[RD] Cogito ergo sum

[Flying Pig]

I'm not quite sure what you're driving at, to be honest. Descartes isn't saying that nothing exists if it does not think, nor that nothing is true beyond that a thinking subject exists. He's simply stating the first principle of understanding anything about the world - that whatever else is (or isn't) true, anybody who finds themself thinking knows that they exist.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm not quite sure what you're driving at, to be honest. Descartes isn't saying that nothing exists if it does not think, nor that nothing is true beyond that a thinking subject exists. He's simply stating the first principle of understanding anything about the world - that whatever else is (or isn't) true, anybody who finds themself thinking knows that they exist.

He is actually claiming that only if one is thinking can he know he exists. Which is a point of contention here, cause sensing you are alive (or even sensing you mentally exist- which is not the same as thinking) seems enough to prove that you exist, regardless of what existing means in the first place.

Afterall there isn't a reason to suppose than ants don't sense stuff. Isn't that a sense of existence? They likely aren't involved in syllogism creation.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't see the only in the statement, though.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't see the only in the statement, though.

Cogito ergo sum seems to mean 'I think therefore i exist'?

But a human can just sense existing, without 'thinking'. Sensing one exists is a continuum, i mean there is no sense of non-existing.

 

[Flying Pig]

'I think therefore I exist' does not imply 'I only exist because I think', though. Kyriakos has read lots of difficult philosophy, therefore I know that he is intelligent, but he would still be intelligent had he not read the philosophy, and there are other means by which I could find out that he is intelligent. Does the distinction make sense?

Incidentally, I think Descartes would argue that to sense one's own existence and to understand that one is doing so constitutes thought.

 

[JohannaK]

And I dont know about you, but I would agree with him.

 

[Kyriakos]

'I think therefore I exist' does not imply 'I only exist because I think', though. Kyriakos has read lots of difficult philosophy, therefore I know that he is intelligent, but he would still be intelligent had he not read the philosophy, and there are other means by which I could find out that he is intelligent. Does the distinction make sense?

Incidentally, I think Descartes would argue that to sense one's own existence and to understand that one is doing so constitutes thought.

Yes, and Flying pig is also intelligent, so he can see with ease that i also mean that Descartes claims existence is not happening due to it being able to be proven (eg by thinking), but that in his view a human needs to actually think so as to prove he/she exists, which is not that evidently correct. I mean i don't actually think all the time, but don't sense a gap in my existence.

If non-existence would be below zero on the (Cartesian ) scale, then thought would be in some higher coordinates while merely sensing (existing) would be near that zero but still non-zero. Merely sensing is requiring less effort than thinking, and thus is a more direct 'proof' that one exists.

As for your final sentence: i do not recall the text in full, but i don't think he meant or argued that (that sense of existence is a thought as well). At any rate he speaks of a hypothetical where he would have lost all ability to sense/get input from the environment, but still be able to think, and thus in his view this means thought is a proof that one exists whereas external stuff picked up are illusional. This argument is very crude next to (somewhat) similar discussions in many ancient Greek philosophers, predating Descartes by more than 2 millenia!

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, and Flying pig is also intelligent, so he can see with ease that i also mean that Descartes claims existence is not happening due to it being able to be proven (eg by thinking), but that in his view a human needs to actually think so as to prove he/she exists, which is not that evidently correct. I mean i don't actually think all the time, but don't sense a gap in my existence.

The point isn't that something which isn't thinking doesn't exist, though - only that thinking is a sufficient test to determine whether you exist. You don't sense a gap in your existence (though I'd question whether you could sense such a thing), but you also can't prove that you exist, to yourself, without at least thinking about the question.

 

[Kyriakos]

The point isn't that something which isn't thinking doesn't exist, though - only that thinking is a sufficient test to determine whether you exist. You don't sense a gap in your existence (though I'd question whether you could sense such a thing), but you also can't prove that you exist, to yourself, without at least thinking about the question.

You are proving something though if all it takes is to look at the exam paper, are you?

Cause that is what reflecting on being there is, no?

 

[Gary Childress]

[EDIT] On further thought never mind.

No pun intended.

 

[madviking]

As I understood it, the reasoning was that, if the world was an illusion, senses are useless to determine its and our own real existence. Yet if we were to eliminate outside input we would still be thinking and in fact able to reflect that we are thinking. Therefore, thinking proves that he is real.

It's similar to a reductio ad absurdo, unless I'm messing up my concepts. Again, I should reread to refresh.

i'd be hesitant to use 'he' or 'i' (in reference to descartes or others) in the cogito. it implies, from what i can understand, that a thinking thing exists, called 'i'. it isn't necessarily descartes or johannak but someone. i think people tend to get caught up in the strawman argument that arises from when it's in reference to a particular person.

i don't think it's necessarily a reductio ad absurdum. there are positive reasons to believe that thought has to originate in some corporeal being. but then again, it's not a body specifically, it just has to be a mind. descartes, later on, hits us with the real distinction argument to emphasize this point.

obviously the real distinction argument can fall victim to the problem of the cartesian circle. so both we and descartes need to tread carefully when discussing the meditations on first philosophy.