I think, therefore I am...

But since the earth has no ability to think, it thus has no ability to know that it exists.

But if you simply exclude that statement it wouldn't make any difference as to the earth's existence.  The earth wouldn't exist because there is no way for me to know that it exists.

Gibberish.

Personally though, I think it's pretty arrogant to assume that everything exists only as an extension of you, rather than believing that you exist as part of a reality, and you experience its effects.

Arrogant indeed... but equally arrogant to assume that your worldview is the correct worldview.

You cannot escape arrogance; because by calling Descartes' philosophy arrogant, you, yourself become arrogant.

...No...I don't think that's how it works

I don't believe I said that I believed that one of those worldviews was correct, but merely that I thought one was more arrogant than the other

I also don't think I ever made the statement that I believe that the "understanding that everything doesn't exist as an extension of yourself." is "the reality".

Personally though, I think it's pretty arrogant to assume that everything exists only as an extension of you, rather than believing that you exist as part of a reality, and you experience its effects.

Personally though, I think it's pretty arrogant to assume that everything exists only as an extension of you, rather than believing that you exist as part of a reality, and you experience its effects.

Personally though, I think

it's pretty arrogant to assume that everything exists only as an extension of you,

rather than believing that you exist as part of a reality, and you experience its effects.

How do you know this philosphy works? It can't think for itself, so you don't know it exists. So you can't apply it.

By that reasoning, I don't exist either: the sentence "I think therefore I am" cannot think for itself, so I don't know it exists, so I can't apply it, so I can't think it, which means I can't conclude that I exist.

Poof.

-Erasmus

So basically, we don't exists if Descartes is correct.

Perhaps, but what's to say the Earth isn't an abstract? Since the Earth does not exist physically, why can't it be abstract?

After all, if a philosphy can have an impact on the physical world while being abstract, surely the Earth can too.

1) People who want to cross bridges.

2) People who want to build bridges, and realize that they'll need to do some math to get it done.

3) People who want to do math for its own sake, because it's pretty or fun.

4) People who are very concerned with the realization that the connection between the bridges and the math is not perfect, that there are some serious philosophical errors with trying to treat the universe as an abstract mathematical ideal, and that, in the end, philosophy and mathematics might just be rooted in assumptions that are, as far as anybody can tell, just plain insane.

Perhaps, but what's to say the Earth isn't an abstract? Since the Earth does not exist physically, why can't it be abstract?

After all, if a philosphy can have an impact on the physical world while being abstract, surely the Earth can too.

1) This side of the bridge is good enough for me.

2) Unless there's a reason to cross, don't do the maths.

Quote from: "cheesejoff"

Perhaps, but what's to say the Earth isn't an abstract? Since the Earth does not exist physically, why can't it be abstract?

After all, if a philosphy can have an impact on the physical world while being abstract, surely the Earth can too.

...

Yet his philosophy, being an abstract, can affect things in the physical world, so why can't the Earth be an abstract that affects the physical?

Just to clarify, "building bridges" is my catchall category for math and science with practical goals.  I've just been through too many arguments where somebody said, "Really, math so based on incoherent assumptions," and somebody else (sometimes me) responded, "Yeah, well, people are still building bridges based on it."

How does a philosophy affect the physical world?  I thought we agreed that all it "does" is guide the actions of agents who are aware of the philosophy.  It seems that language is purely descriptive, and so any object which exists only in the form of linguistic entities can only be descriptive.  I.e., it can't cause events in the world.  The state of my brain can cause events in the world, but that's different; some parts of my brain merely interpret those other parts as being representations of the philosophy.

I guess if you want to identify ideas with brain states, then a philosophy can affect the world directly.  But it seems to me we're thinking of a philosophy as a Platonic ideal here.

-Erasmus

Oh, I thought you meant formulating theories. If we're talking practical goals, I'm not sure which. Definately not 3) though.

I'm going to have to disagree with the first post, because I could think that life was suddenly a dream or nghtmare if something horrible happened to me, but that doesn't mean I'm asleep now does it?