Philosophy has many different angles since any basic concept can be challenged via accusing someone or your own thoughts of presupposition of an undiscussed aspect. These challenges can branch off and form an alternate philosophy of equal value if there is merit to the challenge. A person’s original concepts before considering a Philosophical argument are a reflection of our past, and thus our takes on any philosophical angle will be a reflection of our self in the form of accumulation of thought.

“I think, therefore I am.”  —  René Descartes

To expound upon René Descartes’ point above, called the cogito, to doubt one’s own existence requires thought and thus a thinking entity. The critique is that a thinking agent is presupposed as the originator of the thought, when it would be more correct to say that a thinking mechanism is present or simply that thinking is occurring. The “I” part of the cogito is challenged, because a something and not a someone could be generating the thought.

I think that counter argument is asinine given all thinking mechanisms understood exist within the brains of the agents and that the concept of self whether materialistic or divine exists within all sentient life forms. Where something and someone differ is one contains a thinking mechanism associated with it and must also be aware of self, a clue being that a someone would use a first person preposition such as “I” to describe themselves. Therefore, René Descartes got it right but skipped a few steps.

To the critique of any counter argument that accuses a philosophical angle of using presupposed ideas, all knowledge is built on the former as I had mentioned earlier. The counter arguments themselves are built upon presupposed aspects of knowledge including the way to challenge a philosophical angle such as the use of language, and so to define a Philosophical Argument to the fullest would require all non-isolated knowledge of the individual challenging the argument to be understood with the reader. This is simply not practical as it would likely not be profitable nor glorious in most cases to write the books required to adequately address single petty issues such as the poetic phrasing a philosopher chose to use, and in fact it would counterproductive to make the focus of an entire book a tiny aspect of another author’s book, the inference being that the first author’s book was more important as it is more deserving of attention.

To add insult where it is due, a child can challenge a philosophical argument without trying given just a little curiosity, but it takes raw creativity and a bit of courage to come up with one in the first place to present it to the public. That’s not say we are not to challenge philosophical angles simply or to pose questions of doubt but to seek first to understand them to the fullest and direct your attention there until you absolutely cannot find reason in it without further discussion, then focus on questions to bring enlightenment and turn differing opinions into more helpful suggestions to better clarify the original point from your perspective. That is not my interpretation as what happened in the case of these critiques to cogito. I found them ignorant and in vain, opposite to enlightenment, made only to serve the critics and not the public except to those who understand it as a devil’s advocate, a force to fight to find the stronger good.

There is a bit of irony in all of this. I am the critic of the critics, challenging the critics in the way that philosophical critics do. I could just say, “Your face is a philosophical argument!” and would at least circumvent the irony of being so equally eloquent while throwing shade, if I may be so equally arrogant.

Thus ends my philosophical rant.

The post You’re Face is a Philosophical Rant appeared first on Devin Roy - Spiritual Health Advisor.