Cogito ergo Sum.

[Danhalen]

This cliché piece of crap philosophy needs to be eradicated. Down with René Descartes!!!

 

[Eudaimonist]

This cliché piece of crap philosophy needs to be eradicated. Down with René Descartes!!!

I think it was a great bit of anti-skepticism philosophy, and "no-self" critics miss the point and context of this statement, which was to challenge the idea that one couldn't know that anything existed at all. Even Buddhists admit that something exists, e.g. "causes and conditions". My only quibble with Decartes is that Augustine handled the issue much better.

Si fallor, sum.
"If I doubt, I exist."

The point being that even if you doubt that anything exists, something nevertheless exists that doubts.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[meebs]

i think its a statement of the obvious - so my option is the third

 

[quatona]

This cliché piece of crap philosophy needs to be eradicated. Down with René Descartes!!!

I have my problems with this axiom, too.
What is your exact criticism of it (a criticism that seems to be very decisive, to tell from your wording )?

 

[quatona]

I think it was a great bit of anti-skepticism philosophy, and "no-self" critics miss the point and context of this statement, which was to challenge the idea that one couldn't know that anything existed at all.

Wouldn´t "I think, therefore something exists" have been the more accurate conclusion, then?
Then again isn´t the "I think..." already question-begging, anyways?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Wouldn´t "I think, therefore something exists" have been the more accurate conclusion, then?
Then again isn´t the "I think..." already question-begging, anyways?

Again, this simply misses the context he was working with and is needless nitpicking. Give the poor guy a break!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Again, this simply misses the context he was working with and is needless nitpicking. Give the poor guy a break!

It´s nothing personal.
If this axiom was meant to be merely valid in a particular context, I think it´s reasonable to object to the general and contextless way it often seems to be accepted as a premise in.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I would be tempted to agree very strongly with the statement, and with Descartes' reasoning in Meditations. But I'd have to read the section a few more times to grasp it well enough to make a definite judgement.

However, the fact that this statement comes as part of the same reasoning that leads to the supposed (and frankly ridiculous) 'proof' of God's existence would certainly warrant a re-examination.

 

[Danhalen]

I have my problems with this axiom, too.
What is your exact criticism of it (a criticism that seems to be very decisive, to tell from your wording )?

The presupposition of the conclusion in the premise. "I"->"I". The dizzying circuity makes me vomit.

 

[Danhalen]

Si fallor, sum.
"If I doubt, I exist."

I have the same problem with this as "Cogito..."

The presupposition of "I" existing in order to prove "I" exists. I think it best to eliminate skepticism of existence through practical application. That is, existence must be taken as axiomatic, because to doubt existence is to be unable to doubt. Whereas Augustine seems to be tackling skepticism, Descartes was trying to justify his own existence. And this is why Augustine's reasoning is better than Descartes'.

 

[Danhalen]

i think its a statement of the obvious - so my option is the third

I don't think... *poof*

Seriously now, existence is obvious, not "I."

 

[Danhalen]

I would be tempted to agree very strongly with the statement, and with Descartes' reasoning in Meditations. But I'd have to read the section a few more times to grasp it well enough to make a definite judgement.

You would agree that "I" exist, because "I" think? How do you suppose we prove the existence of self through presupposition of the self? It makes no logical sense.

 

[meebs]

I don't think... *poof*

Seriously now, existence is obvious, not "I."

haha

Okay, to actually think involves a mental process to have a mental process means using neurons, which are a physical substance. Also writng this gives me a headache to have a headache means something is causing this headache, therefore it exists.

 

[quatona]

The presupposition of the conclusion in the premise. "I"->"I". The dizzying circuity makes me vomit.

I see. I guess that´s what I meant when saying that the "I think" is question-begging.

As an aside observation: It´s interesting that Latin doesn´t have personal pronouns and instead "hides" the person in the suffix of the verb. The "I" doesn´t explicitly appear. I am convinced that particularities of languages tell something about the thinking of the culture in which it is spoken.

 

[Danhalen]

haha

Okay, to actually think involves a mental process to have a mental process means using neurons, which are a physical substance. Also writng this gives me a headache to have a headache means something is causing this headache, therefore it exists.

I agree things exist. I do not agree "I" exists because "I think."

 

[Danhalen]

I see. I guess that´s what I meant when saying that the "I think" is question-begging.

As an aside observation: It´s interesting that Latin doesn´t have personal pronouns and instead "hides" the person in the suffix of the verb. The "I" doesn´t explicitly appear. I am convinced that particularities of languages tell something about the thinking of the culture in which it is spoken.

Tell me about it. I'm trying to learn German now. Let me tell ya, the language explains a lot about the people.

 

[Gracchus]

As an aside observation: It´s interesting that Latin doesn´t have personal pronouns and instead "hides" the person in the suffix of the verb. The "I" doesn´t explicitly appear. I am convinced that particularities of languages tell something about the thinking of the culture in which it is spoken.

Except that Latin does have personal pronouns:
Ego (I), vos (we), tu (you), nos (you pl.), is (he), ei, ii (they masc.), ea (she), eae (they fem), id (it), ea (they neut.). Think about it. In English, "I am", really doesn't carry more information than "am". The Romans simply dismissed the redundancy, unless they wanted to stress something. Sum: I am. Ego sum: I am.

 

[billwald]

A computer that can pass a Touring test might conclude that it exists.

 

[quatona]

Except that Latin does have personal pronouns:
Ego (I), vos (we), tu (you), nos (you pl.), is (he), ei, ii (they masc.), ea (she), eae (they fem), id (it), ea (they neut.). Think about it. In English, "I am", really doesn't carry more information than "am". The Romans simply dismissed the redundancy, unless they wanted to stress something. Sum: I am. Ego sum: I am.

You are technically correct there, I worded this poorly. Thanks for correcting my mistake!
I should have added "in common usage". There are pronouns, but they are usually not used in a sentence, except for emphasis purposes.
When we read this axiom in our languages ("I think, therefore I am. I denke, also bin ich."), and particularly if we do not speak Latin or do not know - or do not consider the Latin wording) we can not discern whether this means "Cogito, ergo sum." or "Ego cogito, ergo ego sum." or (what it seems to mostly be understood as and criticized as: "Cogito, ergo ego sum."

 

[quatona]

Tell me about it. I'm trying to learn German now. Let me tell ya, the language explains a lot about the people.

Not to derail your thread, but this is of course of particular interest to me. What are your findings and impressions?