Existance

[_the_forbiden_]

I don't want too sound to philosophical, but what is your personal standpoint on René Descartes' 'I think, therefore I am'?

[fido123]

Re: Existance

I don't fully comprehend 'I think, therefore I am' but really if you think about it in the right way you can understand why you only live the moment you are in and the rest is memory.

Also I know your new here but Critical Thinking usually requires 2 paragraph Minimum and even that might get it flammed.

[omgwtfToph]

Re: Existance

The most intelligent part of this thread was the copying and pasting of René Descartes from Wikipedia.

ps im flaming the thread 8)

[devonin]

Re: Existance

Allow me:

Rene Descartes' statement "Cogito ergo sum" was simply one small portion of a much larger piece of philosophical writing, which is very often quote, misquoted and moved out of context.

In his 'Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes was looking at -what- we know, and -how- we know it: More importantly on what -basis- we claim to have knowledge.

He considered the possibility that our senses were an accurate method of accessing knowledge, and discarded it. We can all consider a time where our eyes were mistaken, where we thought we heard something that wasn't there.

He was forced to admit that for all he knew, there existed a malicious gremlin whose only reason for existing was to constantly fool him, and trick him into accepting as true that which was not true.

So Descartes set about trying to decide just what could actually be known with a 100% certainty. The way in which his famous statement is intended in context is to say: "Regardless of what form it is in, or what state its being, the mere fact that there is a force to say 'I am thinking' requires that the thing forming that thought must necessarily exist"

Bear in mind, Descartes saying "I think therefore I am" makes very careful use of the word "I" if you were standing before Descartes and said "Well, -I- think, therefore -I- am too" he would deny that on the grounds that you could easily be a figment of his imagination guided by that gremlin to trick him.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Existance

Wow, I just thought it over and now I clearly understand. Thanks for sharing that with us devonin. I always wanted to know what René Descartes meant by "I think, therefore I am". So basically I could assume that I am the only real human while you guys are just a bunch of robots. Let's just say that I won't try to see if other people have wires inside of them or anything. The problem with this philosophy is that no one has proof that some one really exists or doesn't exist in a mannor (by mannor, I mean that some people might view themselves as more existant than others in any mannor [having a soul, robots, etc.]). I think it is alright to conclude to one's own self that "I think, therefore I am", but not to say someone else is not something that would exist the way one would imagine. That would be jumping to arrogant conclusions because it's only a possibility that one might or might not exist in a mannor. Even still, if everyone around you was a robot, you could still carry on with your own life and maybe the other robots would be able to aid you in a mannor that your average person who "exists" wouldn't. No one really knows what true existance would mean for us.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Existance

Wow, I just thought it over and now I clearly understand. Thanks for sharing that with us devonin. I always wanted to know what René Descartes meant by "I think, therefore I am". So basically I could assume that I am the only real human while you guys are just a bunch of robots. Let's just say that I won't try to see if other people have wires inside of them or anything. The problem with this philosophy is that no one has proof that some one really exists or doesn't exist in a mannor (by mannor, I mean that some people might view themselves as more existant than others in any mannor [having a soul, robots, etc.]). I think it is alright to conclude to one's own self that "I think, therefore I am", but not to say someone else is not something that would exist the way one would imagine. That would be jumping to arrogant conclusions because it's only a possibility that one might or might not exist in a mannor. Even still, if everyone around you was a robot, you could still carry on with your own life and maybe the other robots would be able to aid you in a mannor that your average person who "exists" wouldn't. No one really knows what true existance would mean for us.

1. Mannor isn't a word. You can't make up a word to prove your point.

2. Robots weren't what he had in mind, but rather, the physical world doesn't exist outside of my own perspective (reality is a figment of imagination).

Rene Descartes was a rationalist and while rationalism is great and all, it ultimately is useless unless proved to be true through empirical means. That's why all of Aristotle's about the natural word were wrong (and not just wrong, completely wrong).

While I won't discredit it, I find it kind of ridiculous that anyone would believe that the world around them is a figment of their imagination. And even if it were true, it doesn't change anything if you are still bound to the physical limitations of the universe.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Existance

I understand that when I said mannor, it wasn't the right word. What I really meant by this word mannor was one's perspective. I absolutely agree that learning about what is or is not a figment of one's imagination doesn't change anything about the physical limitations that one has so it really has no bearing on anyone (atleast that anyone would know of as of now). The reason I cited robots was to use an example for myself. Even though robots weren't necessarily what he had in mind, wouldn't that still be something that one could assume that someone else is based on what they only know in their own perspective?

[devonin]

Re: Existance

2. Robots weren't what he had in mind, but rather, the physical world doesn't exist outside of my own perspective (reality is a figment of imagination).

Right, he never even said that he could possibly conclude that nobody but him existed, just that he could only conclude -with 100% certainty- his own existance as a thinking thing. In fact, drawing any other conclusion from his reasoning other than "Descartes thinks that he can only prove he himself exists" is concluding things outside the scope of what he was saying.

This subsection in Meditations on First Philosophy is just part of a much larger work, where he eventually goes on to conclude in the 100% provable existance of certain schools of mathematics, and makes an amusing if not entirely coherant stab at proving the existance of God.

Rene Descartes was a rationalist and while rationalism is great and all, it ultimately is useless unless proved to be true through empirical means.

Well...his whole point in the portion of his writing we're discussing is that he feels there -is- no way to -PROVE- something through empirical means, because sense data can be faulty, and even if we think we've proven something to be true, we have no 100% complete way of knowing for certain.

While I won't discredit it, I find it kind of ridiculous that anyone would believe that the world around them is a figment of their imagination. And even if it were true, it doesn't change anything if you are still bound to the physical limitations of the universe.

Solipsism is one of those things that the unprepared find -very- difficult to argue against. There are ways, but most of them are circumstantial, designed to point out that it is -more likely- that other beings and things truly exist, as opposed to somehow actually proving them wrong.

Solipsism, the philosophical equivalent of that little kid who goes "Why?" to everything you say.

[tsugomaru]

Re: Existance

He misspelled grammar it the reason for edit section.

My thoughts on this are simple, if I don't see you, you don't exist. When I see you, you come into existence.

~Tsugomaru

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Existance

So the fact that someone might say Descartes assumed that someone else doesn't exist would be a misconception? So all we know about what he believed is that he believed that himself existed 100% and that maybe someone else doesn't (but he doesn't flat out say that and could only be assumed by someone else's interpretation of Descartes' belief). So if he only stated out that himself existed 100% because he believes that there is a force to say 'I am thinking' requires that the thing forming that thought must necessarily exist, would there be any counter to one believing in themself to exist aside from the doubts of someone else on that person's existance?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Existance

Well, Solipsism doesn't really change anything except adding an additional assumption underneath the existing argument. For example, some idiot who thought genocide was a good thing claimed to be a Solipsist, to which my response was "why would you condone mutilating and destroying large parts of yourself"? Unfortunately it seems he didn't really understand what Solipsism is, a fact made all the more aggravating because his academic background should have been more useful.

There's not much that pisses me off more than people confusing two or more distinct concepts for each other, even though I sometimes do it myself. In this case though, confusing Solipsism for Individualism is just flat out retarded.

[devonin]

Re: Existance

So if he only stated out that himself existed 100% because he believes that there is a force to say 'I am thinking' requires that the thing forming that thought must necessarily exist, would there be any counter to one believing in themself to exist aside from the doubts of someone else on that person's existance?

This comes down to a question of "If Descartes knows he exists because he thinks, doesn't that mean I can know I exist because -I- think?" And Descartes would say "Yes with an if, or No with a but" "Yes, if you only ask the question from your own perspective" "No, if you are telling -me- this in an attempt to convince me of your own existance"

Cogito Ergo Sum is a fun toy we can all use to reassure ourselves that we are real, but as formed, it is completely useless as a means to prove other people exist. If they -tell- you that they think, therefore they are, how do you know they are telling the truth?

[devonin]

Re: Existance

Well, Solipsism doesn't really change anything except adding an additional assumption underneath the existing argument. For example, some idiot who thought genocide was a good thing claimed to be a Solipsist, to which my response was "why would you condone mutilating and destroying large parts of yourself"? Unfortunately it seems he didn't really understand what Solipsism is, a fact made all the more aggravating because his academic background should have been more useful.

Well, the "reasonable" (*snicker*) answer to that would be "Existence as I percieve it is a creation of my mind in order to keep itself active and working, and since all of this is a creation of my mind, I can interact with it however I damn well please, because nothing in it (being a construction) has moral significance.

Of course...man is that a crock, but at least then he could be consistantly ignorant.

There's not much that pisses me off more than people confusing two or more distinct concepts for each other, even though I sometimes do it myself. In this case though, confusing Solipsism for Individualism is just flat out retarded.

It's a long way from "I can only prove 100% that I exist" to "Therefore, nothing else exists."

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Existance

Well just because a person thinks for themselves, does that make them have to truely exist? I mean after all, if we get very advanced in technology and make robots say every single word that a human does out of its own mind and knowledge given to it, wouldn't that make it exist?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Existance

Well actually what the problem was is that he thought "I can only be certain that I exist, therefore I attribute reality to all be part of me" went hand in hand with the perspective "everything I perceive outside of me (a contradiction in terms) is not in my responsibility or interest". He thought he could be a naked individualist in the traditional sense while being a solipsist, even though under solipsism the necessary distinctions for establishing that perspective disappear.