Slow down, kiddo. What in particular are you curious about in re: Cartesian dualism? There's no such thing - as far as I'm aware - as some sort of "master list" of arguments for and against it, and there's certainly no conclusion. (Lots of people will tell you that Cartesian dualism was dead a hundred years ago, but they're wrong.)
Cartesian thinks, that the soul has freedom, the body is subordinated laws. There is a contradiction between freedom and necessity. Kant correlates freedom and necessity to two different ontological levels: transcendental level and empirical level. Therefore here there is not contradiction.
yeah that's what i was aiming for. thank you, i just needed validation that because he separates reality into two distinct relations - phenomenal/noumenal - there is a consistency in his logic.
if you ever have done Ayahuasca then you'd understand... and you definitly would nto be laughing. It kicks the crap out of you. Existing apart from your body is not a pleasant experience... its a very serious perspective to have. It's not liek a out of body experience thats the seperation of the spirit or soul if you will. The seperation of mind from body is quite different. Its like you lose access to your brain. Your brain is still there working somewhere but the only thing that exists to you is the voice in your head. You completely disconnect from the world and you become one with the universal mind. Its something that can only really be experienced... it isnt fun... but it is very enlightening for anyone that wants to expand their... perspective.
i'm laughing because that's the first time i've heard anyone on Livejournal talk about their spiritual experiences regarding the tribal cultures of the Amazon.
My favorite argument against Cartesian dualism comes from Christian de Quincey's Radical Nature. He's a panpsychist, of the persuasion that consciousness goes all the way down, is inherent in matter. There are numerous arguments and departures in this book concerning such, and is more convincing than not, his points against idealism, dualism, materialism and such are all well made.
Early on in the book he states Noncausal. Quantum events are not causal. They are inherently unpredictable. The exact instant when an electron jumps orbit, or when a radioactive particle is emitted from an atom, is entirely random, entirely uncaused. To say that an event is "entirely uncaused" amounts, logical, to saying that it is "self-caused"; and this, as philosopher Arthur Young argued, is tantamount to saying that the event chooses that is, exhibits consciousness (Young, 1976a). He utilizes quantum physics in part as evidence of matter having choice, or rather being intertwined with choice. His questions are much along the lines of matter and
( ... )
Yeah, I got it. No probs. Just finished the book. Worthwhile, albeit repetitive to no small degree. At just short of 300 pages, it could've easily been condensed to half that space, methinks. There are a few non sequiturs, primarily along the lines of (1) consciousness exists everywhere (2) conscious things have meaning for themselves (3) that things have meaning they are therefore sacred. From (2) to (3) I can't draw a perfect line, but he goes with that a couple times. His goal is noble, to get people to think of the world in a different, more meaningful way, which the book may be capable of, but moving for the sacredness of every thing, to me, is far fetched, particularly in a world as fucked as ours (<--- self-promotion).
Comments 22
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Gassendi gets pissy about it in the Objections and Replies.
That's a good place to start.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Early on in the book he states Noncausal. Quantum events are not causal. They are inherently unpredictable. The exact instant when an electron jumps orbit, or when a radioactive particle is emitted from an atom, is entirely random, entirely uncaused. To say that an event is "entirely uncaused" amounts, logical, to saying that it is "self-caused"; and this, as philosopher Arthur Young argued, is tantamount to saying that the event chooses that is, exhibits consciousness (Young, 1976a).
He utilizes quantum physics in part as evidence of matter having choice, or rather being intertwined with choice. His questions are much along the lines of matter and ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment