Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kevinzvilt t1_jard714 wrote

Reply to comment by interstellarclerk in Our emotional experiences reveal facts about the world in the same way our sensory experiences do. Trusting in either requires a leap of faith to some degree. by IAI_Admin

>Sensory experiences do not necessarily logically reflect a world out there - they could very well be akin to a mirage.

This is one of the most basic questions of philosophy famously presented by Descartes. He answers it by saying that even if our sensory experience is a mirage, our experience of the mirage is real, and so there has to be "a" world.

​

>There’s no good argument against external world skepticism.

"External world skepticism" denies the very platform of logic on which it stands asking to be dispelled.

25

[deleted] t1_jasq328 wrote

[removed]

−3

kevinzvilt t1_jaszfhk wrote

Yes, "I think therefore I am" is the famous quote by Descartes which illustrates his ideas about reality. Even if everything is a dream, there remains the fact that he is dreaming, and so there must be something to contain that dream.

9

twoiko t1_jat9ppr wrote

Why?

3

[deleted] t1_jatd6g7 wrote

[removed]

5

JohannesdeStrepitu t1_jau7vcf wrote

Other commenters are telling you nonsense about how Descartes argues for an external world.

His argument in the Meditations first establishes, as you and others said, that he exists but then goes from there to establish that he has an idea of an infinite being, an idea that he argues could only come from an actual infinite being that exists independently of his own mind (basically, the idea's content is too much to have ever come from any finite being like himself).

From there, he establishes that this being must have created him and must be good, so would not have created him with mental faculties that would be unable to detect their own errors. Since a systematic falsity of perception would be an undetectable error, our senses must not be systematically false. Therefore, at least some of the external objects we perceive must exist and any mistakes we make about what objects are actually out there must be able to be corrected, as we do in natural philosophy.

3

twoiko t1_jatg9jv wrote

Yeah, the argument seems to be that a mind cannot exist without a universe to contain it but that assumes we know the nature of the mind/universe, unless I'm missing something.

2

kevinzvilt t1_jauoqk4 wrote

There's not a 100% certainty of the world not being a creation of my own mind or a mirage of some sort, but that conclusion leads to a bit of a dead end in terms of further philosophizing or further anything really... It would involve too many mental gymnastics and isn't a very "evident" idea... Can I suggest a reading?

1

disc_dr t1_javs3nj wrote

Not the OP or even the person you've been discussing this with, but I enjoyed Descartes in undergrad philosophy, but regret not digging further into Meditations, so would love a rec from someone more schooled in this realm.

1

kevinzvilt t1_javx64j wrote

I've actually not read Descartes myself, and I'm due to! But I was going to suggest Russel's chapter on Idealism from The Problems of Philosophy. Most of everything I said here was really regurgitated Russel.

1

disc_dr t1_jaypuwj wrote

Neat, thanks! I named an old car after Russell, and yet, hypocrite that I am, I've never actually had the pleasure of reading him... better late than never, I guess.

1