I think, therefore I am?

[Harmony1988]

You’d probably have to ask whoever said it what he meant by his remark. Why do you need to know what someone was thinking?

If you have a more concrete question about the words themselves, I think you would do everyone a favor by rephrasing your question so we skip hours of pointless debate on existential philosophy.

Dear me, I’d be careful about calling people existentialist philosophers. That was said by Rene Descartes! A most important CATHOLIC philosopher, who had no existentialist ideas of the sort. The very idea of calling him that. Bah.

 

[Harmony1988]

Descartes was primarily interested in finding out how we know we exist. All this strange thoughts of abortion and what not are not applicable here.

He didn’t trust the senses entirely, to prove this, he used the “wax argument”

It’s a proof to know something exists, because they think. This can’t be applied to abortion, because Descartes did not claim if you can’t think then you definitely can’t be living. It was just meant to be a proof for those ‘philosophical questions’ of the day. Though his kind of thinking is a bit flawed and rather widespread these days.

 

[mangy_dog]

You all should use the Latin “Cogito ergo, sum” It sounds way cooler, it shows you know your Descartes, and its Latin, the language of Holy Mother Church. It doesn’t get cooler than that

You’re right,

Deus esse, ergo exsisto.

 

[Dan86]

Descartes meant “I know I exist because I am thinking”. This answers the question, “Do I really exist, or is the world just an illusion?” I think therefore I am=Je pense donc je suis=Cogito ergo sum.

 

[Allen537]

It is important to note that there are many philosophers who take issue with the “I think-therefore I am” statement. And their argument is legitimate.

There are many who would argue that Descartes conclusion is wrong, since his conclusion hangs on the pre-supposed knowledge that he does in fact exist.

Point of the argument: Prove that I exist.
I think, therefore I am.

He is assuming his existence as a part of proving his existence.

In Carmel,

Br. Allen

 

[tee_eff_em]

It is important to note that there are many philosophers who take issue with the “I think-therefore I am” statement. And their argument is legitimate.

There are many who would argue that Descartes conclusion is wrong, since his conclusion hangs on the pre-supposed knowledge that he does in fact exist.

Point of the argument: Prove that I exist.
I think, therefore I am.

He is assuming his existence as a part of proving his existence.

I do not understand this objection?

Do these philosophers claim that I might falsely believe myself to be thinking? (ie That I might only *think *I am thinking, but not be thinking in reality? That is a patent contradiction, no? )

Or do they claim that I might be a non-existing thing endowed with the power of thought?

Or something else?

tee

 

[Allen537]

I do not understand this objection?

Do these philosophers claim that I might falsely believe myself to be thinking? (ie That I might only *think *I am thinking, but not be thinking in reality? That is a patent contradiction, no? )

Or do they claim that I might be a non-existing thing endowed with the power of thought?

Or something else?

tee

No, they would say that you cannot claim to be thinking before you may establish the fact that you actually exist.

For example: I think- therefore I exist.

You cannot say that “I think” before you establish that you actually exist. In that way, Descartes is presupposing that he exists. You cannot think if you don’t exist.

If we use Logic we can break this down into a short syllogism:
p1: I doubt
p2: I think
C: Therefore I exist

Both of the Premises incorporated in this syllogism (logical argument) presuppose existence by the use of I. And since proving existence is the point of the syllogism, we must conclude that the Premises for this argument are false, and thus lead to an invalid conclusion.

In other words, you cannot claim to existence before you actually establish as a fact that you do indeed exist.

I hope this helps.

In Carmel,

Br. Allen

 

[Joe_Keenan]

It’s non-sense.

It’s not, I think therefore I am, it should be, I am, therefore I think

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

What is meant by that statement?
Does he mean, I think myself into existence?
Does he mean, I think therefore I know that i exist?
Thanks!

It’s a philosophical idea from Rene Descartes, influencing the Mind Sciences (Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity, and the United Church of Religious Science) after the Age of Enlightenment in America.

Example: “I think about God, therefore He exists.”

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood