|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: SomeoneTSomeoneT Date: Oct 15, 2006 17:27
Every single word in "I think therefore I am" implies very complex
assumptions. It is strange that most philosophers do not see that. If
Discartes indeed tried to doubt everything, why stop there? At the very
least he could have said: "If I doubt any further, then I will not be able
to build anything constructive, therefore I stop". Yet, such approach,
contrary to common belief, does not create absolute certainty in something.
The core of the problem can be illustrated if we consider "therefore" part.
This statement clearly assums validity of our logic, yet besides progmatic
considerations, there is no reason to assume that our logic is correct.
Most people with regorous training in logic will try to avoid these grounds
at any cost - "Once you assume that the logic is faulty any argument...
|
| Show full article (1.46Kb) |
|
| | 21 Comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Oct 15, 2006 21:37
SomeoneT wrote:
> Every single word in "I think therefore I am" implies very complex
> assumptions. It is strange that most philosophers do not see that. If
> Discartes indeed tried to doubt everything, why stop there? At the very
> least he could have said: "If I doubt any further, then I will not be able
> to build anything constructive, therefore I stop". Yet, such approach,
> contrary to common belief, does not create absolute certainty in something.
> The core of the problem can be illustrated if we consider "therefore" part.
> This statement clearly assums validity of our logic, yet besides progmatic
> considerations, there is no reason to assume that our logic is correct.
> Most people with regorous training in logic will try to avoid these grounds
> at any cost - "Once you assume that the logic is faulty any argument is
> futile" they say. But with a bit of thinking it is obvious that that
> statement is not quite correct since the logical loop creates paradox.
>
> But why stop here? If you have any intuition, then I hope you are smiling,
> since there is no reason to stop or not to stop. Since there is no reason.
>
> But why stop here? Nonsence and delusions have no reason to appear
> constantly as nonsence, they can intermingle with sense in any proportion. ...
|
| Show full article (3.54Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: SammybabySammybaby Date: Oct 17, 2006 05:29
For me what is odd is that he went to thoughts to found his identity.
Bodily feelings and emotions seem much more tangible to me and are much
more convincing and, phenomenologically at least, seem more ME.
Thoughts could be sparrows in trees for all I know. I realize feelings
(both senses) could also be other, but phenomenologically they seem
more grounded and much more solidly me.
but then descartes was a guy who assumed animals were machines (non
subjects) and considered torturing them not an ethical issue or at all
repugnant. Unfortunately a rather cold fish formed the basis...
|
| Show full article (2.12Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: WankerWanker Date: Oct 17, 2006 06:05
SomeoneT wrote:
> Every single word in "I think therefore I am" implies very complex
> assumptions. It is strange that most philosophers do not see that. If
> Discartes indeed tried to doubt everything, why stop there?
Quite - Descartes doesn't try to doubt the cogito statement: his method
isn't that methodical! As for why - he had another agenda besides the
usual philosophically argued one - he wanted to put science on a firm
philosophical footing, and (obviously) if you doubt everything
including yourself it's difficult to see how that provides a firmer
footing than we have from a common-sense point of view.
> At the very
> least he could have said: "If I doubt any further, then I will not be able
> to build anything constructive, therefore I stop". Yet, such approach,
> contrary to common belief, does not create absolute certainty in something.
In a sense it does. If certainty is simply the absence of doubt (I have
some reservations about this, but it will do for now) then to stop
doubting is to be certain. Thus simply by giving up on the "uncertainty
project" you create the possibility of a "certainty project".
|
| Show full article (2.47Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: SeanSean Date: Oct 17, 2006 07:03
"SomeoneT" test.com> wrote in message
news:Xns985DB1A63D96Dtesttestcom@216.196.97.142...> Every single word in "I think therefore I am" implies very complex
> assumptions. It is strange that most philosophers do not see that.
Maybe they did, maybe not. I look at it this way.
The latin version runs "I am thinking, therefore I exist"
The assumption that had Descartes in a catch 22 is that it needed to run
"I Am, therefore I exist"
It was the thinking that was the problem. :-)
The more one moves beyond thinking, which is not who we are, then it gets
even less complex.
I Am That I Am
I Am That
I Am
Simple really.
The "I think therefore" is what was superfluous. That's why whenever you see
a statue or rendition of Descartes, he's still sitting there *lost* in
thought.
If
> Discartes indeed tried to doubt everything, why stop there? At the very
> least he could have said: "If I doubt any further, then I will not be able
> to build anything constructive, therefore I...
|
| Show full article (2.19Kb) |
| 16 Comments |
|
|
Author: WankerWanker Date: Oct 17, 2006 08:17
Sean wrote:
> "SomeoneT" test.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns985DB1A63D96Dtesttestcom@216.196.97.142...>> Every single word in "I think therefore I am" implies very complex
>> assumptions. It is strange that most philosophers do not see that.
>
> Maybe they did, maybe not. I look at it this way.
>
> The latin version runs "I am thinking, therefore I exist"
>
> The assumption that had Descartes in a catch 22 is that it needed to run
>
> "I Am, therefore I exist"
>
> It was the thinking that was the problem. :-)
But if "I am thinking, therefore I exist", then why thinking and not
feeling, or any other verb indicating mental activity (feeling,
wondering, agonising)?
> The more one moves beyond thinking, which is not who we are, then it gets
> even less complex.
>
> I Am That I Am
> I Am That
> I Am
>
> Simple really.
>
> The "I think therefore" is what was superfluous...
|
| Show full article (2.45Kb) |
| 13 Comments |
|
|
Author: Roger JohanssonRoger Johansson Date: Oct 17, 2006 11:46
Wanker wrote:
>>> Every single word in "I think therefore I am" implies very complex
>>> assumptions.
No, you are complicating things unnecessarily.
You see that sentence as a mathematical or logical expression, but that
sentence expresses something a lot more basic and simple than a logic
calculation.
If you are aware of your mind in any way you are thinking, you have
brain activity, or you are brain activity, if you like. This experience
tells you something important but very simple. You exist as a mind, you
have brain activity.
That is something you know, or experience, no matter how drunk you are,
or if you are only half awake.
That is the most elementary knowledge you have, that is the knowledge
which you can be most sure of, it is more sure than all other knowledge
you can have, because if you have nothing to think with, no brain
activity, you cannot have any other knowledge either.
|
| Show full article (1.36Kb) |
| 10 Comments |
|
|
Author: SeanSean Date: Oct 17, 2006 15:17
>
> Sean wrote:
>> "SomeoneT" test.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns985DB1A63D96Dtesttestcom@216.196.97.142...>>> Every single word in "I think therefore I am" implies very complex
>>> assumptions. It is strange that most philosophers do not see that.
>>
>> Maybe they did, maybe not. I look at it this way.
>>
>> The latin version runs "I am thinking, therefore I exist"
>>
>> The assumption that had Descartes in a catch 22 is that it needed to run
>>
>> "I Am, therefore I exist"
>>
>> It was the thinking that was the problem. :-)
>
> But if "I am thinking, therefore I exist", then why thinking and not ...
|
| Show full article (2.89Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Anthony G. RubinoAnthony G. Rubino Date: Oct 17, 2006 17:14
>Sean wrote:
>
>The more one moves beyond thinking,
>which is not who we are, then it gets
>even less complex.
>
>I Am That I Am
>I Am That
>I Am
>Simple really.
>
>The "I think therefore" is what was
>superfluous. That's why whenever you
>see a statue or rendition of Descartes,
>he's still sitting there *lost* in thought.
>
>
I don't see it as superfluous at all.
|
| Show full article (1.00Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Oct 17, 2006 22:38
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
