"cogito, ergo sum"

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
1. How do you interpret Descartes' statement: "I think, therefore I am"?
2. What is your opinion of the statement? Do you agree or disagree with the point that Descartes has made?
 

Libra Girl

Electoral Member
Feb 27, 2006
723
21
18
48
1) Because- I have the ability to think, I exist.
2) The statement, in it's simplest form, is true.
3) Yes, I agree with his statement. However, his statement does not take into account, the fact that existence does necessarily entail the ability to think.
Interpretaion: I have the ability to think. Because I have the ability to think, I must therefore exist. My existence is real, but not defined.
 

eh1eh

Blah Blah Blah
Aug 31, 2006
10,749
103
48
Under a Lone Palm
You make a convincing case LibraGirl.. But. The opposite may be true.

I do not think -- therefore I am not

I do not think -- therefore I am not.

Here is the illustration of this principle:

One evening Rene Descartes went to relax at a local tavern. The tender approached and said, "Ah, good evening Monsieur Descartes! Shall I serve you the usual drink?".

Descartes replied, "I think not.", and promptly vanished.
 

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
Descartes later changed the phrase to "I am, I exist", when he saw the implication of existence as the result of thought, but if we were to examine the original statement alone, do you disregard the meaning of "therefore" when you interpret the quote then? If you do not see existence as a causal effect of thought, do you at least view "thought" as a defining factor of existence? If so - what other factors define existence?
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
Consciousness confirms existence.

But that was his take. I'm never been a big fan of philosophy. Too many dabblers, poseurs, freaks and pretenders.
What Rene needed was a sharp elbow to the gut and a terse "Stop talking stupid."
 

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
Thinking is a function of the mind.

The mind is a component of our seamlessly integrated trinity manifestation of spirituality: heart, mind and soul.

The mind's "job" is to relate the outside world (that which is outside our skin) as an object (objects) to our heart (wherein resides the orientation of our "I am" experience).

The mind is also the locus container of language, and language is our abstract relational device to each other.

So I find it interesting that Descartes would, in effect, base a confimation of being upon his relationship, not just with the world outside our skin, but with other people perhaps specifically.

Was he, perhaps without realizing it, in effect also implying that without each other, we are nothing!?
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
Herman, of course, I solved it. I'm rather proud of it too. You are so stingy. I hope your mom took some parenting courses!
 

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
Oh, c'mon everyone -

C-E-S was Descartes conclusion to the question "What can I truly know?" in his Five Meditations. Wiki him to find out what he was saying - I've read the entry and it's pretty comprehensive and accurate.

Libra - sure he does not take into account the fact that existence does not necessarily entail the ability to think.

He also doesn't say you need sauerkraut to make a ruben sandwich.

He was not trying to make an exhaustive study of thought and consciousness - he was asking one question and one question only: "What can I know?" Judge his conclusions based on his stated aims: not something you just made up.

Pangloss
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
I think I'll start working on my Seven Meditations tonight. Two more than Rene should draw some industry applause. Hopefully, I can cover more productive ground and not leave too many people puzzled. It's not healthy to always be pulling out your hair.
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
Trees don't exist? Rocks don't exist? Hmmmmm. I guess only things that think can exist in the universe. Odd. Think I'll ask my roses why they don't exist. 8O

It's only partially convertible:

all herrings are fish but not all fish are herrings. All that thinks exists, but not all the exists thinks.

Thought is proof of existance.

BUT

that, as sanctus explained to us, seems to be NOT what descartes was driving at. Which leaves me stuck.
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
I think I'll start working on my Seven Meditations tonight. Two more than Rene should draw some industry applause. Hopefully, I can cover more productive ground and not leave too many people puzzled. It's not healthy to always be pulling out your hair.

<censored>
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Thinking is a function of the mind.
The mind is a component of our seamlessly integrated trinity manifestation of spirituality: heart, mind and soul.
:roll: I really don't want to call you brainless, Sanc, but thinking is a function of the brain. The mind is the vessel for emotions and ideas and whatnot and is in turn encompassed by the brain. If your thoughts come from somewhere other than a brain .............
The mind's "job" is to relate the outside world (that which is outside our skin) as an object (objects) to our heart (wherein resides the orientation of our "I am" experience).
My heart is nothing more than a muscle that pumps blood.
The mind is also the locus container of language, and language is our abstract relational device to each other.
So I find it interesting that Descartes would, in effect, base a confimation of being upon his relationship, not just with the world outside our skin, but with other people perhaps specifically.
Was he, perhaps without realizing it, in effect also implying that without each other, we are nothing!?
Ask him. I doubt it. Nothing can come from nothing. We think, therefore we am. :D We aren't nothing. I think the universe and contents would continue to do what it does (exist) without us in it wondering whether it and we exist or not.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
It's only partially convertible:

all herrings are fish but not all fish are herrings. All that thinks exists, but not all the exists thinks.

Thought is proof of existance.
Is it? Some people exist wi'out thought. West, for example. heh heh

BUT

that, as sanctus explained to us, seems to be NOT what descartes was driving at. Which leaves me stuck.
I'd suggest being patient then. In the meantime, I'm going to continue to be a burr under someone's saddle, not fussy about whose. :D