Veritas Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 What do objectivist make of Decarte's "Evil Genuis"? Can this idea be invalidated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 What do objectivist make of Decarte's "Evil Genuis"?It doesn't make any sense.Can this idea be invalidated?That's a logical inversion -- the question is whether it can be validated. And, I doubt that it can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 What do objectivist make of Decarte's "Evil Genuis"? Can this idea be invalidated? You aren't supposed to take it literally. Descartes' point isn't 'gee we can never know if there isn't an Evil Genius'. It is intended as essentially a 'worst case' scenario to bring out whatever remains as 'indubitably' true. Descartes point is basically: 'Look, even in the worst situation I can imagine, the following things are indubitably true. I can rely on them. So I can conclude they are fundamental truths.' It doesn't take much to start from a Cartesian position, and conclude that the axioms of Objectivism still must be true even in this horrific case. The Evil Genius cannot make A not equal A, or Existence not Exist, and so on. Descartes is never asserting there could be an Evil Genius out there, at most he is saying 'Look even if he was, and we were indeed this screwed, we can still rely on certain truths'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 Descartes uses the "evil genius" to say not only that we are deceived about reality, but that we could even be deceived about "mathematic" and "logical" truths, like 2+2=4. The "evil genius" is a way of asserting the primacy of consciousness; Descartes concludes from the evil genius example that all we can know indubitably is that we are thinking beings, and then tries to deduce from the fact that we have consciousness facts about reality, inverting the proper hierarchical relationship between existence and consciousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praxus Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 You aren't supposed to take it literally. Descartes' point isn't 'gee we can never know if there isn't an Evil Genius'. It is intended as essentially a 'worst case' scenario to bring out whatever remains as 'indubitably' true. Descartes point is basically: 'Look, even in the worst situation I can imagine, the following things are indubitably true. I can rely on them. So I can conclude they are fundamental truths.' It doesn't take much to start from a Cartesian position, and conclude that the axioms of Objectivism still must be true even in this horrific case. The Evil Genius cannot make A not equal A, or Existence not Exist, and so on. Descartes' claim was that the only indisputable self-evident claim is Cogito Ergo Est. That is to say the only thing which can be validated axiomatically is the existence of one's own consciousness; essentially that thought comes prior to existence in the logical hierarchy. "In the next place, I attentively examined what I was, and as I observed that I could suppose that I had no body, and that there was no world nor any place in which I might be; but that I could not therefore suppose that I was not; and that, on the contrary, from the very circumstance that I thought to doubt of the truth of other things, it most clearly and certainly followed that I was; while on the other hand, if I had only ceased to think, although all the other objects which I had ever imagined had been in reality existent, I would have had no reason to believe that I existed; I thence concluded that I was a substance whose whole essence or nature consists only in thinking..." -Discourse on Method (Part IV) So, his point is that we can not know if there is an evil genius or not, because we have no reason to trust the existence of anything but our own consciousness (and God). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 (edited) Descartes uses the "evil genius" to say not only that we are deceived about reality, but that we could even be deceived about "mathematic" and "logical" truths, like 2+2=4. The "evil genius" is a way of asserting the primacy of consciousness; Descartes concludes from the evil genius example that all we can know indubitably is that we are thinking beings, and then tries to deduce from the fact that we have consciousness facts about reality, inverting the proper hierarchical relationship between existence and consciousness. Descartes is probably a little strong about "2 + 2 = 4", I'd contend while he might be able to make it so that if I have two rocks and get two more rocks that I always find I have five rocks, I can still prove "2 + 2 = 4" in a purely mathematical sense. Well Descartes is concerned with the "what if we are being systematically mislead", the question then is whether there are things even an omnipotent and omniscient misleader cannot mislead us about. Descartes reaches a conclusion, and it may well be one we dislike. I think, though, that an Objectivist should be able to start with the Cartesian scenario and affirm the axioms of Objectivism in the end. That would be profoundly more interesting than simply saying "Descartes conclusions are wrong, therefore the whole chain of reasoning is wrong". Let's try it. Suppose we are in the Cartesian dilemma of being systematically mislead by an omniscient and omnipotent misleader (but suppose he can only effect our sense data, and not the inner workings of our mind directly). Just play along and don't take the easy way out and say "there is no such thing as omniscience and omnipotence, therefore, no problem". Can we demonstrate the Evil Genius cannot violate the axioms of Objectivism? Of course, on further reflection, one could argue that if the Genius plays with the sense data too much that rational thought and consciousness are rendered impossible, and that a certain modicum order in the world is necessary to consciousness. In that case we could posit the Genius wants its victim to be conscious and so doesn't go "too far".... Edited August 30, 2007 by punk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 Descartes "evil genius" example is saying: what if our consciousness was fooling us about everything? He concludes that in such a case we could not be certain about anything, except consciousness. Punk, Your rock example assumes an "Evil Simpleton". A real "Evil Genius" would realise that any "pattern" could be "exploited" by a consciousness. So, an essential aspect of what he would introduce is randomness of sensory perception. You would not perceive 5 stones every time you picked up 2 and 2. You would see 5 or 4 or 3 or 1 or a grape or 2 Haagen-Daaz bars. If all reds were blues it would cause no problem at all; if one could never tell, if they were sometimes red, and sometimes blue, and sometimes orange...then one could make no sense of it at all. If we assume an "Evil Genius" has deprived us of any means of knowing reality, then, yes, it contradicts all of Objectivism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 The point of "2+2=4" being unknowable in the Cartesian system is that the evil demon could make you mess up the calculation each time you perform it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritas Posted August 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 (edited) Someone had mentioned the primary of cosnsciousness. So in other words are you suggestiong that since the consciousness is not primary than the only way the Evil Genius could do make us believe something is simply like a magician would make a person believe in an illusion? Edited August 30, 2007 by Veritas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritas Posted August 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 (edited) Isn't it also true that the basic conclusion that Descarte came to (Cogito Ergo Sum) is simply an admission of the reality of all three axioms in Objectivism? I - (identity) think - (Consciousness) therefore I am (existence) Edited August 30, 2007 by Veritas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 Descartes, giving him a HUGE benefit of the doubt, came to the axioms in entirely the wrong way. He starts with the premise that consciousness exists, and then rationalistically deduces that existence exists. The proper order is of course existence implies consciousness, not vice versa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritas Posted August 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 Descartes, giving him a HUGE benefit of the doubt, came to the axioms in entirely the wrong way. He starts with the premise that consciousness exists, and then rationalistically deduces that existence exists. The proper order is of course existence implies consciousness, not vice versa. I see. Although, I can see how identity follows from existence. If x exist it must be x that exist. How does consciousness floow though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritas Posted August 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 (edited) My only question is if he has arranged things in a certain way so that we would believe his truth only. How could we conceive of the contrary? A magician can make us believe in an illusion. Yet, we know that it is an illusion because we understand certain laws that exist in nature. It doesn't make sense for a being to make us believe certain things and we have the ablity to negate them. In other words, if he wants me to believe that no earth exist than how could I conceive of the contrary? For if I can than my mind has the power to overthrow his intentions by being able to deny them. How weird is it that we can perceive of a being that can decieve us. Would he want us to know that he is possibly deceiving us? Edited August 31, 2007 by Veritas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 I see. Although, I can see how identity follows from existence. If x exist it must be x that exist. How does consciousness floow though? Once you realize that x exists, then you know (at least implicitly) that you are conscious of that fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritas Posted August 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 Once you realize that x exists, then you know (at least implicitly) that you are conscious of that fact. Ofcourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.