Abortion: how to have a logically consistent position?

[Global Skeptic]

I'm afraid I really don't follow that. When I think, whatever is doing the thinking is assigned the name 'I' - that's why Descartes' principle works. However decieved you are, something which does not exist can never be fooled into thinking that it exists, since only things that exist can do things such as thinking - hence 'I am'.

Also see below.

Here is one way to understand why Descartes's principle works. Ask yourself this - Am I being deceived; i.e. e.g. am I a computer-simulation started 5 minutes ago and that I will be turned off in another 5 minutes? So we have something (everything in toto/the world/the universe/reality) deceiving something else; i.e. in order for something to be able to deceive there is something else being deceived. So far so good. Now this is analytically true, it follows from how deception works, but it is not proof that you exist as you. It is only proof that "you" is something, which can be deceived about whether "you" are you (connected to the universe as such without being deceived how "you" are connected) or "you" are a computer-simulation (being deceived).
The difference is this - A is A is analytically true, but A is B is not. Rather you are you as connected to the rest of reality without deception is a case of A is B. Descartes didn't solve that one, because he declared dogmatically that reality (God in his words) doesn't deceive. He didn't prove that the universe isn't deceiving!

I told you that it is from the la-la land of philosophy and in itself is without practical importance. Neither you, I nor anybody else can control whether we are we or we are being deceived. The practical side comes in when debating foundationalism/rationalism as "I can prove in practice something which is self-evident and from which I can derive right and wrong". Descartes is a part of that effort (foundationalism/rationalism), finding something which is self-evident and he failed. It is not self-evident that I am I, you are you or we are we.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think therefore 0010001010111001010100

 

[Borachio]

I'm confused.

For me, Descartes just found a solution to the solipistic problem of how do I know that the entire world isn't an illusion. His conclusion, which I believe to be valid, seemed to be that I can conceive of everything being an illusion apart from the bare fact of my own existence. Since how could something be aware of it self thinking, yet not actually exist?

But as Ziggy says, 1001010100001010010.

 

[Global Skeptic]

I'm confused.

For me, Descartes just found a solution to the solipistic problem of how do I know that the entire world isn't an illusion. His conclusion, which I believe to be valid, seemed to be that I can conceive of everything being an illusion apart from the bare fact of my own existence. Since how could something be aware of it self thinking, yet not actually exist?

But as Ziggy says, 1001010100001010010.

Okay, it revolves around the difference between particular and general. You can substitute them with singular and universal and so on. Okay, A is A is general as/for a stand-in for something, which not matter what it is in the particular/singular, is something. But that is different from A is B.
So right now something is thinking about this text, but from that doesn't follow that is me as me with my past and connected to the rest of reality without being deceived.
In short I am connected to the rest of reality without being deceived is not A is A, but rather A is B. Or if you like:

"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the Universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the Universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the Universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists." William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3 p. 2.

Notice the word fair.

So from within philosophy, if you think, you can prove, that you exist as you and not just A is A as in something exists as something, which either is being deceived or not, then you have done something which have eluded philosophers for 2300+ years.
Again this is from the la-la land of philosophy

 

[Borachio]

I'll take your word for it. If that's what you think is right for you then it is.

It doesn't have much value for me. Since I'm not sure I understand it. You could be saying anything, and I wouldn't know.

But, hold that thought. I'll get back to you.

 

[Flying Pig]

Okay, it revolves around the difference between particular and general. You can substitute them with singular and universal and so on. Okay, A is A is general as/for a stand-in for something, which not matter what it is in the particular/singular, is something. But that is different from A is B.
So right now something is thinking about this text, but from that doesn't follow that is me as me with my past and connected to the rest of reality without being deceived.

Descartes doesn't claim that it does - you can be decieved about anything except that you think, and therefore that you exist, because the observed event when you process that thought is defined as 'thinking' (so the first step is really 'x thinks'), and you say that whatever that something is is 'you', hence 'I think', and 'I think' implies 'I exist'.

Indeed, it's actually quite a heated philosophical debate as to whether the 'I' that just wrote this addition to the post is the same 'I' that wrote the original, and how one would be able to tell, and whether an 'I' who was identical in all properties but not in number (in other words, a carbon-copy of myself) would be the same as 'I'.

 

[Global Skeptic]

Descartes doesn't claim that it does - you can be decieved about anything except that you think, and therefore that you exist, because the observed event when you process that thought is defined as 'thinking' (so the first step is really 'x thinks'), and you say that whatever that something is is 'you', hence 'I think', and 'I think' implies 'I exist'.

Yes, there is a difference between I and "I"

 

[Borachio]

For human beings, is there a difference between being Human and Being?

And what is it?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Your foot is being Human, but it's not being a Being.

I guess.

 

[Borachio]

So how is your big toe nail?