Descartes underwhelming

Widely viewed as one of the great philosophers of history, and often as the "founder" of modern philosophy, we have Rene Descartes.

I am underwhelmed.  He is of course famous for "cogito ergo sum," "I think therefore I am."  Anything else?  Well of course he gets there by questioning (doubting) everything -- now what teenager hasn't done that many times?  And then from there he concludes that this thing that thinks is the soul, that others besides ourselves do likewise, and that God exists and God gives us these souls.  (Most of the rest of this is not payed much attention to because it is pretty obvious to even the most determined believer that the argument is flimsy).

I think Descartes proposition is popular because it has an emotional appeal -- at least we can be "certain" that we exist, or something about us that thinks exists, to be more exact.

He doesn't accomplish this.  His thinking, and my thinking, and your thinking, proves nothing exists, not even thinking (what exactly is a "thought" anyway?).  The idea is that if there is an activity then I guess there has to be something doing the activity.  Here the activity is thinking, so something doing the thinking has to exist, and that something is obviously (really?) me.

No, Descartes just thinks he's thinking.  He doesn't know it, nor can we.  We don't even know that thinking is an activity at all or if it is that it needs an agent to be doing it.

One thing science can't prove is that something is endless.  It can prove something is finite by finding its edge or boundary, but if it is endless there is no boundary to be found -- except it could still be over the next hill.

Presented with a being claiming to be infinite, we would have the same problem -- we could prove it false if we found or showed how there had to necessarily be a boundary, but absent doing this we still could not be sure the being was telling the truth, since the boundary could exist but be out or our range.

Mathematical infinities are different.  Irrational numbers, for example, are decimals that go on without end.  The "density" of the number line is infinite.  And, of course, the counting numbers are endless, as well as things like the number of primes -- it isn't that we haven't found a largest prime but that we have a logical proof that such a number would be self-contradictory.  Indeed, in spite of this, we also know that there are "sizes" of infinite sets.  Heaven forbid by getting into that, but it shows to me that mathematics and reality are not the same.

This is an area, then, where I think there is a massive difference between the "real" world and the thing we have invented called mathematics.

It may be gays "coming out of the closet" by telling those around them of their sexual orientation is the main reason gays have come to be much more accepted than before.  When real homosexuals were invisible and all one saw were caricatures created by the press or the lies of some religious groups, it was harder to realize that they are real people.

Zero is not a number in the set of positive integers, which are the counting numbers dating from antiquity.  It had to be invented and is still to my mind something we call a number but isn't quite, since it is not used to count anything but only to indicate absence of anything to count.

It is of course essential for modern mathematics, but mathematics is divorced in many ways from reality and is abstract, maybe and maybe not the basis of existence (one can find quotes on both sides of this).

I try to be non-judgmental and say to myself it's just their background, they can't help it, but I have a tough time dealing with homophobes, racists, sexists, and so on.  I tend to think they are that way only to justify themselves and feel superior to others.  In the modern world though there really is no excuse for such things.

What particularly gets me is people who say they are open minded and not prejudiced and then go on to say prejudiced things.  What gives with such a person?

In Vietnam we find the same sort of thing with Chinese and Cambodians, and with dark skins in general (the standard of beauty here is really stupid -- be as white as possible -- and millions are wasted on whitening creams and such).  And, of course, sexism here is outrageous, in spite of half a century of Communist party indoctrination that men and women are equal, even male party members are too often as sexist as ever, and women in high positions in either government or business are few.

I want to add something, a post script if you will, to what I said above.  We recognize tolerance as a virtue.  The self-referential question is natural: should we be tolerant of the intolerant?

Well I guess we can try to understand where they are coming from, but I fear such understanding will only serve to increase our intolerance of them, as we will recognize that prejudice and intolerance come from ugly, spiteful, selfish, arrogant, etc., personality characteristics.  Cultures that encourage these things, and there are many such cultures in the world, are destructive and harmful.

I guess a certain amount of patience is needed, but dammit I have no intention to listen to slurs and racism and so on without protest, and without telling the speaker where they can go.

What do I "believe?"  Ah that is the problem; I have opinions that change from time to time as I learn things, and some of which I act as though I believed, since I am highly confident of them, but I try very hard to "believe" nothing.  Belief is a pernicious thing -- it is a view of the world deeply embedded in the subconscious that people are not even aware of, but around which they base their lives, and which creates great unhappiness when it comes into doubt (both fear and guilt) as well as anger and resistance.

Opinions are a better thing entirely -- we have them on the surface and can examine them whenever needed and aren't attached to them nearly as much (only ego is involved with opinions while the very basis or our lives is involved with beliefs).

Isn't it known that homophobes are those with strong gay tendencies and who fear them (I figure everyone has a few such tendencies but most people don't worry about it)?  Seems like every time a politician is "outed," he has a history of homophobic stands.

Homosexuality certainly exists in Vietnam (twenty years ago it was officially a Western thing), and I think gay marriage will be "legal" shortly (it already is in a way, since the law makes marriage a strictly civil contract and any church ceremony is irrelevant -- the only thing in the air is what happens in separation to any children -- a proposal to legalize gay marriage was tabled this year, I think because of Catholic objections, but that may go away).  The society has always been tolerant of transsexuals, but the main mass of gays have existed pretty much unnoticed (who would want to do that?) in a society where a couple of guys or couple of girls living together for long periods are just accepted as "good friends."

I observe that monks, like priests, are often gay, I think because it relieves the pressure to marry and have grandchildren for the parents.  In both cases they are supposed to be celibate, but I doubt it.

Anything is possible, but that is no basis for an opinion, let alone a belief.  For the possible to become the probable requires that it fit in with other knowledge, that it have good supporting evidence, and that it be sensible.  A lot of that is judgment.  Way-out things, even with considerable evidence, are not acceptable without huge amounts of evidence and complete refutation of more likely explanations.

Basically whenever I'm presented with a situation where I can see no explanation except something extreme, I don't just assume the extreme.  Instead I assume I don't have enough knowledge and have to put it aside as unexplained.  Therefore argument that consists of nothing more than refuting alternatives is no way to proceed -- positive evidence is needed when the claim is outre.

There are some ways that tend to lead to happiness and fulfillment, there are other ways that don't.  However, the way that leads to these things for me is not necessarily going to be the way for someone else.  I can show them the way I chose if they ask, but not for the purpose of getting them to follow it but only to give it to them as a possibility.

Most people think of Jesus as never having sex.  To me that contradicts the idea that he was fully human.  Did he even ever take matters into his own hand (sorry for the euphemism but I can't use the correct word -- search engines block me if I do)?  It seems he knew what lust was and approved of marital sex, but not otherwise, so to have been fully human (actually have sex) he would have needed to be married.

Marriage to another man (no doubt "the beloved apostle") would solve a lot of problems, including the touchy one of how could a perfect being have sex with a woman and she not conceive, but you don't want baby Holy Trinities -- boggles the mind.

Of course what do I know -- it seems to me far more likely the whole thing is entirely mythical.

God and first cause

Various theoretical constructs about the way the earliest universe evolved have to do with the nature of space-time and I don't think anyone proposes them as an alternative to God.  The point is there is now realized no need to insert a first cause into things, since that is based on philosophical notions that can be shown logically false, much as they appeal to us to be unavoidable, that is just a limit in our thinking, much as the idea of a universal up and down are false.

One could as well attribute the germination of a seed as a divine intervention, and metaphorically many still do, but it is not necessary and gets in the way of actual knowledge.

A thing a man has to be careful about (and I suppose women too but I don't know, not being one) is to avoid projecting one's fantasies onto the woman.  She is not an extension of yourself nor an object to be used for pleasure.  Men seem so often to have this unrecognized notion that women only exist for men.  In many cultures that is even explicit.

It is a disturbing fact that police are largely self-selected.  Society does not go out and find people who would be good cops, but would-be cops choose themselves and apply.  Of course some vetting takes place, but it is pretty obvious that most cops have issues with authority and guns and how they think people should behave and are judgmental about those who don't behave as they think they should.

I once thought belief was a matter of choice -- being of the mind, the mind decides what to believe or not.

Now I realize that can't be so.  There are two things seriously limiting our freedom to choose what to believe -- indoctrination and the reality checker we have that keeps us at least relatively sane.

If my boss tells me I am fired, I can't "choose" to believe otherwise.  Our brain's reality checker can identify such a thought and nip it off.  Problems happen when we already believe things (from education or from indoctrination -- it doesn't matter which).  The reality checker compares a new piece of information with what we "know," and either accepts it or rejects it.  If something doesn't fit in our existing beliefs, the reality checker rejects it -- and then often goes on to figure out rationalizations or excuses for why our existing beliefs should prevail.

To actually choose what to believe would require a level of mindfulness far beyond what any of us are likely to achieve, and would probably not be a good thing as our choices would then become either random or maybe personality driven, and this is tantamount to insanity.

The end conclusion I draw is that beliefs are a bad thing.  They are furniture we sit on without noticing their presence, but they control us a lot -- a hovering presence controlling us, especially when the beliefs came from indoctrination and therefore are either false or at least not properly supported with evidence.

The secret to breaking indoctrination is well known -- "cognitive dissonance."  Unfortunately some people are so rigid and arrogant about their beliefs that no amount of evidence raising doubts is allowed to penetrate.  Further, the memes (mainly religions but also other ideologies) that provide the indoctrination have built into themselves tricks for providing the indoctrinated person with rationalizations to get around even the strongest evidence.  The best example of these tricks is "faith" treated as a virtue and not as the serious vice it really is.

In the end if we want to be spiritually and intellectually mature and honest with ourselves, we need to abandon all beliefs and realize that nothing is certain, that the best we can hope for are reasonable, evidence based opinions.  Some things, of course, we can almost treat as beliefs -- such as the proverbial "the sun will come up tomorrow" -- but even here we cannot be certain, just asymptotically close.

A "modernist" view of "reincarnation" or rebirth is that mind is a process (which is easy enough to confirm by sitting quietly and watching it process thoughts and sensations and so on) that functions independently of the brain, but which inhabits (one might even say parasitizes -- although it is a symbiosis more than a parasitic situation) a sentient being and when that being dies goes and finds another.

One could, as many Hindus and Buddhists do, assert that this is true because they have faith it is true -- on perhaps better evidence than Christians have for their Christ (incidents of deja vu and recalled previous lives), but to me it is not convincing evidence, not reproducible in any sort of scientific sense, so it remains to me an intriguing and maybe even probable afterlife, but not an item of belief.

The problem with Christian ethics is the word "sin."  Look at a person cross eyed and you have sinned no less than if you committed murder.  Look at a woman with lust and the man has sinned just as much as if he had raped her.

There is no sense of proportion in Christian ethics.

A rational ethical system recognizes that almost all if not all acts have good and bad consequences, some known to the person doing it and some not known.  There are therefore degrees -- and there are pluses and minuses to be considered.

Looking at someone and feeling lust can be very pleasurable, a plus (pleasure is a good thing) and, if it is kept private, should harm no one.  The words Jesus is supposed to have said, therefore, are just plain wrong and probably harmful if they generate guilt or fear.

Christian ethics seems to have come from a bunch of extremely judgmental, sex fearing men who almost certainly had their own personal problems.  Jesus said not to judge, but Christians are great at it.

When I think about the things I don't know or don't understand, it boggles my mind.