Community
"I think therefore I..." (Discussion)
8 Responses
-
Derick said – Fri, 09 May 2008 21:10:07 -0000 ( Link )
Although I don’t agree with the sentiment of that statement, I don’t agree with your criticism of it either. He’s not saying that he thinks he is, so he is, because whatever he thinks is true. He is saying that he is thinking, and the fact that he is thinking logically necessitates that he exists. So that you are thinking, whether you believe you exist or not, would according to his principles prove that you exist because there must logically be a thinker performing the thought.
I’ve just realized now that Peter pretty much said the same thing more concisely.
My primary problem with Descartes’ premises here is the primary certainty of consciousness. That is, he assumes that consciousness exists and uses that to attempt to prove existence. In my view, everything implies that there is an existence and that you exist, and that these are basic self-evident metaphysical premises with which to argue everything else.
I prefer “I am, therefore I’ll think.”
- Actions
Post Comments
-
oLahav said – Fri, 09 May 2008 21:13:40 -0000 ( Link )
Ok, I think I got it- I think, but it doesn’t matter what I think, I am, by virtue of thinking?
So what did Descartes have to say about the existance of non-living objects? Do they think, or how else can we say they exist?
Sorry if these are stupid questions, I’m don’t know any philosophy to be honest, aside of existentialism. Existentialism rules.
- Actions
Post Comments
-
Derick said – Fri, 09 May 2008 21:19:07 -0000 ( Link )
Yeah, you got it.
I don’t know that much about Descartes, just the standard stuff a fan of general philosophy would know, so I don’t know how he accounted for non-living objects. I (and Ayn Rand) would say they exist because we perceive them, and that our perceptions can’t be wrong, only our conclusions based on them, because in one way or another it’s something about the nature of these objects causing these perceptions. That is for particular non-living objects. THAT non-living objects exist is necessary because consciousness needs something to percetive to be a consciousness – so conscouisness can’t be all that exists – so there must be an external reality.
Don’t apologize for not knowing a lot about philosophy. That’s what this site is about. Anyone who doesn’t want to deal with people who aren’t already experts on the subject should be looking elsewhere. It’s only aggravating when people who don’t know a lot on a subject act condescending to those who do.
I don’t know a lot about existentialism, so if you’d like to teach me about it go ahead.
- Actions
Post Comments
-
Peter Blomert said – Fri, 09 May 2008 21:44:54 -0000 ( Link )
Oren, you don’t exist by virtue of thinking, but you know you exist by virtue of thinking…
- Actions
- Author
- Peter Blomert
-
Post Comments
-
Derick said – Fri, 09 May 2008 22:12:28 -0000 ( Link )
Peter I find that sentence slightly ambiguous.
I guess we can agree that (according to Descartes, in that statement)... - Thinking doesn’t “cause” you to exist. - Thinking doesn’t mean you know you exist.
- Thinking is apt proof you exist.
It’s important to remember he says “I think, therefore I am,” not “I think because I am.”
- Actions
Post Comments
-
Post Comments
-
lucyinthesky said – Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:23:21 -0000 ( Link )
Reading this discussion has resulted in my mind exploding. :)
- Actions
- Author
- lucyinthesky
-
Post Comments
Top Related Content
Advertisement
- 11 Views
- 8 Responses
Post Comments
hcraig said – Fri, 09 May 2008 20:07:12 -0000 ( Flag Edit Link )
Here’s a thought… meditation is said to bring enlightenment right? Also, there’s been a theory floating around for years that when you die, you learn the meaning of life (sorry, no real proof to this, it’s just something I remember hearing over the years) .
So maybe there’s something to that theory of yours!
lechuck said – Fri, 09 May 2008 20:20:05 -0000 ( Flag Edit Link )
Maybe I am just a skeptic, I’ve never really tried Meditation though I know a lot of people who have and they tell me if helps balance the chaos that is their minds. I’ve never really heard of anyone achieving a higher consciousness though.
Can you really achieve the state of “not thinking”? I believe meditation makes you focus on a certain thing, like a white light. Isn’t that considered a form of thinking?