[RD] Cogito ergo sum

[GinandTonic]

That means that half of the world is nonexistent.

But that totally misses his point.

What can we know to be true a priori

 

[gay_Aleks]

I don't exactly understand what you mean. What do you want to say with "what can we know to be true a priori"?

 

[GinandTonic]

We can know with certainty and simply from logic that since something considers the issue
something exists that considers the issue.

Before any experiential knowledge, simply from logic we can these things to be true.

 

[timtofly]

Things exist outside of thought, unless one thinks they do not. Then they only do not exist for those who think they do not. It is not existence that works in thought. It is only the thinking that works. Existence happens regardless of thought. A priori only comes into play, if there is an entity outside of existence who is doing the thinking.

If you do not take that as a given, then humans did not exist before humans could think they existed, and primitive humans would have never existed in any form.

 

[GinandTonic]

If you assert things exist outside of thought then any conversation using the term a priori by definition has no relevance to you. You have stepped past the term.

The point is what can we be sure of before experience.

 

[timtofly]

The only relevance is that some human realized they could think, after they decided existence was important.

 

[warpus]

I don't think Descartes went far enough. I mean, if you're going to go as far as "nothing but my mind exists", then you might as well admit that you might not exist either.

So I would say..

I think, therefore I think that I am.

 

[GinandTonic]

Or "something thinks therefore something exists".

 

[timtofly]

Is existence the point or thinking? I always understood it as, because I exist, I have the ability to think. Being able to think gives more expression and meaning to my existence.

 

[GinandTonic]

The whole point of the thought experiment is to deduce what we can be sure of before experience/ experiment. To have a rock upon which to build our church (iirc dc made some such allusion). That if we have one certain fact we could build from that an intellectual universe.

So this is very much the search for one incontrovertible fact to work out from.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The whole point of the thought experiment is to deduce what we can be sure of before experience/ experiment. To have a rock upon which to build our church (iirc dc made some such allusion). That if we have one certain fact we could build from that an intellectual universe.

So this is very much the search for one incontrovertible fact to work out from.

Unfortunately there is no such 'fact'. Every system of thought is built on some foundational axiom, which is by agreement accepted without proof. Descartes opted for a foundational axiom that required no agreement, but upon that foundation very little can really be built.

 

[timtofly]

Did you state that there is no proof that humans think or exist?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Did you state that there is no proof that humans think or exist?

Proof that is not within a system of thought based on some foundational axiom that must be accepted without proof cannot be done. Descartes is close...he takes his existence as proven by his own observed thoughts, and builds from that. Unfortunately since only he can observe his thoughts his entire system is of no use for proving anything to anyone else.

To be a productive system of thought the assumption 'you are also thinking' has to be added.

 

[timtofly]

Proof that is not within a system of thought based on some foundational axiom that must be accepted without proof cannot be done. Descartes is close...he takes his existence as proven by his own observed thoughts, and builds from that. Unfortunately since only he can observe his thoughts his entire system is of no use for proving anything to anyone else.

To be a productive system of thought the assumption 'you are also thinking' has to be added.

How can he be close? Would he not be spot on, because neither his existence nor thought (in this context) can be proven? I assume that most people I have conversations with do exist and can think as a bonus.

IMHO people took his maxim and ran with it in the wrong direction. You may be correct that no one can build on it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How can he be close? Would he not be spot on, because neither his existence nor thought (in this context) can be proven? I assume that most people I have conversations with do exist and can think as a bonus.

IMHO people took his maxim and ran with it in the wrong direction. You may be correct that no one can build on it.

I assume that myself, though the 'think' part is sometimes in doubt (on either side)...what I meant by him being close is that he avoids having to make that assumption, which puts him very close to having that 'incontrovertible fact' to start from.

 

[Rashiminos]

Take as axiomatic (unless you want the challenge of imagining a situation where thinking occurs, but things don't exist).'

Edit- Fun with letters: thing + ink =?= thinking

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Edit- Fun with letters: thing + ink =?= thinking

The ideal monarch is underfed.

 

[Kyriakos]

Or "I think therefore I am", the famous assertment of Descartes.

I have gotten the impression that most people view this argument as flawed, but I don't see that at all, it seems perfectly reasonable too me.

It seems to me that the asserment basically says that because I can perceive, reason, think in generally, it must follow that I can not be an illusion. I must exist.

This doesn't say anything about my nature. For all I know, I am simply some other entity's dream. However, this doesn't damage the assertment. The logical follow-up is really simple. It simply means that this other entity's dream must exist.

So I would like to know what it is that supposedly disproves this assertment. Anyone willing?

Descartes did argue - as you noted - that one cannot rely on his senses, while the mere conscience that he is thinking (or even there in the first place, as something existing) seems more independent as evidence that something is 'real'. But it should be said that Descartes ultimately refers to a 'benevolent god' who 'would not, in his kindness, allow a thinker to be at the same time certain of the accuracy of his thoughts, and be still deluded'. Which has been pointed out by many as a so-called 'circular argument', although in my view his main issue was that he thought he was presenting a new philosophy, while the 'god/benevolent idea/archetype above' supporting human ability to know something 'true' is pretty much the epicenter of presocratic and platonic philosophies, and is hugely more elaborated upon there.

I am not of the view that Descartes helped with his own phil work. Nor with his cartesian axis, btw, but the latter is another issue of course

As to whether thinking is axiomatically 'evidence' you exist, yes i do agree with that, although (obviously) each conscious person only has evidence of this for his/her own self.

 

[Borachio]

I agree with the OP.

To the best of my understanding, Descartes one day decided to determine just exactly what he could know for sure, and this is it: You can doubt everything else about the world but it's impossible to doubt one's own existence. Since if it were, what is it that's doing the doubting?

Though, of course, as the OP points out, it may not be possible to know exactly what the form of that existence is.

Descartes then proceeded to "build" on this in ways which I found highly dubious, to say the least. It's an essentially dualistic model of the world which doesn't resonate with me at all. But I think the original premise is sound.

Nice work on graphs, though, René.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I actually read Descartes' Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences only yesterday. (Well, technically I did not read it. I rather listened to a Librivox recording of it. I played it at 2.5x speed while multitasking, so it is possible it might have gotten more from it had I focused more.)

I did not find much value in it overall. I cannot deny the reasoning that a being that thinks must in some way exist. The following stuff about how this proves the existence of an immaterial soul even if we assume that the physical body doesn't exist is not so great.


I guess that makes me one more vote towards the consensus that the reasoning "I think therefore I am" is a true but practically useless.