Descartes was wrong: ‘a person is a person through other persons’

[Kumorii]

only the first part was referring to you, the second was to the 10cent holiday-card philosopher who use their anecdotal life experience as if it carries merit to anyone outside of it to challenge a philosophical argument on the notion of existentialism and what makes us as capable agents of our own will.


no, that's appeal to popularity and a pretending that people's thoughts matter in a subject of factual truth, it doesn't, never has, and as long as empirical truth is what is valued ultimately it never will.

barring that, humanity should be culled until such deviation is eliminated as stupidity is a virus that kills the uninfected.

I don't mean to say that it's right for a society to do so. Once again I'm not saying that they are changing the actual truth. I'm saying the truth becomes sort of irrelevant because different groups will treat you differently regardless of the real you due to interpretation of oneself.

[Malikath]

I don't mean to say that it's right for a society to do so. Once again I'm not saying that they are changing the actual truth. I'm saying the truth becomes sort of irrelevant because different groups will treat you differently regardless of the real you due to interpretation of oneself.

the truth is never irrelevant, but all the people in the world can be.

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

I'd be more inclined to think of social behaviour as dynamic instead of static. So, while humans attempt to fit in with our surroundings, we also seek to change them according to ourselves. Situations also continuously change and the identity won't be the completely same as any previous occasion. In terms of social identity, I'd be more inclined to say "I think, therefore I will become"

Not that this is necessarily in opposition to Descartes.

Exactly my point, the question the Ph.D author asked is which comes first. Is the change of "character" to fit inn automatic or is it something we actively do? The desire to fit inn is natural, but to me the act/changes to fit inn starts with a thinking process. Why? Well because you can ignore your instinct or over rule it, meaning you have control over it.

[Kumorii]

the truth is never irrelevant, but all the people in the world can be.

Depends if society decides to value the truth or not. If they don't, it's not valuable.

[Malikath]

Depends if society decides to value the truth or not. If they don't, it's not valuable.

and such societies shouldn't be allowed to exist, as those that already do are a blight upon the world.

[Kumorii]

and such societies shouldn't be allowed to exist, as those that already do are a blight upon the world.

Agree, but as I previously mentioned this is true when it comes to personal social interactions as well. Even you do it. You think some people are assholes while others love them, their and your interpretation of that person are what you consider to be true even if they differ and stems from the same source. As I previously gave an example with the current trend of racism labeling. The truth hardly matters only groups interpretation and that interpretation is how that person will get treated. Not by what's objectively true.

[Gaidax]

Of course community and environment is what shapes a person. Parents, school and such educate children based on the norms of the society they are in and it's ridiculous to think it has no effect on you being you.

[Orange Joe]

Without others you wouldn't even have language, which might mean that you're incapable of having higher thought.

You say a lot of stupid shit, but this ranks up at the top of them......

[Kasierith]

That's not true. Descartes is the guy who effectively said you should let Rich people rule because they have no reason to enrich themselves further. I literally could not think of a more wrong statement even as a philosophical thought experiment. So I can pretty easily say Descartes is wrong while having decades upon decades of proof.

Pretty sure he was talking about his metaphysics. Which does follow, because metaphysics is basically postulating about the abstract nature of reality, causality, and being. You can criticize it, but you can't actually prove it wrong because if you can prove it wrong it isn't metaphysics.

Let's pull a more... illustrious example of metaphysics that has been presented. Reality consists of a single continuous entity in loosely discrete form, like the ripples of waves on the ocean rather than contiguous grains on beach of sand, and as a part of that we perpetuate our "existence" not as individual entities but as discernible facets continuously cannibalizing ourselves in a constant chaotic shuffle of universal suffering. Prove me wrong.