[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 53 KB, 392x480, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6817187 No.6817187 [Reply] [Original]

What went wrong?

>> No.6817196

>>6817187
Absolutely nothing. Dualism is correct.

>> No.6817199

>>6817187
he's just working with the disaster Occam left

>> No.6817223

Lumping theism with his philosophy of mind. Other than that, nothing. Among other things, he gave us the Cartesian coordinate system which blended algebra and Euclidean geometry for the first time in history.

>> No.6817244
File: 2.39 MB, 286x258, laugh.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6817244

>>6817196
>Dualism is correct.

>> No.6817265

He was put before the horse

>> No.6817268

>>6817187
Le falsifiable empiricism
(This is what went wrong)

>> No.6817279

I've heard him called the villain of western philosophy. Did he throw away the Greek legacy?

>> No.6817348

>>6817223
Ohnono, plenty went wrong despite his mathematics being dank. His interactionism is absolutely retarded.

>the soul interacts with the body in the pineal gland
>this is possible even though the soul has no matter
>because...
>the pineal gland is very, very,very light.

>> No.6817380

>t. spinoza

>> No.6817422 [DELETED] 

>>6817348
Did you often skip the first sentence of people's posts? If by 'plenty' you mean 'sentences where Descartes describes and puts forth his philosophy of mind in his texts' then okay. Otherwise, there is no 'plenty'. His philosophy of mind constitutes one, and only one, thesis. That's it.

There is no need ridicule and be excessively dramatic about it.

>> No.6817430

>>6817348
Do you often skip the first sentence of people's posts? If by 'plenty' you mean 'sentences where Descartes describes and puts forth his philosophy of mind in his texts' then okay. Otherwise, there is no 'plenty'. His philosophy of mind constitutes one, and only one, thesis. That's it.

There is no need ridicule and be excessively dramatic about it.

>> No.6817433

>>6817187

Nothing. Philosophy begins and ends with Descartes.

>> No.6817453

>>6817433
That's factually wrong in both respects.

>> No.6817471

>>6817433
Modern philosophy starts with Descartes and ends with Hegel

BTFO
T
F
O

>> No.6817477

>>6817380
Does anyone have the gif of Spinoza raping Descartes, who screams "Oh God please Spinoza, you're hurting me, you're KILLING me!" over and over again?

>> No.6817484

>>6817187
He gave her the dick

>> No.6817498

>>6817196
You're drunk, cartesius. Go home

>> No.6817705

Upon hearing of Galileo’s arrest for his pro-Copernican theories, Descartes suppressed the publication of his just-completed exposition of his own mechanistic and pro-Copernican physics, The World. Instead, eight years later, he published his Meditations, a work ostensibly confined entirely to metaphysics and theology. But in a letter to Mersenne, he reveals:

...there are many other things in them; and I tell you, between ourselves, that these six Meditations contain all the foundations of my physics. But that must not be spread abroad, if you please; for those who follow Aristotle will find it more difficult to approve them. I hope that [my readers] will accustom themselves insensibly to my principles, and will come to recognize their truth, before perceiving that they destroy those of Aristotle.
– René Descartes to Mersenne, January 28, 1641, OEuvres de Descartes, 3:297–98

In a similar vein, Descartes writes to one of his more imprudent disciples:

Do not propose new opinions as new, but retain all the old terminology for supporting new reasons; that way no one can find fault with you, and those who grasp your reasons will by themselves conclude to what they ought to understand. Why is it necessary for you to reject so openly the [Aristotelian doctrine of] substantial forms? Do you not recall that in the Treatise on Meteors I expressly denied that I rejected or denied them, but declared only that they were not necessary for the explication of my reasons?
– René Descartes to Regius, January, 1642, OEuvres de Descartes, 3:491-92

From the first paragraph of Descartes’ early, unpublished “Private Thoughts”:

I go forward wearing a mask [larvatus prodeo].
– René Descartes, “Cogitationes Privatae"

Descartes took care not to speak so plainly [as Hobbes] but he could not help revealing his opinions in passing, with such address that he would not be understood save by those who examine profoundly these kinds of subjects.
– G. W. Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, 2.1:506

For example, here is Leibniz, reacting to Descartes’ seeming embrace of the view that all necessary truths, like the principle of non-contradiction, are the product of God’s free and arbitrary will:

I cannot even imagine that M. Descartes can have been quite seriously of this opinion…. He only made pretence to go [there]. It was apparently one of his tricks, one of his philosophic feints: he prepared for himself some loophole, as when for instance he discovered a trick for denying the movement of the earth, while he was a Copernican in the strictest sense.
– G. W. Leibniz, Theodicy, 244 (2.186)

Whatever he recounts about the distinction between the two substances [mind and body], it is obvious that it was only a trick, a cunning devise to make the theologians swallow the poison hidden behind an analogy that strikes everyone and that they alone cannot see.
– Julien Offray de La Mettrie, Machine Man, 35

>> No.6817712

>>6817705
After corresponding with Descartes concerning the issue of whether animals were mere machines, Henry More concluded that Descartes was “an abundantly cunning and abstruse genius” who insinuated that mind as an incorporeal substance is a “useless figment and chimera.”
– Henry More, Philosophical Writings, 184, 197-98

Thus one is right to accuse Descartes of atheism, seeing that he very energetically destroyed the weak proofs of the existence of God that he gave.
– Baron d'Holbach, Système de la nature, 2:150

>> No.6817961

>>6817187
What went wrong with what, OP? Were you gonna ask an actual question, or are you satisfied with this shitposting?

>> No.6818024

>>6817196
Haha

>> No.6818098

You could've given her the d

>> No.6818223

>>6817196
that Dualism is correct doesnt imply that it's the Cartesian variant