I think therefore I am means?

Page 2 of 2 [ 31 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

lostD
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 560

29 Aug 2010, 2:25 pm

Willard wrote:

lostD wrote:

Either you belive that nothing truly exist and is an illusion, then you do not exist and nothing is real, or you believe that everything truly exist, that you exist and everything is real.

Third option:

Bohm was right, the universe is a hologram, therefore physical reality both does not exist as the seemingly solid construct we believe that we see, and simultaneously does exist on many levels at once as potentials crossing each other to create the illusion of reality. Once again making the thinker the only actual reality, but existing also only as an actualized potential of the underlying implicate order. One conscious being in the act of eternal and constant creation interacting with itself in an endless game of finger puppetry.

This conception is probable but I was just responding to the idea that thoughts were an illusion. There are many possible realities in which there is a thinker but there are none in which thought does not exist (well, I mean, apart from the objective reality which does not need a thinker to exist though it does need a thinker to affirm its existence, it is a real paradox but I am too tired right know to explain what I mean in a language I do not master as much as I would love to).

I mean : if one think that thoughts are an illusion then the thinker itself is an illusion and his thoughts about this illusion are an illusion... Isn't this paradoxical ? Question the existence of thoughts by thinking seems sufficient to prove the existence of thougts.

MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

29 Aug 2010, 2:51 pm

I prefer to think of the statement from a reverse perspective. What if you DON'T think?

If you don't think, you have no relevant output, and are therefore irrelevant to thinking society.

If you don't think, you are irrelevant, and may as well not even exist.

If you think, you are relevant, and therefore ARE.

I'm not saying I agree with it entirely. Only that this is how I interpret the statement.

_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

29 Aug 2010, 2:55 pm

MrXxx wrote:

You still exist, you just aren't an "I".

MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

29 Aug 2010, 2:57 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

MrXxx wrote:

You still exist, you just aren't an "I".

I'm not saying I agree with it entirely. Only that this is how I interpret the statement.

Bluefins
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Aug 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 975

29 Aug 2010, 7:04 pm

_Square_Peg_ wrote:

I think therefore I am.
So what about things that don't think, like inanimate objects? Do they not exist?

They could not exist.

MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

29 Aug 2010, 7:49 pm

Bluefins wrote:

_Square_Peg_ wrote:

I think therefore I am.
So what about things that don't think, like inanimate objects? Do they not exist?

They could not exist.

Sure they can! They just can't be "I" or claim "I am!"

Bluefins
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Aug 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 975

29 Aug 2010, 8:42 pm

MrXxx wrote:

Bluefins wrote:

_Square_Peg_ wrote:

I think therefore I am.
So what about things that don't think, like inanimate objects? Do they not exist?

They could not exist.

Sure they can! They just can't be "I" or claim "I am!"

As in they could "not exist", not they couldn't exist.

MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

29 Aug 2010, 9:04 pm

Bluefins wrote:

MrXxx wrote:

Bluefins wrote:

_Square_Peg_ wrote:

I think therefore I am.
So what about things that don't think, like inanimate objects? Do they not exist?

They could not exist.

Sure they can! They just can't be "I" or claim "I am!"

As in they could "not exist", not they couldn't exist.

Nooo. A rock exists. But it cannot claim "I am."

MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

29 Aug 2010, 9:06 pm

Oh duh! Yeah, I get it now! :roll: Very subtle! :lol:

elderwanda
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Nov 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,534
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

29 Aug 2010, 9:16 pm

As the Monty Python "Philosophy Song" says:

Rene Decarte
Was a drunken fart.
I drink, therefore I am!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNDTUUmz_9s[/youtube]

AdmiralCrunch
Sea Gull

Joined: 18 Apr 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: CT, USA

30 Aug 2010, 10:31 am

Justa a little clarification: the actual quote would translate to "I think, I negate, therefore I am". This is the basis of solipsism, and is usually interpreted in modern philosophy as the three/four axioms (depending on whether the fourth axiom is obvious or not):
1) There exists A
2) There exists A, B : A != B
3) Reality exists
4) Supernatural exists
There's names for each philosophy's acceptance each of the possible combination of these axioms. (Platonic realism accepts all 4, logical positivism accept 1 through 3, nihilism accepts only 1, etc.) Much of philosophical argumentation is attempting to show dependence of one of the axioms to another, thus "proving" the view of the arguer.

I personally have no problem just listing the four axioms out explicitly and moving on to more pressing matters.

_________________
Dum vita est, spes est.

CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,522
Location: Stalag 13

30 Aug 2010, 11:06 am

I've read somewhere that you eventually become what you think about, all day.

_________________
Who wants to adopt a Sweet Pea?

Ambivalence
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,613
Location: Peterlee (for Industry)

30 Aug 2010, 12:38 pm

AdmiralCrunch wrote:

Justa a little clarification: the actual quote would translate to "I think, I negate, therefore I am".

Not so. Descartes' original is "je pense donc je suis" which translates word for word to English "I think therefore I am." It appears (repeatedly) in his Discours de la methode, which you can read at Project Gutenberg.

_________________
No one has gone missing or died.

The year is still young.

MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

30 Aug 2010, 12:46 pm

Ambivalence wrote:

AdmiralCrunch wrote:

Justa a little clarification: the actual quote would translate to "I think, I negate, therefore I am".

I second that challenge. A Google search for the exact words, "I think, negate, therefore I am" comes up with no results. I would wonder where you have heard or read that version.

AdmiralCrunch
Sea Gull

Joined: 18 Apr 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: CT, USA

30 Aug 2010, 1:06 pm

Ambivalence wrote:

Not so.

Yes, this appears true. Thank you for the correction. (Perhaps I'm revealing the influence of Sartre on me here.)

_________________
Dum vita est, spes est.

Page 2 of 2 [ 31 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Jump to:

I think therefore I am means? Post Reply New Topic

I think therefore I am means?