Oh, so you also want something people would recomend NOT to read?

Sorry if I start from here, but I guess I would strongly NOT recommend to teen agers to read "In Praise of Folly" by Erasmus of Rotterdam...
I remember very clearly falling asleep every 3 sentences while reading it for school when I was 17... but I accepted the challenge and read it all. After years I can say that I'm glad I forced myself into reading it and I'm most definitely going to read it again now that (at least I hope) I've gained a little more experience in life, I still think it's not much adapt to a teenager public... But hey, it's a classic we're talking about, so... go ahead and read it!

Philosophers I like... I was very happy to hear Wolfie name Socrate, even though I have to admit that appart from hearing about him all the time for the cultural background of my country I never read but short extracts of his works. I have a book of Aristophanes' writings... interesting author really...

Back in high school my favourite philosopher was Blaise Pascal, his idea of fun was incredibly interesting, he started from the latin expression for fun which means "to be dragged out of the center"... he considered fun as poisoning the mind, but to be sure about it he was experiencing it on his skin...

I don't know if you'd count him as a philosopher but my absolute favourite author is Italo Svevo... the conscience of Zeno contains a very deep and clear portrait of contemporary society through the eyes of a trained psichologist of end 1800 early 1900...

I agree with, Wolfie... in fact I find philosophy to be extremely tedious and boring. Still, if I ever need help in fighting insomnia, I know where to look

In that case try In Prais of Folly... it's the best insomnia remedy ever for those who don't like Philosophy

Could have to do with philosophy long having been an activity of people who believed their arguments would have been taken so much more seriously if they were phrased really dry, extremely eloborate, and careful. I used to say that a lot of philosopher could benefit sooo much from a 'how to write' course.

But, really, if you can look past the language, it can be about questions you ask yourself also or express surprising thoughts. Not that there is anything wrong with a good nights sleep, of course

Too bad that so many philosphers write essays instead of stories.

Too right! I've read a couple of books on Socrates...that I barely got through. Hell, I no longer remember much that was in them 10 years on. I did like how they described Socrates as someone who helped others 'give birth' to their ideas by asking them questions and questioning their beliefs.

I'm currently reading Dialogue de la Methodé by René Descartes, which brought me back to this thread for a short consideration. I was reading the point in which he was stating the existance of God as one of the truths he was aiming to that can't be denied when something jumped in my mind... the second MIB movie ends with earth being a world in the closet of bigger beings...
So I wander if in your philosophical history any of you ever came up with a good logical theory stating or dening the existance of God.
I hope this question is not bringing the thread to far from it's origin, and it's most definitely NOT meant to inflame, my question is civil and aims to hear other views on a matter that always concerned philosopy.

The more scientific shows I've watched over the years on historical things and the bible, the less I've believed what I was taught on Sundays growing up.

We recently watched a show about the burial of Jesus and while there was a place that had a rolling rock to cover the opening of the tomb, it wasn't too big for a mortal to move like it says in the bible.

There may be historical evidence that a man by the name of Jesus existed and was executed by Pilot, but I certainly don't think that he was the son of God.

I, for one, don't believe in anything that I can't see with my own 2 eyes and can't prove the existance of.

Islam accepts Jesus as a profet not as important as Mohamed, but a prophet, and as far as I know there's recordings of his existance, which do not make him more then a special person (from an atheist perspective) or a shaman (on a pagan perspective).



Exactly. In his Dialogue de la Methodé Descartes is stating that the fact that he thinks means he exists, and he sais that from this statement he got to the conclusion that if he thinks and doubts it's because he's aiming to perfection and that this perfection wouldn't be conceived by him if not inspired by a higher perfect being, which for him is proof enough of the existance of God. He also brings as an example the fact that noone would doubt of the existance of the triangle, even though the pure representation of it is just a thought and nothing can prove it, as it is for God, whom we can't see but can feel the presence of in our mind...

Honestly this passage is rising in me doubts about the existance of a higher being or more...

Ultimately, however - and I'm playing Devil's Advocate here - a philosophy of any kind is a conception of Man, and indeed, a single individual. I, personally, think that's a good thing, as a believer in the Individual rather than in the Collective; however, if it's flawed in any way, that flaw exists in that any individual persepective must, of necessity, be subjective. No matter how hard one individual tries, they cannot divorce themselves from their upbringing, their cultural indoctrination, and for that reason - equally by necessity - their views are tainted, and any conclusions they reach must necessarily NOT reflect the grand, objective Truth.

which reminds me of another point I'm coping with and I mentioned in a couple of other posts already.
You say that flaws exist because individual perspective is what whe call subjective, hence far from matching the objective truth.
Let's take the dichotomy "subjective truth vs objective truth":
if cogito ergo sum is right, then the thought is a trait of the individual as you said and the individual is the only one that can think, which means that the best solutions will come from the mind of an individual as Descartes points out in the second part of the Dialogue.
If we accept this and accept the dichotomy and the fact that the human mind has faluts we automatically come to the conclusion that the dichotomy is wrong and the "objective truth" does not exist, because the individual can't reach it and we just said that the individual is the only one that can reach the truth...

I see what you're saying, but can't quite agree.

The Objective Truth exists beyond Man's understanding, unless Man can achieve a state of all-encompassing perfection.

Cogito ergo sum - "I think, therefore I am" - is part of that objective truth, but only a fraction of it. To reach the Objective Truth, one must understand all things in their entirety; the material and, perhaps, the spiritual (although I think that this is a highly subjective concept, and therefore to be distrusted from an objective standpoint), the natural and the scientific... And must do so with open ears and eyes, yet never seeing or hearing that which may somehow taint or colour that perspective.

While entering into, and being filtered by, a single set of eyes and ears, the individual - if they could ever grasp all that Knowledge - could reach Objective Truth as long as they are not affected by dogma of any kind.

I think.

I've seen a lot of 'logical proofs' of the existance of god, but none still stood after close scrutiny (which includes Descartes' proofs in the Discours...). I don't think I have seen that much proofs of the inexistance of god. Could be because it is logically very hard to prove some does not exist. Also, if all the consequences attributed to the god(s) can be explained in another, more down to earth fashion, you have a sort of de facto proof that you do not need god(s). I do not know if a philosopher has ever undertaken such a complete project, but there are bits and pieces here and there I think.

I don't have time right now to dive into the discussion about truth, but I'll trow in one thing: is there an objective truth? How can we know there is one - or not?

I think I already gave my view on your question here nachtvlindler... my apologies if it's not written in good english, but the aim was that of pointing in that direction



even though I have to admit that the "objective truth" is somehow necessary, if we believe as I already said that the objective truth doesn not exist there will be no space for perfection anymore, and humanity will be subject to the winds of impulse and noone will ever aim to a higher goal anymore. I find it unthinkable...



I'm sorry, but the fact that a mind is one of the highest in history doesn't mean everything coming out of it is good or perfect, as Descartes himself states he has faults too and as the critics say Descartes' theory about the existance of God is lacking in logic and explanation and sounds more as a postoumous part added not to piss off the church after seeing Galileo be punished for his ideas. Sure is that if we use logic and sillogism Descates' explanation of the existance of God is not the kind of proof I was asking for, it's more a faith act, a choice he makes.
As immediate as the cogito ergo sum is, I don't feel "I think, hence God exists" proof enough for the existance of God. As Descartes himself sais, believing in something is not proof enough of that being the truth.
I was pointing out the overused concept of DICHOTOMY because I think that's where our whole discussion is taking place. Western cultures base their philosophy on dichotomy: good vs bad, beautyful vs ugly, happy vs sad... whereas easter cultures seem to be based on the concept of unicity.

Here let me disagree with Minnie:



If that was true, the entire process that brought Descartes to his "cogito ergo sum" would be invalidated. I consider every subjective truth to be partially true, sometimes just true for the individual, sometimes half or partly matching the objective truth.
Could it be possible, through the use of rational thinking, to get rid at least of part of our cultural indoctrination?
If we consider the idea of sin that came out in another thread and is specifically bound to christianity, do you think it is possible to epurate our minds of that concept to deeply embrace any other belief, idea or disbelief?

Still I wander if there will ever be a good logically proven explanation to the existance of God, or if, as catholicism implies, it HAS to be an act of faith...

Now, this thread is really taking off!

I think, here, in order to defend, I need to define - in this case, the indefinable, the Objective Truth I so believe in.

For me, the Objective Truth does exist. As an example, let's imagine, for a second, that some cosmic incident of immense proportions robs us all of our ability, as humans, to make critical or comparative judgements; that we are left simply with our basic senses.

What remains, what assaults our fingertips, our ears, eyes, nose and tongue, is objective reality. Just because we are no longer able to ascribe qualities to the things we sense doesn't mean they cease to be. The ground under our feet is hard; a tree continues to grow from the ground - because we have lost our ability to describe it in glowing, poetic terms, doesn't mean that it's going to start defying physical laws, and suddenly leap two metres in the air. What we would see, hear, feel, smell and touch would be incontrovertible - Objective - Truth. The Universe doesn't need us to define it; it IS, and will continue to be, in non-relativistic terms, when we are dust.

The trouble is, our little corner of experience is just a tiny fragment of Reality; of Objective Truth. We can only begin to conceive of the entire picture, but I think that there must have been a time when Man was far more aware of the existence of that big picture than perhaps he is today; perhaps, at a time when his entire world was effectively bounded by the distance he was able to walk in a day. When the world of your existence is small, it's easy to imagine Big. But it is hard to understand it in those terms, and this (forgive me, NightLight!) is why I believe Man invented, and needed, Gods - the comforting belief that there is, perhaps, something/someone who really DOES understand the nature of the Bigness, the things of which we are perhaps only slightly aware, and which we imagine to be there.

The trouble is, as soon as we do this, we allow ourselves the all-too-Human luxury of shirking our responsibilities, of passing the buck of Total Understanding onto the shoulders of another being. We become slavish, dependent, and all too ready to allow deities to dominate our culture. And - although I strongly agree with what NightLight has said about effectively de-programming ourselves, removing certain aspects of cultural indoctrination - unfortunately, such is the nature of our culture that I think it's too late to totally do so as soon as a child utters its first word in the language it is born to.

YAY!



and I think that in the era of copy, in the era when everything has already been found out, in the era of machinery, when man has lost faith in himself although he claims to trust himself above anything else, defining the indefinable is necessary for those who really want humanity to regain the trust it lost. Reason why I asked the question



Here you're using Descartes' example in the opposite way he's using it and I have to admit, you make to me more sense then he does. He claims that the only way we can be sure that physical laws and therefore the reality you're mentioning are true is to admit God's existance... he brings on the example of dream stating that some dreams are so true although unreal and surreal that we could consider them as true as what we touch if we don't believe in God.
Personally I don't think that our mind's lack of understanding in what's happening when we're dreaming is proving the existance of any higher being and actually the fact that when we dream we can reach unreal realms that look as real as the real one is only proof of how big the universe is and how far human mind can go if freed of it's phisical bounds.
Sure is that the fact that we exist rises the question as to what this "mind" is...



so, I wander if your thought here could be completed with the idea that maybe "mind" is actually a portion of that Objective Truth, which would explain both it's hability to conceive the Objective Truth itself and it's hability to reach parts of it...



aaah! Dichotomy!
This indeed is a good, logical explanation of why gods exist and do not exist in a western culture... Still...
My personal explanation as to why man needed and forged religion is "the quest for answers", which I think might be closer to enclose eastern religions too. In a world where basic senses where pretty much everything man could rely on, in a world where already defining a colour was creating conflict, in the world where humanity was starting to build what Rousseau defines "Contract Social" the need of an entity able to answer to those questions and able to decide above human comprehension was so strong that mankind started trying to find answers in signs and nature, in shamans talking to spirits... which makes religion the first form of law on earth.
But, if we try for a moment to understand the eastern concept of unicity, your theory, Minnie, becomes the description a Buddhist would make of Buddhism.



I most definitely agree that in the quest of finding answers that would apply to the entire community, humanity ended up inventing the first form of totalitarism.



Still, I think that with a strong work on ourselves we can give a new face and new definition to the concepts we were, here we agree, programmed with. I do think it's impossible to get rid of every single concept or idea, because we still need to be part of this society, still, I think rationalizing what is part of that indoctrination could be a first step to free our mind of the chains of cultural inheritage to move a step more towards the Objective Truth you mentioned before.