Imagine seeing this man looking through your bedroom window at night

Imagine seeing this man looking through your bedroom window at night

Other urls found in this thread:

philos-sophia.org/schrodingers-cat-thomistic-ontology/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Honestly why is he a meme on here? I know nothing about philosophy, but I thought he was immensely influential.

the better question is why that sexy demon isn't more of a meme around here

let's try to figure this one out starting with nothing more than the knowledge of our own existence

GIVE

Descartes is a meme here?

He's a strange figure in philosophy because he's often described as the originator or at epitome of the "Cartesian worldview" (critiqued by Adorno+Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment, by Heidegger, Weber, etc., etc., and by just about every single philosopher these days)

Descartes' dualism is the big bugbear that the modern world is supposed to be overcoming, according to 95% of philosophy of the past century or more.

>Descartes' dualism is the big bugbear that the modern world is supposed to be overcoming,
It annoys the fuck out of me when they pretend they've eliminated this distinction

No fucking kidding. My friend always jokes that the monists are so overeager that we're going to go through a century of pseudo-nondualism that is wrong for the right reasons, and then need a "less wrong" self-admitted dualism again, before we can break through to a real nondualism.

nondualism =/= monism

Pls go René

*ruins philosophy and makes everyone belive he saved it*
What did he mean by this?

>My friend
There's no need to lie here.

>dualism
>not believing in the trinity
He forgot the holy spirit. Is just the father an son up in here. Is like ya nigga brought the chicken and the drank but aint nobody got da dippin' sauce

He believed in the trinity ya goof we talking mind body different shit

HER

It's ok because based Baruch saved it for real

>friend = voice in the mirror
Or maybe I'm just projecting

[...]

As one knows very well, it was the seventeenth-century philosopher René Descartes who laid the philosophic foundations of modern physics. Descartes conceived of the external or objective world as made up of so-called res extensae, extended things bereft of sensible qualities, which can be fully described in purely quantitative or mathematical terms. Besides res extensae he posits also res cogitantes or thinking entities, and it is to these that he consigned the sensible qualities, along with whatever else in the universe might be recalcitrant to mathematical definition. One generally regards this Cartesian partition of reality into res extensae and res cogitantes as simply an affirmation of the mind-body dichotomy, forgetting that it is much more than that; for not only has Descartes distinguished sharply between mind and body, but he has at the same time imposed an exceedingly strange and indeed problematic conception of corporeal nature, a conception, in fact, that renders the external world unperceived and unperceivable. According to René Descartes, the red apple we perceive exists — not in the external world, as mankind had believed all along — but in the mind, the res cogitans; in short, it is a mental phantasm which we have naively mistaken for an external entity. Descartes admits, of course, that in normal sense perception the phantasm is causally related to an external object, a res extensa; but the fact remains that it is not the res extensa, but the phantasm that is actually perceived. What was previously conceived as a single object — and what in daily life is invariably regarded as such — has now been split in two; as Whitehead has put it: “Thus there would be two natures, one is the conjecture and the other is the dream.”5 Now, this splitting of the object into a “conjecture” and a “dream” is what Whitehead terms “bifurcation”; and this, it turns out, constitutes the decisive philosophic postulate which underlies and determines our customary interpretation of physics. Beginning with his Tarner Lectures (delivered at Cambridge University in 1919), Whitehead has insistently pointed out and commented upon this fact. “The result,” he declared, “is a complete muddle in scientific thought, in philosophic cosmology, and in epistemology. But any doctrine which does not implicitly presuppose this point of view is assailed as unintelligible.”6 I am here to tell you that today, after seventy years of quantum debate, the situation remains fundamentally unchanged. Just about every other article of philosophic belief, it would seem, has been put on the table and subjected to scrutiny, while bifurcation continues to be implicitly presupposed as if it were a sacrosanct dogma revealed from on high. And so “the muddle in scientific thought” continues, and has only been exacerbated by the demands of quantum theory.

That’s the bad news; the good news is that the situation can be remedied. In a recent monograph I have shown that physics can indeed be interpreted on a non-bifurcationist basis, with the result that quantum paradox disappears of its own accord.7 No need for such far-flung notions as the “many worlds” hypothesis or any other ad hoc stipulation; to resolve the semblance of paradox one needs but to relinquish a certain philosophic postulate foisted upon us by Galileo and Descartes. Quantum paradox, it appears, is but Nature’s way of repudiating a spurious philosophy.

[...]

philos-sophia.org/schrodingers-cat-thomistic-ontology/

THE

>shilling your own blog

DICK

...

very unsettling illustration