Cogito ergo sum

Post Reply New Topic

“I think, therefore I am” is a statement attributed to Rene Descartes by which he proved his own existence; but the existence of what? If he wanted to prove his own physical existence I would think the statement “I feel, therefore I am” would be more appropriate.

Most body parts work the same way in everyones body, your eyes and ears do pretty much the same thing that mine do, but that cannot be said of the brain. Two people can see or hear the same thing but interrupt it quite differently.

I think it is a matter of will, not necessarily free will for if there is a limit on it, it is not quite free; yet we do have a will, the ability to make a choice. If we do not, what is the point of thinking?

Descartes proved no such thing. By saying "I think" he assumed the existence of a thinking entity. In short, he begged the question.

ruveyn

Ruveyn is quite correct.

Thinking has no point. Same with living. We do it anyway just because our existence is based upon the existence of past beings that were very good at continuing to think and live.

Ol' René didn't even intend to prove his body. In this case, he was interested in the self. As noted above, his argument went in a circle.

If you call something which exists "I", then yes, that thing which exists is called "I". Obviously.

Here is a thought, thus - here is a thought.

I can't remember who said it, but the quote stuck with me; "I think therefore I think that I think."

I like.

Didn't one of the 3 stooges say "I'm trying to think but nothing happens."

well, I don't know actually in which context Cogito ergo sum should be taken, I mean is not uncommon that phrases from historical thinkers to be taken out of context or intepreteded differently.

For one.
P thinks, therefore P must exist so P can think (yes, it seems circular)

Also, can a non-existing entity think?

Thinking is a process of solving a problem by a form of trial and error through theoretical modeling. The process can also take place with actual modeling. It is a form of thinking without a thinker called evolution.

Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth

PART IV

I am in doubt as to the propriety of making my first meditations in the
place above mentioned matter of discourse; for these are so
metaphysical, and so uncommon, as not, perhaps, to be acceptable to
every one. And yet, that it may be determined whether the foundations
that I have laid are sufficiently secure, I find myself in a measure
constrained to advert to them. I had long before remarked that, in
relation to practice, it is sometimes necessary to adopt, as if above
doubt, opinions which we discern to be highly uncertain, as has been
already said; but as I then desired to give my attention solely to the
search after truth, I thought that a procedure exactly the opposite was
called for, and that I ought to reject as absolutely false all opinions
in regard to which I could suppose the least ground for doubt, in order
to ascertain whether after that there remained aught in my belief that
was wholly indubitable. Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes
deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really
such as they presented to us; and because some men err in reasoning,
and fall into paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of geometry, I,
convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false
all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for demonstrations; and
finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations)
which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are
asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed
that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind
when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams.
But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to
think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus
thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I
think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM), was so certain and of such
evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged
by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might,
without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of
which I was in search.

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/ ... &pageno=14

Does the word "I" have any meaning? If it does the thing that it refers to must exist.


It might be better to say "here is a thought, thus - thoughts exist"; but where do they exist? Are they just floating around the cosmos to land in some persons mind? If they are accepted in one but rejected in another, was there a choice involved or is it just a matter of where they landed?

To the first question: In this case, that something which was called "I" is what was called "I".

The word "wyvern" has a meaning. Must a wyvern exist?


Better? It is less strict. "A thought" does not necessitate "thoughts", but it does necessitate "a thought".
"Here" was intented to mean "in the relevant position and way in the relevant case", rather than WrongPlanet or Sweden.

I raise wyverns for a living. So yes, a wyvern must exist.

Another version: "I think therefore I am thoughtful."


Why, isn't it a coincidence! It's my young niece's birthday next week, and she was just saying how she would ever so much like to have a wyvern. How many gold pieces would you charge for one, good sir?

I doubt we can get a wyvern over there in a week. I suppose it really depends on where it is, but wyverns are rather large animals and they are in high demand around this time of year already. However, if you want to send your young niece a belated birthday present, then by all means just give me the information on the breed of wyvern you want, the age, the kinds of training you want for your wyvern, and of course location. Some locations do not allow for us to transport wyverns over there or have rather heavy regulation of wyverns, and transportation costs for wyverns is just terrible.

Seems a very specialized definition of thinking. Your own or whose?

As for the somewhat polemical second half - well, tastes, colors and dogmas do not debate well.