[ 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: 12 KB, 245x300, Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_René_Descartes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4013573 No.4013573 [Reply] [Original]

What does Descartes' "I think therefore I am" really mean?

Am I right in thinking it basically means...'I think therefore I am an existence external to the physical world around me that is not I' ?

>> No.4013586

The fact that I think is in itself evidence that I exist (because if I did not, there could be nothing to think). Since I know that I think, the fact that I exist is sure and certain knowledge which cannot be doubted.

>> No.4013583

No, you're not.


The Cogito is simply an answer to the fact that you cannot trust a physical world whose existence could only be caused by your senses (or a fooling of your senses) : even though you can always argue that the world is a dream or a simulation, you will never be able to argue that you are not, for you are able to argue.

>> No.4013590

>>4013573
that's not what he actually said

It was more of "I think; I am."

>> No.4013631

>>4013586
so it's not really anti-solipsistic is it? If that's all it's saying isn't it still possible that all of the external physical world could be a manifestation from you?

>> No.4013636

>>4013631
Descartes, while not a solipsist, was the founder of solipsism.

>> No.4013647

>>4013590
donc/ergo is therefore

>>4013636
descartes is known for founding "philosophy of the subject/subjective", so sort of

>> No.4013650

>>4013631
Yes, it is possible. That's pretty much the next thing that Descartes moves on to think about - given that I exist, how do I know that my external perceptions are legitimate (although his answer has not usually been found all that satisfactory).

The significant point of cogito ergo sum is that it is something which is not open to doubt; the whole point of his method was to try to doubt everything, and see what kind of knowledge could be determined to be sound and certain, and this was what he found as his rock on which to rest.

>> No.4013677

>>4013650
That makes sense. I suppose it is a good rock to rest on, though I don't quite see how you can get much further from it...

wasn't Descartes one of the philosophical founders of modern scientific methods?

>> No.4013694

>>4013677
He did experiments with displacement of water, I think, and the coordinate plane system in mathematics was something he came up with.

>> No.4013748

>>4013573
I just interpret it as I have the ability to think so therefore I have the ability to comprehend my own existence.

>> No.4016470
File: 60 KB, 405x589, 1374456566761.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4016470

The statemeant "I think therefore I am" has been completley rejected by bassicly every school of philosophy. the statment is flawed because he presupposes his existance by starting with the the word "I" he has already asserted that he existed

>> No.4016502

something is cognizant therefore something exists. you can't refute without yourself being cognizant and granting cogito. thus its genius

>> No.4016503

>>4016470
Are you retarded or just a troll?

>> No.4016512

>>4016503
i think he means that i think therefore i am is a way to understand what cogito ergo sum means but isn't a complete translation
because he is right

>> No.4016532

>>4013677
He used different 'realities' of ideas to prove God's existence. Bear with me while I shake the rust off...
Formal reality is the existence of a being. Objective reality is the existence of the idea of a being. The idea of a finite being must be caused by something with at least as much objective reality as the idea has formal reality.
My idea of God has infinite objective reality, therefore God must have formal reality.

>> No.4016546

>>4016503
are you a troll? he's actually on point with every thing he said.
I think therefore I am is bullshit.
the common phenomenological model of the "self" is anything that supports consciousness and is aware of it's own presence. even dogs or mice exhibit behavior that implies they have a "self" that they choose to maintain (albeit on a rudimentary level).

but to say "I think" does presuppose "I exist" because "I" can't do anything if "I" don't exist.

that and descartes worked with a flawed definintion of the "self" and he believed god existed and wasn't part of the world.

philosophy has made great strides in overcoming his hugely popular errors. Unfortunately nobody cares because they like the sound of I think therefore I am and use it as a security blanket to protect against crippling nihilism.

>> No.4016549

but what if these thoughts are not mine... what if it is all an illusion, am I still "am?

>> No.4016550

>>4013631
It definitely could lead someone to become a solipsist, but it doesn't really entail solipsism. There is just as good a chance that reality exists than there is that it doesn't.

>> No.4016553

>>4013590
cogito = I think
ergo = therefore
sum = I am

>> No.4016563

>>4016546
nice b8

>>4016470
>the statment is flawed because he presupposes his existance by starting with the the word "I"
the notion inherent in the statement precedes the actual statement

>> No.4016565

>>4016546
could u please confirm on you're twitter that you are actually tao lin ?

>> No.4016572

>>4016549
Then you still am.

>> No.4016579

>>4016565
oh yeah I forgot I had that as my name.
I just thought it was really funny to fake pose as tao on here since everyone already knows he browses. I haven't read anything by him yet. also I downloaded a free ebook of taipei because fuck the system I aint givin him shit.

>> No.4016581

>>4016549
then you're being afflicted by a devil
contact your local monastery

>> No.4016655

>>4016546
firstly as one nigga said the notion inherent in the statement precedes the actual statement, arguing semantics of the grammar he used is pointless

but yeah you're right the nigga did "prove" the existence of a transcendent god directly after this statement, you can more or less prove anything through logic, given the right postulates

>> No.4016673

Does the cogito ground ontology in epistemology?

>> No.4016671

>>4013573
Read Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russel, OP, best overall introduction to Philosophy.

>> No.4016681

>>4016673
everything this nigga ever said did that, he had a huge hard on for logic and thought it applied to everything including the very nature of being, that's how it seemed to me at least somebody correct me if i'm wrong