[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 45 KB, 165x190, pika.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16035436 No.16035436 [Reply] [Original]

nothing is funnier to me than the pseuds who come to /lit/ and create a thread like "i think therefore i am is logically inconsistent because it presupposes an existing definiton of [i]"

imagine believing you've found a fundamental flaw in one of the most profound psychological statements in human history after musing about it on the internet for a few minutes, how fucking middle IQ brained do you need to be

>> No.16035450

>>16035436
>middle IQ brained

>> No.16035460

How does it presuppose an "I"?

>> No.16035461

>>16035436
This is what is to be found on /lit/ nowadays. I've understood now that we've been plagued by a bunch of 15 year old edgy teens. Did you see the "faces of /lit/" thread? it was a bunch of teens posing in edgy ways wanting attention. That kind of statement could only be made by someone that has a very small grasp of reality.

>> No.16035477

>hey /lit/ if socrates was so smart how come he's dead

>> No.16035483

>>16035436
nobody understands how important humility and shutting the fuck up and listening is to intellectual development

>> No.16035526
File: 164 KB, 500x428, zas1556993857081.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16035526

>>16035436
imagine actually needing philosophy to tell you how to live your life

>> No.16035541

>>16035526

philosophy doesnt tell you how to live your life, you're think of mcphilosophy

real philosophy exists to give context to your own existence, enrich your understanding of the abstract and question the fundamental axioms of reality

>> No.16035595

That criticism has already been voiced by Kierkegaard, Gassendi, Lichtenberg and fucking NIETZSCHE.
And it's a valid one, the phrase is begging the question, when you say "I" you are already arguing for the existence of something, therefore "concluding" that I exist is tautological.

HOWEVER, while the phrase taken by itself is tautological, Descartes real argument is still completely correct. In fact, "cogito ergo sum" is not even mentioned in the meditations. What he actually says is:
>I must finally conclude that this proposition, "I am, I exist", is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.

>> No.16035603

>>16035595
How does it beg the question, how does it presuppose an I?
There is no presupposition of an "I", the "I" is observed a posteriori. It is not assumed a priori.

>> No.16035653

>>16035603
>Recognition that one has a set of thoughts does not imply that one is a particular thinker or another. Were we to move from the observation that there is thinking occurring to the attribution of this thinking to a particular agent, we would simply assume what we set out to prove, namely, that there exists a particular person endowed with the capacity for thought. The only claim that is indubitable here is the agent-independent claim that there is cognitive activity present.

>> No.16035659

>>16035653
>Recognition that one has a set of thoughts does not imply that one is a particular thinker or another.
Yes, it does. Just saying it doesn't, doesn't make it so.
A thought requires a thinker like a square requires four sides. It is an analytic a priori.

>> No.16035721

>>16035436
>nothing is funnier to me than the pseuds
What about Caddyshack?

>> No.16036327

>>16035595
>>16035653

Not the same crit as what OP said tho.
The 'I' is, as the other guy said, is defined after the fact as the thinking thing by descarted.

Kant's critique is just a refutation of the assumption that you can think of this entity as a substance, whereas Nietzsche contends that the existence of a thought does not imply the existence of a thinker, and its only our dipshit grammar which ascribes a doer to every deed that dupes us into thinking it does.

>> No.16036363

>>16036327
>its only our dipshit grammar which ascribes a doer to every deed that dupes us into thinking it does.
>our
>us
clearly you think it does

>> No.16036384

I always got the feeling that the reason people think this is because they somehow think that if it were not the case that the "I" doesn't exist, then it would be impossible to upload our minds into computers. So because of this (wrong) implication they deny the existence of "I" and say "it's just neurons firing making thoughts and there is no I" so they can philosophically justify the possibility of coping the firing onto a computer and "transferring the continuation of the consciousness" or whatever into the computer.

I'm probably wrong though.

>> No.16036420

>>16036363
yeah i'm not arguing for this or anything, just explaining nietzsche's view.

Also Nietzsche didn't try to create a new grammar or think it was necessary for understanding what he saw as misleading with our current one.

>> No.16036421

>>16036384
The feeling of "I-ness" has a cause, like all things. This is a demonstration that there is no "I". You can actually stop this feeling of "I-ness", via meditation, drugs, and brain damage. The belief that there is an "I" is the belief that there's actually a secret (You) piloting your body.

And if there's a secret (You) piloting your body, then that body can be sloughed off and the secret (You) can be put into the computer. This sloughing off of the body is actually the entire crux of Trannyism, and to a lesser degree homosexuality.

>> No.16036498

>>16036421
The idea is that the "I"ness is caused by the electrical impulses in the brain. That's why when you're under anesthesia or in dreamless sleep or deep meditation it isn't there, because the electrical firing is different. The "I" is emergent from this electrical signal, so if the signal is copied into another substrate, the "I" will come along as well.
If there is a secret "I" that isn't emergent from the electrical signal, then the copy of the signal will be just that, a copy, and there will be no transfer of consciousness, in the same way a copy of a program doesn't literally transfer the original program, it just makes a copy on another substrate.

>> No.16036512

>>16036421
>The feeling of "I-ness" has a cause, like all things
Yikes. Read Kant's Analytic of Conceptions repeatedly to the point of learning it by heart before saying another word

>> No.16036540

>>16036498
I get where you're going with this, and don't disagree. Whether the mind is a continuum of causes or a Little Man in your head is irrelevant, either way you can move the mind around and take it apart in some way such that you can "put the brain in a computer". I was just explaining why people like >>16036512, who don't read books, reify this "little man in your head" idea despite its absurdity (the Little Man has a Little Man in his head, ad infinitum): precisely BECAUSE they want to take the Little Man out of their head, and put it into the computer.

>> No.16036620

>>16036540
>people like >>16036512 (You), who don't read books
Project harder. I have nothing to do with those braindead singularityfags, and if you had read either Kant or even just my post correctly, you would have also understood. There is a distinction between the original synthetical unity of apperception, the implicit "I think" that must accompany all representations and judgments, and the secondary internal sense in which "I think" is explicitly expressed. The self can only cogitate itself through experience, and hence only as appearance, and it is to that appearance (what you call the feeling of "I-ness") that you can ascribe a cause "like all things", but the original unity of apperception must exist prior to that cognition, so that you can formulate that synthetic ascription of causality in the first place. Was that enough spoonfeeding for you, or are you still hungry?

>> No.16036629

>>16036620
Do you have that sense of I-ness when you're asleep?

>> No.16036648

>>16035460
read his post again

>> No.16036675

>>16036421
You are missing the point of "cogito ergo sum" and not doing anything to weaken Decartes's argument.

>> No.16036677
File: 1.91 MB, 1836x3264, 20200803_181644(1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16036677

>>16036629
If you're not dreaming (i.e. not experiencing) during sleep, if you're not conscious of or sensing anything, then tautologically no. Might as well post the excerpt

>> No.16036740

>>16036677
Then the sense of I-ness is caused, and can go away. It's just one of numerous feelings in the brain. The fact that that cause is "the brain operating in a certain state" is just a description of what causes it.

>>16036675
I wasn't arguing against Decartes, I was pointing out that "cogitans does not imply an ego" is not (necessarily) done out of a desire to live forever via some kind of Ship of Theseus mind-transfer, because the existence of an ego allows for that ego to be put into a new body that happens to be a computer. If you want to live forever by turning into a robot, you can do it with or without an I.

>> No.16036928

My favorite threads are the ones typed in all caps made by schizos raving about why they hate psychoanalyses or Hegel.

>> No.16036959

>>16035436
It should read "I am therefore I think"

>> No.16036984

>>16036959
no it shouldn't

>> No.16037000

>>16035541
>enrich your understanding of the abstract
It enriches nothing. It only makes you feel like it did
>question the fundamental axioms of reality
Literally pointless quibbles with zero way to know if you’re even wrong

>> No.16037004

>>16035436
Imagine thinking that the people OP is talking about made the statement they made with any kind of philosophical basis.
The ones that have questioned descartes put taught into it. The situation OP is talking about is akin to having a monkey write in a typewriter for infinity.

>> No.16037196

>>16036984
Being doesn't arise out of thinking

>> No.16037207

>>16037000
>It enriches nothing. It only makes you feel like it did
Objectively no difference
>Literally pointless quibbles with zero way to know if you’re even wrong
False

>> No.16037251

>>16036740
>Then the sense of I-ness is caused, and can go away. It's just one of numerous feelings in the brain. The fact that that cause is "the brain operating in a certain state" is just a description of what causes it.
Bro just read the excerpt, don't retreat to the same NPC mantra. The sense is not the same as the original unity which is at once being sensed and drives the very process of sensation, without which no synthesis of causality would be possible. I don't get your obsession with the feeling being caused anyway, why does it have to be an unmoved mover or not exist at all, not represent the very thing it is caused by? Does one have to exist for eternity in order to be self-conscious? Not even touching into the various fallacies of conflating things with phenomena, reifying feelings or representations as things and ascribing causality to them, Kant took hundreds of pages for that and it's only up to you to read them.

>> No.16037323

>>16037196
you misunderstand totally
come back when you've finished high school

>> No.16037332

>>16037196
go and read Descartes, nigger.

>> No.16037549

>>16037332
Cogito ergo sum does not mean thinking causes being, but the other way around, so that by the fact of thinking one can infer the fact of being

>> No.16037597

>>16037549
it means neither of those things, you are butchering the words
read a book

>> No.16037758

>>16037323
>>16037332
>>16037549
Only intellectuals could cope this hard about simple observable phenomena. I know it's used to infer one's being, the point is it's a useless exercise. Your simple awareness, which is separate from thought, already "proves" that you exist. Anything else is just a masturbation of the intellect. Existence proves itself. Someone will say "muh circular logical". They just don't get it.

>> No.16037914
File: 1.91 MB, 2976x2976, 20200720_164825(1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16037914

>>16037758
Yup, it's an analytic deduction of what is already inherent in the cogitated awareness

>> No.16037945

>>16035436
He wasn't attempting to make a psychological statement though. He was attempting to find some belief he held which was free from his hyperbolic doubt. The existence of a unified self is not immune from such doubt, only the momentary existence of thoughts are. Have you actually read the Meditations anon?

>> No.16037994

>>16035461
Do you have screenshots of this thread by chance? Is it available in the warosu archive?

>> No.16038959

bump

>> No.16039041

>>16037758
>Your simple awareness, which is separate from thought, already "proves" that you exist.
Holy fucking shit, that's the point.

>> No.16039088

>>16036327
>whereas Nietzsche contends that the existence of a thought does not imply the existence of a thinker, a
this is exactly the same criticism that every undergrad comes up with that the OP is mocking

>> No.16039101

decent troll but you are still retarded op

>> No.16039618

>>16035436
Descartes' cogito is one of the most misunderstood things, even smart philosophers get it wrong, pseuds on /lit/ aren't going to be any better.