I Think, Therefore I Question (or Maybe I’m Just Crazy?)
[originally written a few weeks ago]
I don’t really believe in philosophy. But then again I do. Ayn Rand told me that I need philosophy. I don’t know about that. It all depends, of course, on how you define it.
If philosophy is merely thought or systems of belief, then yes, I do believe in it and have naturally partaken in it my whole life. But if it is that very lofty science studied in universities and dabbled in at coffee houses, then I actually do not believe it has produced much in the way of consideration. (By the way, my parents were appalled when they thought I was going into PSYchology, imagine their reaction when they found out it was PHILosophy.)
There are advances in science, medicine, even the arts if, aside from the early development of say, perspective, pushing the envelope and altering the way people view subject matter are considered advances. Yet, what are the recent developments in philosophy? Was it groundbreaking when Frederick Nietzsche declared that “God is dead� The idea has been around since almost the beginning of humanity. I mean it was no modern cynical viewpoint - people rejected the messengers and prophets from way back. I guess he just had more elaborate reasons for positing his view. Maybe philosophy is simply the possession of eloquence.
So what’s new? The idea that philosophy is not as fruitful a science as one would have you believe has been termed “post-analytic philosophyâ€. Yet the irony is that post-analytic philosophers essentially utilize analytic philosophy to arrive at their conclusion. The basic idea is that every argument has an assumption, which of course, has a proof behind it, which begins with another assumption ad infinitum. One can never really prove anything.
But wait, I’m not necessarily saying that. Philosophy as a whole does contain some useful components. I do think logic is useful and often utilize it myself. It would be inane not to use logic in our daily lives – in court, in astronomy, even in other arenas such as politics and religion. So I do believe logic and reasoning have a place in life and are natural facilitators for thoughts and conclusions. I simply don’t think they are adequate tools to measure every facet of life. Some things defy logic or cannot be contained therein.
Aside from the obvious exceptions to the absolute dicta of paper-and-pencil logic such as love or faith, I mean I don’t even think philosophy capable of proving anything. I don’t even mean in the post-analytic sense, where I reject the idea as a logical impossibility, but I just haven’t come across a proof that actually works.
Let’s take Renee Descartes for example. I have the highest respect for this fellow. He was brilliant, a genius. Yet his famous proof “I think, therefore I amâ€, often considered by analytic philosophers to be one of the few bullet-proof proofs, often bewilders me.
First of all, I believe proving existence is a very different case than proving other things. For example, if you are saying that plants contain chlorophyll, and trees are plants, therefore trees contain chlorophyll – you are taking a subject: a plant, and proving something about it. However, when discussing existence, how can you “take†something which has yet to be proven? Are you not presupposing existence by referring to it or mentioning it? In this case, Descartes begins with “Iâ€. The “I†seems to be well-defined for all intents and purposes yet the argument is supposed to prove its existence? It seemed a tautology to me throughout my college years (by the way I am a philosophy major dropout – surprise, surprise). So in logical terms he seems to be saying “A is B, therefore A is A†(A referring to the original subject, B referring to its state of being, and the conclusion proving what it presupposed).
Another point: since Descartes is actually using the “I†in both instances, can we not translate this into a mathematical supposition? He is basically saying: A is B, therefore A is C (A referring to the original subject, B referring to its attribute, the conclusion stating that A therefore possesses a second attribute). This does not make any sense mathematically. Can we interchange it then with any quality of existence? For example, if something is pink, then it exists since pink is an attribute or quality of existing things. So the cat is pink, therefore it must exist? Or “I eat, therefore I am?†(I think I’ve read funny T-shirts or mugs like that come to think of it! I think they had to do with golfing or something. Oh, how droll that a commoner can overturn an elevated intellectual *snicker* though probably unintentionally.)
In other words, is existence exclusively tied to thinking or can it be traced to other “existentially essential†attributes or activities such as “feeling†(which I think is one of the penultimate characteristics of human beings – think artificial intelligence; I don’t mean existence is tied to human beings, but that Descarte’s original problem was how would we know if we didn’t exist but were misled/deceived to think we were, thereby eliminating most sensory perceptions; perhaps he did equate feeling with thinking)? After all, there are a lot of things which exist which don’t think. Republicans, for instance.
For the record, I totally get what Descartes means, and is why I think this argument is brilliant and worthy of its fame, but “getting someone†just doesn’t seem to cut it for analytic philosophers. (I remember having a discussion with my professor where I exasperatedly asked, “Don’t you get what I mean?†and he said, “Noâ€.) I think Descartes is right, just for the wrong reasons.
I remember in my intro to philosophy class we were talking about logical possibilities (particularly related to discussions about God). And we were discussing how ideas (such as God) could be incoherent- in other words you could have a concept which just wasn’t possible logically, such as a 4-sided triangle since a triangle by definition was a 3-sided object and if an object was 4-sided it defied being a triangle – hence a contradiction which couldn’t exist. And the professor went to the board and talked about all the “possible†and “impossible†things and what struck me is he drew a diagram on the board. So there we were actually looking at a sphere of “impossible†things which didn’t exist – and we were looking at them (well, looking at a depiction of a category of them) and talking about them, but they didn’t exist! I mean, it’s almost like they DID exist if you know what I mean. (uh, “no”)
Anyway, I’ve always been “philosophical†– people always told me I was too “deep†and I had trouble making/keeping friends due to my frightfully serious conversations and lack of social skills. I went into philosophy because it was natural, as I was always pondering things (in fact in my 2nd year of college, when introducing myself as the teacher suggested by telling our hobbies, I precociously said, “thinkingâ€, not meaning to be stuffy, but just honest), and I was never so excited as getting my hands on a really original, well articulated idea. I was an idealist, and felt that I could find the answers to life and then go and live them. I really ended up finding that while it wasn’t too hard to disprove almost anything, it was almost impossible to prove anything.
So it was a lot of fun, but not very useful. I still can’t really stay away from it, but I don’t think of it as anything more serious really than playing a game of solitaire when I’m bored. I remember a lot of Muslims telling me it would screw me up to delve into manmade ideas and that I would be misguided and lose my religion. I was naïve and thought that I had nothing to fear since I had the Truth. It turns out I was right to be idealistic, but I can see their point. I do think it’s not for everyone. But what I found out was that in the end, religion is one of the few things out there with actual answers.
So is it just me, do I just not get it? I honestly can’t tell. And I certainly couldn’t prove anything I’ve said here one way or another - I can only hope for the best, that I was “eloquentâ€. My brain sometimes feels wrapped around itself when I think too much. I figure either I’ve made some brilliant (ok, I’ll settle for good) points here or you have simply been privy to the ramblings of the insane.
Powered by FireStats
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:23 am
I am the first person to post on my wife’s thread!
I love you :)
Sas
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Philosophy is the quest for truth about the most basic questions of human existence: “What is truth?” “What is knowledge?” “What is good/evil ?” “What are our duties?” “Does God exist?” “Are we free or predetermined?” “What is our personal identity?”
Disclaimer: I was never one to ponder these types of questions (I’ve always deemed them complete wastes of good time), nor do I find them in the in any shape or form interesting (but some do, so, no problem). The contrary is true for natural science-which is tangible, which can be proved through systematized tests and or a series of calculations-present the hypothesis- prove/disprove, end of story.
“I think, therefore I amâ€,
Notice that this criterion for deductive validity does not require that the premises are true, nor that the conclusion is true, rather it says that (IF) the premises are true (”I think”), the conclusion must be true (”therefore I am”). Not necessarily, and I believe it comes down to a matter of Reductio Ad Absurdum (reducing to absurdity) The reductio method identifies a premise that is not obviously false, combines it with other premises that are clearly true and then deduces by a valid argument a conclusion that is a contradiction or absurd (clearly known to be false.)
In the case of “I think, therefore I am”- then this is simply a matter of “logical correctness.” Nothing ground breaking here, because both the premise and the conclusion are Obvious Truths.
An argument is considered to be “logically correct” when it satisfies the following condition: If the premises were true, this fact would constitute good grounds for accepting the conclusion as true.
Example:
A. If Westheimer is on the South West side
B. Shahada lives on westheimer
C. Shahada lives on the South West Side
Validity + true premises = soundness
I think Philosophy is a tool to utilize ones logical senses-as apposed to “just submit and follow”-which is what we are taught in Islam. We have the Creator-He has sent messengers, we are to follow them without question-if they indeed have the signs of prophet-hood with them. This is why I think some would tell you to stay away from its study, because it asks to many questions, the student is to ponder and contemplate too much-this can be a good or a bad thing.
Like you said-it does indeed have some beneficial components to it, but over all to be taken as seriously as a game of CLUE-IMO!
I am in no way an authority of the subject-tis not my major so don’t come down to hard on me with your “I object”-”motion to dismiss” replies. Just a simple reply from a science major.
Wa’Assalaamu Alaykum
October 4th, 2006 at 5:45 am
i agree with you that “soundness” and “logical validity” are not difficult to achieve
whereas “proving” something or finding the “Truth” are much, much harder to do, if at all possible
and yes, there are some things in our religion which show the limits or even the discouragement of philosophy at a certain level
some of the most brilliant axioms are actually from islam - a hadith which says we should “ponder the creation of Allah, do not ponder Allah” which makes sense since we are familiar with and have experience of the creation, which would lead us to the conclusion of a creator, yet we are not in a position to, with any certain knowledge, ponder on a being such as Allah
but as i mentioned, “philosophy” is so vast, and we do end up utililzing parts of it in daily life and some of the classical scholars of islam would study it (not that i am saying i am anywhere to that level) - but as for the general population, it isn’t recommended since it can confuse people (another hadith about questioning so much you eventually come to the question “who created Allah” - which to me indicates it is a question we will not be able to “prove” - the creationists as well as the scientists all have their conjecture on what it is they think happened and can only prove up to a certain point)
during all my studies i do remember constantly saying the du’aa: rabbanaa laa tuzigh quloobanaa wa ba’da idh hadaytanaa wa hablanaa min ladunka rahmah, innaka antal wahhaab” :)
October 4th, 2006 at 7:33 am
Logically sound conclusion is the key (i.e.-the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion). If we are to argue the existance of a “god” then lets use the method of establishing validity - there is a God, simply put.
Example: “Those who believe in him will have everlasting life” (From the Bible).
Example B: God exists, for the world is an organized system and all organized systems (digestive system & solar system..lol crack at Sas’s “indigestion”) must have a creator. The creator of the world is God.
Both sets state that God exists. The first set (premise) makes additional claims about God, but does not supply logically sound reasons why one should believe that God exists, accept that “they will have everlasting life” (conclusion is not sound). The second set provides reasons why God exists. The argument of the second form of statements can be organized into premises and a conclusion. “For the world is an organized system and all organized systems must have a creator”-this is logically sound and anyone with an iota of sense would agree there is nothing in existance (state of being) that does not have an origin-therefore, you, as the questioner have good grounds for accepting the conclusion as true.
Anyway–I think I rambled on a bit and I don’t know if I make sense to myself, nor you. I just really abhor this “What is God”, “What is a Creator”, “Everything in existance has pulled (copied) from something before it”. No Allah is the Originator, He originates creation and we (His slaves) try to duplicate-and fail horribly!–Can you tell I Hate Rice Students?
See you Soon!
October 4th, 2006 at 8:24 am
yah, like i said, sound arguments are fine
proving the truth of the premises (esp. if it’s presupposed) is the actual trick (which i haven’t seen pulled off)
there are some really brilliant old “proofs” from some of the early christian theologians - of course you primarily study western philosophy in school - (they was a surprising overlap of theology, philosophy, and even mathematics before the atheists took over lol) but they just don’t survive analysis
but some of those philosophers were definitely geniuses
October 4th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
QUOTE: “(another hadith about questioning so much you eventually come to the question “who created Allah†- which to me indicates it is a question we will not be able to “prove†-”
Which is why when you read in the Qur’an the majority if not the entirety of “belief” Allah azza wa jalla always equates and states that it is “those who believe in the unseen”-this is where those out-side of Islam fall short. Also, this is the conerstone of imaan (full faith in that which is not tangible-not visible).
QUOTE: “but some of those philosophers were definitely geniuses”
Yes, indeed they were, sadly, their head got in the way of their heart-which is always ready to believe, until your brain thinks away your faith…**sigh**
I digress–lets discuss this another time, I don’t want to get too off track. I enjoyed your post.
October 5th, 2006 at 11:00 am
way over my head!
October 8th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Philosophy is nonsense and worthless.
October 10th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
im a little bit into philosphy and Sh** and i took this philosophy course over summer (plato and aristotle…some crazy stuff) but anyhow…since you were a philosophy major i was wondering isnt it “i think therefore I exist?” because basically we as humans are at the level of existence because we think but animals are at the level of subsistence because they cant think???…you probably read about this so i was asking.
October 10th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
oh wait hold on totally ignore my last comment (i just read others comments some one already mentioned it “i think therefore I am”)….but i was wondering if logically sound conclusion is the key, if it really is the key then (astaghfirullah) through philosophy we can quite conveniently disprove a “creator” (wal iyadhubillah); because whatever we can expereince or whatever we can see or whatever we are told by others of what theyve seen only that is reality; something that cannot be percieved or seen or is goverend by laws of physics is not real (i hope im making sense) henceforth philosophy concludes there is no creator (i dnt mean it myslef but thts what baatil philosophy says)…
…also the prime mover is not the creator according to many philosophers cuz it is only a reference point…
also if logically sound conclusions r the key then how do we define for instance the miracle of splitting of the moon by the Nabi?
anyways sorry for the riff raff but yeh kool blog
October 11th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
yah, abu usaamah, that’s kinda what i said
dropsofkawthar - yes the original is “i think, therefore i am”; i already mentioned (in a comment) i didn’t think logical soundness is the key cuz as you mentioned lots of untrue things are logically sound
October 12th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Perhaps you are you do not know this, but studying philosophy is extremely forbidden in Islaam. There is no excuse., whatever the reason may be. The same goes for even reading other religions’ scriptures, such as the Bible for example. You must change your major and study a halaal subject instead. Please keep an open mind to my advice. When you have time, please read the following links, insha’Allah. May Allah (subhaana wa ta’ala) make your heart soft for Islaam and firm against kufr. Ameen.
What field should he study at university?:
http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=5337&ln=eng&txt=philosoph
Ruling on reading the books of Ahl al-Kitaab and debating with them on the internet:
http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=22029&ln=eng&txt=philosoph
October 12th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
assalamu alaikum sis, i have heard this
again philosophy in its loose term can mean anything, and i agree in general it is not a good idea to do formalized study in it as it produces nothing frutiful (i don’t know if you read but i am a dropout anyway) and even for looking at other scriptures i know many da’ees do this and i am not sure about the exact rulings for every situation, wallaahu a’lam - i thank you for your advice though
October 14th, 2006 at 12:43 am
a different perspective here: http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=37&main_cat_id=1
December 16th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
philosophy? only Quran taught us to reason,therefore;Quran teaching us philosophy.