[ 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: 135 KB, 1200x1200, MTE1ODA0OTcxMjY3MzYwMjY5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7127927 No.7127927 [Reply] [Original]

>"I think, therefore I am."

Discuss.

>> No.7127931

>>7127927
Seems legit

>> No.7127936

Thought and being are the same.

>> No.7127941

>>7127936
What makes thought an intrinsic, necessary element of existence?

>> No.7127942

Idealists, when will they learn?

>> No.7127947

>>7127927
logic is a spook

>> No.7127949

>>7127927
>translations

>> No.7127950

>>7127941
Are you a rock? Do you exist in a state of complete unconsciousness? If not, then you are thinking.

>> No.7127960

>>7127936
no but thought implies being

>> No.7127965

>>7127950
How do I know these are my thoughts?

>> No.7127973

Existence is a problematic concept, however, if you are a viewpoint on realilty you have to be somthing. Not even physical, somthing else can be performing it all for you, but you virtually are somthing.

>> No.7127974

>>7127965
You don't, in fact, every thought since you were born was implanted on you by the Illuminati.

>> No.7127981

>>7127927
You want it one way but it's the other way.

You are therefore you think.

>> No.7127992

>>7127927
What is there to discuss? He wanted the undoubtful and he got it.

>> No.7127993

>>7127974

You're being facetious, but there is no certainty that that is not true. Illuminati, a malevolent deity, an evil genius. Any number of these things could've implanted "my" thoughts.

>> No.7128000

>>7127927

He stole it from Augustine.

>> No.7128004

First semester philosophy chat. Please stop.

>> No.7128010

>>7127950
do rocks exist?

>> No.7128011

>>7127993
But then, merely abstract thoughts without connection with a changing, concrete reality(of other selves) are non-existent. So a thought that is completely 'yours' is absurd.

>> No.7128014

>>7128011
As a Kantian thing-in-itself no, but only as experienced by consciousness.

>> No.7128018

>>7128014
meant to:
>>7128010

>> No.7128025

>>7128018
forget that i was joking
what gives me the idea of the rock?

>> No.7128026

>>7127960

this

>> No.7128044

>>7127927

Massive flaw tbh.

To state that Descartes thought thinking and being were things because he treated them as such in order to "irrefutably" prove his point.

I think: Ok but what is I? is I a thing?

Descartes says yes, and that's why "he" (again, a thing) is.

His second fundamental flaw is making thought also a thing, a substance.

I am a thing that thinks, a substance.

He gives no explanation whatsoever to this or why he says so.

His whole thought and works are stained with this. This "thingification" of thought

In this case, both res extensa and cogitans are still substances.

>> No.7128049

>>7128025
Primaly your senses, then language.

>> No.7128053

>>7127949

A lot of dummies miss the point of cogito and the big difference between I think and ergo cogito.

Cogito implies thinking, dreaming, scheming, measuring, feeling, hoping, etc....

>> No.7128057

>>7128000

This tbh.

His whole philosophical works seem to be a desperate attempt to refute or surpass Augustine.

Even his morals are the four cardinal virtues of christianity in disguise.

>> No.7128058

>>7128044
didnt he also say god exists because i do and that i exist because god does? can't remember what i read that argued this

>>7128049
i guess the point is that likely, there is a rock there, but we can't say for sure

>> No.7128061

>>7127927

"NO"

>> No.7128062
File: 19 KB, 272x326, Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7128062

>>7128025

Language tbqh fam

>> No.7128077

>>7128011
Your point?

>> No.7128097

>>7128058

He already counts on God and the soul as fact before even any of his own reasonings.

>> No.7128124

>>7128058

The problem is truth/objectivity.

Truth can be what we see as true (what we feel and think is what it is) : what IS true

True can be what we can guess as true but we can't see it (what we fee, and think is not what it is, but there is a truth "out there2)

True can also be unknown (since what we see and think is subjective, and, in the end, that other "truth" outside of us is also thought by us, if there is truth it can't be known)

Truth can be negated (There is no truth because everything is subjective and personal, even the idea of subjectivity)

Or affirmed for the same reason (What we know as truth IS the truth, since everything is dictated by ourselves and there's no other thing)

>> No.7128143

The statement on its own is fair but in context it's silly. Descartes claims that the cogito is the one thing that cannot be doubted but it's not a first order claim--first we must establish a logical structure and decide that it is an accurate representative of the structure of reality. Only then can we make statements of the form "If P then Q", for if our logical structure doesn't actually represent the structure of reality it could be the case that I was thinking but I still don't exist (suppose the law of non-contradiction is false in this case)

The statement is an obvious consequence of the preconceived notion that the world is a reasonable place. This is a much more deep notion but I don't really see Descartes saying much about it.

>> No.7128153

>>7128143

No because God.

Get rekt.

>> No.7128216

>>7128153
pls anon, I put thought into that post

>> No.7128232

Limited to human/creature perception of reality.

If God exists he may be able to create some unthinkable (to humans) way in which one can think and not be but human plebbiness makes that seem impossible.

Therefore, not necessarily true

>> No.7128236

>>7128216

Descartes too, anon.

Look up the three justifications of God.

It's really short, on 4th meditation.

>> No.7128248

>>7127927

Am I the only one that sees this is random?

Cogito, ergo sum

I cogitate (why do you cogitate?, why you?)

Therefore (I) am ( why therefore? why you? why you are?)

He makes wild assumptions tbh

>> No.7128262

>>7127927
>"I think, therefore I am."

One question. How does he know if rocks can't think?

Brains are made of matter, and so are rocks, so there is no reason why rocks shouldn't have consciousness.

>> No.7128264

>>7128262
They don't act.

>> No.7128274

>>7128264
How do you know if a rock rolling down a hill isn't the Will?

>> No.7128279
File: 209 KB, 1600x1000, ayyyyyy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7128279

>>7128264

>> No.7128288

>>7128274
You can abstract your way into positing anything into a rock, but if it doesn't have power to transform the nature around it in a organic (let alone a cultural and more complex) way it doesn't have consciousness.

>> No.7128294

>>7128279
kek, good one.

>> No.7128295

>>7128288
could just have learned helplessness

>> No.7128299

>>7128288
>but if it doesn't have power to transform the nature around it in a organic (let alone a cultural and more complex) way it doesn't have consciousness.

Seems like moving the goalposts. Something can have consciousness and still not having the ability to act.

A human being in cell cannot act either, or transform nature around it.

>> No.7128313

>>7128299
But he can speak, eat, etc.

>> No.7128358

>>7128262

His statement does not concern all things that think. He's not saying things that think exists. He's trying to establish one thing he knows for sure.

He's saying -I- think, therefore -I- am. The potential to other things to think or not is irrelevant.

>> No.7129353

>>7127927
should be in third person

>> No.7129373

I like to think since he is dead and not thinking, all that we have is his quote. Who is the subject here? Who is "I"? Descartes is no more, but his words live without him. Isn't this to show that there can be thought without a thinker?

>> No.7129377
File: 12 KB, 225x225, download (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7129377

>>7129373
Thought is an act. Those are words, not thoughts. I thought we had passed these foolish word games.

>> No.7129384

That statement is equivalent to "There are thoughts, therefore there is an agent which causes thoughts." Which in no way implies anything about the properties of the agent.

>> No.7129392

>>7129377
I never said those were thoughts and not words. As I said, his words live without him. My last sentence is not equating thought and those words, nor thinker and "live thinker", but it is addressing the whole issue. That is, because we have his words and not himself, we ought to think the words in order for we to talk about them. Of course it is not Descartes saying them, but someone quoting it, that person quoting it is somehow moved by it, these words describe their thoughts. But it is not really theirs, isn't it? They took from Descartes. Hence why this puts the whole thing in check, the thinker is not a solid entity, the words are not really thoughts. Thoughts are acts indeed, and a character in a play is not the actor, but at the same, it is.

>> No.7129416

>>7127927
it makes sense until you realize that other thoughts (which is what you are, according to that logic), see you as different
therefore you are thought in your own world, but you are actually more than thought in other worlds, which are also objectively real (unless you believe your entire life is a matrix that is just you).

therefore, i think a better quote is
"I think, therefore I think "
which is lame but comes from an equally lame quote broken down.

>> No.7129443

>>7128248
His whole point was that he wanted to be able to prove something without solipsist tardlets trying to deny the blue of the sky. He came up with (or stole idk) the axiom "cogito, ergo sum" to accomplish this end. He thinks; even if he were trapped in some matrix BS where all he knew was fake, he would still be able to infer his own existence from the fact that he was thinking. And there has to be a something doing the thinking, hence his use of it to justify his a priori knowledge of his own existence. If nothing else, you can always assume you exist, since you're doing the assuming.

>> No.7129447

>>7129392
More language games.

Words are not alive. Words are symbolic expressive representations of thought. Do not conflate colloquialisms with philosophical definitions.

A person quoting words that they are moved by is a person reusing symbols, not adopting thoughts. In no philosophical sense (only in a colloquial, sentimental, sophistic sense) do thoughts "live on". The symbols may be the same, but the subject-object relationship creates different thoughts. There is no thought without a thinker.

>>7129416
Wrong. The appropriate translation is "thought, therefore existence."

>> No.7129453

>>7129384
The statement "there are" implies the agent exists, which could certainly be called a property.

>> No.7129466

>>7128248
He is saying "I think" as a fact. If he was not thinking, then who knows, it doesn't matter. But if he is there thinking like it is the case, then he is. He doesn't know whether what he is thinking is or isn't, if what he perceives through the senses is or isn't, but at least for the fact that he is thinking, then he must be something.

That's basically it.

But it's bullshit though.

>> No.7129485

>>7129447
I'm being colloquial, always have been, this is a Russian Flashmob Forum afterall, relax nigger.

You're trying to read me with an overwhelming attention, while I'm talking about something conventional and silly. It's like telling a frog joke and you're questioning that frogs can't speak. I know there is no thought without a thinker, but that's not my point, my point is that there is no thought without a thinker.

>> No.7129486

>I think
Presupposition of I

Anyone with modern critical thinking will see this issue.

>> No.7129498

I hate Descartes but you guys have ridiculous arguments, a lot of anons don't even get him to begin discussing it... Geez.

>> No.7129501

Descartes walks into a bar. Bartender says, "Can I make you a cold one?". He replies, " I think not", and disappears

>> No.7129519

>>7127960
>nothing for certain
>implication for certain

>> No.7129525

>>7129501

I raffed

>> No.7129545

"I think, therefore I am"

I am able to form thoughts, there for I can say I exist: I am

Pretty simple.

>> No.7129555

>>7129545
You have presupposed an *I* and until you solve that problem you get a D-.

>> No.7129573
File: 45 KB, 570x311, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7129573

>>7129555

I don't study philosophy, what are the implications of having this presupposed I? I love linguistics so I'll try to figure it out.

I is a common way of referring to ourselves in the English language.

But that just makes I presupposed and gets me nowhere in solving this.

I guess that beg the question of what is I, what is the essence of my being? This is kinda making me want to look into philosophy, pretty interesting

-Well read STEM student

>> No.7129577

>>7129573
I'm just memeing. I have no clue why the sentence "I think, therefore I am" isn't valid.

For me it's just logical, as in, one cannot produce thoughts unless one is, for thoughts must imply some sort of thinking agent that produces it.
Of course though reading all this mumbo jumbo here and there in this thread makes me actually lazy; I don't feel the necessity to prove something which should be obvious.

>> No.7129578

>>7129573
Wow that was your first taste of philosophy?
STEM really is the domain of dogma and stupidity.

>> No.7129583

>>7127931
/thread

>> No.7129592

Let's find the meaning within the meaning.

>> No.7129597

>>7127941
Thought and being are intrinsically connected. A thing may be without consciousness, but basically, if a consciousness exists, then it exists. To think requires that a consciousness exists.

>> No.7129604

>>7127947
Memes are a spook.

>> No.7129610

>>7129573
Try this on for size: "There is an experience of thought, therefore there is something experiencing, and there is something thinking. We cannot be sure if they are the same thing, or if there is a conscious subjectivity in either case."

>> No.7129636

>>7129578

No it's not, I've seen the quote before, I've just never looked at Philosophy like a math equation, which is what linguistics is basically as far as I know, on a core level.

>> No.7129637

>>7129610

Seems like philosophy is heavy on semantics and it's important to be as concise as possible, pretty fun.

-STEMfag

>> No.7129987

What if consciousness is a quantitative property of information like gravity is to mass?

>> No.7130050

>>7127927
thinking =/= existing

>> No.7130062

>I think

[citation needed]

>> No.7130217

>>7127927
the humanity constantly asks why this or that. The humanity always fails to ask why ''do we ask why this or that''.

there were three times in the humanity
-the times of the religion [theology] looking to break down the phenomena via the causation, causes and effects
-the time of the philosophy where we loose the religion but still believe in abstraction through secular causation, we believe in the law for our daily life
-the time of maturity: the time where we no longer ask why
we go back to empiricism and stop speculating on supposedly universal stances from the philosophers
this is typically enjoying science, too bad that science is based on pure faith


that was the positivism of Comte.


Now, the positivist of today claim that every question amongst the humanity is classifiable by logic. a question can be answered or if it cannot be, it means that it is not well asked and is stupid.


to answer a question means that we break down the question into smaller parts and very empirically whatever thesis is behind the question.


now we must deal with the verification of a statement through empirical method.


as usual, the positivist claims that
-there is a reality/clear understanding possible
-he reaches this unique clear understanding by his method


So they put their faith into mathematics and science. since they hardly study the fields, they miss that all scientific inferences (laws) are conventional and statistical, stemming from a premise of objectivity-only which consequently also limits its scope. Science, then, is obviously not solid knowledge and so strictly speaking they cannot believe in its products but they still keep their faith [and call it rationality] and they employ them as instrumental approximations of their fantasized reality.
the scientist allows only the doubt from the people that he likes.

>> No.7130220

>>7130217
A crucial point is as always ''how to know'''. We can have several scientific theses, each predicting more or less accurately what we have interest in, so how do we choose what theory explains our experiments ?

Since the rationalist has faith in objectivity, he believes that there is a unique thesis to explain things. Since objectivity remains dubious about reality, and dubious about the tastes hold by people [the judgements that people have towards what is good/bad/relevant], these People have then offered the concept of inter-subjectivity where now, they have faith in objective standards of judgements, typically to grade the scientific theories. Too bad that the inter-subjectivity is nowhere to be found in the world.

so you see the problem of the positivist, or even the rationalist in science,:
doubt is permitted only when the doubt is judged acceptable by the scientist [what is acceptable is what makes you have faith in what the scientist claims]:

-if you doubt too little from the statements of people talking to you, the scientist will call you a religious, a sheep, a guy spending his time on metaphysical theses which are disconnected form the reality [the reality that the scientist posits]
-if you doubt too much from the statements of the scientist , the scientist will wave then the card of relativism/nihilism/solipsism and mock you


the positivist is even more extreme than the rationalist. and the rationalist is his stance is not verified empirically.

>> No.7130237
File: 1.99 MB, 375x375, 1429343170670.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7130237

What is this "I" you speak of?

>> No.7130253

>>7128143
no you first take the perspective of formal logic, without even knowing why

then you presuppose a reality and try to conciliate the reality with whatever we think


you are a realist trying to pass as a empiricist.

>> No.7130266

so only humans exist

>> No.7130810

>>7129987
damn this is smart

>> No.7130816

>>7127941
>>7127941
Existence is a necessary element of thought. if you can think, then you exist. and you think. hence you exist.

>> No.7130821

>>7127965
they aren't. really. you're just a mixture of the viewpoints and thoughts you've accumulated from the world.

>> No.7130824

>>7128004
newfags

>> No.7131060

The "am" is the power that be

>> No.7131126
File: 1.22 MB, 400x300, basedzone.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7131126

i think
therefore
i meme
swag

>> No.7131149

>>7129637
You need clarity in language else you get all sorts of meaning in a vague sentences/phrases.

Semantic is a key area where philosophers/linguistics often try to clarify as much as possible in what they are saying, often times leading to even more convoluted sentences.

Linguistic is very much within a stem field and can be studied scientifically, most outside the linguistics field may not realize it but its a stem field.

>> No.7131153

>>7127927
Discuss what? Descartes was a good mathematician, who cares what his philosophy was

>tfw nobody to discuss Descartes' math with

>> No.7131246

fallor ergo sum > cogito ergo sum

augustineswag4lyfe