I like having access to resources in order to form a cogent argument. It's a lot harder to do that in an exam. Plus you always have multiple exams, so you have so much information crammed in at once, which just leaks out the second you leave the exam room anyway.
haha. Do I hate exams. Man, I hate it. I like them if they're normal though. Like actually testing if you know what every kind of literature is blabla. Not the ****ed up questions you normally get at university. I like discussing way better.
Don'tcha just hate exams? I mean when in life are you expected to know everything at once, without access to books and the internet. Ridiculous.
Thank the professors. And their insanely tough exams, btw. I thought I'd nail the sucker. What kind of questions were those?! Ah, we'll see...
Ahhhh. You philosophy peoples come in handy, you know?
I'm not saying I don't see HOW he uses it. He just misinterprets it. To explain it REALLY fast: Descartes' philosophy is based on methodic & universal doubt. Which means the doubt is the method AND everything should be doubted. First there's natural doubt: Is what I see/feel,... real, or just an illusion? Secondly, hyperbolic doubt: Is everything just an illusion? Thirdly, metafyscial doubt: What if I myself am not a certainty? What if there is a 'maline génie' (=bad genius, as in God with bad intentions) who makes me believe things etc. He then explained how his doubting is exactly what gives him certainty about himself. "Je pense, donc je suis" = "I think, therefor I am." is a quote that is (obviously) part of a text. The fact that I doubt about everything, means I am existing. "God" is not a 'malin génie' anymore. That means I (the subject) can correspond with the world or what I see/experience/... (the object). I cán achieve real knowledge. The quote is really part of a bigger whole. But it's not the first time quotes are misued for people's own purpose. Just think about the best-selling book ever: The Bible.
I seeee. But I think this is how Nix sees it, and I understand how he is trying to use it.
But it is not about existing as a human being. It's about actually existing. I doubt that Nix is not sure about baby's not existing in a woman's stomach.
I think he means a baby only exists as a human being once it has the ability to think. That can be some kind of justification for first trimester abortion or something, couldn't it? Though a definition of 'think' would be hard. Is it 'thinking' to get cells to divide, or to feel pain, or what?
I don't. I mean, I see how he used the quote in a wrong way. I'm pretty sure he doesn't think that a baby is only existing once it is born...
And actually existing would grant someone rights, correct? So if Nix says that an unborn child does not have a mind, and cannot think, then it does not meet a standard for existing as a human? Yes, it's iffy, but I see his logic here.
the use of 'to be' has nothing to do with being a 'person with rights'. It is about actually existing. The question in the thread is not whether the baby exists or not, it's whether it is a person with a mind. (Or at least that's what Nix is talking about.) So it doesn't have anything to do with Descartes.
How does "I think, therefore I am" not have any relevance? Yes, it's way out of context, but... if you apply it like this: a newly-conceived 'baby' cannot think, then it must not be a 'person' with rights, such as the right to 'not be killed'. Don't get me wrong, I think life begins at conception, but I'm interested in your take here.
Yeah, I wasn't implying it was ok to use it for that. My mistake.
Ahh, trust you. No, we don't actually used 'stoked' for that here, though I have heard it being used (to a response of general confusion).
