[ 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: 63 KB, 800x607, 16112.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9468325 No.9468325 [Reply] [Original]

>I think therefore I am
>go to sleep
>cease from existing for 7 hours

>> No.9468331

>not ceasing existence for 14 hours
pleb

>> No.9468333
File: 97 KB, 1298x1098, 1488420860318.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9468333

>mfw inanimate objects don't exists because they don't think

>> No.9468336

You're implying you don't think while sleeping. Also, you're not looking at it the right way.

>> No.9468347

>I think therefore I am
>go to sleep
>cease to have proof of existence for 7 hours

you sure got descartes, anon

>> No.9468350
File: 16 KB, 848x616, 1000000 hours in paint.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9468350

Thinking is a sufficient but not necessary proof for existence.

>> No.9468359

>>9468325
>>9468331
>>9468333
>>9468336
>>9468347
>>9468350
The 'I' thinks, therefore 'I' seems to exist.

>> No.9468360

>>9468325
Holy shit OP, this is probably the most retarded understanding of Descartes's philosophy I have ever seen.

For the love of humanity, please educate yourself before you consider procreating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes

>> No.9468366

>>9468350
Whats outside the circles?

>> No.9468376

>>9468366
uncertainty

>> No.9468383

>>9468366
God

>> No.9468384

>>9468325

Parmenides: 'the same thing are being and thinking'

DESCARTES IS A FRAUD

>> No.9468386

explain the difference between core concepts of subantances and modes in Descartes and Spinoza. Quick fuckers

>> No.9468387
File: 53 KB, 798x545, 13085417.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9468387

>>9468347
>>9468350
So, it is okay to have a 'proof' that doesn't work 1/3 of time?
Imagine if scientists 'proved' a theory by showing that it produces predictable results 66% of time, would that be accepted?

>> No.9468398

>>9468387
But every time I think that is a sufficient proof that I exist. Not only 66% of the times.

>> No.9468408

>>9468398
>I think therefore I am, pham
>Oh yeah? Did you exist from 2AM to 7 AM last night?
>Yes
>But you didn't think at that time
>However I totally exist now senpaitachi
>That doesn't make any sense. Are you claiming to leap in and out of existence? Otherwise your proof is flimsy at best

>> No.9468411

>>9468408
Maybe I do flip in and out of existence. How an I supposed to know?

>> No.9468424

>>9468411
The same way I know you are a faggot. Logic.

>> No.9468442

>believing you cease to think just because your'e asleep

stay plen

>> No.9468469

>>9468424
Then use this logic to figure out a simple thing a guy said 400 years ago.

>> No.9468518

>>9468387
You see a black raven on tuesday. You know at least one black raven exists, every day of the week, even though you only saw it on tuesday.

>> No.9468716

>>9468387

Why are brainlets only able to make these sorry arguments through analogy?

>> No.9468749

>>9468325
>2017
>denying the antecedent

>> No.9468762

>>9468716
They're literally teenagers, dude.

>> No.9468771

>implying you don't dream
>implying you don't think within your dreams
>implying you're to stupid to realize you just forgot your dreams

>> No.9468784

>>9468359
The whole point is that it's I think therefore I KNOW I exist, it's the only thing you can know with certainty.

>> No.9468803

>>9468325

I never sleep because sleep is the cousin of death

>> No.9468805

>>9468803
>because
Honky

>> No.9468813
File: 268 KB, 660x574, rickpepe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9468813

>be dumb frogposter
>dont think
>dont exist
im a ghost desu

>> No.9468910

I have a problem with "I" in that statement
>I think therefore SOMETHING exists
seems more appropriate. Certainly, the realisation of awareness necessarility leads to a kind of consciousness, but I have no proof that this consciousness is I. The "I" could be nothing more than a passive receiver that echoes mental impulses like a wall sounds. At the least, to distinguish I and not-I, I need to know of not-I, but I can't know of not-I because my thinking only leads me to I.

>> No.9468925

It just means, "I can be sure that I exist because I think". When you're asleep, the question is irrelevant. When you're awake, you think, therefore you can be sure that you (the subject) exist(s)

>> No.9468976

>>9468910
Consciousness can exist without self-awareness. The fact that you are self-aware creates the "I". In this sense the definition of "I" is something that is self-aware. "I" is by definition self-aware. If you are aware of yourself as "I" that means you are self-aware.

>> No.9468978

>>9468350
>making a circle for non-existence
Kinda defeats the point desu

>> No.9468990

>>9468978
Why? As >>9468376 and >>9468383 point out there are things that are beyond such simple dichotomies.