How can I build something from absolute doubt?

[Facupay]

I know, probably Cogito ergo sum, it used to do the trick for me but it doesn't anymore.

Firstly, Because it doesen't seems as logically awesome as it is: My senses are "showing" me something and I doubt about the veracity of that which is being "shown" and since I think when I doubt, something is thinking, therefore something is.

How does Descartes knows that Doubt = Thinking?
How does Descartes knows that Thinking = Existing?
How does he knows that something is receiving that sensorial experience and doubting about it in the first place? This one is very important, it's almost a circular logic.

And an even bigger doubt I have is that Cogito ergo sum is basically logic and I'm afraid logic may be just as unreliable as senses. If there is something that overrides or can cast an irredeemable doubt over senses, how can I be sure that there isn't something that can do the same to logic? It's natural, it comes from us, it is developed by us and perhaps even influenced by senses, we belive the conclusions it reaches are right. I AM DOUBTING LOGIC USING LOGIC.

Finally, is that concepts don't make any sense to me anyomre. When I think about "exist" or "to be" it SEEMS easy to grasp, but when I ask myself: "if you are so sure, can you define those concepts then?" And I can't, they make no sense, I can't explain what it is to "exist" or "to be". I'm not sure if I'm clear about this, but, ironically, it's hard to explain.

Any philosophical train of thought I have has been stopped by a huge black boulder of doubt and I'd like you guys moved it if you can, because I can't.

[Menelik_I]

Descarte was a crook, the whole cogito ergo cogito sum is indeed a load of BS because He had to indeed had to take his thinking has an premise before proceeding and thus making all his claim of systematic doubtfulness void.

You simply can't build something from absolute doubt, it only leads to madness, which is why Descarte himself took his thinking as a premise while not acknowledging it. There is a limit to doubt because there are things that effectively exist, and one of those is your mind.

There is that Brazilian filosopher Olavo de Carvalho who made a commentary on this.

Unfortunately the video is in Portuguese.


I have notes from a lesson given by him on the subject, but can't put it here due to copyright, but you probably would have a glance of it in the video.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Build what? Knowledge?

I very much doubt one can construct any knowledge without certain onthological and epistemological positions. Descartes, Kant and Hegel all ultimately relied on God as a basis for their epistemological proposition that the world is conceivable. Hume and other radical empiricists very much fell for an irrationality based argument, in Hume's case habit.

After the second half of the XIX century ''humanity''(in Feuerbach, in Marx, in Positivism, in Logical Empirism and Falsacionism) started replacing god as the ultimate basis for the verification and corroboration of universally valid knowledge, which is always subkected to critique and validation of course.

Through Descarte's ''absolute doubt'' you end up creating a huge void between ''the rules to knowledge''(which is basically a very Holistic form of grasping reality) and their onthological basis. So Descartes, filled the gap through God.

You can replace God through the use of ''humanity'' but then you get into new problems: like the conceptions existant in language and customs, like the existence or not of universal methods of cognition and else.

[Facupay]

So, then every Philosophy requires faith or at least trust in something that can't be proven or is subject to doubt in order to begin?

[Claudius Gothicus]

So, then every Philosophy requires faith or at least trust in something that can't be proven or is subject to doubt in order to begin?

There's a certain degree of uncertainty that has to be suspended in order to carry out a construction of knowledge. The differences lie in our ability(as subjects) to mutually check and revise the knowlege we create: peer-review through intersujective analysis is far more flexible and open(as long as the pillars are universally held) than some dude in a robe screaming ''the word of God''.

[Facupay]

I understand that Religion is far less effective in trying to understand and making something useful of reality than other, let's call them "doctrines of thought". But I'm talking about about actual and transcending truth.

I'm sorry I'm so dubitative and my op is kinda messy, but I recently had an existential breakdown. I have always been very skeptical but cogito ergo sum seduced me and allowed me to have at least one certainty: I, or at least my thoughts, exist, somewhere, somehow, but they exist. However, logically, it isn't as sound as it seems as the conclusion is already in the premise and it also reeks of circular reasoning. It seems like an axiom or a self-evident truth, which isn't quite as logical or at least doesen't proves that I exist, it's just that it's inconceivable for my mind, my reasonig, my logic, to not exist.

And then, the even biggest doubt came: "What if logic is wrong?". To doubt logic is a paradox as doubt is an important part in logic and I can only argument why logic isn't always right, or at least it isn't a perfect system, using logic. But I can't help it, logic is ingrained in us and it's impossible for us to think without logic, or else this post would be an incoherent ramble. But that is why it's so dangerous and why logic can be doubted, no system can prove it's own validity. I've tried to reason why logic is right and I can't. "Logic is right, because logic is right" Is all I can come up with. There can be something that is beyond logic and may override it, just as senses can be overrided.

Which lead me to the conclusion that all human thought that has ever existed or ever will can be doubted, and that statement is a paradox and I think that fact further validates it. So it seems I'm an extreme skeptical, which seems kinda cowardly and intellectually immoral but I can't build something worthwhile with defectuous materials, I can't construct a good philosophy or a system if they can all be wrong. So I'll just doubt and leave the constructing to smarter and braver guys than me.

Since I have very little education in philosophy I just wanted to know if maybe some philosopher or school had already debunked my conclusions and line of thought.

[Diamat]

I understand that Religion is far less effective in trying to understand and making something useful of reality than other, let's call them "doctrines of thought". But I'm talking about about actual and transcending truth.

I'm sorry I'm so dubitative and my op is kinda messy, but I recently had an existential breakdown. I have always been very skeptical but cogito ergo sum seduced me and allowed me to have at least one certainty: I, or at least my thoughts, exist, somewhere, somehow, but they exist. However, logically, it isn't as sound as it seems as the conclusion is already in the premise and it also reeks of circular reasoning. It seems like an axiom or a self-evident truth, which isn't quite as logical or at least doesen't proves that I exist, it's just that it's inconceivable for my mind, my reasonig, my logic, to not exist.

And then, the even biggest doubt came: "What if logic is wrong?". To doubt logic is a paradox as doubt is an important part in logic and I can only argument why logic isn't always right, or at least it isn't a perfect system, using logic. But I can't help it, logic is ingrained in us and it's impossible for us to think without logic, or else this post would be an incoherent ramble. But that is why it's so dangerous and why logic can be doubted, no system can prove it's own validity. I've tried to reason why logic is right and I can't. "Logic is right, because logic is right" Is all I can come up with. There can be something that is beyond logic and may override it, just as senses can be overrided.

Which lead me to the conclusion that all human thought that has ever existed or ever will can be doubted, and that statement is a paradox and I think that fact further validates it. So it seems I'm an extreme skeptical, which seems kinda cowardly and intellectually immoral but I can't build something worthwhile with defectuous materials, I can't construct a good philosophy or a system if they can all be wrong. So I'll just doubt and leave the constructing to smarter and braver guys than me.

Since I have very little education in philosophy I just wanted to know if maybe some philosopher or school had already debunked my conclusions and line of thought.

Do not doubt beyond that which is given. Not even a Marxist philosopher would deny the statement, "Cogito ergo sum." It is one of the most basic empirical statements that you can make. Yes, I said "empirical." You can be certain of your existence because you exist. You wouldn't be thinking about this question if you wouldn't exist. In other words, the fact of your existence is evidenced in practice. The doubt you are experiencing is coming because you doubt the very basis of your experiences. You doubt your very ability to make experiences. You doubt experiences even though you experience.

Now, I ask you, how can something be wrong that you experience? What is truth? Its reality is evidenced in your experience. In your daily life, do you ever doubt the existence of the tree in front of you? Do you doubt the pain you will feel if you run against it? No. In your real life you are a spontaneous materialist. So why separate your mind from the material world in your mind? Why deny that which you experience daily? The fact that you are alive and experiencing is evidenced in your everyday experience. Does this mean that your logic will always be right? No. Does this mean your logic isn't real? No. Even wrong thinking is still thinking. It is only wrong in relation to some object, but never in itself. For example, you may wrongly think that you will run into the tree if you get any closer, but in reality the tree was only an optical illusion. This does not mean that your thoughts were wrong or unreal as such. All it means is that you were wrong in relation to an object. The reality of your thoughts, once again, were evidenced by your experiences.

It seems like you are trapped in the old Cartesian system. Much more philosophy came thereafter, and was completely revolutionized with the development of empiricism. Hume, Feuerbach, Marx, and Dietzgen are key thinkers in this regard. Reading them might provide you with an epiphany. Good luck on your future philosophical journey.

[Claudius Gothicus]

And then, the even biggest doubt came: "What if logic is wrong?". To doubt logic is a paradox as doubt is an important part in logic and I can only argument why logic isn't always right, or at least it isn't a perfect system, using logic. But I can't help it, logic is ingrained in us and it's impossible for us to think without logic, or else this post would be an incoherent ramble. But that is why it's so dangerous and why logic can be doubted, no system can prove it's own validity. I've tried to reason why logic is right and I can't. "Logic is right, because logic is right" Is all I can come up with. There can be something that is beyond logic and may override it, just as senses can be overrided.

I'm not a Logic expert, but Propositional Logic can't be wrong: just like Math, they can't because it's a Model, a closed System. In short, Logic is a form of thought that has normative axioms from where to deduce formal statements and propositions, yes you can deny or doubt the axioms, but then you didn't really ''refute'' logic you just tried to escape it.

Which lead me to the conclusion that all human thought that has ever existed or ever will can be doubted, and that statement is a paradox and I think that fact further validates it. So it seems I'm an extreme skeptical, which seems kinda cowardly and intellectually immoral but I can't build something worthwhile with defectuous materials, I can't construct a good philosophy or a system if they can all be wrong. So I'll just doubt and leave the constructing to smarter and braver guys than me.

Ok, let's put it this way: everything can be doubted because doubting is not an act of intellectual deduction/induction that follows certain legitimate forms, it's an act of freewill. Refusing to or aknowledging the truth behind certain cognitions within an instrospective process can't be stopped, as long as we are or hold, a basic form of control for our own minds.

[Ensiferum]

Yea you seem to understand the barriers of language, the barriers of senses. Language is usually just used as categories, finding any "true truth" in the soundwaves is impossible as the associations language gives us does not perfectly describe the object, and the fact that the associations have in fact spawned from soundwaves or pixels, meaning that the associations can give us a very wrong image of what it truly is. Then the problem is our senses, the problem is that any sensory experience is at some point just electrical signales in our brain, like morse code. And the magic of consciousness happens and we manage to "see" different things from this morsecode. Still logic is innevitably logical, but still both logic and math and it's application in real life is based on the categorical definitions of language(statistics) Or that with our senses we can see x and y and from x and y we can understand z. Meaning that innevitably logic is based on the categories or sensory experiences, it's something we humans can never live outside. Some philosophers say that the only thing they can be sure exists is their own "mind".

[Facupay]

Yea you seem to understand the barriers of language, the barriers of senses. Language is usually just used as categories, finding any "true truth" in the soundwaves is impossible as the associations language gives us does not perfectly describe the object, and the fact that the associations have in fact spawned from soundwaves or pixels, meaning that the associations can give us a very wrong image of what it truly is. Then the problem is our senses, the problem is that any sensory experience is at some point just electrical signales in our brain, like morse code. And the magic of consciousness happens and we manage to "see" different things from this morsecode. Still logic is innevitably logical, but still both logic and math and it's application in real life is based on the categorical definitions of language(statistics) Or that with our senses we can see x and y and from x and y we can understand z. Meaning that innevitably logic is based on the categories or sensory experiences, it's something we humans can never live outside. Some philosophers say that the only thing they can be sure exists is their own "mind".

I think we have reached a similar conclusion but just using difierent ways.

At some point I could not make sense of the word "exist" because words are made of other words. A "dog" is an "animal", an "animal" is "being" and "being" si "something that exists", but what is "exist"? (I know that that road isn't perfect, it's just an illustration).

I cannot divide "exist" in other words without being redundant and I won't make up words. "Exist" Is the basis of all the others words it is just something inconceivable for my mind and I cannot do other thing but to name it. It is, as Claudius says, an axiom, something that is the basis of the rest, something self-evident. Every system needs an axiom or it can never do anything.

The problem is that the validity of axioms can still be doubted, even the ones that the mind considers naturally undoubtable as our mind isn't perfect and all encompassing. The human mind and senses are like a prison, more like a box, we cannot see anything beyond it and we cannot go through it's walls, so all we can do is classify what's inside our box and try be as comfortable as possible, remembering that anything we might discover, build, think or realize is nothing but a house of cards. And maybe, one day, day we'll be able to tear down those walls and see what lies beyond and reach truth.

[Janne]

Descarte was a crook, the whole cogito ergo cogito sum is indeed a load of BS because He had to indeed had to take his thinking has an premise before proceeding and thus making all his claim of systematic doubtfulness void.

You simply can't build something from absolute doubt, it only leads to madness, which is why Descarte himself took his thinking as a premise while not acknowledging it. There is a limit to doubt because there are things that effectively exist, and one of those is your mind.

I hope and guess necroing on this board is not looked upon with the disdain that it is elsewhere, as the majority of them are dusty and grey but mainly empty and still contain unplumbed depths...

Seems like saying that your mind exists indubitably is not even slightly different to saying "I think, therefore I am." Therefore, how can Descartes be a crook for saying it?

Anyway, to the OP, I do take it as axiomatic that I am thinking right now, or more accurately to my perspective, I am 'experiencing' right now. Seems that a good axiom cannot be proven in its original definition, but don't worry, it needn't be. I think the doubt you have of mind ("the validity of axioms can still be doubted") is more of a language issue -- that it is easy to say "I doubt everything", without really believing it yourself. I think the one exception to universal doubt really is my existence.

The most interesting thing I have found doubt in is causality. It never even occurred to me to do so before being exposed to Hume. There's really no real reason to expect the same thing to happen twice, even given the exact same circumstances (not even sure that's possible). The best that can be said is that a person really wants or is used to the same thing happening again, which is not a good enough reason for me at least.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

You simply can't build something from absolute doubt, it only leads to madness, which is why Descarte himself took his thinking as a premise while not acknowledging it. There is a limit to doubt because there are things that effectively exist, and one of those is your mind.

This is true.

As a matter of fact this subject was already treated well elsewhere. The Cartesian cogito is actually truncated from St. Augustine, but the practical effect of Cartesian philosophy is that it made postmodernism possible by evading the issue of Being and therefore downgrading truth to pure ideal subjectivity. Everything that comes from it for that simple reason is a pure construct, and superstructure, devoid of the fundamental ontological groundwork required for a complete analysis of reality.

[Winter]

I'm not a Logic expert, but Propositional Logic can't be wrong: just like Math, they can't because it's a Model, a closed System. In short, Logic is a form of thought that has normative axioms from where to deduce formal statements and propositions, yes you can deny or doubt the axioms, but then you didn't really ''refute'' logic you just tried to escape it.

This. The problem comes along when people confute "logically valid" with "always correct" - the two are just not equal. Of course, the problem of absolute truth has been there since Plato v Aristotle and has not been, and according to Plato can not be, adequately solved. Platonically speaking any knowledge arrived at can only occur within a 'performance' (mimesis, very often badly translated as 'imitation') of truth, which it wouldn't be wrong to associate with a logical assumption (though there is certainly more to it).

[Jenn226]

Of course, NOW I see how old the thread is and this was possibly the biggest waste of time today. Sorry for newbie fail:
Hi,
At the risk of over simplifying, to the average 3 year old, it is very logical for one to put a goldfish cracker up their nose. Is this an actual and transcending truth? To said 3 year old, yes. And in no uncertain terms. To extend the analogy, ask the 3 year old why they put a goldfish cracker in their nose. I say with 99% certainty, they will have an answer. It cannot be the wrong answer as it is their answer, their reasoning and their actual and transcending truth...their logic that found that little snout stuffed with snack food. At this point you have the option to: 1) Introduce an "alternate" logic, "That makes no sense." 2) Impose upon them the actual and transcending truth of another, "A goldfish cracker cannot swim up and kiss your brain." 3.) Marvel at their desire to have a goldfish cracker to swim up their nose and kiss their brain. Then, tell them to not do it again, because goldfish crackers can't swim backward and there's not enough room up there for them to turn around and swim out again.

To an adult, putting a goldfish cracker up one's nose, defies most, if not all "logic" and/or "Doctrines of Thought". Yet to a 3 year old, one for whom life is comprised ONLY of actual and transcending truth, based on experiential data and sensory intake, the logic inspiring a fish kissed cortex is very concrete as they have yet to learn doubt. There is no alternative to their reasoning until that experiential data changes, by whatever means. Once a human reaches an "age of reason", our logic evolves, (for better or worse by others' perception) and every single thing we manifest is built ultimately by doubt either to spite or despite it. Because doubt is, fundamentally, little more than acknowledging the possibility of an alternative to or a result of your experiential data and sensory intake. So, is it Descartes for the win? I don't believe so. I believe it is the 3 year old. The 3 year old has an answer devoid of definable logic as they have no consideration of logic. Therefore, their "logic" cannot be wrong. It is a faith based choice, as they have faith in the end result of their action. There is, in my humble estimation, a great deal to be taken from all philosophers and "Doctrines of Thought", be they the foundation of academia or the stranger on the bench with unexpected insight. Just be mindful with a feast of knowledge served by others, the further one buries their face, the greater the chance of something going up one's nose....and, as we all know, knowledge can't swim backward and there's just not room for it to turn around and swim back out. Step back, have a handful of M&Ms and breathe. You have your answers, I feel you're just standing in your own way. All the best.