Why is it that "thought happens" is more true than "I exist"? Both statements are meaningless enough on their own to be either true or false. Only after you make more statements about "I" and "exist", or about "thought" and "happen", can you have a basis to evaluate the truth of your basic postulate.

The problem Descartes didn't understand, which analytic philosophers eventually grasped, is that words don't have meaning by themselves. The statement "thought happens" is as meaningless, taken on its own, as any arbitrary set of words. You need hundreds, possibly thousands of statements to assert the truth of a single one.

No matter how you look at it, there's no way to disentangle the mess without creating even more mess. Descartes thought he had found a way; overlooking the difficulties has always been a good way to make things look simpler than they are.

As to God, the only truth about it seems to be that any statement about God is either false or, more often, meaningless, and that includes statements by agnostics. The agnostic is in fact a funny fellow, for he claims that nothing true can be said about God, without realizing such a claim is false by the agnostic's own criteria.

• Challenge - clewis - July 11, 2003 - 17:24 UTC
  • Challenge Accepted - pmartin - July 13, 2003 - 18:33 UTC
    • Nothing happens is false - smartguy - July 13, 2003 - 19:06 UTC
      • Just As I Thought - pmartin - July 13, 2003 - 19:33 UTC
      • Same here - kantolfir2 - July 14, 2003 - 08:13 UTC
      • Just for fun - clewis - July 14, 2003 - 13:38 UTC
    • Close but no cigar - clewis - July 14, 2003 - 13:32 UTC
• Excellent point - harvey1 - July 11, 2003 - 17:43 UTC
• Although... - harvey1 - July 11, 2003 - 17:47 UTC
  • Well... - clewis - July 11, 2003 - 18:40 UTC
    • A Deeper Well... - harvey1 - July 11, 2003 - 20:06 UTC
      • A shallow well - carefuluniverse - July 11, 2003 - 21:43 UTC
      • I don't get it - clewis - July 14, 2003 - 13:46 UTC
        • Ontological commitments - harvey1 - July 14, 2003 - 14:53 UTC
          • Having fun with your reply - clewis - July 14, 2003 - 17:36 UTC
            • Sarcasm holds no support - harvey1 - July 14, 2003 - 18:30 UTC
              • Correction - harvey1 - July 14, 2003 - 18:38 UTC
• Clarification - pmartin - July 11, 2003 - 21:24 UTC
  • As Universe & I am , Are Thee Immortal ? - carefuluniverse - July 12, 2003 - 03:22 UTC
    • Yes, at least I think so. - pmartin - July 12, 2003 - 04:07 UTC
      • White roses grow from stems - carefuluniverse - July 12, 2003 - 13:57 UTC
        • I Don't Know "Brilliant Pebbles" - pmartin - July 12, 2003 - 22:14 UTC
          • Who does? - kantolfir2 - July 13, 2003 - 01:19 UTC
      • I am, because I think - origin - July 13, 2003 - 05:38 UTC
        • I Think You Are And You Think - pmartin - July 13, 2003 - 18:36 UTC
          • I am before I think unless I am the prime mover - kantolfir2 - July 13, 2003 - 19:17 UTC
            • You Are, So Get Moving! - pmartin - July 13, 2003 - 19:49 UTC
          • response to Paul - origin - July 14, 2003 - 03:49 UTC
            • And, Back to You, Stanley - pmartin - July 14, 2003 - 04:51 UTC
        • or how about this one... - smartguy - July 13, 2003 - 19:32 UTC
          • No Problem - pmartin - July 13, 2003 - 20:05 UTC
            • But Paul, something about "all the way down" troubles me... - smartguy - July 14, 2003 - 04:18 UTC
              • Would You Believe, Part Way Down? - pmartin - July 14, 2003 - 05:02 UTC
  • Thanks - clewis - July 14, 2003 - 14:25 UTC