cogito ergo sum

[Anonymous No.12569650]

>I think therefore I am

Is a more brainlet observation even possible?

[Anonymous No.12569655]

>>12569650
>Is a more brainlet observation even possible?
yes:
>lmao everything is just lumps of matter

[Anonymous No.12569656]

>>12569650
>He thinks humans are set apart by their intellect
>he does literally hundreds of things a day out of compulsion, with no thought out into them, most of which he knows are bad for him

[Anonymous No.12569687]

>>12569650
And your theory on how someone would be is?

[Anonymous No.12569688]

>>12569650
>It thinks, therefore, it is.
Fixed.

[Anonymous No.12569708]

>>12569688
Things can't think. If you can think you're a person; that's the whole point.
The harder part is defining what thinking means.

[Anonymous No.12569714]

>>12569650
OP is proof that Cogito Ergo Sum is a myth.

[Anonymous No.12569717]

>>12569708
"No."
Stop assuming the existence of an "I," of a "you."

[Anonymous No.12569720]

>>12569717
Why would I do that? You're not I, and neither is either of us some sort of automaton.
At least it's relatively unlikely, and even if we were it would be unlikely, since a thinking machine would be a person, too.
>but there's no free will
Don't need that to think.

[The Nomad !N8Yn.I/WbM No.12569723]

>>12569708
So persons aren’t things?

[Anonymous No.12569727]

>>12569723
Correct; in a sense, certainly, depending on the exact definition.
The part of us that thinks is not a thing, but our body certainly is.

[The Nomad !N8Yn.I/WbM No.12569740]

>>12569727
Then what is the part of us that thinks?

[Anonymous No.12569741]

>>12569727
Pre-empting further argument:
Personhood still arises from the body, and destruction of the body also annihilates the person, by depriving it of its means for functioning, a working brian. BRIAN.
It does however not "destroy" the person itself. Only things like education, argument or torture can accomplish that.
Why can physical torture do it? Because your mind begins to go along with the demands of the torturer hoping to stop the discomfort.

[Anonymous No.12569753]

>>12569740
If "what" were to refer to a thing: Nothing.
It's an illusion of sorts; A persons thoughts only exist to the individual doing the thinking; nobody else will ever see that exact thought; although there's a degree of "parallel evolution" that allows us to empathize, and we developed tools to convey thoughts, like language and arts, which serve as proof that we think, yet most animals do not; these still won't allow us to view thoughts directly however; the thought itself remains personal and unreal.

[Anonymous No.12569756]

>>12569687
>I AM THAT I AM

[Anonymous No.12569762]

>>12569756
Now THAT is a bit of a brainlet statement.

[Anonymous No.12569766]

>>12569756
>>12569762

[Anonymous No.12569771]

>>12569741
>your mind begins to go along with the demands of the torturer
torture confirmed a kind of eduction

[Anonymous No.12569785]

"I think" is superfluous. The fact of your own being is the first and last ultimate truth you will ever possess

[Anonymous No.12569793]

>>12569785
No, no, you can make a computer say "I am" pretty easily.
Then again you can make it say "I think therefore I am" just as easily.
The difference?
In the latter case it's lying.

[Anonymous No.12569798]

"I am therefore I am" seemed to suffice for basically everyone before him. You really don't need to complicate these kinds of things.

[Anonymous No.12569804]

>>12569650
>I assume that I think, therefore I assume that I am
ftfy, dickman

[Anonymous No.12569808]

The Latins meant by "mind" what we call pensiero, "thought"; and they claimed that mind is "given" or "imparted" to humans "by the gods." What this amounts to is that those who thought out these phrases believed that ideas were created and activated in the mind of men by God; and hence, they spoke of the mind of the spirit (mens animi); also they attributed to God the unlimited (liberum) right and choice of the spirit's motions, so that desire (libido) or the capacity to desire everything is for each man his own God. This God, peculiar to each man, would seem to be the intellectus agens (active intellect) of the Aristotelians, the sensus aetherius (etheral sense) of the Stoics, and the daemon of the Socratics.

But if that most acute man, Malebranche, contends that these propositions are true, I wonder why agrees with Rene Descartes's primary truth, Cogito ergo sum. Since he recognizes that God creates ideas in me, he should rather put things as follows: "Something thinks in me; therefore, it exists. However, I acknowledge no idea of body in my thought; therefore, what thinks in me is an absolutely pure mind, namely, God." On the other hand, perhaps the human mind could be so structured that, after having begun from things that were quite indubitable for it, and having arrived at the knowledge of God as best and greatest, when once it knew him it would recognize for false even what previously it held to be indubitable. And indeed, quite generally, all ideas derived from created things are, in a way, false in the face of the idea of the Supreme Deity because they concern things that, when put in relation to God, do not seem to exist truly. For it is only of God that is a true idea, because He alone truly is. So if Malebranche wanted his doctrine to be consistent, he ought to have taught that the human mind acquires from God knowledge, not only of the body to which it belongs, but of itself as well; so that it does not ever know itself, unless it knows itself in God. Mind exhibits itself in the act of thinking. God thinkd within me and , therefore, I know my own mind in God. This would be the case if Malebranche's teachings were consistent.

[Anonymous No.12569810]

>>12569650
Read the Foucault - Derrida exchange on Descartes.

[Anonymous No.12569812]

>"Something is thought, therefore there is something that thinks": this is what Descartes' argument amounts to. But this is tantamount to considering our belief in the notion "substance" as an "a priori" truth:—that there must be something "that thinks" when we think, is merely a formulation of a grammatical custom which sets an agent to every action. In short, a metaphysico-logical postulate is already put forward here—and it is not merely an ascertainment of fact.... On Descartes' lines nothing absolutely certain is attained, but only the fact of a very powerful faith. If the proposition be reduced to "Something is thought, therefore there are thoughts," the result is mere tautology; and precisely the one factor which is in question, the "reality of thought," is not touched upon,—so that, in this form, the apparitional character of thought cannot be denied. What Descartes wanted to prove was, that thought not only had apparent reality, but absolute reality.

[Anonymous No.12569813]

>>12569756
Fucking based

[Anonymous No.12569822]

>>12569793
How is that even related to the idea of cogito ergo sum?

[Anonymous No.12569825]

>>12569822
You still have to actually think.
In other words: it doesn't work for pseuds.

[Anonymous No.12569826]

>>12569650
KEK

[Anonymous No.12569827]

>>12569825
pseuds confirmed animals without human rights

[Anonymous No.12569830]

>>12569825
You have to exist to think, existence precedes thought

[Anonymous No.12569835]

>>12569830
I didn't dispute this.
"I am" is true for any object.
"I think therefore I am" is true only for sapient beings however.

[Anonymous No.12569842]

>>12569830
Although.. you never know, maybe there's some pure thought thing and the noosphere is real or something; but I personally don't believe in that and consequently agree that, as far as we know at least, something first has to exist (and consequently be a thing) to also be able of "being".

[Anonymous No.12569846]

>>12569842
Probably should have said "thinking" in the end.

[Anonymous No.12569847]

>>12569842
Even a being of pure thought exists, just not materially, and that existence precedes its ability for thought

[Anonymous No.12569852]

>>12569847
Would be pretty weird desu, but not important either, since thoughts happen to be invisible to anyone except the thinker anyway, unless they have a physical body to transmit or express those thoughts, or worse yet: actualize them.

[Anonymous No.12569858]

>>12569812
Haha yeah it sure is stupid to think that being and truth are necessary postulates... wait..

[Anonymous No.12569862]

>>12569858
He's not debating "necessary postulates."

[Anonymous No.12569868]

>>12569717
>Stop assuming the existence of an "I,"
The whole point is that he not assuming anything. He 'is' because he has a clear and distinct impression of himself as a thinking thing.

[Anonymous No.12569871]

>>12569868
>The whole point is that he not assuming anything.
See >>12569812

[Anonymous No.12569880]

>>12569858
Function DoBeDoBeDooo
if being==1 && boolean==1
do am
return
elseif boolean==1
do true
return
elseif being==1
do merely pretending
endif

[Anonymous No.12569893]

>>12569871
>"Something is thought, therefore there is something that thinks": this is what Descartes' argument amounts to
Thats not quite what Descartes argument amounts to. Its more about the clear and immediate perception of being. The argument is really about the personal subjective experience of being a thing that thinks. The act of thinking is more important than the fact that 'something is thought.'

[Anonymous No.12569901]

>>12569893
Continue reading that post, champ.

[Anonymous No.12569910]

>>12569901
I did, it was shit.

[Anonymous No.12569917]

>>12569910
I don't think you did, because he addresses the "being" part of your post.

[Anonymous No.12569931]

>>12569917
>that there must be something "that thinks" when we think, is merely a formulation of a grammatical custom which sets an agent to every action.
This is absolute retard nonsense. Its not 'merely grammatical custom', its a grammatical necessity because it reflects necessary truths about the world. When an action is completed, something necessarily completes the action. Thats just how it works.

[Anonymous No.12569949]

>>12569931
Just stop replying to that probable pasta.

[Anonymous No.12569962]

D ergo homo

[Anonymous No.12569963]

>>12569931
Sorry, but you're completely missing what he's getting at. What Nietzsche is saying is that your "personal subjective experience of being a thing that thinks" does not make certain at all that you exist. Moreover, he is implying with his comment about the grammatical custom that language conditions how we think, which it demonstrably does; and that thought is not absolute reality but rather an imperfect modeling of reality. Therefore, the interpretation that thinking involves the presence of a thinker is just that, an interpretation, and does not touch upon reality any more than any other interpretation.

[Anonymous No.12569966]

>>12569804
I assume therefore I am.

[Anonymous No.12569968]

>>12569949
It's not pasta, it's from Will to Power.

[Anonymous No.12569974]

Has anyone written about how to solve the problem dualism?

[Anonymous No.12569979]

>>12569862
What is he saying then? That language is a self referential loop and that the truth in a priori and analytic statements are merely continuations of the insulated pattern of our thoughts which constructs our conception of reality? That a predicate requiring a subject is a restatement of the rules of the game which we can never escape to have hopes of making any sort of claim about the whole of reality? All of this presupposes that "that thought not only has apparent reality, but absolute reality" or else it's just piss in the wind.

[Anonymous No.12569986]

>>12569963
>What Nietzsche is saying is that your "personal subjective experience of being a thing that thinks" does not make certain at all that you exist.
It literally does though. In what form or in what plane I exist on I don't know. I don't know anything other than this That I exist as a thing that thinks. This is undeniable.

[Anonymous No.12569991]

>>12569979
He's saying that reality does not end where thought ends and that Descartes desired for it to be the case that it did.

[Anonymous No.12569992]

>>12569963
>Therefore, the interpretation that thinking involves the presence of a thinker is just that, an interpretation, and does not touch upon reality any more than any other interpretation.
Somebody's doing the interpreting.

[Anonymous No.12570002]

>>12569974
just put non- in front of it and pretend it doesn't have any of the problems of monism.

[Anonymous No.12570005]

>>12569986
>I have faith that I am, so I am
is essentially what you're saying. And yes, the strong feeling of faith makes the distinction moot. But faith does not make certain in anything besides the faithful.

[Anonymous No.12570010]

>>12569963
He's just being typical Nietzsche: full of shit.
>"personal subjective experience of being a thing that thinks"
Considering the self is the first instrance and moderator to confirm a person is in fact thinking and not just spewing out data and there is literally no other approach towards the proof of an existant, sapient self beyond-the-physical aside from the purely subjective experience of thinking and being able to express thoughts, what exactly does he hope to advance?
>nobody can know for sure they exist just by being sentient, sapient, having a body and seemingly free will
Just makes him the ultimate agnostic.
>only the structure of language makes us assume we exist because we think it is ourselves thinking
When exactly do or did you think the thought of anybody else?
It happens by coincidence occasionally, at the same time, yes, but that's down to receiving the same stimulus.
>does not touch upon reality any more than any other interpretation
Which other interpretation?
>I think I'm not

>>12569968
I mean, technically a quote is pasta.

[Anonymous No.12570012]

>>12569992
Not necessarily.

[Anonymous No.12570015]

>>12569650
>I'm in doubt about the existence of anything
>Since "I am" is the condition of possibility of "I doubt" (otherwise I couln't be in doubt about anything)
>and "I doubt" is a subtype of "I think"
>"I doubt/think" is proof of "I am"
>therefore, I can't doubt my own existence (whatever that is) for logical reasons
Did anyone of you even read Cartesius?

[Anonymous No.12570017]

>>12570005
It has nothing to do with faith. You can't even express your ideas because of those pesky mere grammatical customs. I would have to first exist in order to have faith in something.

[Anonymous No.12570024]

>>12570017
Ideas are lies we tell ourselves and immediately believe. All metaphysics is a model of reality, aka it is never at any point perfectly accurate of reality. To get at reality, you have to abandon your dependency on metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.12570029]

I am not sure I'm thinking, therefore I'm not sure I am.

[Anonymous No.12570032]

>>12570024
That sounds like a lot of bullshit to me. How about you stop talking with pronouns if you actually believe the shit you write.

[Anonymous No.12570034]

>>12570015
but is your doubt your own
>>12569808

[Anonymous No.12570037]

>>12570032
>pronouns
oh yeah you cant use finite verbs either.

[Anonymous No.12570040]

>>12570024
>Ideas are lies we tell ourselves
How can you tell these ideas to someone who is not real?
Checkmate atheists.

[Anonymous No.12570043]

>>12570029
based nietzsche exposer, n was mentally ill all his life

[Anonymous No.12570056]

>>12570032
>How about you stop talking with pronouns if you actually believe the shit you write.
This is a typical go-to for people who don't want to consider the irrationality of their nature. Just because I embrace it doesn't mean I'm suddenly incapable of enjoying the sweet fruit of illusion that is "you and I"; in fact, it makes it sweeter. Plus, how else would Nietzsche or I then communicate an even more truthful (read: more enduring, more powerful) philosophy, which is one that embraces both the rational and the irrational, without using the former to justify the latter? That's the beauty of Nietzsche: he uses language to constantly show how pathetic a tool it is for reaching truth and to expose how so many thinkers really just wanted to be glorified through their thoughts.

[Anonymous No.12570069]

>>12570056
>how else would Nietzsche or I then communicate an even more truthful (read: more enduring, more powerful) philosophy, which is one that embraces both the rational and the irrational, without using the former to justify the latter?
If it is so much more powerful and enduring why then must you cloak it in the lies and trickery of the inferior. Should you not present it in its full undiminished glory so that all of us will be immediately drawn to its power?

[Anonymous No.12570074]

>>12570034
Doesn't matter at all.
The only possible objection is the grammatical one (that means: is the connection of "I" and "doubt" as well as the one of "I" and "am" an accurate portrayal of reality or is it a mere grammatical convention).

[Anonymous No.12570079]

>>12570069
The only ones not drawn to Nietzsche upon encountering him, besides people who just can't parse him at all, are the ones who are powerless without their metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.12570081]

Its probably one of the more profound

[Anonymous No.12570087]

>>12570079
Ah I see, just as the holy spirit guideth men to the scriptures, some power draweth men to nietche.

[Anonymous No.12570091]

>>12569963
Non-existence is impossible

[Anonymous No.12570095]

Yet again, /lit/ proves it doesn't read.

[Anonymous No.12570104]

>>12570095
Not reading Nietzsche is a fairly good thing, although he works well enough as a negative example too.

[Anonymous No.12570379]

>>12570079
Nyetch was an overassumptive aphorist who built an entire fatally flawed worldview based on the false finality he gave to the failure of the Enlightenment to produce an objective ethics or metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.12570450]

>>12569793
This is about proving it to yourself not to others.

[Anonymous No.12570692]

Reminder that Swedens only contribution to philosophy was killing that jackass

[Anonymous No.12570701]

>>12569756
>he bases his philosophy on a mistranslation of Hamlet

[Anonymous No.12570861]

>>12569766
>yellow text on gray-yellowish striped background
simply genius

[Anonymous No.12571148]

>>12569650
refute it then

[Anonymous No.12571157]

>>12569650

[Anonymous No.12571400]

How about the cartesian circle?

[Anonymous No.12571408]

>>12569766
>I lm teat i am
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.12571421]

personally, for me, it's amo quare sum
I love, consequently I am :)

[Anonymous No.12571611]

The I posits itself positing itself.

[Anonymous No.12571716]

I need to exist before I can think. Thought’s existence does not prove that I am the origin of thought nor that I exist due to the existence of thought. I and the thoughts I consider my own could be the dream of a butterfly.

[Anonymous No.12571790]

>>12570091
Not non-existence, just existence as something else. "It's not certain that you exist" as in the nature of your existence isn't certain.

[Anonymous No.12571842]

>>12569650
It is extremely embarassing. Thought and Existence are not one. Existence is the only thing which proves existence. Instead

[Anonymous No.12571848]

Y'all niggas need some Husserl

[Anonymous No.12571853]

>>12571842
Instead, he should have said "I am, therefore I am." Or simply "I am, therefore". What an absolute fool, in this regard.

[Anonymous No.12571858]

Can anyone post the Descartes meme where he is in front of the pc and tells his team members over voice chat that he thinks therefore he is, which results in everyone being full of praise for him?

[Anonymous No.12571878]

>>12571716
So what? Then you're simply a butterfly in reality.
It doesn't fucking matter if your a dreaming butterfly or a raving unicorn. As long as you think you can take it as proof of your existance.
And what Descartes actually presents as the nature of said "I" is far more cockoo than a butterfly or a unicorn (but that doesn't do any harm to the argument anyway).

[Anonymous No.12571907]

>>12569714
But he doesn't cogita, anon

[Anonymous No.12571912]

>>12569650
It's 100% correct, get fucked.

[Anonymous No.12572092]

>>12571878
No the point is that it is not you that is thinking or existing but the butterfly. If you dreamt you were a butterfly and didn’t realise you were you dreaming you were a butterfly, would you say that butterfly exists because it thinks? When really it is not thinking but you are and vice versa.
Again you are assuming that by thought existing it therefore means that you are the origin of the thoughts and that you exist due to those thoughts also existing.

[Anonymous No.12572134]

>>12572092
Dude, honestly, read Descartes instead of making stupid objections.
It doesn't fucking matter which material image the thinking thing has, I can dream I'm a butterfly, I can think I'm a human being, I can perceive myself as a unicorn - nevertheless, it's me: <I> do it, <I>'m the one thinking (doubting), therefore, <I> am.
If I have a thought, it doesn't matter if I dream I'm a butterfly right know, what matters is simply: <I> think it.

[Anonymous No.12572162]

>>12571853
Ah but the act of thinking "I exist" is an "I" posting it's self existence. It is the self *posting* itself that makes the I.

[Anonymous No.12572179]

>>12572134
But to get an "I" you have to self-reflect on yourself before you can think of other things. The self-positing makes the "I", other thinking come later.

[Anonymous No.12572194]

>>12572134
You've made it to the second meditation! What an exception on /lit/.

I find it hard to argue with Descarte up to this point but then he goes off the rails when he tries to lessen his radical doubt. And his ontological+ proof of god is garbage which everything else depends on.

[Anonymous No.12572202]

>>12572134
and again you are presupposing that I already exist, in order for I to think. Let us not get into muddy waters by assuming that thought occurs. You are saying that since thought occurs, you must be the origin of that thought and/or since thought exists you must also exist. Let’s abstract it a bit: x thinks, therefore x exists, correct? Surely x would need to exist first before it could think, same here. In the butterfly dream, there is thought, but you cannot know that you are the origin of that thought nor that since the thought exists you must also exist. x that thinks is itself the dream of the butterfly, the actual thinking being is not x and x cannot prove it exists. It’s thoughts are not it’s own but the butterfly’s. Do you think your dreams are as real and exist in the same way you do yourself?

[Anonymous No.12572235]

>>12572202
>>12572202
There is thought. There is experience with the world. The only thing we are absolutely certain of is this "lifeworld" experience. There is a subject to that inner world of thought and perception, which we call "I" - it is necessary for the lifeworld to occur at all. Whether the I is a butterfly or the person I think myself to be doesn't matter ultimately, only the inner world itself

[Anonymous No.12572241]

>>12572179
No. the "I" in Cartesius' argument is a simple formal necessity. It doesn't bear any contentual qualities besides "able to think" - that's why he called it "res cogitans" (thinking thing).

The moment Descartes started to add content to it is the moment it starts to get weird (because he misunderstands its formal quality to be a contentual one and builts up the inconsistent concept of an incorporeal mind upon it).

[Anonymous No.12572254]

>>12572134
>I
>I
>I
all the people trying to argue against you aren't saying that "YOU LITERALLY DON'T EXIST" they are attempting to say that your body's carried experience of self is heavily co-determined with its environment, the thinking thing indeed exists but all of you are carrying a host of extraneous info in just the words "thinking" and "I" because INDEED WE ARE THINKING THINGS TO SOME CAPACITY BUT LANGUAGE AND CONCEPTS DEVELOPED HISTORICALLY, MESSILY, SLOPPILY, AND SOME THOUGHTS OUTGREW AND ATE OTHERS AND CORRAL OTHERS AND COMMAND OTHERS
>What Descartes wanted to prove was, that thought not only had apparent reality, but absolute reality
Nietzsche is taking issue with Descarte's framing; what he is calling his "discovery" and the implications of stopping at "thinking" and fucking especially all of the crazy bullshit following the early parts of meditations

[Anonymous No.12572264]

>>12572235
A lot of this is baseless conjecture.

Also you are saying it doesn’t matter what you actually are, but that the thinking conscience is you, whatever it is. Proof?

[Anonymous No.12572271]

>>12572202
>Surely x would need to exist first before it could think
That's why "x thinks" is proof of "x exists"

>It’s thoughts are not it’s own but the butterfly’s
You do realize, that doesn't make sense at all?
x's thoughts are x's thougts.
x's thoughts are not x's thoughts is just a contradiction in terms.
X thinks while x dreams it's a butterfly doesn't change the fact it's x that thinks.

[Anonymous No.12572272]

>>12572264
I don't think you understand what I wrote because your question is besides the point

[Anonymous No.12572278]

>>12572241
I posit an I therefore I am.

[Anonymous No.12572285]

>>12572202
>Do you think your dreams are as real and exist in the same way you do yourself?
Yes they are both representations in my mind.

[Anonymous No.12572345]

Every truth claim presupposes awareness.
Awareness = "I"

[Anonymous No.12572384]

The only legible part of the cogito is "is", everything else is state propaganda

[Anonymous No.12572394]

>>12572345
Imagine believing in being-I instead becoming-me

[Anonymous No.12572401]

Every brainlet should read this before discussing
>Cogito, ergo sum: Inference or performance - Jaakko Hintikka
And read Descartes too - that is, the Meditations, and Objections and Replies
And keep in mind that
>cogito ergo sum
is not as essential as
>sum, existo

>>12572235 is right but people will always "object" to something they haven't read and studied first

[Anonymous No.12572402]

>>12572394
I believe in both :)

[Anonymous No.12572403]

>>12571842
This. It is the fact of experience itself which bestows apodictcity on the truth of existence.

However, we can simply view 'I' as the localization of experience. Lack of omniscience suggests that there exists something other than local experience, so the 'I' is still valid in this neutral way.

That 'you' are the source of thought however isn't apodictic. It's very probable, but there is the possibility that a Cartesian 'evil demon' places thoughts in your head.

[Anonymous No.12572406]

>stop thinking for a couple of seconds
>don't disappear
What now, René?

[Anonymous No.12572432]

>>12572271
You are using the fact that x thinks to prove x exists, but for it to think it would already need to exist. You are proving its existence by saying it thinks, but it needs to already exist before it can think and therefore you say it already exists before you’ve proven it and thus it is a presupposition.

Let us say y is the thing dreaming and x is the dream. x doesn’t know it is a dream of y. x thinks it is the origin of its thoughts and so says it is real when really, it is an illusion of y. x’s thoughts are y’s creation, not its own. Much like in the way I tell a computer to say something: I am the one making conscious action and the computer spits out what I say. The very thinking x does does not prove its reality, it proves thought occurs but not that it’s thoughts are it’s own creation since they are a creation of y.

>>12572272
Please better explain (with some proof) these sentences
>There is experience with the world. The only thing we are absolutely certain of is this "lifeworld" experience. There is a subject to that inner world of thought and perception

>>12572285
So a representation of x = x?

[Anonymous No.12572445]

>>12572406
>proof: E=mc^2
>stop thinking of the proof of "E=mc^2" for a couple of seconds
>E is still mc^2
What now, Einstein?

[Anonymous No.12572461]

Rocks don’t think, do they not exist?

[Anonymous No.12572463]

>>12572432
>but for it to think it would already need to exist ... it needs to already exist before it can think and therefore you say it already exists before you’ve proven it and thus it is a presupposition.
lol that's the argument, it's transcendentally certain

[Anonymous No.12572522]

>>12572461
The argument is attempting to prove that "I" exists, not rocks. If you actually read Descartes you would understand that this argument is in response to absolute doubt (including the doubt of rocks).

[Anonymous No.12572523]

>>12571611
The self posits itself absolutely

[Anonymous No.12572533]

>>12572461
Rocks are maya young summerchild

[Anonymous No.12572552]

>>12572463
The argument is I think therefore I am, but I already need to exist before I can think, and the thinking is the actual proof of existence. So what it ends up being is I exist, and I can think, so I exist. You’re presupposing that I already exist before you’ve actually proven it.

[Anonymous No.12572658]

>>12572432
>You are using the fact that x thinks to prove x exists, but for it to think it would already need to exist.
You really do know what transcendental philosophy is?
x is proof of y's existence due to the fact y's existence is a necessary condition of possibility of x. In other words: if y didn't exist, x wouldn't be possible - since x exists, y is proven to exist.

>Let us say y is the thing dreaming and x is the dream. x doesn’t know it is a dream of y. x thinks it is the origin of its thoughts and so says it is real when really, it is an illusion of y. x’s thoughts are y’s creation, not its own.
You're mixing things up.
You're saying:
a, y is an agent, x is not an agent
b, x thinks it's an agent
The problem is "x thinks it's an agent" because "thinking" is an act which makes x by definition an agent. Therefore, a and b contradict each other. -> a and b is impossible. Either x is y's dream and x isn't able to think or x is able to think and is therefore the origin of its thoughts.

[Anonymous No.12572722]

>>12569650
Yes. See pic related.

[Anonymous No.12572724]

>>12571421
any books that actually take this position?

[Anonymous No.12572755]

>>12572724
Yes. Heart of Reality by Solovyov. It's dense but enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.12572945]

>>12572658
First part is true, y is real and the real question is what y is (this is unknowable).

x’s thoughts are y’s thoughts. x doesn’t know it is y and instead believes it is the origin of its thoughts while in reality x is not real and it’s thoughts are y’s. Therefore x thinks but it cannot know that it actually exists (since in reality x is a figment of y’s dream and not real) and even though x thinks, it isn’t x.

[Anonymous No.12572959]

>>12569650
Threads like this make me question why litizens feel superior to redditors.

[Anonymous No.12573294]

>>12572945
An act of consciousness (thinking) is an act of consciousness, no matter if you only dream it or if you don't.
You can dream of taking a walk while you're not physically taking a walk, therefore, a physical action can be dreamed of (and therefore, isn't a "real" action anymore). But if you dream an act of consciousness (for example adding up 2 and 2) or if do the same while you're awake doesn't change said act of consciousness at all (it's still mentally adding up 2 and 2). Thinking is thinking no matter if you do it in your dreams or if you're awake - you can't "only dream" you're thinking.

[Anonymous No.12573703]

>>12572945
Dude you're straight up not understanding his argument

Descartes is not saying that since he has subjective experience, he knows that his body exists. He's saying that because he knows that his subjective experience exists, then his subjective experience (aka the self) exists.
It doesn't matter to Descartes whether he's really a Frenchman, a butterfly, a unicorn or a disembodied spirit in a devil's illusion. It's the statement that the thinking "self" exists.
It doesn't matter that another "thing" could be thinking the thoughts, and not the human known as Descartes. The subjective experience itself is the "self" that Descartes proves

[Anonymous No.12573799]

>>12572552
whats radical about it is precisely that opposition you goober

[Anonymous No.12573980]

>>12569756
Lmao. Niggah, you are not a fully actualized being. Niggah, you have potential!

[¿ No.12574030]

>>12569708
Then animals can't think?

[Anonymous No.12574034]

>>12569655
this

[Anonymous No.12574106]

>>12572194
>I find it hard to argue with Descarte up to this point but then he goes off the rails when he tries to lessen his radical doubt. And his ontological+ proof of god is garbage which everything else depends on.
I agree with that. Nevertheless, you shouldn't underestimate the beauty of parts of Descartes' argumentation since he for example shows a knowledge about modal logic which is unmatched up until Kripke.
The big problem about Cartesius is his (unintentional) reception. He established a mind-body distinction which is still powerful (especially among layman and scientists who are philosophically uneducated) and therefore taints the scientific discourse up until today. A lot of neuroscientists for example simply replace the Cartesian idea of "mind/I" with "brain" and take over everything else. Results are sentences like: "The brain decides to..." and so on, which don't make sense at all.

[Anonymous No.12574576]

>>12569650
is even possible to exist without consciousness?

time is faster than consciousness so idk

[Anonymous No.12574607]

>>12574106
GOOD POST ALERT

[Anonymous No.12574653]

>>12574106
>which don't make sense at all.
But it does. This is accurately describing what is actually happening. It is only personalized instants later by the personality that inhabits the brain. Which itself is built on a more primitive structure that automatically regulates some functions. The brain does not decide to breathe, for example. It just does. In a personalized case, the individuated creature takes this doing for a decided course of action.

[Anonymous No.12574795]

>>12569650
>>12569714
There is a sketch from a local comedy TV show in my country where a policeman reads "I think, therefore I am" on a wall and he suddenly disappears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1-5S17xoEA

[Anonymous No.12575038]

>>12569655
how is that brainlet, it's basically the conclusion of all science

[Anonymous No.12575043]

>>12575038
>it's basically the conclusion of all science

[Anonymous No.12576636]

>>12569650
Yes it is possible.Here:
>OP is not a fag

[Anonymous No.12576660]

>>12571842
>>12571853
>>12572403
>Is a more brainlet observation even possible?
There.

[Anonymous No.12576987]

>>12569723
No they aren't.
Do people itt merely pretend not to have read basic Leibniz or Husserl?

[Anonymous No.12577012]

>>12569798
Or more succinctly, 'I yam what I yam'

[Anonymous No.12577293]

>>12569893
>Thats not quite what Descartes argument amounts to. Its more about the clear and immediate perception of being.
Did you even read Meditations?
>>12569931
>When an action is completed, something necessarily completes the action. Thats just how it works.
Ok, there's no point arguing with you.