Is it just me who exists?

Hello,

"I think therefore I am" - it's a classic. If you are a philosopher you say "I am thinking, therefore I exist". If your Descartes it's simply "Je pense donc je suis". However you say it, it's the Cogito ergo sum, and has got to be one of the most well known philosophical sayings. It's exact origins are unsure, although it is mainly associated with the french man René Descartes (below).

I noticed that while I was trying to think everything false, it was necessary that I, who was thinking this, was something. And observing that this truth, "I am thinking, therefore I exist" [cogito ergo sum] 

René Descartes used the cogito to help with his "method of doubt". To help him demonstrate his point he used the image of the evil demon (as mentioned in previous posts). This evil demon tricks us all so even self-evident truths of things such as geometry are no longer certain (depends how self-evident maths is to you). Descartes says the demon has stripped him of everything (I don't mean just his clothes) but his senses and all his real surroundings. Despite this René Descartes still had the cogito. He says if his life is delusions at least he is there to be deluded.

It will never bring it about that i am nothing so long as I think that I am something... I am, I exist.

There are problems of Cogito - it is in first person. My Cogito ergo sum is different to yours - I know I exist, but I don't know if you do and vice versa. So at this point it looks pretty hard for René  Descartes to prove anything with out doubt - or with out gaining the response: "But the demon could have done that!" Although René Descartes has a solution, which is God. God according to Descartes, is above all doubt - as God is clear and true like the Cogito. In my opinion I don't really think this argument is up to much but this is what Descartes says:

God is the source of all our ideas, and because God is benevolent he will not try to deceive us (not like the evil demon) We use or powers of observation, a gift given by God, these powers will lead us to see the truth not lies - thus the world we see is true and good. So we can just start again with rebuilding human knowledge - I feel cheated by this answer too.

But we have to remember that in the 17th century that religion was pretty powerful stuff, and not believing in God or not supporting the church is risky! Nevertheless Descartes has been hailed as the father of modern philosophy, but it may not be for the reasons he wanted. His life's aim was to dispel doubt once and for all, but in-fact he has raised more doubts than stopping them. Scepticism has been top of the philosophical agenda and René Descartes put it there.

So, are you identical twins?

Hello,

Have you heard of the Ship of Theseus? Well this is it...According to Greek legend (reported by Plutarch, a Roman citizen)

                                                                 

The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other arguing that it was not the same.

-Plutarch, Theseus

Plutarch then wonders if the ship would remain the same if the ship was entirely replaced, plank by plank, as a proposition, you can question what happens if the replaced parts are used to build a second ship? Which, if either, is the Ship of Theseus? The Ship of Theseus is an example of the problem of identity, the original crisis of Identity. But philosophers have been working on such crises and have created 'proposed resolutions'. I will focus on the difference of 'same'. It is a way of differentiating the same and one and the same. 

Essentially there are two definitions of 'same'. The first of which being qualitatively the same, meaning the same properties or qualities. 

The second being numerically the same, so they are actually one and the same.

For example: Tweedel-dee and Tweedel-dum are qualitatively the same as they look identical (and also both very annoying) but they are not numerically the same as they are different people.

So when is an an object numerically the same? (one and the same). The following is an example. You start with two identical black bikes, (qualitatively the same), they would not be numerically the same. But if you painted one of the bikes red... the red bike would no longer qualitatively the same as the black bike but it would be numerically the same to it's previous form. 

So basing your answer on the idea of qualitative and numerical 'same' you can answer the original question: Which is the Ship of Theseus? The ships are  the 'same'. They are qualitatively different as they are made out of different planks, but are numerically the same - just like the bike is the same, only a different colour.

Are we all just cavemen?

Hello,

Plato's a classic philosopher - and to be honest one of the most famous... If you don't know the name I guarantee you'll know the face. 

Plato and his cave.  It was thought up by Plato to basically explain truth and knowledge. It was also a ploy he devised to try and convince the government to pass over the reins of power to philosophers. 

This is the set up of Plato's Allegory of the Cave: 

Assume you have been imprisoned all your life in a dark cave. Your hands and feet are tied and your head can not move and as a result you can only look at the wall in front of you. Behind you is a huge fire, and between you and the fire there is space for your guards to carry objects back and fourth. The shadows cast on the wall by these objects are the only thing you and the others  have ever seen, all you have ever thought and talked about.  

 'The Cave' (375bc) has got to be one of the most well known analogies used by the Greek philosopher Plato. It is used to help us understand our perception of the world. It shows how we see the ideal state and the ideal ruler (philosophy being the idea ruler). 

Still not entirely sure what he means? Well this is the rest of the allegory...

Now suppose that you are  free to walk around the cave. You see the fire for the first time. You then see the objects which create the shadows, which you previously took to be real. Finally you are allowed to step outside the cave and for the first time you see the world in the fullness of reality. Illuminated by the brightest object in the skies, the sun.

Interpreting the cave: There are numerous interpretations of the cave, but the general interpretation is that the 'cave' represents the 'realm of becoming'. The 'realm of becoming' is the world we live in: ever changing and imperfect (different shadows etc). The chained prisoners are the human race, people with an imperfect view of the world, these shackled people we will never fully understand the world. 

This is in contrast to the released prisoner who has gained knowledge due to the fact they walk around the cave therefore enabling them to gain an accurate view of the cave (i.e - the actual objets causing the shadows). 

When they step out of the cave to the outside world they are now in the 'realm of being'. This world is one of truth - filled with perfect, eternal and unchanging objects. The shackled prisoners will never see this world  (unless of course... they become philosophers). So the majority of us humans are still in the cave, so much for evolution.

Plato is still not satisfied - he says that there is a problem with forms ('forms' here just means ideas). In Plato's view what is known is true and unchanging. But according to Plato nothing in the empirical world is true and unchanging (the empirical world is the cave). This is shown via a tall person is short next to a tree or a red apple looks looks black at dusk and so on. To Plato this means that nothing in the empirical world is an object of knowledge - therefore there must be another realm (outside the cave). This realm contains perfect 'forms' .

Still don't get it... click here to watch a video.

Have you seen the Matrix?

Hello,

Have you heard of Hilary Putnam? Well if you haven't I'm sure you have seen/heard of the Matrix. Or at least the concept of the idea of a our brains being in jars or some such. Well it's a actually a philosophical idea called Skepticism.   

The Brain in a vat is a common scenario in philosophy, it is used to help demonstrate the idea of Philosophical Skepticism. I mentioned Mr Putnam as he modernized the idea to how it's seen in todays popular culture (see the Matrix). The brain in the vat was a 17th century horror story devised by Mr Rene Descartes in his book Meditations on First Philosophy, 1641. Descartes aim was to reconstruct the structure of human knowledge by showing people the 'method of doubt'. Essentially don't believe every thing you read (sort of). 

The brain in the vat is essentially thus: an evil scientists has someway trapped the human race; removed our brains; then keeps our brains in vats connected up to sensors and neurons etc. This then simulates the world we once lived in. We keep on going about our lives non the wiser it is completely false (Mwhhh hu hu hu! - why an evil genius would do this I simply do not know).

The point of this Brain in a Vat scenario is to highlight how if we were in vats we could never know! All our thought would be synthesized meaning it is not possible to tell from the perspective of the brain if we were in a vat or a skull.  

The ONLY  thing  we know is that we can't 100% know that we aren't brains in a vats. So the best thing to do is accept that it COULD be possible (all-be-it very unlikely) that our brains are suspended in green bubbling fluid. You don't have to believe it - just accept it could be true. Then move on.

 'Is your brain in a vat?'

 'No, the Matrix was just a film'

 'You fool! The evil genius would make you say that!'

 '.....whatever'

Introduction

Hello, 

My name is Lotte Horrie. I am writing a blog about philosophy. This Blog. 

I am doing so as to better to prepare myself for when I start my philosophy A-level in September. It is mainly an aid for me to show off - and also a way to help me understand the difficult ideas. As we all know: writing stuff down is the best way to learn/remember.

So do join me as I try to amble my why though the 'oldest academic subject'. From the classics (Plato and the rest) through to the modern thinkers... roll on Berkeley!

s'laters

lotte