Saint Augustine on Dualism

[Type Username Here]

From City of God:

For we both are, and know that we are, and delight in our being, and our knowledge of it. Moreover, in these three things no true-seeming illusion disturbs us; for we do not come into contact with these by some bodily sense, as we perceive the things outside of us—colors, e.g., by seeing, sounds by hearing, smells by smelling, tastes by tasting, hard and soft objects by touching—of all which sensible objects it is the images resembling them, but not themselves which we perceive in the mind and hold in the memory, and which excite us to desire the objects. But, without any delusive representation of images or phantasms, I am most certain that I am, and that I know and delight in this.
In respect of these truths, I am not at all afraid of the arguments of the Academicians, who say, What if you are deceived? For if I am deceived, I am. For he who is not, cannot be deceived; and if I am deceived, by this same token I am. And since I am if I am deceived, how am I deceived in believing that I am? For it is certain that I am if I am deceived. Since, therefore, I, the person deceived, should be, even if I were deceived, certainly I am not deceived in this knowledge that I am. And, consequently, neither am I deceived in knowing that I know. For, as I know that I am, so I know this also, that I know. And when I love these two things, I add to them a certain third thing, namely, my love, which is of equal moment. For neither am I deceived in this, that I love, since in those things which I love I am not deceived; though even if these were false, it would still be true that I loved false things.
For how could I justly be blamed and prohibited from loving false things, if it were false that I loved them? But, since they are true and real, who doubts that when they are loved, the love of them is itself true and real? Further, as there is no one who does not wish to be happy, so there is no one who does not wish to be. For how can he be happy, if he is nothing?

 

[zerozero]

this is completely inscrutable to me breh. He's saying people are saying that your knowledge of your own existence might be an illusion as opposed to your perception of external things, but if it's an illusion that's okay because your reactions within that illusion are genuine reactions?

 

[Type Username Here]

this is completely inscrutable to me breh. He's saying people are saying that your knowledge of your own existence might be an illusion as opposed to your perception of external things, but if it's an illusion that's okay because your reactions within that illusion are genuine reactions?

Kind of but not really. He's mainly dealing with an existence of consciousness outside the realm of perception. This argument is more widely attributed to Descartes and his famous saying "I think, therefore I am" and through that extension, Cartesian Dualism.

He's saying that even if reality is deceiving and his perception is skewed, for him to be deceived and to perceive, he must then first exist.

I think. The philosophy majors can clarify.

 

[zerozero]

yeah I understand now, he's using the words "are", "am" and "know" in a very technical sense

let me dig up another translation

 

[zerozero]

found another translation (by Henry Bettenson)

We do indeed recognize in ourselves an image of God, that is of the Supreme Trinity. It is not an adequate image, but a very distant parallel. It is not co-eternal and , in brief, it is not of the same substance as God. For all that, there is nothing in the whole of God's creation so near to him in nature; but the image now needs to be refashioned and brought into perfection, so to become close to him in resemblance. We resemble the divine Trinity in that we exist; we know that we exist and we are glad of this existence and this knowledge. In those three things there is no plausible deception to trouble us. For we do not apprehend those truths by the bodily senses by which we are in contact with the world outside us--perceiving color by sight, sound by hearing, odor by the sense of smell, flavors by the taste, hardness and softness by touch. We can also summon up in thought the immaterial images which closely resemble those material things apprehended by sense; we retain them in our memory; and through those images we are aroused to desire the things they represent. But the certainty that I exist, that I know it, and that I am glad of it, is independent of any imaginary and deceptive fantasies.

In respect of those truths I have no fear of the arguments of Academics. They say, 'Suppose you are mistaken?" I reply, 'If I am mistaken, I exist.' A non-existent being cannot be mistake; therefore I must exist, if I am mistaken. Then since my being mistaken proves that I exist, how can I be mistaken in thinking that I exist, seeing that my mistake establishes my existence? Since, therefore I must exist in order to be mistaken, then even if I am mistaken, there can be no doubt that I am not mistaken in my knowledge that I exist. It follows that I am not mistaken in knowing that I know. For just as I know that I exist, I also know that I know. And when I am glad of those two facts, I can add the fact of that gladness to things I know, as a fact of equal worth. For I am not mistaken about the fact of my gladness, since I am not mistaken about the tings which I love. Even if they were illusory, it would still be a fact that I love the illusions. For how could I be rightly blamed and forbidden to love illusions, if it were an illusion that I loved them? But since in fact their truth is established, who can doubt that, when they are loved, that love is an established truth? Moreover, it is certain that no one would wish himself not to exist as it is that no one would wish himself not to be happy. For existence is a necessary condition for happiness."

still a mindfukk of a passage though

 

[DANKTHRONE]

Descartes argument is blood boiling. It pisses me off so badly. Luckily I was shown the analogy that defeats him:

Descartes's argument, where M=I have a physical body and B=I exist, goes:

1. I can doubt that M
2. I cannot doubt that B
3. Therefore the "I" who is doubting cannot be a physical body.
or
3. Therefore M is not B.

Now check this argument:

1. Lois Lane cannot doubt that Superman is Superman.
2. Lois Lane can doubt that Clark Kent is Superman.
3. Therefore, Clark Kent is not Superman.

Descartes

 

[Type Username Here]

Descartes argument is blood boiling. It pisses me off so badly. Luckily I was shown the analogy that defeats him:

Descartes's argument, where M=I have a physical body and B=I exist, goes:

1. I can doubt that M
2. I cannot doubt that B
3. Therefore the "I" who is doubting cannot be a physical body.
or
3. Therefore M is not B.

Now check this argument:

1. Lois Lane cannot doubt that Superman is Superman.
2. Lois Lane can doubt that Clark Kent is Superman.
3. Therefore, Clark Kent is not Superman.

Descartes

I think dualism as a whole has been refuted pretty well.

 

[zerozero]

Descartes argument is blood boiling. It pisses me off so badly. Luckily I was shown the analogy that defeats him:

Descartes's argument, where M=I have a physical body and B=I exist, goes:

1. I can doubt that M
2. I cannot doubt that B
3. Therefore the "I" who is doubting cannot be a physical body.
or
3. Therefore M is not B.

Now check this argument:

1. Lois Lane cannot doubt that Superman is Superman.
2. Lois Lane can doubt that Clark Kent is Superman.
3. Therefore, Clark Kent is not Superman.

Descartes

hmm

I don't find this Superman response convincing as a parallel, because Descartes' mind has a special relationship with whether he's thinking whereas both Superman and Clark Kent are outside of Lois Lane's frame of reference as far as her own mind is concerned

that is to say, Descartes' whole body could be an illusion to his mind, but his thinking mind can't be an illusion to his own mind; but both superman and clark kent can be illusions to lois lane. So "Lois cannot doubt that superman is superman" is not equivalent to "descartes' mind can't doubt that he has a mind"

will think about this and post later

 

[OsO]

our experiences are the only things we KNOW are real.

 

[DANKTHRONE]

It is just to show that just be you are able to doubt that x is the case and not doubt that y is the case it doesn't allow you to take the logical step of saying that x is NOT y. There's nothing special about the frames of reference or anything.

 

[Type Username Here]

our experiences are the only things we KNOW are real.

Nah breh, not at all.

People hallucinate, have induced dreams, etc.

Experiences can be deceiving. That is the essential argument presented here and in Cartesian Dualism.

The ONLY thing you know is that you CAN experience, not that any of the experiences you hold are real.

 

[DANKTHRONE]

our experiences are the only things we KNOW are real.

That's not true. How do you know your experiences weren't faked, that you aren't being deceived by an evil magician or aren't being simulated by a supercomputer or something?

 

[The Real]

Nah breh, not at all.

People hallucinate, have induced dreams, etc.

Experiences can be deceiving. That is the essential argument presented here and in Cartesian Dualism.

The ONLY thing you know is that you CAN experience, not that any of the experiences you hold are real.

Great post. I personally disagree with Cartesian Dualism, but this is Decartes' skepticism in a nutshell.

As an aside, if the production of thought is all we have to go on, then this is why logic is so important. It becomes necessary, or there must be some imperative to formalize the relationship between our thoughts and the external world, assuming that thoughts and things inhabit the same world. The medium that does this is logic, which is built into the cosmos.

 

[OsO]

how are we defining "real" in this discussion?

 

[Type Username Here]

how are we defining "real" in this discussion?

I think that's the point of this discussion. The only thing that CAN be real is your knowledge of your own existence/mind. Everything else can NEVER be determined to be real or fake.

Only mathematical concepts and the fact that you are a thinking sentient being are objective and rooted in reality, the rest is impossible to determine.

At least, that's what this philosophical concepts of dualism present.