/lit/ - Literature

>>15081301
refute it

>>15081323
Not OP, but it should be "I am, therefore I think" there is no thinker

>>15081359
I am therefore I think?
That's not what it is.

Anyone who considers this idea "brainlet" is a dumbass. It's probably the most solid idea in all of metaphysics. It is just saying that one's consciousness itself is sufficient evidence for existence.

>>15081359
Retard

>>15081421
>>15081414
That presupposes that the "I" is real and exists, it doesn't, you are a machine, there is no entity there pulling the strings, no existence whatsoever. You are what you are doing right now! You don't exist

>>15081359

>>15081359
Isnt there a think, couldnt you imagine yourself as a disembodied consciousness such that the only object of focus is yourself?
If you 'were' prior to thought, thinking could perhaps be done away with. You might be right, however, descartes meditations at the very least reveal how inseperable being and thinking are

>>15081301
It's literally one of the most primary philosophical ideas in the western tradition. substance dualism is one of the most enduring concepts because of that one formulation. You try coming up with a better original take

>this thread
You lads are about to give me an aneurysm. Consider the translation as "I possess awareness" or something similar and work your way out of it, I know you can do anons.

>>15081359
We’ve had this thread before and all you could was spout buddhist doctrine without making a logical argument. Cogito refers to cognition/awareness/consciousness, not just thought in the explicit sense of the word. In other words, it refers to experience and all its possible quales. It’s irrefutable because this awareness is not objective or measurable, it belongs only to the “thinker”. I don’t care whether this whole world is an illusion, I experience it, therefore I’m not an illusion. I don’t refer to my physical being but my mere experience.

>>15081359
There's no "I" before a thought on it. There's something that exists, yes, but it's not that 'You' who can declare he exists.

It is a play on language over a play on logic (in the original, not as much in English translations). The statement is really saying "I (a thinking being) think, therefore I am a thinking being". In short, it is merely an analytic statement, not proving either part of the statement. It all comes down to ego (or I) meaning something much wider than the statement pretends it does.

Materialism is false, consciousness is fundamental, Platonism is unrefuted in 2500 years

>>15081447
take your meds

>>15081301
>gabbidull bad therefore gabbidull gud

>>15081566
>therefore I’m not an illusion
*therefore I exist, since even if it was an illusion, that same illusion has to exist for me to experience it
ftfy

>>15081611
yuo've been disproven by neuroscience years ago, brainlet

>>15081611
>unrefuted
Also unsupported, dipshit.

>>15081301
What "I" is even being referred to? The thing referring? Define it without using it in it's own definition.

The demon could just as easily fabricated a sense of subjective self and scripted one's thoughts. Descartes engendered what is essentially an ongoing confusion in western thought about a calcified, solid and impermeable self-identity that is severed from the rest of the world and has its own reality. This is in contrast to for instance Leibniz's view in which identity is essentially a factoring into the subject of every cause and effect of the external universe terminating in them. A self is essentially a crossroads where all chains of cause and effect find a terminus and overlap.

>>15081822
But that's exactly the point, I is self-defining, I am that from which definition is possible.

cogito ergo sum only proves that there is an "i" that is aware of phenomena. It states nothing about what precisely the I is, whether the phenomena is independent, etc....

>>15081323
Its only soundness is derived from its tautological essence - existence therefore existence. It escapes refutation if it stays there, in the domain of claiming nothing. Anything beyond that is unjustified and easy to refute, such as the notion of an independent intellect, or of our essential reducibility to the rational faculty (this is really just rationality looking at itself in a mirror while the rest of being is off playing cards in the living room).

>>15081794
There is nothing in neuroscience that disproves anything I said and that you think there is shows you have no understanding of neuroscience or anything I posted.
>>15081812
All of mathematics is platonic.

>>15082121
If you remove specific parts of someone's brain (or if they get damaged), the same things always happen (a few examples: a person can't move his arms, he can't recognize objects, he can't hear sound etc.)
If the whole brain or a significant part of it is damaged or removed, the person either becomes a "vegetable" or dies
Stop embarrassing yourself

>>15082181
Brainlet tier of understanding neuroscience. Embarassing.

>>15081301
No, it's important. It's a birth of rationalism. It's an exercise started by Augustine that decided the first blow against Scholastic Aristotelianism. It's a justification for the Renaissance by their contemporary and it's the foundation of the Enlightenment. I don't agree with it but this statement realized the fall of monarchies, to some sectors the fall of god and the rise of the regular man to the heights of importance. When you can't necessarily prove anything exists but you can definitely prove you at least exist it's a paradigm shift like none other. You don't need any external contingent factors to prove you are important. The last important revolution of western man was the rise of Christianity which fulfilled the answers of the older philosophies and gave credence to man despite suffering. This saga of self consciousness is extraordinarily important for a culture particularly theirs.

>>15082042
This is still rather limited. From the statement "I possess awareness" one can deduce a number of things about reality. Of course, most are still fundamentally dichotomic - like whether or not the awareness is a projection of the "I" or if the true form of "I" is even remotely similar to our egoistical conceptualization. Being able to validate a reality to even the smallest degree is a big step in an admittedly still tenebrous realm

>>15082239
Nice refutation, Socrates

>>15081359
Descartes purposely conflated Being with Being Conscious. "I think" before "I am" means he places Consciousness before Being. Man is Conscious and God is Being. There are philosophers and even scientists today complaining about chronic narcissism among the public - Western civilization since Descartes has been running backwards up a mountain. God isn't Dead; we became Him.

>>15082042
It's a bit more nuanced than that, otherwise existence could be proved through the utilization of any verb in that statement. Thought specifically was used by Descartes to defeat the hypothetical "evil genius" who could be tricking him by providing false sense experiences, and elevates him to the level of merely a "thinking thing." "Je pense, donc je suis" proves nothing more for Descartes than that he is a thing that thinks, it proves nothing about the physical world beyond that, though he does continue to attempt establishing those sorts of things through logical deductions and some syllogism, though i don't remember perfectly his logical route. Hope that's some help, I took a class about only the writings of Descartes nearly ten years ago and have forgotten most.

>>15081301
yeah hume's and nietzsche's responses to it

>>15081359
now THAT is a brainlet take
never change, /lit/

>>15081301
our consciousness is the only thing we surely know that exists, the rest can all be illusions

>>15081301
All the Western philosophy you guys have read have obviously hurt you. It's obvious the statement is incorrect. See >>15081359. Oh rational man how foolish you are, obfuscating your lack of wisdom behind big phony words. It's okay I was like that too before I ditched Western philosophy and stopped being an NPC.

>>15081447
i am a machine? therefore, i am

>>15083003
No, we can't even be sure consciousness exists, desu. The only reasonable claim we can make about reality is that "there is nervous stimulation".

>>15081323
there is a whole book dedicated to that, Descartes' Error by Damásio. It's a pretty fun read.

>>15081566
What are you though? Really, what constitutes the self? When you look into yourself and imagine who you are, what can be comprehended beyond past impressions and experiences felt through your sensory faculties?

There is no you. All that constitutes the self is but a bundle of impressions and sensations. In this way, our conception of the self is no different from our impressions of the outer world - which are unreliable. Moreover, your capability for reason and higher thought are explicitly tied to material correlates in your brain. Descartes has been refuted both by the likes of David Hume (who really just took Descartes’ skepticism to what ought to have been its rightful conclusion) and modern neuroscience.

>>15082181
this doesn't refute shit you brainlet

>>15083145
>>15081359
>>15082040
>>15081447
/thread

>>15083136
how can it not exist if you are using it to understand everything else?

>>15083136
lot of shit you need to accept for it to be nervous

>>15083226
The I in “I think” is not the same as the I in “I am”

>>15083145
>What are you though? Really, what constitutes the self?
The self is the witnessing awareness
>When you look into yourself and imagine who you are, what can be comprehended beyond past impressions and experiences felt through your sensory faculties?
the witnessing awareness which observes those past impressions and experiences
>There is no you. All that constitutes the self is but a bundle of impressions and sensations.
this is disproved by the fact that impressions and sensations are not self-illuminating and do not witness themselves, in order for different sensations and experiences to be connected as they are in human experience they have to be witnessed by an awareness who is separate from them, as one experience cannot witness another
>in this way, our conception of the self is no different from our impressions of the outer world
only if you are fucking retarded

>>15083231
I don't know what you mean. The original latin doesn't even have an 'I'

>>15083161
It calls into question the validity of the statement. How reliably can we fall back on a conception of a self-sustaining sense of self elevated beyond the material world if a stroke or traumatic injury completely impairs your ability to even think? There’s a litany if possible disorders and impairments which correspond to deficiencies in certain areas of the brain - visual agnosia, aphasia, anterograde or retrograde amnesia, etc.

>>15083136
speak for yourself

>>15083249
Sum, to be, so basically I.

>>15083249
It was in French before it was in latin

>>15083136
>nerve
You’ve already stepped into the realm of logical positivism when the whole subject concerns prior assumptions.

>>15083263
how can you know it impairs thinking unless you are the person who had the stroke or traumatic injury? even through brain scans, you cannot know.

>cogito ergo sum
>not Cogitatur

>>15083244
>the self is the witnessing awareness
”hey anon, tell us about yourself”
“oh I’m the witnessing awareness”

You’re conflating the subject in question, personal identity, with your generalizations of human capacity for thought.

>impressions and sensations are not self-illuminating and do not witness themselves

How do you know that?

>in order for different sensations and experiences to be connected as they are in human experience they have to be witnessed by an awareness who is separate from them

You’re merely restating what I said in regards to “bundling”.

>one experience can not witness another

On what grounds are you drawing up these modalities? Can we not think of a human being as an experience in and of itself? What basis is there for distinguishing material from material aside from the human mind’s tendency to categorize objects and establish patterns?

The entire point is that Descartes had no rational basis to conclude what he did. We have no way of conceiving a higher self independent of sensory and intuitive correlates. Our identities are born from an amalgam of past experiences and sensory stimuli which mesh together to form who we are. Our inner thoughts and ruminations depend upon our capacity for spoken language and symbolism, things that are learned. This is the inverse of what rationalists like Descartes espoused; that knowledge and experience are built upon the base of some sense of preconceived elevated identity. This may as well be a secular argument for the existence of a soul, and it’s irrational by Descartes’ own line of thought.

>>15081301
Hume

>>15083290
Dude you’ve never seen someone who used to be normal before they had a brick dropped on his head or got into a car crash and they turned into a completely different retard

It's a pretty solid answer to sollipsism. Of course it fails to deliver when applied collectively, since it's incredibly hard to judge whether people as a collective truly do think (hence P-zombies) but sollipsism only validates a response on the individual level anyways.

>>15083290
>he’s never heard of schizophrenia

>>15083362
>”hey anon, tell us about yourself”
>“oh I’m the witnessing awareness”
indeed, in the end I am not the thoughts and emotions which I observe in a subject-object relationship as the subject who is separate from them but I am truly the conciousness that witnesses them, this is an important spiritual truth

>You’re conflating the subject in question, personal identity, with your generalizations of human capacity for thought.
Wrong, the subject in question is the self. Personal identity with all that such a term implies is not a universally held definition of self. I am stating my position that the self is the witnessing conciousness, you were the one who was previously arguing for there being no self, not there being no personal identity, now you are trying to move the goalposts after the fact
>How do you know that?
>On what grounds are you drawing up these modalities?
because our experience is that of one enduring locus of conciousness which has thoughts and various sensory data presented to it to be witnessed as objects. If what you say is true then we would not be able to feel heat at the same moment we hear music, because the auditory sensation which hears the music is itself incapable of feeling the heat that our feet detects from warm sand for example, and in your position there is no other awareness admitted who can witness both at the same time

>>15081359
/lit/ was a mistake

>>15081301
He’s a good entry point into modern philosophy if you don’t want to start with the Greeks.

>>15083476
>indeed, in the end I am not the thoughts and emotions which I observe in a subject-object relationship as the subject who is separate from them but I am truly the conciousness that witnesses them, this is an important spiritual truth

You've yet to demonstrate how this is rationally the case. Thus far I've been led to believe that this has been a debate as to whether or not Descartes' statement is rational - you invoking spiritualism has me confused.

>Wrong, the subject in question is the self. Personal identity with all that such a term implies is not a universally held definition of self. I am stating my position that the self is the witnessing conciousness, you were the one who was previously arguing for there being no self, not there being no personal identity, now you are trying to move the goalposts after the fact

Clarification: I was previously arguing that there is no rational basis for believing our personal identity is necessarily more than the sum of its sensory-intuitive parts. I was also arguing that there is no rational basis for believing in a transcendent definition of the Self beyond the aforementioned. I remain skeptical that we can possibly conceive any evidence of a self-sustaining, eternal self.

Assuming you are keeping with Descartes, the definition "witnessing consciousness" would be unsatisfactory to even Descartes.

>because our experience is that of one enduring locus of conciousness which has thoughts and various sensory data presented to it to be witnessed as objects.

Can you demonstrate this is the case?

>If what you say is true then we would not be able to feel heat at the same moment we hear music

You're saying that you're incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time? At one point did I assert or even infer that multiple sensations can be experienced simultaneously?

>>15081359
found the american

>>15083533
>You've yet to demonstrate how this is rationally the case
That's okay, I don't care about demonstrating it to you. Anyone who possesses insight should find it to be self-evident, right now I'm simply pointing out the contradictions which show that your position is obviously wrong
> I remain skeptical that we can possibly conceive any evidence of a self-sustaining, eternal self
cf. Plato
>Assuming you are keeping with Descartes
I'm not
>Can you demonstrate this is the case?
I just did with the aforementioned example which seems to have gone over your head, but which I will elaborate on for you
>You're saying that you're incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time? At one point did I assert or even infer that multiple sensations can be experienced simultaneously?
Multiple sensations can and are experienced simultaneously, the opposite position is completely absurd as it would necessarily consist of cycling through "okay I'm feeling this temperature" "okay I'm hearing this sound" "okay I'm seeing this object" one after another for all 5 of our sensory organs at every waking moment due to the constantly changing input, but this is not at all how we experience things. When you ride a bike you have continual visual awareness of your changing surroundings, you don't temporarily cut away from that visual data to hear the sounds or smell the gasoline, during which you cannot see the road in the interval when you are smelling etc due to sensations not being experienced simultaneously, but rather the sight of the road and the sounds and smells and the sensation of peddling all occur simultaneously as they are presented to the same witnessing awareness. The bike example proves that we experience simultaneous sensations. If what you say is true and there is no separate awareness who witnesses those sensations as something different than them, then we wouldn't be able to have this simultanous experience of multiple different types of sensory data, because auditory sensations are of a different nature and are produced by a different organ than ocular sensations, your sense of smell cannot hear music, the list goes on, in order for these sensations to be experienced simultaneously as they are in real life then there must necessarily be a witnessing awareness who is separate from them due to the inability of these fleeting and disparate sensations to synthesize themselves into anything resembling how we actually experience the world. Hence the witnessing awareness who is separate from the sensations that it witnesses stands proven.

>>15081359
So anything that 'is' can think? Do you worship crystals also?

>>15083771
>>15083630
>>15083495
Seething brainlets have no fucking clue what I'm saying. /lit/ was a mistake.

>>15083039
Based

>>15081301
It is one of the most basic foundations for epistemology, so no.

>>15081794
neuroscience has never proven anything and never will at this rate

>>15083869
And that's sad because it's completely wrong, Western philosophy was never that serious anyways. Brown people living in mountains and caves BTFO western philosophy

>>15083290
>dude u cant know nuffin lmao
just by reading this post I can tell you’re brain damaged

>>15082181
You can remove half of a persons brain and there is no difference in cognition or awareness of function.

>>15083884
No it isn't.

>>15083884
nice b8

>>15083752
>That's okay, I don't care about demonstrating it to you. Anyone who possesses insight should find it to be self-evident, right now I'm simply pointing out the contradictions which show that your position is obviously wrong
You are retarded.

>Citing Plato

Lmao now I see where you picked up on unfalsifiable woo.

>Multiple sensations can and are experienced simultaneously,

Which is exactly what I've been saying all along in regards to bundling. Moreover I was never strictly speaking about our sensory faculties, but our ability to naturally use intuition to make sense of sensory stimuli.

>If what you say is true and there is no separate awareness

We never agreed upon a definition of what characterizes the Self. I was never talking about your "separate awareness", and when I pressed you to defend your case you copped out of a demonstration like a mongoloid. My points have been entirely concerned with an individual's ego and a notion of higher identity that can be thought of as a soul. Not the basic characteristic of life that allows us to perceive and intuit multiple stimuli simultaneously.

>>15083922
>>15083919
Thinking......thinking....thinking.....concepts.....concepts.....concepts....tell me how that works out illusions are attractive I'll admit too tough for the average Westerner to realize this

>>15083937
>Lmao now I see where you picked up on unfalsifiable woo.
falsifiability is not as powerful a metric for truth as rational proof.
empiricism is not a valid epistemology compared to rationalism as empiricism can only exist within a rationalist framework.
Ultimately all of this has already been solved by platonists, from Plato himself to more modern men like Godel and Tegmark.

>>15082181
You sure about that?

>>15083955
There is no such thing as an "illusion".
Literally everything exists objectively.

>>15083984
>There is no such thing as an "illusion".
>Literally everything exists objectively.
Retarded statement, obviously drunk off western life. No one is denying that the sun is there, but the "sun" is not there
>inb4 impotent screeching
Figure it out then comeback

>>15081359
>t. read a wikipedia article about this

>>15083976
I'm skeptical, but I would like to hear you elaborate

>>15083976
The duality between the two is absurd, both constitute important mediums for obtaining knowledge.

>>15083145
>bro what even are we like are we even real bro?
>like bro how do you even know you're real dawg?
>dude we're just memories and shit bro

>>15081359
Seriously though, shouldn't existence come before thought? Wouldn't a person first declare he's conscious about his being and then declare he's conscious of his ability to think? First you make the ontological claim, then you make the epistemological claim.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

>>15084003
why is western civ so much more advanced than eastern then? every country still following eastern phil (like china) is a shithole

>>15084061
For a good length of time the East, China in particular, was more advanced than any other nation on the planet by whatever metrics are typically used - population, technology, wealth, military organization, etc.

Moreover having a great philosophical/spiritual belief system doesn't equate with how advanced things become. Why is Greece a shithole today?

>>15084039
There is no thinker thoughts come involuntarily, the illusion of choice emerges "thought A" "thought B" the "witness" or "awareness" is also another thought, so you see what you call "I" or being is thought the question is what are you but thought itself? And if that is the case what are you other than what you (the human organism) are doing at any given moment (aka you function like a computer/machine) there is no thing there, nothing running the show, the show is running itself. Without thinking, there is no "I", the "I" is the groundwork of all thought, the "I" is the illusory experiencer which also mistakenly identifies as the body. We are in illusion! No one can refute this I've discovered this myself.

>>15084003
Illusions aren't real, as everything exists objectively.

>>15084078
yea for a good time, but now its shit
most western philosophy was developed in the 1000s, which is when it became the dominant civ.

>>15084081
Illusions aren't real as everything exists objectively. You are arguing a very similar position to what Dennett argues.

>>15084085
The Hindus were far before any Westerner and they solved consciousness

>>15084085
>west became the dominant civ in the 1000s
Wrong.

>>15084094
>Illusions aren't real as everything exists objectively.
The mind is illusion, so nothing you are perceiving or experiencing exists btw

>>15084081
Here's the thing: before I can think of myself or the "I", there's an "I" that must exist in order to think. Even when I'm not thinking about it, it's still there. It can't be an illusion because it works for everybody the exact same way. Placing everything on brain activity seems like a simple solution but it has problems on its own, since human capacity to think can extend beyond material bounds of time and space. Also, if the brain controls us, then what controls the brain?

>>15081301
Cogito ergo sum is notoriously translated to English as "I think therefore I am," when it really should be "I am consciously aware, therefore I am."

>>15081301
your post

>>15081447
you don't get it at all

>>15084144
>Here's the thing: before I can think of myself or the "I", there's an "I" that must exist in order to think.
What is the thinker, but just another thought? You've mistakenly identified, submerged yourself with this "I", you have split yourself from life and live in a dubious, lonely thought-sphere (aka a world of thought) for lack of a better term
>Placing everything on brain activity seems like a simple solution but it has problems on its own, since human capacity to think can extend beyond material bounds of time and space.
When there's incessant thinking there is time and space, when there is a strong feeling and realness of "I" there is time and space.
>Also, if the brain controls us, then what controls the brain?
Itself, the whole functioning of the body, again you're presupposing free will and freedom of action, both are myths

>>15084085
>most western philosophy was developed in the 1000s
Greeks started inventing stuff some 500 years before Christ. Everything that came after was basically commenting them.

>>15084190
Can you prove you exist? What you call "I" can you prove it? Where is it?

>>15083138
looks like it's not a real refutation really

>>15081323
1. I think; therefore I am.
2. My thought is subordinate to my perception since it's based off grammatical concepts, based upon natural laws.
3. My perception is consistently new to me and so are my thoughts of my perception.
4. If what I perceive and think are consistently new there must be a point of origin or creation.
5. If I was the only point of existence, this origin would have to reside with me, a God.
6. If there is such thing as a God who perception and thought is imperfect, he would be two separate entities, in fact, for another entity or point of origin must exist for the perception to take shape.
7. In other words; I think; therefore I am but thought and perception are imperfect so I think; therefore you are.

>>15084174
this

>>15081323
this is the genius of it. Anyone trying to refute this just got trolled by this guy. Its absolutly glorious.
I tip my hat to you

Truly.
Descartes was certain of one thing, that he possesed faculty of skepticism.
Bertand russel tried so furiously to couch -a in terms of a. But he could not.
This is why i have never been so certain that the first post in this thread was indeed the best post.

>>15081301
descartes is shit

>>15084225
refuted your gay skepticism right here buddy: >>15084218

>>15084196
>What is the thinker, but just another thought?
You can't exist as a "thought", as mere illusion of the mind, the thing you call "you" require existence and presence one way or another, be material or transcendental. There's no way human consciousness would maintain sanity with this sort of duality proposed by Descartes.
>When there's incessant thinking there is time and space, when there is a strong feeling and realness of "I" there is time and space.
If the "I" is in the brain, this is an organ with material existence limited by time and space. If you say my mind goes beyond it, then it's not on the brain and must be somewhere else. In this case, our brain is dealing with data that is thinner than air. Are we ghosts, perchance?
>Itself, the whole functioning of the body, again you're presupposing free will and freedom of action, both are myths
And you're presupposing those are myths. By experience, I attest can this is true for me and for everyone, whereas you deny experience.

>>15083845

No, you just obviously never fucking read Descartes, or else you'd know why what you posted was fucking dumb.

>>15084253
read Wittgenstein I

>>15084253
Cope

>>15081323
You have to experience thought to know what your thinking. Descartes had to experience this thought in order to know it. Therefore, experience is the most foundational epistemology one can have.

>>15084237
Dude have you read meditations?
you refute yourself in the first line.
My perceptions, my sensations.
Already presupposing ownership and that you exist in the first place.
More over you based your existance on the doubt that your thoughts and perceptions are different.

Then you make huge fuckin leaps calling yourself a god and all that shit. When we are merely just trying to prove we exist.
pretty simple metaphysical exercise right?
descartes proved it not to be so.
He said you could be skeptical about pretty much anything.
But the only thing that he couldn't doubt, was that feeling of skepticism and that it was he that was doing it.
Think of skepticism in more phenomenological terms.

if you had read descates meditations or whatever then you would have known this.
Why are you commenting on something that you are obviously unprepared for?
why would an anon do that?

>>15083955
>tell me how that works out
I’d say it’s going pretty well compared to the alternatives

>>15081301
>i therefore i
OP is right, this is a brainlet take. what makes it even more of a brainlet take is the fact that Descartes Discourse on Method is literally just an ontological proof for the existence of god.

>>15083845
Sure thing, keep telling that to yourself, like the people sitting in a pile of their own excrement.

>>15083290
You're the reason why so many people don't take philosophy seriously

>>15083873
How can you even think this? Can you even partially refute >>15083290 ?

>>15083901
>and there is no difference in cognition or awareness of function
Literal retard take
Or do you really not know even the basics when it comes to the brain?

>>15083244
based>>15083476
>>15084096
>>15083955

Western philosophy can be refuted after 10 minutes of meditation total joke and sophist bullshit of mind.


thought cannot know anything more then itself ,nor can it know the soul as its behind the mind.
Awareness knows it self by it self, the knower and known are one in knowledge. Thought can only separate you from self as you are casting a projection onto something .

>>15081359

>>15085125
>Western philosophy can be refuted after 10 minutes of meditation total joke and sophist bullshit of mind.
This. It infuriates me when I see how pompous and smug the average advocate of Western philosophy is. They really are stuck in their echo chamber.

>>15081301
To paraphrase Nietzsche; at least Descartes didn't doubt grammar.
A tenured professor of mine actually thought this was a joke Nietzsche made to poke fun at the fact that Descartes couldn't have written a book if he had taken his methodological doubt seriously, rather than a poignant critique of an unreflected prejudice inherent in the cogito ergo sum, namely that being must by necessity conform to grammatical rules of clause

>>15084111
Nope. SAS exist objectively as mathematical structures like everything else, thoughts exist objectively and everything that is perceived and experience exists objectively.

>>15084218
None of these statements follow from the previous

>>15085125
Meditation is an exercise that "confirms" the self by intuition, but doesn't offer the proof naturalistic science is looking for. Descartes was trying to find this proof. Eastern mysticism is great but when it comes to explaining things they got like "nothing exists" which doesn't help at all either.

>>15081301
"Value is determined by labor"

>>15082347
You asserted without evidence and so can be dismissed without it.

>>15083533
>rationally
>b-but your expeience must be subject to muh REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEason
no

>>15086505
''t must be added that this understanding must be gathered in all realms, whether form or formless. This is the role of the spiritual ‘scientist’. It is also not enough to merely have an experience, one must also understand it. And the nondual realization must be actualized on all planes of consciousness without assuming that they are simply illusion prior to their experience and understanding, if one’s realization is to be both deep and complete. This may seem like a hopeless task. Maybe it is, but it also shows how far man has to go, and what his possibilities are. Many spiritual secrets can not be understood without such depth of understanding. It is too easy to just settle for ‘freedom from psychological suffering’, or ‘ feeling that all is one’. But how to understand how an advanced adept may have multiple simultaneous incarnations of himself under such a simplistic model? Yes, such things do happen!
''
It is a slow descent into never ending madness , not even sages can agree or know the truth depth of these matters so a western mind is not even going to touch the surface

>>15084061
>implying that the best philosophy is the one that makes you a consoomer
countries following eastern philosophies heavily emphasized contentment, finding and accepting one's place in the world and being okay with the way things are

The West took a revoltionary turn saying "fuck everything that is bad" and did an excellent job in it's crusade against externally bad and evil things when it suddenly came to face it's own corruption and tried to hammer away at the ugly picture without realizing that the problem is not that things LOOK bad but that they actually are bad. Western man is simply shallow and a surface level thinker. Christianity, sufficiently practiced and understood would have allowed for deep selfawareness, but western man's ego is too big so we get a bunch of virtue signaling and posers.

So the West is "better" because westerners hate being seen as bad so they make sure everything looks good exernally, but its obvious that we are not happy, we are the most overworked and overstressed people on the planet.

>>15084218
based

>>15084330
>Dude have you read meditations?
No, I'm not gay, like the stoic cucks.

>>15085125
False. The thing itself might very well pressers the thought, but this can only be known, even intuitively, through the medium of thought. You must use the later to prove or indicate the former. The thought is ultimately the reference point for knowing of being.

>>15086727
I’m not a stoic, but it’s not a hard book to read. Dont be a faggot and just read it and come to your own conclusion.

>>15086758
*might very well precede

>>15086682
May I ask where did you quote this from?

>>15086705
>Christianity, sufficiently practiced and understood would have allowed for deep selfawareness

It was tried several times, but it was called heresy.

>>15086764
I actually read it and it was gae. Stoicism is literal cuckoldry.

>>15087347
Wtf dude. Just accept cosmic reality as it is and live your life. How hard is that?

>>15086805
You really don't have an excuse after the prot revolution and muh freedumb of religion. Religion's job is to save your individual soul, saving your society is just an optional side benefit that may or may not happen.
White people are always occupied with the external, whenever they are faced with an implication or a fact about how shitty they are, they have to point at something external to themselves, because they simply can't handle shame or humility.
See, in your example its blaming the Catholic Church institution for heresy, which betrays an external locus of control which is cringe and beta.
Even if you were to be right, which you possibly are, this is just a tactic to shift attention from the inherent weakness of the Western Man, which you just really don't want to come face to face with either on a collective or on a personal level. The truth is that white men are not men. They never grow up because they can always hide behind the accomplishments of their long gone ancestors and act like as long as Western Society produces enough consoomer goods and they uphold the system by consooming, they are doingbtheir part in the struggle.
The very definition of a beta male. No wonder white people are going extinct lmao.

>>15081323
Prove that it's you who is thinking, that what you are doing is thinking, and that you know what it means to think.

>>15087394
>just accept liberal capitalism goy
>just consoom and be happy, be a good wagie-cagie cuck
>oh you have higher expectations and ideals? tough shit, those are not sanctioned by Goldberg Corp, now return to the cagie and bear the burden of life like a hero

>>15087422
lmao based
Just like buddhism, stoicism is spiritual cuckoldry about "being in the present" and "dont worry about anything just go with the flow bruh".
At its core its a system of enforcing tunnel vision on yourself for comfort. Truly the choice of the beta male.

>>15087450
>Stoicism is just slave morality as a reaction to the master morality of being forcing you to endure it.
That's... kinda cucked.
Is suicide the only real masculine answer?

>>15087572
No, suicide and just putting up with life are both cuckoldry.
The one and only correct answer is to reshape the world on your own terms, or on the terms of ideals that you respect.

>>15087422
This is a stupid take on stoicism. The things that stoicism espouses fortitude and resilience against are timeless difficulties involved with being alive - the fear of death, the uncertainty of time and decisions we make, the untenability of material comforts and glory. This doesn’t suggest being passive and indifferent in the face of the shit you’ve listed.

Perhaps if Nietzsche spent more time cultivating stoic values he wouldn’t have had a mental breakdown and had his intellectual legacy cucked by his sister and the nazis.

>>15087637
No its actually the realistic take. Stoicism gave way to christendom easily because it quite literally offers no incentives to do anything.
Stoicism is the poor man's buddhism basically.

>>15081301
>Is there a more brainlet take in all of philosophy?

If by this you are referring to your own post, perhaps not.

>>15087774
Thank you for the compelling argument in response to the points I made.

>>15087774
Fucking idiot.

>>15087789
>>15087807
Cope harder spiritual cuckholds.

>>15087815
No, for real you’re a fucking idiot bro.

>>15081301
>muh power of reason
>muh enlightenment

Yeah Descartes was wrong on this one.

>>15087832
>if you are not a good wagie cagie you are an idiot
>REEEeeEEEEEE you can't reject slave morality, you just CANT or you're an IDIOT

>>15087863
that is really not what 20 year olds are doing. theyre like millenial but on crack

>>15087863
Dude are you actually retarded? If anything the right side of your image is stoicism

>>15087863
As I said all along, you’re a fucking retard. Your image proves it.

yes.

taking it literally.

>>15081359
This reminds me of freshman philosophy where 19 year old girls and other retards would dismiss philosophic points with "but it's not objectively true!" and other variations of relativism. They clearly never read the texts. They were also keen to contort language to make a non-point, as you have done. Are you a 19 year old girl?

>>15086585
I already posted evidence, you dumb fuck. We mapped specific zones in the brain responsible for movement, hearing etc.
I hope for your sake that you're baiting me, because if you're being serious then your IQ is almost sub 90

>>15087410
>You really don't have an excuse after the prot revolution and muh freedumb of religion.
Humm, no? Since Protestants were also vocal against Christian mysticism, see Jakob Boehme, the best and most misunderstood of all Protestants.

> this is just a tactic to shift attention from the inherent weakness of the Western Man
I don't care tactics, I'm just saying the truth.

>The truth is that white men are not men.
Very bold statement. We'll need a specialist on this, buddy.

>They never grow up because they can always hide behind the accomplishments of their long gone ancestors and act like as long as Western Society produces enough consoomer goods and they uphold the system by consooming, they are doingbtheir part in the struggle.
Eastern societies don't seem so far from this reality, though.

>The very definition of a beta male. No wonder white people are going extinct lmao.
I have no idea why any of this has anything to do with racial mixing or whatever.

>>15087637
>Perhaps if Nietzsche spent more time cultivating stoic values he wouldn’t have had a mental breakdown and had his intellectual legacy cucked by his sister and the nazis.

Nietzsche had syphilis dude.

>>15087941
There is no thinking self, no existence/no self. I'm correct cope faggot

>>15088120
Stoicism can cure syphillis

>>15087941
>This reminds me of freshman philosophy where 19 year old girls and other retards would dismiss philosophic points with "but it's not objectively true!" and other variations of relativism. They clearly never read the texts. They were also keen to contort language to make a non-point, as you have done. Are you a 19 year old girl?

>>15088138
You're not intelligent and you don't exist. Agreed.

>>15081447
>you are a machine
>no existence whatsoever

This is some top tier philosophy.

>>15081323
The only provable statement is there is thought. The I is an idea and therefore follows from thought rather than being tbe originator of it

The sheer amount of trolling and stupidity in this thread is going to give me a stroke.

>>15088583
Yes but solipsism or in this case some kind of sub-solipsism isn't a functional philosophical position

>>15087941
>>15085140
>>15084039
>>15084005
>>15083771
>>15083630
>>15083495
>>15083164
>>15083039
>>15082994
>>15082929
>>15081581
>>15081566
>>15081459
>>15081454
>>15081421
>>15081414
cringe

>>15081323
>Sum, ergo cogito
based

>>15088566
>>15088552
Find me the existence of the entity known as "I" prove to me you exist (I'm talking about the human organism)

>>15088691
>(I'm talking about the human organism)
Excuse me, meant to say I'm not talking about the human organism

>>15088615
Because the illusory existence of the self or "I" destroys all philosophy on its face. Only you can discover this and it's the most prudent and profound realization.

>>15088717
Refusing to engage with things because you have to presuppose certain things about metaphysics and epistemology to get a coherent worldview is brainlet tier

>>15088717
Gowen had to jump through hoops to justify the Buddhist concept of self, stop with your embarrassing view.

>>15088802
>>15088787
Prove it's real, prove "you" exist please

Logical Positivism has been refuted you dummies

>>15088836
you exists anon ^ :)

You need to work on your reading comprehension anon

>>15088691
Fine, I'll go on existing and treating everyone as real beings except you. Is that alright?

>>15088849
I'm talking about "I" what you believe yourself to be, prove you're not just a chemical biological process operating without a doer/self

>>15088861
Logical positivism has been refuted you dummy

>>15088861
You responding to my post makes You exist anon. Me responding to your post also makes You exist.

>>15088856
That's not what I'm saying, again no one in this thread has refuted me. Also >>15081359

>>15081359
God bless the /pol/tards

>>15088867
>>15088870
No thoughts of your own, no experience of your own, no desires of your own, no freedom of action, no free will. Where are you? Prove there's a "you"

>>15088904 <<--- It's right here.

>>15088904
Your argument is based on a logical positivist foundation which has been refuted

>>15088903
Prove to me there's a thinker please

>>15088914
That doesn't support the existence of a separate self, things happen mechanically

>>15088916
Posting like this, clearly there's no thinking behind this keyboard.

>>15088915
What I'm saying has never been refuted, please prove there's a separate self, a doer running the show instead of the show running itself

>>15088931
You assume thinking incessantly does anything positive, the thoughts arrive without push

>>15088926
If You does not exist, why do we perceive You differently? Clearly there are multiple You's and thus there must be separate You's.

>>15088953
I know, I can see it right in this thread.

>>15088960
>If You does not exist, why do we perceive You differently? Clearly there are multiple You's and thus there must be separate You's.
I'm saying there is no fundamental difference of what we call "you" or "mind", the mind is universal, it is not unique to the individual, the thoughts we have have been passed down to us. Perception stems from the same source as others people's perceptions. You don't really perceive different, there are anons reading our discussion probably disagreeing with me vehemently.

>>15089003
The question is, do we even need to think? Of course to function sanely in the world which was created by thought, but the body is only interested in two things survival and reproducing. The body can function perfectly on its lonesome

>>15081359
Top bait.

>>15089008
So does that make 4chan the mind and thoughts memes?

Well I've said what I wanted to say no one refuted me just the typical adhoms still no one refuted this>>15081359
Many such instances

>>15089039
Thought propelled such things into existence

>>15089051
So memes propelled 4chan into existence and created (You)

>>15089016
Alright severe your brain stem then

>>15089067
Thinking...thinking...thinking...concepts....concepts....concepts... the human organism is so interested in this type of masterbatory behavior......

>>15081301
This presupposes that thought requires a thinker.

>>15083980
wear a hat brainlet

>>15081822
"I" is an indexical that designates the speaker of the expressed.

>>15088615
Isnt the point of Descartes meditations to find a point of self certain knowledge? An axiom that cant be doubted?

>>15090954
Self knowledge is contingent on God's existence for Descartes, hence the evil demon thought experiment. So his primary objective to prove His existence.

>>15091115
So by coming down to the self certain axiom cogito ergo sum, Descartes guarentees a point of true knowledge indicating a good God who wouldnt fool us by constructing a Matrix? Since Descartes argument can only demonstration thought without the "I" then shouldnt it follow his proof for a good God who endowed us with generally reliable senses be unsound?