Two suggestions
Two suggestions
Question. Do I exist?
The philosopher Dascarte once used these words: "I think therefore I am" to prove that he exists.The phrase implied the direct, immediate, certain knowledge of his own existence. Thought requires a thinker.
I suggest here that the phrase: "I think therefore I am" does, indeed, prove that I exist but for two additional reasons.
First: "Thinking" is an Action and it is an obvious truth that all Actions unequivocally exist in the Real Universe. I might also say: "I eat therefore I am" or "I sneeze therefore I am" or "I walk therefore I am".
Therefore I exist.
Second the phrase "I think therefore I am" proves that I exist because it uses the pronoun "I".
There can only be 2 possibilities here. Number one. I Exist. Number two. I don't exist.
If I don't exist than nothing I say exists and this discussion is meaningless.
Therefore I exist.
Are my suggestions correct?
Ken Edwards
Question. Do I exist?
The philosopher Dascarte once used these words: "I think therefore I am" to prove that he exists.The phrase implied the direct, immediate, certain knowledge of his own existence. Thought requires a thinker.
I suggest here that the phrase: "I think therefore I am" does, indeed, prove that I exist but for two additional reasons.
First: "Thinking" is an Action and it is an obvious truth that all Actions unequivocally exist in the Real Universe. I might also say: "I eat therefore I am" or "I sneeze therefore I am" or "I walk therefore I am".
Therefore I exist.
Second the phrase "I think therefore I am" proves that I exist because it uses the pronoun "I".
There can only be 2 possibilities here. Number one. I Exist. Number two. I don't exist.
If I don't exist than nothing I say exists and this discussion is meaningless.
Therefore I exist.
Are my suggestions correct?
Ken Edwards
Comments (19)
The phrase is supported by an argument; Descartes systematically doubts as many of his beliefs as he can until he finds something that he cannot doubt - that there is someone doing the doubting.
His argument would be better parsed as "I doubt, therefore I am".
Hence, "I walk, therefore I am" will not cut it. He might be deluded that he walks, but he cannot be deluded that he doubts.
Welcome.
But if I should say, "I doubt, therefore I am" would that not prove that I exist?
Not too sure what you are asking. I think the argument is cogent. However, there are things built in to it that show it to be a bit over the top.
The most obvious is that positing such an argument requires language. Language requires some sort of social standing; it's not solipsistic. Hence, in order to even commence to doubt in the way Descartes does, it is necessary first to hold some things as true - the meanings of the words one is using in order to doubt.
Doubting can only take place against a background of certainty.
I should have said:
"I doubt, therefore I am"
"Doubting" is an Action and it is an obvious truth that all Actions unequivocally exist in the Real Universe.
Therefore I exist.
I would push back on this because I don’t think it’s obvious that all actions unequivocally exist. When I jump, for instance, something called a “jump” doesn’t immediately pop in to existence and vanish when I’m finished.
A portion of your reply has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page.
Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution. :flower:
You can say this if you wish, but Descartes covered it as not in accordance with his thesis, in Principles of Philosophy, Pt 1, Sec 9.
To say “I doubt therefore I am” is valid in itself, but reducible. Probably why ol’ Rene didn’t stop at doubting as the irreducible ground of his argument, but only as the necessary condition for it, given in ibid Sec7.
Best to keep in mind exactly what he’s demonstrating in this particular part of the thesis.
All natural actions such as a volcano don't suddenly pop into the real word just because we name them either. They are events in an infinite chain of events. We describe them as individual "events" but they do not "really" exist as individual events.
If you do, indeed Jump then it is an event in the real word .
I am getting confused.
If you did indeed jump then it does indeed become an event in the real word.
Descartes was actually pointing out that you can't doubt that you exist. Therefore your existence is a ground to work up from (as opposed to the sorts of grounding the church gave at the time).
There is no proof of that which can't be doubted, so Descartes wasn't offering a proof in this case.
And what's the great attraction to tail-chasing [your own in this case; i get it when it isn't].
Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution.
Thank you very much for your kind words, ArguingWAristotleTiff. That was certainly unexpected. I am very pleased. Do you think Partisipants there are actually considering my words?
Walking is the same in this context as thinking because he cannot know he walks unless the knows - ie thinks - he walks. Even if he is not walking he thinks he walks therefore he thinks therefore...
Descartes is doing a thought experiment in which he sets out to doubt everything that can possibly be doubted in order to find something that cannot be doubted.
He doubts the world exists, or that he has a body - so, "I sneeze therefore I am" doesn't work. He arrives, eventually, at - I think therefore I am, as something that is certain.
And if my subject moves matter through space then he Must logically exist.
I believe some on the internet hang on every thought that comes out of here. :razz:
In all seriousness, I actually quoted @Banno so it was a portion of his reply.
However, you are on my radar to follow a bit and see what you have to share.
I'm excited that you are here, you seem to have an easy going persona and you are talking with the legendary Banno. :cool:
Did you read it?