Thank you, Roslyn. Once upon a time I was a Christian Zionist. And you have nailed so many of the issues with it. The aching for Armageddon, the obsession with a spiteful Old Testament God. The issue you describe so thoroughly as taught hatred of Arabs is definitely part of it. Anti-Arab racism in the U.S. is (obviously) enormous. European fear and hatred of Muslims goes back centuries. But Christian Zionism is a cult, having really nothing to do with a fellow named Jesus from Nazareth, and more to do with Christian Prosperity cults. As you know, cult-followers do not think, do not decide, do not reflect. They don't need to. Their cult leaders can do that for them. Ergo, do they not exist? Because in their non-thinking they do act, giving money, votes, unconditional support to the genocide. "To know and not to act is not to know." --Lao Tzu
“I think therefore I am”? A famous phrase from the great philosopher Rene Descartes that has since been refuted.
In ‘On Certainty’ Wittgenstein wrote:
"If you tried to doubt everything, you wouldn't get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty."
Descartes averred - we have to doubt anything and everything until we can clearly and distinctly perceive it.
Can we subject ‘everything’ to doubt?
Doubting everything makes no sense as we’d have to doubt:
The meaning of our own words. Descartes would have to doubt the very meaning of each word in the sentence, "I think; therefore I am." He’d have to doubt what the word “doubt” means?
He’d need to doubt the "laws of logic". He’d need to doubt the rules of inference used to make his arguments. He’d have to doubt the laws of thought themselves (excluded middle, law of identity, non-contradiction).
Descartes statement has been challenged, not refuted. It is not possible to refute such a statement. Because we think we know we exist cannot be refuted as in categorically rejected. It is merely one human explanation for a mystery. No different to Wittgenstein who simply works with variations on the same themes.
But the issue here is not philosophical statements, but how and why some people are unable to put thoughts they espouse into actions, and indeed, often act in ways which are opposite.
Only facts can be refuted. Descartes' statement is a thought, a theory, a belief not a fact and therefore stands as a thought, a theory, a belief even if challenged. Linguistic philosophy sounds like an attempt to make things more complicated than they need to be and no doubt dig out new academic avenues in a world which values what is called innovation.
It reminds me of Bridge, at core a simple game, which clearly became boring and so people began inventing new rules to make it seem more interesting. It appeals to some, usually the seriously left-brain driven, but does not make for a better game. Just an unnecessarily complex one which some people like - Bridge does seem to attract large egos - and others do not.
As to the statement, the game of doubting itself presupposes certainty, is just another version of, I think, therefore I am. Doubt is a lack of certainty. For some that means a certainty can be found and for others that it can never be found with some simply doubting, or uncertain.
If Jesus Christ were to re-appear in the "Holy Land", he'd be droned and blown to bit without any chance of resurrection!
No doubt and since Judaism rejects and despises Jesus, there would be no compunction in doing so. Then again, he would look like a Palestinian.
If he walked on water in America, he'd get hit by a boat.
Thank you, Roslyn. Once upon a time I was a Christian Zionist. And you have nailed so many of the issues with it. The aching for Armageddon, the obsession with a spiteful Old Testament God. The issue you describe so thoroughly as taught hatred of Arabs is definitely part of it. Anti-Arab racism in the U.S. is (obviously) enormous. European fear and hatred of Muslims goes back centuries. But Christian Zionism is a cult, having really nothing to do with a fellow named Jesus from Nazareth, and more to do with Christian Prosperity cults. As you know, cult-followers do not think, do not decide, do not reflect. They don't need to. Their cult leaders can do that for them. Ergo, do they not exist? Because in their non-thinking they do act, giving money, votes, unconditional support to the genocide. "To know and not to act is not to know." --Lao Tzu
Perfect quote from Lao Tzu!!!!
“I think therefore I am”? A famous phrase from the great philosopher Rene Descartes that has since been refuted.
In ‘On Certainty’ Wittgenstein wrote:
"If you tried to doubt everything, you wouldn't get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty."
Descartes averred - we have to doubt anything and everything until we can clearly and distinctly perceive it.
Can we subject ‘everything’ to doubt?
Doubting everything makes no sense as we’d have to doubt:
The meaning of our own words. Descartes would have to doubt the very meaning of each word in the sentence, "I think; therefore I am." He’d have to doubt what the word “doubt” means?
He’d need to doubt the "laws of logic". He’d need to doubt the rules of inference used to make his arguments. He’d have to doubt the laws of thought themselves (excluded middle, law of identity, non-contradiction).
Descartes statement has been challenged, not refuted. It is not possible to refute such a statement. Because we think we know we exist cannot be refuted as in categorically rejected. It is merely one human explanation for a mystery. No different to Wittgenstein who simply works with variations on the same themes.
But the issue here is not philosophical statements, but how and why some people are unable to put thoughts they espouse into actions, and indeed, often act in ways which are opposite.
Within the sphere of "linguistic philosophy" “I think therefore I am” has been refuted.
Should you not agree, please explain to us what is invalid in Wittgenstein’s statement:
"If you tried to doubt everything, you wouldn't get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty."
Only facts can be refuted. Descartes' statement is a thought, a theory, a belief not a fact and therefore stands as a thought, a theory, a belief even if challenged. Linguistic philosophy sounds like an attempt to make things more complicated than they need to be and no doubt dig out new academic avenues in a world which values what is called innovation.
It reminds me of Bridge, at core a simple game, which clearly became boring and so people began inventing new rules to make it seem more interesting. It appeals to some, usually the seriously left-brain driven, but does not make for a better game. Just an unnecessarily complex one which some people like - Bridge does seem to attract large egos - and others do not.
As to the statement, the game of doubting itself presupposes certainty, is just another version of, I think, therefore I am. Doubt is a lack of certainty. For some that means a certainty can be found and for others that it can never be found with some simply doubting, or uncertain.
I say again,
Should you not agree, please explain to us what is invalid in Wittgenstein’s statement:
"If you tried to doubt everything, you wouldn't get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty."
Please address the statement?
Doubting everything is impossible because you are doubting what you are using to ‘doubt’?
“the game of doubting itself presupposes certainty, is just another version of, I think, therefore I am” is incorrect and conceptually confused.
“Linguistic philosophy sounds like an attempt to make things more complicated” (see below)
As I have said before, playing philosophy games is offtopic. Address the topic or find a philosophy blog.
I did address the statement but it was perhaps too clear for you to understand.
If “playing philosophical games is off-topic” why are you stating:
“Cogito ergo sum” on your profile?
You did not address the statement, as you did not explain what was invalid in it?
Please address the statement:
"If you tried to doubt everything, you wouldn't get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty."