Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Descartes wasn't even a Cartesian Dualist...

ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance""a term that doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn"t depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there"s only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things"meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 7:59:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance""a term that doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn"t depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there"s only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things"meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

I'm not sure you're applying the term "substance" correctly. Namely, it makes no sense (logically or grammatically) to refer to God as a substance - and the sentence in which you did so possesses no intelligible meaning. A substance is more accurately defined as the content of a particular existential domain -- in which case, it isn't clear by the OP how the term does not apply to descarte's dualism.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:01:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The word 'dualism' on its own means a belief in two sorts of things, which could be that the universe is divided into soft things and hard things, dry thing and wet things, male things and female things. All of those a 'dualisms', but not 'Cartesian dualism'.

Descartes made a important distinction between the physical and the mental, so 'Cartesian dualism' is a perfectly good term to describe a particular form of dualism that emphasises the distinction between the physical and the mental. AFAIK, Descartes did not use the term 'dualism' (certainly not 'Cartesian dualism') about himself, but I don't think he would disown it.

Being a man of his time, Descartes felt the need to state the relation of God to his ideas. I often wonder what the philosophy of Descartes and Spinoza might have been if they had been able to free themselves of theism.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:04:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 7:59:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance", a term that doesn't apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there's only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God's help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things, meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

I'm not sure you're applying the term "substance" correctly. Namely, it makes no sense (logically or grammatically) to refer to God as a substance - and the sentence in which you did so possesses no intelligible meaning. A substance is more accurately defined as the content of a particular existential domain -- in which case, it isn't clear by the OP how the term does not apply to descarte's dualism.

The OP was copied directly from Descartes's "Principles of Philosophy". His definition of substance is the classic one; 99% of philosophers don't dispute his definition (and how could you? Definitions are not debatable. They're prior to debate).
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:05:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance""a term that doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn"t depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there"s only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things"meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

I don't think that's a very good definition of substance. Substance means "what something consists of at the most fundamental level". Or in other words, information expressed as what. To say that substances depend on nothing else is to assume that substances cannot interact in any meaningful way. That might be justified, but I think you need to show that.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:07:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:04:54 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:59:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance", a term that doesn't apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there's only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God's help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things, meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

I'm not sure you're applying the term "substance" correctly. Namely, it makes no sense (logically or grammatically) to refer to God as a substance - and the sentence in which you did so possesses no intelligible meaning. A substance is more accurately defined as the content of a particular existential domain -- in which case, it isn't clear by the OP how the term does not apply to descarte's dualism.

The OP was copied directly from Descartes's "Principles of Philosophy". His definition of substance is the classic one; 99% of philosophers don't dispute his definition (and how could you? Definitions are not debatable. They're prior to debate).

The point is that Descartes was a Substance Dualist as that term is used today.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:12:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:05:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance""a term that doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn"t depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there"s only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things"meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

I don't think that's a very good definition of substance.
It's how it's used in the philosophical tradition... are you saying that Descartes, who basically invented the modern study of substance, should have used a different word? On what grounds?
Substance means "what something consists of at the most fundamental level".
Not to Descartes, obviously. You're just equivocating now.
Or in other words, information expressed as what.

To say that substances depend on nothing else is to assume that substances cannot interact in any meaningful way. That might be justified, but I think you need to show that.

lol, that's literally the definition of substance. That's the entire point of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. Just because "substance" is defined a certain way doesn't mean that there aren't things which are not substances in themselves.

This even goes back to Aristotle:

"Aristotle considers the claim of matter to be substance, and rejects it. Substance must be separable and a this something (usually translated, perhaps misleadingly, as "an individual").

Separable: to be separable is to be nonparasitic. Qualities, and other non-substances of the Categories, are not separable. They only exist in substances. Separability, then, amounts to independent existence."

https://faculty.washington.edu...

You're basically saying "I use this word differently, therefore everyone who used it beforehand is wrong," which is as sophist as you can get.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:13:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance""a term that doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn"t depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there"s only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things"meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

Eh, not really. For Descartes, God is an infinite being on which everything depends. That means the word "substance," as it's construed by the Greeks, doesn't apply to God. Or to the extent it applies to God, it loses its meaning as applied to anything else, because everything depends on God. Thus, Descartes defines "substance" to include dependence on God but nothing else. So Descartes is still a Cartesian in the sense that he believes God created minds and bodies, and he believes God created these "things" as absolutely distinct "substances."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:14:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:12:48 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:05:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance""a term that doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn"t depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there"s only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things"meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

I don't think that's a very good definition of substance.
It's how it's used in the philosophical tradition... are you saying that Descartes, who basically invented the modern study of substance, should have used a different word? On what grounds?
Substance means "what something consists of at the most fundamental level".
Not to Descartes, obviously. You're just equivocating now.
Or in other words, information expressed as what.

To say that substances depend on nothing else is to assume that substances cannot interact in any meaningful way. That might be justified, but I think you need to show that.

lol, that's literally the definition of substance. That's the entire point of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. Just because "substance" is defined a certain way doesn't mean that there aren't things which are not substances in themselves.

This even goes back to Aristotle:

"Aristotle considers the claim of matter to be substance, and rejects it. Substance must be separable and a this something (usually translated, perhaps misleadingly, as "an individual").

Separable: to be separable is to be nonparasitic. Qualities, and other non-substances of the Categories, are not separable. They only exist in substances. Separability, then, amounts to independent existence."

https://faculty.washington.edu...


You're basically saying "I use this word differently, therefore everyone who used it beforehand is wrong," which is as sophist as you can get.

See my second post
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:14:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:05:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance""a term that doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn"t depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there"s only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things"meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

I don't think that's a very good definition of substance. Substance means "what something consists of at the most fundamental level". Or in other words, information expressed as what. To say that substances depend on nothing else is to assume that substances cannot interact in any meaningful way. That might be justified, but I think you need to show that.

No. Descartes defined "substances" correctly. He simply redefines it to include dependence on God, because of God's unique nature as an infinite being.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:15:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:07:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The point is that Descartes was a Substance Dualist as that term is used today.

Explain, then, why Russell and Spinoza are considered monists, even if they effectively argued something with the exact same implications as Descartes did (that everything was within the one "basic" substance, which is either God or a "neutral" substance). How are they distinguishable on these grounds?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:16:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:05:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance""a term that doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn"t depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there"s only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things"meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

I don't think that's a very good definition of substance. Substance means "what something consists of at the most fundamental level". Or in other words, information expressed as what. To say that substances depend on nothing else is to assume that substances cannot interact in any meaningful way. That might be justified, but I think you need to show that.

Oh... I think now I'm seeing the logic in Heidegger's argument. It works, but only by presuming an unreasonable definition of substance dualism. I like your definition of substance better. I see no reason why substances wouldn't be able to interact -- and it's obvious that they would have to in order for any non-monistic viewpoint to be compatible with reality.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:17:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:04:54 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:59:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance", a term that doesn't apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there's only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God's help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things, meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

I'm not sure you're applying the term "substance" correctly. Namely, it makes no sense (logically or grammatically) to refer to God as a substance - and the sentence in which you did so possesses no intelligible meaning. A substance is more accurately defined as the content of a particular existential domain -- in which case, it isn't clear by the OP how the term does not apply to descarte's dualism.

The OP was copied directly from Descartes's "Principles of Philosophy". His definition of substance is the classic one; 99% of philosophers don't dispute his definition (and how could you? Definitions are not debatable. They're prior to debate).

There's no definition there, just a particular employment of the term, so context matters. Taken as it is, without context of the sense in which it's being used, that sentence's reference to God as substance doesn't make much sense.

In any case, it's not clear how this shows that the common interpretation of Descartes philosophy of mind as substantive dualism is in error.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:21:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:16:49 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:05:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance""a term that doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn"t depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there"s only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things"meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

I don't think that's a very good definition of substance. Substance means "what something consists of at the most fundamental level". Or in other words, information expressed as what. To say that substances depend on nothing else is to assume that substances cannot interact in any meaningful way. That might be justified, but I think you need to show that.

Oh... I think now I'm seeing the logic in Heidegger's argument. It works, but only by presuming an unreasonable definition of substance dualism. I like your definition of substance better. I see no reason why substances wouldn't be able to interact -- and it's obvious that they would have to in order for any non-monistic viewpoint to be compatible with reality.

There's no such thing as an "unreasonable definition of substance dualism." It is what it is. If you don't like it, as it's defined by the philosophical tradition, you don't agree with it. That means you need a different set of terms to describe what you believe. You can't just define terms however you want to fit your argument or worldview, because that creates confusion. It's impossible to communicate or challenge someone's ideas if they're just changing the meaning of their terminology. That's why Heidegger invented new terms to describe his ideas -- the old terminology was insufficient -- to keep things clear, he needed new terms.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:23:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:13:30 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance""a term that doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn"t depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there"s only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things"meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

Eh, not really. For Descartes, God is an infinite being on which everything depends. That means the word "substance," as it's construed by the Greeks, doesn't apply to God. Or to the extent it applies to God, it loses its meaning as applied to anything else, because everything depends on God.
Descartes admits that it does apply to God, and, like you say, that excludes the possibility of any other substance. He bites the bullet here.
Thus, Descartes defines "substance" to include dependence on God but nothing else. So Descartes is still a Cartesian in the sense that he believes God created minds and bodies, and he believes God created these "things" as absolutely distinct "substances."

Sure, but it still shows that he's using "substance" in two very distinct ways here: firstly, in the way Spinoza and the Greeks would have used it (which leads ultimately to Spinoza's infinite, lone substance), and then in the way you give, where substances do not have to be independent from God.

The problem here is that people seem to conflate the two. Spinoza, for instance, is considered a monist, even though he argues that mind and extension are two separate modes of God, much like Descartes argues that thinking substance and extended substance are really dependent on God. In this comparison, Descartes isn't any more of a substance dualist than Spinoza, using the traditional (non-ad-hoc) definition of substance. If you're using Descartes's new definition of substance as "that which is dependent on nothing but God", Spinoza too would be a dualist, which seems contra to all literature on him.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:24:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:17:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:04:54 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:59:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance", a term that doesn't apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there's only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God's help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things, meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

I'm not sure you're applying the term "substance" correctly. Namely, it makes no sense (logically or grammatically) to refer to God as a substance - and the sentence in which you did so possesses no intelligible meaning. A substance is more accurately defined as the content of a particular existential domain -- in which case, it isn't clear by the OP how the term does not apply to descarte's dualism.

The OP was copied directly from Descartes's "Principles of Philosophy". His definition of substance is the classic one; 99% of philosophers don't dispute his definition (and how could you? Definitions are not debatable. They're prior to debate).

There's no definition there, just a particular employment of the term, so context matters. Taken as it is, without context of the sense in which it's being used, that sentence's reference to God as substance doesn't make much sense.

In any case, it's not clear how this shows that the common interpretation of Descartes philosophy of mind as substantive dualism is in error.

How is this not a definition?

"All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence"."
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:25:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:21:08 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:16:49 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:05:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance""a term that doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn"t depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there"s only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things"meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

I don't think that's a very good definition of substance. Substance means "what something consists of at the most fundamental level". Or in other words, information expressed as what. To say that substances depend on nothing else is to assume that substances cannot interact in any meaningful way. That might be justified, but I think you need to show that.

Oh... I think now I'm seeing the logic in Heidegger's argument. It works, but only by presuming an unreasonable definition of substance dualism. I like your definition of substance better. I see no reason why substances wouldn't be able to interact -- and it's obvious that they would have to in order for any non-monistic viewpoint to be compatible with reality.

There's no such thing as an "unreasonable definition of substance dualism." It is what it is. If you don't like it, as it's defined by the philosophical tradition, you don't agree with it. That means you need a different set of terms to describe what you believe. You can't just define terms however you want to fit your argument or worldview, because that creates confusion. It's impossible to communicate or challenge someone's ideas if they're just changing the meaning of their terminology. That's why Heidegger invented new terms to describe his ideas -- the old terminology was insufficient -- to keep things clear, he needed new terms.

Makes sense. I guess traditional substance dualism does suck after all, given its non-interactionist implications.
How annoying. The term "substance dualism" had a nice ring to it.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:27:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:16:49 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:05:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance""a term that doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn"t depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there"s only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things"meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

I don't think that's a very good definition of substance. Substance means "what something consists of at the most fundamental level". Or in other words, information expressed as what. To say that substances depend on nothing else is to assume that substances cannot interact in any meaningful way. That might be justified, but I think you need to show that.

Oh... I think now I'm seeing the logic in Heidegger's argument. It works, but only by presuming an unreasonable definition of substance dualism. I like your definition of substance better.
How can you "like" a definition more than another?
I see no reason why substances wouldn't be able to interact -- and it's obvious that they would have to in order for any non-monistic viewpoint to be compatible with reality.

You're literally just redefining terms in order to justify your views. If I said "I see no reason why 2 + 2 should not equal 5, so I'll redefine "2 + 2" as "that which equals 5", and that invalidates all established mathematics," you would find me to be a clown.

Yes, it is obvious that dualism, *as it is traditionally defined*, is contradictory - you can't save it by substituting a new definition for dualism without equivocating to an absurd degree.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:33:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:24:07 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:17:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:04:54 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:59:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance", a term that doesn't apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there's only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God's help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things, meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

I'm not sure you're applying the term "substance" correctly. Namely, it makes no sense (logically or grammatically) to refer to God as a substance - and the sentence in which you did so possesses no intelligible meaning. A substance is more accurately defined as the content of a particular existential domain -- in which case, it isn't clear by the OP how the term does not apply to descarte's dualism.

The OP was copied directly from Descartes's "Principles of Philosophy". His definition of substance is the classic one; 99% of philosophers don't dispute his definition (and how could you? Definitions are not debatable. They're prior to debate).

There's no definition there, just a particular employment of the term, so context matters. Taken as it is, without context of the sense in which it's being used, that sentence's reference to God as substance doesn't make much sense.

In any case, it's not clear how this shows that the common interpretation of Descartes philosophy of mind as substantive dualism is in error.

How is this not a definition?

"All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence"."

It is, kind of, but in the same breath he proceeds to refer to other dependent objects as substances: "We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help"

He's using the word in at least 2 distinct senses here; I've been quarreling with the first under the misunderstanding that it was you speaking (I've only read the second and sixth meditations)... but it appears that the second use comports with our understanding of what substance means.

So again, I'll press you for an answer to the question, how exactly does this show that the title "substance dualism" to describe this philosophy is inaccurate?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:33:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:28:37 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:

Post 17

Thank you <(8D)
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:35:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:13:30 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance""a term that doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn"t depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there"s only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things"meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

Thus, Descartes defines "substance" to include dependence on God but nothing else. So Descartes is still a Cartesian in the sense that he believes God created minds and bodies, and he believes God created these "things" as absolutely distinct "substances."

According to the definition you say is correct, mind and body are only substances if they depend on nothing else for their existence. So they can only depend on God (and still be substances) if they are perfectly equivalent to God. So in order for them to be distinct substances, God would have to at once be two different substances. But if that's the case, then the existence of one substance depends on the existnece of another substance (because they both depend on God, which consists of both substances). So either that definition is incorrect, or Descartes is not a Dualist according to your reasoning.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:36:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:34:32 PM, Romanii wrote:
Nonetheless, physicalism sucks.

Agreed.

When are you converting to my weird Spinoza-infused Objectivist Phenomenological Positivism?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:38:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:35:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:13:30 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance""a term that doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn"t depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there"s only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things"meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

Thus, Descartes defines "substance" to include dependence on God but nothing else. So Descartes is still a Cartesian in the sense that he believes God created minds and bodies, and he believes God created these "things" as absolutely distinct "substances."

According to the definition you say is correct, mind and body are only substances if they depend on nothing else for their existence. So they can only depend on God (and still be substances) if they are perfectly equivalent to God. So in order for them to be distinct substances, God would have to at once be two different substances. But if that's the case, then the existence of one substance depends on the existnece of another substance (because they both depend on God, which consists of both substances). So either that definition is incorrect, or Descartes is not a Dualist according to your reasoning.

That's the point of the thread... Descartes is not a substance dualist according to the formal definition he, himself, gives. He explicitly admits this. He's only a dualist in a qualified sense, and he's no different than Spinoza in that way - he's basically a dual-aspect monist under the classical definition of substance.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:42:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:23:12 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
Descartes admits that it does apply to God, and, like you say, that excludes the possibility of any other substance. He bites the bullet here.

No. His argument is more nuanced. He says the term applies to God in a different way than it applies to God's creations.

Sure, but it still shows that he's using "substance" in two very distinct ways here: firstly, in the way Spinoza and the Greeks would have used it (which leads ultimately to Spinoza's infinite, lone substance), and then in the way you give, where substances do not have to be independent from God.

Yes, that's what he's doing.

The problem here is that people seem to conflate the two. Spinoza, for instance, is considered a monist, even though he argues that mind and extension are two separate modes of God, much like Descartes argues that thinking substance and extended substance are really dependent on God. In this comparison, Descartes isn't any more of a substance dualist than Spinoza, using the traditional (non-ad-hoc) definition of substance. If you're using Descartes's new definition of substance as "that which is dependent on nothing but God", Spinoza too would be a dualist, which seems contra to all literature on him.

I haven't read Spinoza or the literature on him, so I can't comment on that problem. Though it might make an interesting paper topic. Look at unexplored intersections between Descartes and Spinoza, or some sh!t like that.

In terms of answering the "problem," I'd say Descartes uses the term "substance" narrowly to refer to God when he's making a point about ontology, but uses "substance" more broadly when talking about epistemology. Cartesian dualism, as I've explained in other threads, is about construing subjects and objects in a particular epistemological relationship. I'm guessing, having not read Spinoza, that his philosophy develops a similar distinction between ontology and epistemology that perhaps hasn't been discussed as much as with Descartes.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:45:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:35:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
According to the definition you say is correct, mind and body are only substances if they depend on nothing else for their existence. So they can only depend on God (and still be substances) if they are perfectly equivalent to God. So in order for them to be distinct substances, God would have to at once be two different substances. But if that's the case, then the existence of one substance depends on the existnece of another substance (because they both depend on God, which consists of both substances). So either that definition is incorrect, or Descartes is not a Dualist according to your reasoning.

I'm sure this is my failing but I have no clue what you're saying.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:45:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:36:21 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:34:32 PM, Romanii wrote:
Nonetheless, physicalism sucks.

Agreed.

When are you converting to my weird Spinoza-infused Objectivist Phenomenological Positivism?

I doubt that I'll ever find objectivism or positivism to be viable philosophies, and I have no idea what "phenomenological" means. Spinoza's infinite substance thing is cool, though. I'm open to almost any non-physicalist ontology, since I haven't yet seen a sound argument compelling me to definitively favor any single one.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:52:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:42:55 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:23:12 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
Descartes admits that it does apply to God, and, like you say, that excludes the possibility of any other substance. He bites the bullet here.

No. His argument is more nuanced. He says the term applies to God in a different way than it applies to God's creations.
Isn't that equivalent to just saying that "sense A" of "substance" applies to God and "sense B" applies to things dependent on God? I mean that he recognized that "sense A" could not also be applied to anything but God, which is why he had to develop the split.
Sure, but it still shows that he's using "substance" in two very distinct ways here: firstly, in the way Spinoza and the Greeks would have used it (which leads ultimately to Spinoza's infinite, lone substance), and then in the way you give, where substances do not have to be independent from God.

Yes, that's what he's doing.

The problem here is that people seem to conflate the two. Spinoza, for instance, is considered a monist, even though he argues that mind and extension are two separate modes of God, much like Descartes argues that thinking substance and extended substance are really dependent on God. In this comparison, Descartes isn't any more of a substance dualist than Spinoza, using the traditional (non-ad-hoc) definition of substance. If you're using Descartes's new definition of substance as "that which is dependent on nothing but God", Spinoza too would be a dualist, which seems contra to all literature on him.

I haven't read Spinoza or the literature on him, so I can't comment on that problem. Though it might make an interesting paper topic. Look at unexplored intersections between Descartes and Spinoza, or some sh!t like that.
I would love to study the Rationalists in depth. Spinoza is definitely going to be a heavy focus of mine in the coming future.
In terms of answering the "problem," I'd say Descartes uses the term "substance" narrowly to refer to God when he's making a point about ontology, but uses "substance" more broadly when talking about epistemology.
That's fair.
Cartesian dualism, as I've explained in other threads, is about construing subjects and objects in a particular epistemological relationship.
Can you expand on this? I have to admit that I'm less familiar with Descartes (and 20th-century readings) than I probably should be.
I'm guessing, having not read Spinoza, that his philosophy develops a similar distinction between ontology and epistemology that perhaps hasn't been discussed as much as with Descartes.
Spinoza essentially posits that God, an infinite substance, is all there is; his formulation is "God or Nature". God has infinite attributes, two of which are thought and extension, and these things are just different ways to view the one substance. He formulates a plane of immanence, to steal Deleuze's interpretation.

I'm more familiar with his metaphysics than his epistemology, to be honest, so I can't give much useful analysis there.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:58:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 8:33:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:24:07 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:17:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:04:54 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:59:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:27:57 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
...so why are you?

"51. What is meant by "substance", a term that doesn't apply in the same sense to God and his creatures.

Regarding the items that we classify as "things" or "qualities of things", it is worthwhile to examine them one by one. All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence". Actually, there's only one substance that can be understood to depend on nothing else, namely God. We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God's help. So the term "substance" doesn"t apply in the same sense to God and to other things, meaning that no clearly intelligible sense of the term is common to God and to things he has created."

I'm not sure you're applying the term "substance" correctly. Namely, it makes no sense (logically or grammatically) to refer to God as a substance - and the sentence in which you did so possesses no intelligible meaning. A substance is more accurately defined as the content of a particular existential domain -- in which case, it isn't clear by the OP how the term does not apply to descarte's dualism.

The OP was copied directly from Descartes's "Principles of Philosophy". His definition of substance is the classic one; 99% of philosophers don't dispute his definition (and how could you? Definitions are not debatable. They're prior to debate).

There's no definition there, just a particular employment of the term, so context matters. Taken as it is, without context of the sense in which it's being used, that sentence's reference to God as substance doesn't make much sense.

In any case, it's not clear how this shows that the common interpretation of Descartes philosophy of mind as substantive dualism is in error.

How is this not a definition?

"All we can mean by "substance" is "thing that exists in such a way that it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence"."

It is, kind of, but in the same breath he proceeds to refer to other dependent objects as substances: "We can see that all the other substances can exist only with God"s help"
Fourtrouble explained it better than I could. He does use the word in two different senses, and this is where the confusion comes in.
He's using the word in at least 2 distinct senses here; I've been quarreling with the first under the misunderstanding that it was you speaking (I've only read the second and sixth meditations)... but it appears that the second use comports with our understanding of what substance means.

So again, I'll press you for an answer to the question, how exactly does this show that the title "substance dualism" to describe this philosophy is inaccurate?

Because I've never heard anyone call Spinoza or Russell dualists, even though they basically say the same thing. It seems like scholars use Descartes's definition of substance as "that which is independent from all" when talking about Spinoza (which is fair, because that's the definition that he himself uses), thus making him out to be a monist, but turn around and use Descartes's definition of substance as "that which is independent from all but God", in order to portray him as a dualist.

It's a matter of the two senses being selectively and inconsistently applied.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz