/lit/ - Literature

You can't be sure about that, scrub.

Cogito ergo sum

>Is it possible to counter...
No, it's not.

But you could induce a paradox by saying: You cant know if the statement "You cant know anything with 100% certainty" is true with 100% certainty.

Why would you even want to counter that?

I'm 99% certain that no one can be dumb enough to believe one can know something with 100% certainty, but there is always room for your stupidity.

>>3394561
This. I believe I exist with 100% certainty.

>>3394563
>You cant know if the statement "You cant know anything with 100% certainty" is true with 100% certainty.

Yo, I warned you dawg. I told you that philosophy was just semantic games. Now look what you've done.

>>3394568
>>3394561
Serious or trolling?

You can't know that we can't know anything with 100% certainty with 100% certainty.

420 blaze it faggot

/thread

>>3394568
>>3394561

pronouns are going to lead to some trouble.

If thinking and consciousness are necessary for one's existence does that mean that during sleep we no longer exist? There is absolutely no stream of consciousness during REM
cycles, does that mean there is a lapse in the continuity of one's identity?

Descartes himself notes the trouble with sleep for his "cogito". Do you go into and out of existence before and after sleep, respectively? This would be a successful reductio for his "cogito"

>>3394576
Serious

>>3394575
>>3394565

the answer to this is simple:
this type of "knowing" is a predicate on a metalinguistic frame with its own independent truth-values.

>>3394585
>If thinking and consciousness are necessary for one's existence does that mean that during sleep we no longer exist? There is absolutely no stream of consciousness during REM
>cycles, does that mean there is a lapse in the continuity of one's identity?
yes

>>3394585
You could change the individual to being just something exists. 'The fact that I can perceive things means something must exist.'

>>3394598
You can perceive things in dreams, does that mean you are a separate entity that exists only in your dreams?

>>3394598

>The fact that I can perceive things means something must exist

this comment is irrelevant; "perception" of things that aren't oneself are irrelevant to knowledge of one's existence.

>You could change the individual to being just something exists

if there is a lapse in your own continuity, the purported knowledge of oneself can be questioned

>>3394613
>if there is a lapse in your own continuity, the purported knowledge of oneself can be questioned
I am never conscious of this incontinuity, though, I fall asleep and wake up. The universe ceases to exist in the interim
I am always conscious

>>3394613
>this comment is irrelevant; "perception" of things
>"perception"

>>3394623

You keep using 'I' so as to present a circular argument. You assume there is an 'I' while asleep. The fact that during that point in time there are no thoughts in that object's head and that object is not able to be self-aware means that it was once "you" while awake but is no longer in the capable of fully being "you" while asleep.

>>3394630
If things can be detected, then something exists.

>>3394627

this was necessary so as to present a skepticism towards the very nature of the senses. "perceptions" seems to be implicitly sensory-based. this need not be the case, however; we can easily be disembodied spirits

>>3394636

but the object that is asleep is incapable of detecting is the point of contention.

Stop playing with this inner world/outer world thing. If you dream of you friend dancing the hula, you might not talk to him the next day as if he "actually did it", but there is a reason why the image of your friend dancing the hula emerged in your head and there is an effect of that image in your memory that will make you chuckle next time you see him. One thing affects the other, even if not in the same way a day affects the other day. And for that, it is just as real as anything else, just different. There is not much of a difference between what you see and consider it to be the external world and what you see and consider it to be your own internal world projected, specially considering how often we confuse the two in our lives without even noticing, making actions out of our thoughts that are nothing but impressions of acting and creating thoughts that we take it as real for the moment as in a dream. There is no entity perceiving it and no external world to be perceived. It's not that the alternative "all is illusion" means all is false, that would be hallucination, an entity floating in nothingness dreaming of the world. Or the contrary, you as a ghost trying to perceive a real actual world. It's more that there is no different between you and the outside, there is no outside nor you. There is no perceived or perceiver, just perception.

>>3394643
Why does that matter? It just means that during sleep we are no longer aware of our existence, but if we are actively aware of anything, then something must exist.

>>3394650
0/10
doesn't understand descartes' cogito

>>3394585
>There is absolutely no stream of consciousness

if only it was measurable.

it depends on what you are talking about.
if the discussion measurable existing things,and all you have to do is inform yourself,probably your counterpart is at the ropes and he/she knows it.
if it's about stuff like if god exists or not.don't even start.

>>3394652
No, I mean you're not pondering that question in sleep.

>>3394648
Holy run on sentences batman.
>My attempt to refute a well written paragraph
>All because I am incapable of writing one myself

You flicker, you wave. You are not a solid thing, you know.

"You can't know anything with 100% certainty," is contending linguistic knowledge, not fundamental knowledge.

Language is an imperfect medium of exchange that derives meaning from shared experience; quantification is contrary to its nature.

I can't casually prove with any certainty that what I'm drinking is Gatorade - but what is "Gatorade" but a linguistic representation for what comes in the bottle? I've consumed Gatorade many times before, and this smells and tastes the same as it always has. It may very well be something else, but I'm still going to call it Gatorade if I have need to address it in conversation - as I am now.

We have other mediums for conveying absolutes, language has no necessity for them. It's an argument people borne of vanity, it's what people bring up when the conversation comes to philosophy and they have no real capacity for debate or deductive reasoning.

You can see why they think it's an easy win by reading this thread - even if your response contains some level of truth, you're still going to sound more stupid than the guy sitting back and repeating "YEAH BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT LOL" over and over. The only thing it proves is that we invest too much in logic as an institution of language. Deductive reasoning will only get you so far if the definitions you attach to the world around you are incorrect.

But you actually can prove something with 100% certainty, so long as you've established the guidelines for argumentation.
IE:
The front door of the room is locked from the outside.
It is impossible to unlock the front door of the room from the inside.
There is no other means of escape from the room except by opening the front door when it is not locked.
Ergo, anybody who is locked inside this room will be unable to escape it.

The statement at the end is an unassailable conclusion if the facts building up to it are proven true. If somehow we open the door and find no person inside, then it's a simple matter of finding which fact leading up to that conclusion was not true for the room being talked about. Either way, if all of those facts proved true at any point, the conclusion would have been 100% certain.

>>3394723

As a follow up to this: /lit/, learn your categorical syllogisms, you plebian scum.

>>3394656

our ability to measure in this case is irrelevant; the whole notion of certainty relies on what we know for ourselves, not the other. for one to make the claim "cogito ergo sum" would require that only they knew the answer to this question; the ability to measure this factor is irrelevant, for it cannot be measured.

>>3394723
>Either way, if all of those facts proved true at any point, the conclusion would have been 100% certain.
No. You can't claim 100% certainty.

The person inside could have kick the door down and replaced the door. He could have been released by someone who duplicated the key. You can find a whole host of reasons to negate your claims.

You will need to increase you stipulations, and every time you do, there will be a way to counter them.

>>3394723

this also relies on the assumption that we are certain of the accuracy of argumentation and the logical structures of arguments; for they aren't self-proving.

>>3394723
That is not a matter of certainty or proof, really. It's just logic, you make certain assumptions and develop from there. The front door is hypothetic, abstract, it doesn't exist (if it did, a ridiculous bulldozer would be a counter argument, you know?). You draw logical conclusions from it and they may fit with that.

The thing is that something can only be truth in relation to the instrument that perceived it. You have to "come from somewhere", you have to take something for granted in order to accept other things. The problem is to confuse that for reality, that is, to stick to some assumptions, some axioms, some ideas and base all others within that. Certainty only comes to those who think in those terms "this is true and there is no debate, it is because I said so" and from there they can go "so this is true, this is not, this exist, this doesn't", etc. And they will be right within their own logic, but they won't be able to flow with their logic and the more they pressure to prove their vision to be reality, the more they'll cling to it and clash with all other notions.

It's contending linguistic quantification, not fundamental knowledge.

Language is an imperfect medium for exchange that derives meaning from shared experience; quantification is contrary to its nature.

I can't casually be certain that what I'm drinking is Gatorade. I've consumed it many times before, and it smells and tastes the same as it always has. It may very well be something else, but I'm still going to call it Gatorade if i have the need to reference it in conversation - as I am now.

We have other mediums to convey absolutes, language has no need for them.

It's the argument people make when the conversation comes to philosophy and they have nothing else to say. It's an easy win, and you can see why by reading this thread. Most people aren't eloquent or calm enough to debate someone repeating "YEAH BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT," over and over without looking just as stupid.

The only thing it proves is that we rely too much on logic as an institution of language. Deductive reasoning is only sound if the definitions you attach to the world around you are correct.

>>3394749

the definitions we attribute to logical notation, without a doubt, can certainly be viewed as subjective; but the metalogical mechanism by which sufficient and necessary conditions exist and interact cannot be subject to one's whim.

>>3394804

The implied meanings that come from experience create connotations that are hard for most people to reason their way out of. You read the thread trying to debate "nonexistence," with 200+ replies, right?

>>3394858
Reading that over, you're inferring that language heralds the possibility of being objective.

>>3394870

I only meant in a personal capacity.

For people who order their mind after language, personal definitions are important in the logical process. When you examine a word or concept specifically, you can easily understand and distinguish it - but in the context of reasoning, the impulsive connotations tend to bleed through lead to erroneous conclusions. The logic will appear sound because it's consistent with itself, but it may not be correct in the broader sense of the word.

I've yet to find a good way to frame and convey this particular point.

>>3394928
Finding a contradiction in the definition of a word would suffice,

>>3394870
>>3394870

No, i'm not. i'm arguing that we cannot be 100% certain -- my argument was purely epistemological. i'm not inferring that languages "heralds the possibility of being objective", i'm arguing that indeed the quantification of language is dubious, but that the way symbols interact with one another is not.

p --> q
p
thus, q

certainly the symbols in the example are subject to our whims -- completely subjective. but modus ponens, the metalogical process and what it means to be a conditional is not subjective. this process underlies thoughts, actions and words. we couldn't think without it. certainly, how we define terms in logic are subject to fallacy and erroneous assumptions due to their empirical roots. but on a fundamental basis, this causal mechanism cannot be subjective because it precedes all thought.

>>3394942
After re-reading your poorly punctuated mess, I now recognize this argument.

Next: prove the existence of the mechanism

>>3394951
Is that you Kierkegaard?

>>3394942

Why... are you responding to something that wasn't directed at you?

>>3394957
Have faith child.

>>3394951

1 = 1 in classical first-order logic, sure; in certain non-classical deviant logics, 1 = 1 is not true; this is a result of how we define "=". the fact that we are able to derive things from these definitions, however, is not a mechanism with a formal notation. the process through which symbols interact must exist for symbols to interact, but it cannot be expressed in language, because it underlies language -- it exists a priori. for there to be any meaning behind p --> q, we must have an unseen, fundamental intuition about how things interact. otherwise, for anything to be meaningful, we could never communicate on the basis that i may arbitrarily draw a conclusion on the basis of a subjective mechanism i decide to create. to clarify: the fact that i can draw the same conclusions from a given set of data when the criterion and all external factors are defined means that there an underlying objective process through which i know.

>>3395004
1 doesn't equal 1. You are presenting me with a question; "do you agree to a specific meaning of this symbol so we can proceed with mathematics?" I chose to say yes, as do most people.

You will die. 100% certainty. Blammo.

>>3395034
prove it.

>>3395029
If you read the remainder of it, I agree with that assessment. 1 = 1 is true in classical first-order logic, but not in deviant non-classical logics. It's essentially in agreement with your statements at that point.

Suppose though, that when the definition and meanings of all terms are defined we are all in agreement to a certain extent, is this not true?
And if we're all in agreement when these definitions are presented, then that means they are meaningful to us. And if they are meaningful to us, this means that we understand how they function together. This means of functioning when a given set of data is presented is the mechanism I am describing. This mechanism still exists, regardless of the definitions of the given data.

>>3395004
Perhaps a reductive capacity is best put into practice in order to find a harmony in your assault to language; as an enlightened thinker entertains thought not by paragraphs, but by clarity of sentence.

You can 'shrink' the multiple statements into the two forms, if I am correct:

"A logical system"
"A system of logic"

A system of logic in this instance requiring knowledge to function, yet is in itself a hyponym of a logical system, operating on the basis of logic; which we cannot define.

>>3395040
At this point, you take out your pocket knife and stab them to death. Argument won.

>>3395004

You really need to reread your posts before submitting them.

For future reference, sounding like an enormous tool limits the effectiveness of whatever point you're trying to make.

>>3395064
That's not what I'm saying. We are no longer talking about "knowledge," as it were. And please don't confuse subjective incomprehensibility with objective incomprehensibility. see:>>3395059

>>3395040
?you're a human
>all humans are mortal
>you will die eventually

break it into 2 parts. There does not exist any thing which can be known with 100% certainty.
clearly "thing" referring to a fact. thus we must only come up with one counterexample to disprove the given statement.

Well I know things so now I need only prove that I know something with 100 percent certainty. google has certainty defined as
Noun
Firm conviction that something is the case.
The quality of being reliably true: "a bewildering lack of certainty in the law".
Now suppose I hold a particularly firm conviction of something I hold to be true. As long as I hold that knowledge as a universally constant ideological truth in any and all contexts, then I can say that I know it with 100% certainty.

So many worshipers of different faiths have clearly known something with 100% certainty. despite probably also being wrong

Also Descartes was fucking wrong about a lot of shit, including cogito ergo sum. He fucked up philosophy for hundreds of years with his false trichotomy of God-world-I

>>3395097
Start with the Greeks, son.

>>3395097
How can you be sure all humans are mortal if you haven't been around since the creation and destruction of every single human? You can't make that assumption. You can't even imply that the person you are talking to is a human either. Try again Aristotle.

>>3395090
Circular reasoning.

Supposing it, and assuming it.

>Objective incomprehensibility
You have to be kidding me.

Also, my analogy is relevant to your final sentence. You rely on experience to prove apriori, yet claim that apriori is in existence, without experience; yet you have as of yet to define existence. Which will hold an inherent bias. Thus, if I am not in agreement, as no man can be with another, no proof is given.

>>3395097
You can't assume he's human. What if it's an artificial intelligence?

>>3394561
>>3394568

Nope faggots. This argument begs the question.
The only claim that you can make concerning this is "There is a thought"

>>3395305
And some entity which thinks it.

>>3395308
>Supposing thought is accessible to anybody other than the individual.
So, how is telepathy?

>>3395313
what if 'you' don't exist and are just the figment of such other beings imagination?

hence, 'there is a thought'.

>>3394538
google aristoteles' topic and his idea of éndoxai

>>3394538
>Is it possible to counter the "You cant know anything with 100% certainty" argument without using fallacies?

No.

>>3395683
That's just fucking dumb. Just because you can structure a sentence to ask that shit, it doesn't mean anything. Look down at your keyboard. Touch it. It fucking exists. Anyone saying 'Oooh, I don't know if it's really there' is an idiot. Go on, touch your keyboard again and try to convince yourself that it isn't real. You know it it is. So quit these retarded semantic games.

>>3395755
how do you know that exists beyond your perception?

>>3395336
can consciousness be an illusion?

>>3395803
I hope you looked at every single key while you typed that, and knew damn well that they existed. I'm not engaging in your sophistic semantic games.

No.
But it's not a failure in existence,
It's a failure of perception.

Things exist,
Consciousness is limited.
It's not really that big a deal

>>3395822
but i didn't know with absolute certainty that they existed

>>3395803
it's not semantics; it cannot be dis-proven that, beyond perception, there is no way of verifying that anything (besides our own consciousness) is "real"

>>3395803
Because God loves me.
Because I don't always have privileged access to my own experience.
Because I dreamt I was a butterfly who dreamt it was me.
Because I can imagine myself becoming lame and blind, but can't imagine myself a philosopher.

>>3395817
We can't be sure.

Thus: There is a thought.

No, There is no absolute truth.

>>3396228
You can't have 'no' as an answer without it being a faith claim.

>>3396289
There doesn't appear to be absolute truth.

>>3395822
>I'm not engaging in your sophistic semantic games.

That's the correct answer.

>>3396314
Consider the statement "There is no absolute truth".

If the statement is true, then it is self-refuting, hence there is some kind of absolute truth out there.

If the statement is false, then there is an absolute truth out there.

>>3396343
>computer logic

how basic

>>3396346
"This paper provides evidence for the proposition that the universe as we know it is not a physical, material world but a computer-generated simulation -- a kind of virtual reality. The evidence is drawn from the observations of natural phenomena in the realm of quantum mechanics. The arguments are drawn from philosophy and from the results of experiment. While the experiments discussed are not conclusive in this regard, they are found to be consistent with a computer model of the universe. Six categories of quantum puzzles are examined: quantum waves, the measurement effect (including the uncertainty principle), the equivalence of quantum units, discontinuity, non-locality, and the overall relationship of natural phenomena to the mathematical formalism. Many of the phenomena observed in the laboratory are difficult to conceptualize as physical phenomena, yet they can be modeled exactly by mathematical manipulations. When we analogize to the operations of a digital computer, these same phenomena can be understood as logical and, in some cases, necessary features of computer programming designed to produce a virtual reality simulation for the benefit of the user."

>>3394538
"I know 100% that I fucked your mom last night" is a good one
or to be more intelligent
"Neither do you, so your statement is pointless"

I know with 100% certainty that something is happening somewhere.

>>3396228
More accurately, no absolute truth that we can directly perceive. Everything we percieve is colored by our perceptions, so from that it's impossible to truly know everything.

>>3394538

read wittgenstein 'on certainty' and get rid of this shitty jerk off a postulate forever

>>3397497
See: >>3394575

>>3394585
>There is absolutely no stream of consciousness during REM
>cycles
Yes there is, majority of "illogical" dreams happen during REM. You can also be waken up during it.

>Is it possible to counter the "You cant know anything with 100% certainty" argument without using fallacies?

You can know things with certainty, you just can't know of the existence of anything with certainty without axioms.

For example, I know, with certainty, that it's impossible to prove the existence of the universe.

When using no axioms (premises/assumptions), it is impossible to prove the existence of anything, even yourself.

(I think therefore I am makes the illogical assumption that you are thinking; there is no way to know that you are thinking without assuming that your observation that you are thinking is truth, which assumes that observations are truth.)

So yeah, you can know things if they are based on logic alone, you just can't prove existence of anything. It's also possible to prove PLENTY of things, when you are following axioms.

"Assuming my observations are factual, I am typing a response to this thread" is a 100% certain statement.

>>3394538
you can't know that you can't know anything with 100% accuracy

>>3395034
It surprises me that people haven't cited 1+1=2 as an example of 100% certainty.

>>3399508
You can't know that.

>>3399508
Because it's not. We have invented those symbols and the language used to describe them.

>>3399516
signifier isn't the signified, map isn't the territory.

I can say with 100% certainty that you are reading this sentence.

>>3399516
the hell of the post-structuralist mind is every second spent concious

you get what you deserve

>>3399530
Perfect map is the territory, though, because the perfect map has all qualities of the territory including being the territory.

>>3399516
No, it can be said with absolute certainty that 1+1=2 because that's a fundamental axiom.

>>3399516
Enlighten me, because I don't understand your point. Why does having invented symbols for something make it possibly false?

Consider b=b
Or: This banana is this banana.
We have invented the symbol 'b' and the language it is described with, but that doesn't seem to make it any more controvertible.

Or look at this for a pretty good example of 100% certainty:
>>3397402
Or the statement 'that looks blue to me'

>>3399584
>This banana is this banana.

You are using a created word here. If I present you with a strange ball of plastic and tell you it's called 'Xog', you might well accept the name to proceed with conversation. You might ask what Xog is and why I have it. This is fine, but there is no objective truth to the name itself. that weird little ball isn't called Xog external to our conversation or invented words. But any way, we have agreed on the name for the plastic ball, but I can't be certain your perceptions are correct. I can't even be sure that mine are. A friend told me you have acquired a taste for slipping psychedelics into peoples drinks, so how do I know you haven't done this to me? I could be impaired, holding your banana and rambling about 'Xog.' I can't know, with 100% certainty if that banana is that banana.

>>3399624

Consider the sentence "1 = 1." Now it's obviously correct, as you suggest, that the meaning of the symbols "1" and "=" is determined arbitrarily by human convention. If the history of linguistic usage were different, the sentence "1 = 1" could have meant any number of things.

But that is all irrelevant. The question is whether "1 = 1", given it's actual meaning, is beyond doubt. The answer is obviously yes, that it is beyond doubt. If the sentence meant something else (like "There are 5 rabbits in my yard"), then it is not beyond doubt. But that is beside the point.

If we call a tail a leg, horses still have only 4 legs.

>>3399624
>perception is unreliable

Okay, fair enough.

But I'm just trying to show that we can know something with 100% certainty. I'd like the following to be contradicted so that I can know it's not true.
>>3397402
Or 'That looks blue to me'

I know with 100% certainty that everything is what it is and not another thing.

>>3399655
Another example of being 100% certain about something is:
'There is a thought' adaption to cogito ergo sum earlier on in the thread.
>>3396164

This anon >>3399651 >>3399516 is right when he says symbols are invented. It's true that they don't really exist.

But what this anon >>3399651 says is also correct in that the logic behind 1 = 1 is a-ok.

Symbols are analogue to the real thing, so 1 = 1, b = b, banana = banana, xog = xog. So that I could say "look, whatever you have in your hand, it is in your hand!" and be correct.

However, on a deeper level regarding the subject of this thread I'd say what is the certainty behind 1 = 1? Isn't it in the "="? Isn't that which connects the two things? This whole thing is different between the connection of what is "out there" and what goes on in your head. A certainty would be that which goes "what I think" = "what is".

So when you say this equals this, you are not really addressing anything. You are not speaking of anything. You may perfectly use the word "nothing" here to express this sentiment, in that you are "certain of nothing". The thing in your hand is definitely in your hand, even if you have nothing in your hands. But nevermind that, because nothing was said, you know what I mean? No new thing has come from 1 = 1 or banana is banana.

That twists the whole thing back where it began. All that which you can call a certainty is that in which you are not really saying anything.

>>3399706
I'm happy with not being able to say anything new whilst retaining absolute certainty.

In some sense, we get contradiction here. By stating that absolute certainty is trivial, we get the new information that when you say something that incontestable, you're not really saying much at all.

Do you even analytic truths? Anyone can undo a contingent truth -- snow is white, but it's POSSIBLE that it could be black. But try to imagine a world in which 2+2 does not = 4, or better yet, a world in which it is not either raining or not raining outside. Protip: you can't

>>3399706
>So when you say this equals this, you are not really addressing anything. You are not speaking of anything. You may perfectly use the word "nothing" here to express this sentiment, in that you are "certain of nothing". The thing in your hand is definitely in your hand, even if you have nothing in your hands. But nevermind that, because nothing was said, you know what I mean? No new thing has come from 1 = 1 or banana is banana.

Wittgenstein addressed this with tautologies. We're not actually making any statements with regards to relations; we're just spouting what invariably is, redundantly.

>>3399651
>1 = 1

For the sake of debate I'll try and refute that. Firstly, I'm critical of linguistics. I have different life experiences to you, different social conditioning, different genetic factors. Most psychologists say people respond in slightly different ways to colours and words. We can't scrutinize language and symbols to the extent that we perceive their meaning in identical ways, because we are looking at them through different filters. We have a range of things affecting our judgement of something, and can't know, to a 100% certainty, that we're looking at that '1=1' in exactly the same way.

Secondly, and less Wittgensteinian, even if we do possess the same understanding (which I suspect we do...99.99%) I don't know that statement is true. I can only apply empirical observation to confirm it. I have to refer to physical objects -one banana is one banana- and collect a range of observations to support that. The only confirmation I have is through repeated testing that one actually is one, and in all cases I cannot be sure that the empirical trial and error approach is correct. I can't rely on the laws of physics to be correct.

If I agree with you, I have to suppose that the combination of language and symbols, and empirical verifications is completely sound, and I can't.

>>3399731
I wouldn't call it a contradiction, maybe a paradox, a "knot", some sort of emptiness. Something that is, in fact, predicted by a number of thinkers, as varied as Kant and Bruce Lee...

If you go to deep into anything, you find nothing at all.

"100% of certainties are meaningless", including this. So we take nothing home.

You're right, I am really not saying much at all.

>>3399755
I see what you're getting at, but I think because 1=1 is a tautology, it can't not be true.

That is to say, by the way it is constructed, your empirical investigations could never possibly find a result in a test which disconfirmed it. So you can't really link the troubles of empiricism to it.

>>3394561

>>3394561
>>3394568
>>3394585
>>3395305

Fuck off with your cogito ergo sum. Clearly you all have no clue what you're talking about or else SOMEONE would've mentioned it's clearly not 'cogito ergo sum', but 'je pense donq je suis', because Descartes hated scholastic philosophy and wouldn't even think of writing in Latin.

>>3401389

eh... his diary is in Latin, so are the Meditationes. But one might argue, that "cogito ergo sum" is quoted from a fan letter to Descartes (or Renatus Cartesius, you know... in Latin) summing up, what the reader had gathered from the Meditationes. Also: Give yourself the Dick.

>>3394538

>Strg + F
>Heidegger
>No results
>mfw remembering I'm on /lit
>mfw no face

C'mon, let it go.

>>3394538
I know enough to be functional, productive, and meaninful