Cogito ergo cognito

I think, therefore I know. [Edited.]

All inquiry in modern philosophy unavoidably begins with Descartes, the father of modern philosophy according to Bertrand Russell.

Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am.

To this I myself would add: Cogito ergo cognito, I think therefore I know. [edited.]

Thus by thinking we not only validate our own individual existence, but we also come to understand the Universe around ourselves as well.

To validate the existences of those other things around us -- other animals like and unlike ourselves as well as the plants, streams, rivers, lakes, seas and oceans, deserts, forests, hills, mountains, land, sky, clouds, rain, wind, lightning, and shooting stars (meteors) -- we must give them due credit aesthetically and romantically.

Aesthetically they are all beautiful. It therefore looks like they have all been designed and created with a purpose by an Artist.

Romantically they can each make us feel happiness or pain -- some can even kill us. Thus we must take them all seriously or else we as fools not doing so will die. Thus they also exist because they can terminate our own physical existence.

And my one favorite religious proverb (a psalm) is reconstituted as follows --

Yay though I walk thru the valley of the shadow of death I fear no evil,
For there is nothing on this Earth that I cannot kill.

(Thus there is a little of Machiavelli and Nietzsche in all of us, especially me -- not just Descartes.)

Has anyone else come up with their own philosophical constructions?

I know Frank says "I don't do belief."

What else?

Wow.

It only took you 3,434 posts but finally something that brings value.

Don't worry though, even Albert Einstein only had a handful of good ideas.

Anyhow... it would properly be cogito ergo discite or cogito ergo discere volo.

Cogito ergo cognito would be "I think, therefore I know".

All the same, cool idea for a discussion.

soot said:

Wow.

It only took you 3,434 posts but finally something that brings value.

Don't worry though, even Albert Einstein only had a handful of good ideas.

Anyhow... it would properly be cogito ergo discite or cogito ergo discere volo.

Cogito ergo cognito would be "I think, therefore I know".

All the same, cool idea for a discussion.

Click to expand...

Thank you Soot. Very kind of you.

I have only re-begun my inquiry into Philosophy fairly recently after having concluded my re-inquiry into History.

Everything takes time.

Everyone needs time.

After first re-reading all the philosophy books in my bookshelves, I went to Barnes & Noble Booksellers and bought Bertrand Russell's "History Of Philosophy" and I am reading his views on the history now.

Russell's book is an extended info-mercial for his other books, but in the process he summarizes all the previous philosophers who have gone before him since Thales in ancient Greece to John Dewey immediately before himself.

I only learned of the book from Adam Hochschild's "To End All Wars" which talks about the C/O (conscientious objector) movement in the UK during WW1 and the total uselessness of that first world war. He mentions Russell as a C/O and also his book.

I found the book buried under the R's on the shelves at Barnes & Noble and bought it.

Riveroaks said:

Thank you Soot. Very kind of you.

Click to expand...

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

:3oops:

Seriously though, it is a cool, unique, and original topic.

I have nothing of real value to add since other than political philosophy (which is really more properly political theory) I've never really made a study of it.

But, as you know, I'm quick to criticize when I think it's deserved so I also feel obligated to be quick to compliment.

Nice job.

Women --

Women, females, ladies, girls -- whatever you wish to call them -- definitely exist.

They exert powerful influence upon men -- the males of the species of homo sapiens sapiens (Latin for, wise wise men).

Aesthetically they are so beautiful and irresistible that artists have sculpted and painted their forms nude and clothed in robes.

The ancient Greeks made goddesses out of them and placed their outlines in the night sky as constellations above us.

These beautiful living creatures (with souls like our own no doubt) surely can cause any one of us intense happiness or extreme pain, even death.

There is no question that they exist. For anyone who has grown up with a mother knows that it was a woman who gave him birth and life and nourishment from her breasts, bathing and clothing him, loving and kissing him, until he was old enough and tall enough to stand on his own, and leave home. And even then a mother still loves her child.

Riveroaks said:

Women --

Women, females, ladies, girls -- whatever you wish to call them -- definitely exist.

They exert powerful influence upon men -- the males of the species of homo sapiens sapiens (Latin for, wise wise men).

Aesthetically they are so beautiful and irresistible that artists have sculpted and painted their forms nude and clothed in robes.

The ancient Greeks made goddesses out of them and placed their outlines in the night sky as constellations above us.

These beautiful living creatures (with souls like our own no doubt) surely can cause any one of us intense happiness or extreme pain, even death.

There is no question that they exist. For anyone who has grown up with a mother knows that it was a woman who gave him birth and life and nourishment from her breasts, bathing and clothing him, loving and kissing him, until he was old enough and tall enough to stand on his own, and leave home. And even then a mother still loves her child.

Click to expand...

Ummm...without going into deep solipsism...the fact is that it is not certain that anything else exists but me.

Cogito ergo sum implies that...and I suspect that is the point Nietzsche was attempting to make.

If there is an "each of us"...it is not something I can verify.

Frank Apisa said:

Ummm...without going into deep solipsism...the fact is that it is not certain that anything else exists but me.

Cogito ergo sum implies that...and I suspect that is the point Nietzsche was attempting to make.

If there is an "each of us"...it is not something I can verify.

Click to expand...

A woman can verify it by making you fall helplessly in love with her whether requited or not.

An enemy can verify it by killing you.

N'est pas?

Riveroaks said:

A woman can verify it by making you fall helplessly in love with her whether requited or not.

An enemy can verify it by killing you.

N'est pas?

Click to expand...

It would certainly seem that way.

It would seem that way if all were just an illusion also.

Nothing is verified by anything on the outside of myself.

If you exist...it has to be that same way with you.

Frank Apisa said:

It would certainly seem that way.

It would seem that way if all were just an illusion also.

Nothing is verified by anything on the outside of myself.

If you exist...it has to be that same way with you.

Click to expand...

Frank the problem with a truly sheltered life without wants is that you have never had a bayonet stuck in you.

A bullet would be a fairly quick and painless death.

In those last few remaining heart beats before your death you would then be compelled by logic to accede to the fallacy of your life long doubt.

Riveroaks said:

Frank the problem with a truly sheltered life without wants is that you have never had a bayonet stuck in you.

A bullet would be a fairly quick and painless death.

In those last few remaining heart beats before your death you would then be compelled by logic to accede to the fallacy of your life long doubt.

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing that blind guess about how I would react during the last moments before my death.

You tend to do that, Riveroaks...offer guesses as though they are divine revelation.

Bad habit.

Anyway...it is possible that there will be no such moment of being compelled by logic to accede to anything.

And there is no fallacy. I am not saying everything is an illusion...just that everything might be an illusion...and that I would have no way to verify otherwise.

No fallacy there at all.

Frank Apisa said:

Thank you for sharing that blind guess about how I would react during the last moments before my death.

You tend to do that, Riveroaks...offer guesses as though they are divine revelation.

Bad habit.

Anyway...it is possible that there will be no such moment of being compelled by logic to accede to anything.

And there is no fallacy. I am not saying everything is an illusion...just that everything might be an illusion...and that I would have no way to verify otherwise.

No fallacy there at all.

Click to expand...

An annoying habit perhaps but not necessarily bad.

Anything that might stir you to take up arms and act more like a knight and less like a pacifist might be good for civilization.

And that is what pragmatic philosophy is all about -- action -- according to Bertrand Russell.

Semper Fi. Or as the Boy Scouts would say -- Semper Paratus.

Riveroaks said:

An annoying habit perhaps but not necessarily bad.

Anything that might stir you to take up arms and act more like a knight and less like a pacifist might be good for civilization.

And that is what pragmatic philosophy is all about -- action -- according to Bertrand Russell.

Semper Fi. Or as the Boy Scouts would say -- Semper Paratus.

Click to expand...

I am most decidedly not a pacifist.

Not sure where that came from...but "pragmatism in all things" pretty much describes my philosophy of life.

Frank Apisa said:

I am most decidedly not a pacifist.

Not sure where that came from...but "pragmatism in all things" pretty much describes my philosophy of life.

Click to expand...

Pragmatic philosophy means a call to action. It is most closely described at professional ethics.

It requires action though. Not just sitting around trying to determine truth and being frozen by skepticism.

Riveroaks said:

Pragmatic philosophy means a call to action. It is most closely described at professional ethics.

Click to expand...

I do not think so. Other than the fact that you are asserting this...is there any link you can provide that shows "pragmatic philosophy" is a call to action?

It requires action though.

Click to expand...

Pragmatism requires THOUGHT...not necessarily action.

There are times when the pragmatic thing to do...is to do nothing. There are times when the pragmatic thing to do is to sit tight and let things cool down. There are times where the pragmatic thing to do is to stop...and let the thing resolve itself...by itself.

Not just sitting around trying to determine truth and being frozen by skepticism.

Click to expand...

I think you are just making this up as you go along.

But I am willing to read anything you have to offer that substantiates your contention that pragmatism requires action.

Frank Apisa said:

I do not think so. Other than the fact that you are asserting this...is there any link you can provide that shows "pragmatic philosophy" is a call to action?



Pragmatism requires THOUGHT...not necessarily action.

There are times when the pragmatic thing to do...is to do nothing. There are times when the pragmatic thing to do is to sit tight and let things cool down. There are times where the pragmatic thing to do is to stop...and let the thing resolve itself...by itself.




I think you are just making this up as you go along.

But I am willing to read anything you have to offer that substantiates your contention that pragmatism requires action.

Click to expand...

I'll look it up in Russell's book, sure.

i pee therefore i leak

Frank Apisa said:

I do not think so. Other than the fact that you are asserting this...is there any link you can provide that shows "pragmatic philosophy" is a call to action?



Pragmatism requires THOUGHT...not necessarily action.

There are times when the pragmatic thing to do...is to do nothing. There are times when the pragmatic thing to do is to sit tight and let things cool down. There are times where the pragmatic thing to do is to stop...and let the thing resolve itself...by itself.




I think you are just making this up as you go along.

But I am willing to read anything you have to offer that substantiates your contention that pragmatism requires action.

Click to expand...

"The History Of Western Philosophy," by Bertrand Russell.

Simon & Schuster, 1972, 1945.

Chapter 28, page 792:

"... philosophies of feeling ... to this class belong the religious philosophies.

Among theoretical philosophies ... the desire for knowledge.

Practical philosophies on the other hand will be those which regard action as the supreme good ... their chief representatives are the pragmatists ... ."

Ok Frank you don't need to agree with Russell but that's what he said.

Riveroaks said:

"The History Of Western Philosophy," by Bertrand Russell.

Simon & Schuster, 1972, 1945.

Chapter 28, page 792:

"... philosophies of feeling ... to this class belong the religious philosophies.

Among theoretical philosophies ... the desire for knowledge.

Practical philosophies on the other hand will be those which regard action as the supreme good ... their chief representatives are the pragmatists ... ."

Ok Frank you don't need to agree with Russell but that's what he said.

Click to expand...

Well...that makes two people I know about who consider pragmatism to be "a call to action."

You are correct. I do not need to agree...and I do not.

Frank Apisa said:

Well...that makes two people I know about who consider pragmatism to be "a call to action."

You are correct. I do not need to agree...and I do not.

Click to expand...

All I know is what I read.

Bertrand Russell's history book is fascinating from the perspective that he praises or condemns or at least critiques each of the former philosophers -- unlike other books which refrain from doing so.

Unfortunately in this book he does not go into his own philosophy -- for that I will need to buy another one of his books.

Frank Apisa said:

I am most decidedly not a pacifist.

Not sure where that came from...but "pragmatism in all things" pretty much describes my philosophy of life.

Click to expand...

You actually strike me as a theoretical philosopher, concerned with method and the determination of truth.

Tosca is the classic romantic philosopherette, concerned with religion and proof of God.