Rethinking philosophy

M [having just read the post An argument against philosophical extremism] : Funny thinking about the basis of modern western philosophy being the belief that our ability to be deceived makes us real
me: well that's what McInerny says - I think he's exaggerating to make his point but basically it does mark a shift in thinking from thinking that humanity's existence based in reality to reality being defined by the individual
M: Doesn't it make for a rather nervous philosophy though? thinking all the time that you can't trust your senses?
true it may be...but uncomfortable to really contemplate
me: well Descartes was apparently a nervous wreck when the thought hat he's constantly being deceived first came to him
It's sort of like the existential problem posed by Camus in the Myth of Sisyphus. You know, the one where Sisyphus was punished by the gods to constantly be pushing a spherical rock up a hill and having it roll back every time
The point is that because you can be deceived means that you exist otherwise there wouldn't be any point in deceiving you.
So out of the depths of despair there is always hope.
Sisyphus was the most hopeful man Camus can think of because every time he gets to the top of the hill, there is the possibility that this time he might succeeded
Descartes resolved his initial problem of how do we know we are real if our senses are deceiving by saying that we know we are real because we are capable of being deceived.
To think is to be able to be deceived therefor I know I exist.
I think therefore I am
Obviously there's more to the argument than this, and I haven't read the whole thing, just the excerpt, but its light years beyond what I knew about it before.
M: :)
me: you weren't expecting a discussion of self and reality when you woke up this morning, were you?
M: no!
The thing is --- well the phrase "any point in deceiving you": who's trying to deceive us? to me, deceivable senses just mean my senses are fallible.,..and that I'm aware of their fallibility...the world doesn't try to deceive us
me: I agree
but you are also seeing the world with the eyes of someone with the knowledge and understanding of today's world
Descartes was trying to find a proof of the existence of God (apparently he does but I didn't read that part).
But my point was that if Classical philosophy is based on the teachings of Aristotle and Plato and the Greeks and Modern philosophy is based on Descartes then they are both overdue for a rethinking
The Greeks based their thinking on the cutting edge science of their time and so did Descartes
To still rely on them without some reexamination is foolish but it appears to me that professional philosophers aren't willing to go there
possibly because they can't grasp the science.
This may also be one reason why Einstein is revered because he was pushing the boundaries of our understanding of reality. His statements reflect an understanding of and peace with the universe that isn't very common.
I think you will see that in people who've made realizations about the Universe and their place in it.
But that's just my guess
M: isn't physics in some way the modern philosophy?
me: it is and so is mathematics
of course the first philosophers were physicists and mathematicians but back then it was easy to know everything because not a lot was known
M: when you study philosophy at school, you study the history of philosophy; you examine different works applying different theories
physics, meanwhile, provides us with cutting edge science, and at this point a big part of physics (it seems to me) is trying to explain why the world is at is is
which is philosophy
me: that may be true but professional philosophers don't seem to speak in those terms in their works
they speak in absolute terms of reality and existence
if you are going to go there then stand up and do it right
M: looking at reality OR existence as "absolute" seems simply absurd, in any case
me: exactly!
M: i should think everyone would be interested in the possible shades of gray - how alive are we?
how real is this?
me: you hit the nail on the head
M: and as far as that goes, i think the Internet - speaking of cutting edge - is redefining reality
(for better or worse)
you can have relationships without ever meeting people
most people only see 2D art
me: some of the reasons this came up for me is that I'm trying to reconcile my religious upbringing as a Catholic with my belief in the LUE
The church does believe in absolutes and the argument is that if you are a Christian you have to as well and I think that's absurd and because so many people go along with whatever their religious leaders tell them a major rethinking is needed if we want to make the world a more tolerant place
M: well, especially because Catholicism had for one of its central figures - OK THE central figure - a guy who blurred the boundary of life and death; again, what is reality?
me: exactly!!!
if you read through some of my earlier postings you will find that I think there's a problem of definitions and people talking about God don't really know what they are talking about they don't define the argument in terms that make sense but make assumptions that are presumed to be universal when in fact they aren't but every one's stuck in their own way of thinking and even people who recognize that ideas need to be revisited never go back far enough to truly question what they believe in
M: i tend to like truly religious people even though i am not one of them, because they - like you, like MB, many others of course - THINK about their faith and don't just accept the vague impressions they received from an upbringing full of dutifully attended but generally ignored church/temple visits
me: thank you but try telling that to my mother lol
"The presence of those who are seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it. "- Terry Pratchett
M: hear hear