[ 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: 38 KB, 850x400, quote-i-think-therefore-i-am-ren.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21605204 No.21605204 [Reply] [Original]

Refute this.
You literally can't.

>> No.21605209

I don’t think, but I still am

>> No.21605216

>>21605204
existence cannot be a predicate

>> No.21605224
File: 95 KB, 660x514, 1669444807428741.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21605224

>>21605204
I will refute it! And in so doing, I will exist more than he ever did! HAH!

>> No.21605229

I am the only one who hears my thought. Therefore, my thoughts could just as well be a shizophrenic talking into my head or an hallucination.
I interact, therefore I am.

>> No.21605289

>>21605204
Res Ergo Omnia

>> No.21605303

>>21605204
The point where everything started to go wrong

>> No.21605309

>>21605204
Lichtenberg or whatever his name was already did
All Descartes is allowed to say with certainty is "thinking". He conflates the grammatical structure of a sentence, where a verb presupposes a subject, and makes it a metaphysical relation, where the immediate fact of experience implies a substantial and stable substrate, which is unwarranted.

>> No.21605320

>>21605204
I can't therefore I am

>> No.21605322

>>21605204
To provide evidence that being is primary, there are enough beings around that don't think. You being one of them.

>> No.21605344

Stones don't think, therefore they aren't?!!

>> No.21605364

If my existence is an illusion, then who is being fooled by the illusion? Dennett tier sophists can never answer this (at least not without ten more paragraphs of word games).

>> No.21605373

>>21605344
totally illogical response

>> No.21605389

>>21605373
you'd have to define being in order to refute it, however, and further restrict your definition to just living creatures. your response is actually more idiotic than his statement.

>> No.21605397

>>21605364
See >>21605309 for a one sentence reply

>> No.21605402

>>21605309
I've always wondered about this; is that why African scammers always say things like "Am single, no kids, looking for love with right guy." It's a metaphysical negation of the subject. We had them all wrong fellers; their true goals weren't to scour the wallets of lonely stupid men but really to propagate the idea of Being sans subject.

>> No.21605409

>>21605397
Fair enough. I suppose it truly is a matter
>you can't know anything bro, not even yourself

but most people do not use this argument. Cheers.

>> No.21605411

>>21605402
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language
You should really learn some linguistics. It's a fascinating subject

>> No.21605537

>>21605204
ego sum, ego existo

>> No.21607146

>>21605204
Nothing, or that which is non-existent, cannot exist, so existence is ontologically necessary. Contingent determinations of existence often undergo radical changes in their composition, sometimes to the point at which a given determination ceases to be the same configuration. As a contingent determination of existence, I am subject to constant changes, though the ground of my being remains unchanged, for change in the ground of all existents implies a coming to be, an interaction with non-existence, which is impossible. I am insofar as I subsist. However, only existence itself (that of which I am a determination of) subsists eternally, for any determination of existence is finite. Therefore only indeterminate existence "is", for all determinations of existence are subject to radical reconfiguration into another determination of existence.

>> No.21607152

>>21607146
Non-being can be. Wdf r u on about?

>> No.21607153

>>21607152
I stated the opposite. I am a Parmenidean.

>> No.21607157

it’s obviously correct and everybody who doesn’t like it is always just making some weird semantic cope. obviously if YOU are experiencing then YOU exist on some level & thinking=experiencing

>> No.21607174

>>21607157
Did you even bother to read the responses? >>21605309 assuming a you as necessary for thinking is unjustified

>> No.21607306

what he said:
>je pense donc je suis
what he meant:
>je suis en train de penser donc j'existe

>> No.21607313

AI isn't alive

>> No.21607338
File: 302 KB, 1920x1080, yIZ7M.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21607338

Did he solve women as well?

>> No.21607344

>>21607338
art of the dick, dick arts

>> No.21607451

>>21605204
How can you be sure “you” are doing the thinking?

>> No.21607454

>>21605204
>I think
[citation needed]

>> No.21607471
File: 161 KB, 425x282, thefallofman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21607471

I think therefore I don't.

>> No.21607750

>>21605204
You can but the refutation is as long-winded as the claim is terse.

>> No.21607756

>>21605204
Logical fallacy. Thinking doesn't require "I". You are an illusion yourself. Whatever is thinking you into existence is not you.

>> No.21607757

I am, therefore I think.

>> No.21607762

you smelt it, therefore you dealt it

>> No.21607763

>>21607451
I still exist, because to somebody to do my thinking I need to exist.

>> No.21607765

>>21605364
Noone is fooled by the illusion. It exists without coming into contact with other. Only thinking operatus exists with a "you" being it's function, not the essence of it.

>> No.21607777
File: 37 KB, 433x550, 1310531924247.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21607777

ambrose bierce already did 100 years ago:
"I think I think, therefore I think I am."

>> No.21607833

>>21607756
Yes it is though

>> No.21607920

Do I stop existing when I go to sleep?

>> No.21607940

>>21605204
I seed and feed, therefore I am Sneed

>> No.21607984

>>21605204
I allow you to be, therefore you are

>> No.21608012

>>21607338
Reddit meme. Reddit moment.

>> No.21608018

>>21605204
The “I” is falsely presupposed. If you want to reduce it down to something indisputable, you’d have to rephrase it as “there is thinking happening” or “the thing which thinks”. The cogito only demonstrates that thought exists, not that there is a self to think it.

>> No.21608031
File: 77 KB, 431x648, Fichte, Wissenschaftslehre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21608031

>>21605204
The first "I" of Descates forumula presuposes a "transcendatal I" which posits the existence of the "empirical I" of the formula. The correct formula is merely the statement "I", and I-ness is the act, not the thing or essence, of that "empirical I" being posited.

>> No.21608037

>>21605309
So true. The I-of-thinking is an empirical phenomena, a judgement of a content of experience, and tells us nothing of the metaphysical nature of that content.

>> No.21608067

>>21605344
that's the rub, you dont know if "they are" or just in your mind. Is the rock in your dream "am?" (real) What is "real?" What you perceive of course is real to you. Wer have no idea what is real to someone else. We can assume but we dont even know there is someone else outside of our minds. We could be asleep right now, we dont know. The only thing we know for sure is that we perceive things ie "think." Hence his point

>> No.21608084

>>21605204
How does he know he's the one doing the thinking?