Descartes fallacy: "I think then I am"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bahman

Guest
First what is the difference between to be or to exist.

To be means to have an essence (which is consciousness).
To exist means to have the ability to experience.
Consciousness is the essence which can experience and affect mental states.

Now we can judge between right and false phrase:

I am consciousness. Right.
I think then I am. Wrong.
I think then I exist. Right.
 
I don’t think the point of “I think, therefore I am” is to say that I exist because I think. Rather, it is saying that I know I exist certainly because I directly experience what is understood as “me”.
 
blase6 said:
I don’t think the point of “I think, therefore I am” is to say that I exist because I think. Rather, it is saying that I know I exist certainly because I directly experience what is understood as “me”.
Click to expand...
Well, the bold part is a huge claim.
 
Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender asks him, “want a beer, Rene?” He responds, “I think not”, and vanishes. 😃
 
Bahman said:
It is impossible to know consciousness since intellect with byproduct of thought is utility of consciousness.
Click to expand...
You are saying that you don’t know if you are conscious, because it is a basic quality of yourself, and thought proceeds from consciousness? Why can you not conclude that the idea of consciousness producing thought, means that you have consciousness?
 
blase6 said:
You are saying that you don’t know if you are conscious, because it is a basic quality of yourself, and thought proceeds from consciousness? Why can you not conclude that the idea of consciousness producing thought, means that you have consciousness?
Click to expand...
No. I say that I know I am conscious because I can deduce it. I cannot however say what I am since thought is utility of I/consciousness.
 
He had it backwards: "I am, therefore I think " is the appropriate conclusion.
 
Well you got it wrong again. So what’s new. Descarte’s sthick was, " I think, therefore I am. " But he was full of beans, so why discuss him.

Linus2nd
 
JackVk said:
Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender asks him, “want a beer, Rene?” He responds, “I think not”, and vanishes. 😃
Click to expand...
Dang, you beat me to it. 🙂

OP, ISTM that trying to separate being from existence is a kind of in-head tail chasing.

As others have pointed out, the Cartesian statement does not mean that one has being because one thinks, but that one “knows” one has being because one thinks.

If one loses being (ie because one has died), one ceases to think, however, one can cease to think (because of head knock, drunkenness, anesthesia, etc) and still have being, although in this condition they do not know they have being.

ICXC NIKA.
 
Bahman said:
First what is the difference between to be or to exist.

To be means to have an essence (which is consciousness).
To exist means to have the ability to experience.
Consciousness is the essence which can experience and affect mental states.

Now we can judge between right and false phrase:

I am consciousness. Right.
I think then I am. Wrong.
I think then I exist. Right.
Click to expand...
Rocks exist. Do they have the ability to experience? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top