I Think Therefore I Am

Post Reply New Topic

Many people think that this quote is self-evident, but I realized that descartes commonly quoted phrase “i think therefore i am” is logically flawed as soon as I heard it. NOTE: I am not saying we don't exist, but I am saying that Descartes method of proving our existence is false.

Essentially descartes’ proof here is:
X is true. Y is true. Therefore, X is true.

If you think, you exist. But you have to exist to think. It's circular.

It’s the same thing as to say unicorns are pink, therefore unicorns surely exist. How could something be pink if it doesn’t exist. It’s tautological. It’s the equivalent of saying apples are red and they are delicious, therefore apples are surely red.

You can replace the word think with ANYTHING.

I walk therefore I exist. I sleep therefore I exist. I desire therefore I exist. There’s no difference of what you say.

Descartes argument of removing all certainty was based on the possibility of his thoughts being wrong, but wrong or right, thoughts themselves exist. This argument may be perfectly consistent with his logic, but not to the logic of a person who does not trust induction.

Philosophy is a part of linguistics. We use words, as our only means, to try to prove our ideas to other people. There is so many limitations to language. We may exist, but we are unable to use words to prove it.

You are supposing the phrase is used as a proof that the speaker exists. But that is not the meaning of the phrase.

Consider the French conjugation. Both je pense and je suis are expressed in the first person, singular, present tense, indicative mood and active voice. Accordingly they capture a "snapshot in time" that is entirely personal to the speaker (first person); the statement does not speak to minds other than the mind making the statement (singular); it does not speak to moments in time in the past or the future (present); it does not speak to causation or subordination (indicative) and the statement is not reactive (active).

All that Descartes' statement stands for is that at the precise moment that thought takes place, a mind must exist in order for that thought to be taking place. He demonstrates for us that thought cannot exist independently of a mind.

Descartes, in fact, expressly rejected the notion that je suis was intended to mean j'existe. That would require a syllogism: I think; only things that exist can think; therefore I exist. That middle premise was never propounded--at least by Descartes.

You think. And you AM. there is no therefor.

ruveyn

Could any verb be used in place of "think" and still make the general form of the statement valid, if not the statement itself?

I eat; therefore, I am.

I think Descartes meant it to urge people to abandon religious mysticism and start studying some logic and mathematics. It's not a theorem of propositional logic per say. Whole quote goes "I doubt therefore I think..." and so on.

I disagree. I believe that thought is a necessary precondition to the conclusion that a mind exists.

Consider the contrapositive statement: I am not, therefore I do not think. Contrapositives are logically equivalent to the positive statement, and in this case it can serve to demonstrate the logical flow. If thought cannot exist independently of a mind, then the absence of a mind ("I am not") leads inevitably to the conclusion that there is no thought ("I do not think.")