be made here (and I’m not even a philosopher).

    “I think, therefore I am” is actually leaving out (imo) the most important part of Descartes’s argument. He was trying to find literally anything that he could know without a doubt was true. The problem is, that’s really hard, as our existence-troubled shopper has discovered. Descartes could doubt the existence of God, he could doubt the existence of goodness, of truth. All of these things might not actually exist. Descartes could even doubt his own existence.

    In fact, literally the only thing Descartes could conclude without a doubt was true was the fact that he was doubting at all. So, since that’s the only thing he could be sure of, that’s what he built his argument for rationalism upon.

    This perfectly mirrors the existential crisis the so-called philosopher comes upon, but instead of starting the shopper right where Descartes started, he instead just provides what must seem like almost a non sequitur in context, since if the man is currently doubting his existence, he can also doubt that he’s thinking. What he cannot doubt, is that he is in fact doubting.

    I doubt. Therefore, I think. I think, therefore I am.”

    • 5redie8@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      In a sea of garbage, this is actually one of the most interesting things I’ve read on here. Thanks mate.

    • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But what if you’re just imagining or dreaming that you’re doubting…? How do you even know you are the thing that’s doubting…? “You” could be a spurious Boltzmann brain, randomly manifested out of quantic chaos, in a state resembling that of a person doubting their own existence, for a mere Planck instant before dissolving back into the chaos from whence you emerged…

      • xthexder@l.sw0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the grand scheme of things, a human lifespan is in the same ballpark as a Planck instant when considering an infinite universe. That doesn’t mean either are insignificant in their own context though.

        Time can be infinitely subdivided For all we know, billions of entire universes could be created and destroyed within ours in an instant. Our own universe could be as insignificant as an atom in some higher level universe. We can’t know that. But what I do know, is that I exist in this moment, and that’s enough for me.

        Slightly related is the anthropic principle, or the “observation selection effect”, which is nicely summarized by this analogy:

        This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

        • Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

        The takeaway I get from this is that it’s important to appreciate the time we have, since everything comes to an end eventually.

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, all you know is that something exists. And for the sake of argument, we call that ‘you’.

    • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah I was gonna make a similar argument.

      The proof of one’s existence is only that they percieve it enough to question it. Unfortunately, all of our sensory data is unreliable proof and therefor we cannot prove there is anything other than our own conciousness. Maybe you’re a mad god trapped in an eternal nightmare of your own design, have fun with that concept.