|
Cogito ergo sum (French: Je pense donc je suis; English: I think, therefore I am) is a philosophical Latin statement René Descartes used to illustrate a philosophical point.
Descartes has much doubt about what he knows, or even if he himself exists. He proposes that everything he knew to exist is only a big lie fabricated by a deceiving god.
"But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
What and how do you think? Do you have much doubt about things in the world? How can you be sure what you know is true?
  
|
|
|
Congratulations you read the first page of a philosophy text-book. Now what do you actually want to talk about? Most people can accept that as being one of (if not the only) definite statements one can make, but other than being a little humbling it doesn't help you live your life.
|
On May 24 2011 08:15 HuskyMUDKIPZ wrote:
And your point is?
Why must there be a point?
|
On May 24 2011 08:17 Chef wrote:
Congratulations you read the first page of a philosophy text-book. Now what do you actually want to talk about? Most people can accept that as being one of (if not the only) definite statements one can make, but other than being a little humbling it doesn't help you live your life.
This is my blog; there is no need to be a discussion. There is also no need to be confrontational.
|
|
|
A link? Can you please at least write one sentence that is by yourself?
|
Hume criticized the the logic in cogito ergo sum, saying that actually all you can say is that there is a thought. You cannot conclude an "I" nor the active form "thinking".
|
He proposes that everything he knew to exist is only a big lie fabricated by a deceiving god.
This is kinda inaccurate. If you actually read through Meditations you would see that he only said this in a theoretical way - there could be a deceitful being that is presenting to all of your senses a facade; if this is the case then how could one know anything for certain except for the existence of the self? You pulled this part out of context, and really, if you don't read each Meditation as a whole then the parts can be really misunderstood.
As for Descartes himself, I find him to be really meh. His form of solipsism is incredibly annoying and some of his arguments in the Meditations is circular. I understand why he's important to look at, but besides from studying him to understand the context of some developments in philosophy, I don't really find much merit to studying him.
|
On May 24 2011 08:29 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +He proposes that everything he knew to exist is only a big lie fabricated by a deceiving god. This is kinda inaccurate. If you actually read through Meditations you would see that he only said this in a theoretical way - there could be a deceitful being that is presenting to all of your senses a facade; if this is the case then how could one know anything for certain except for the existence of the self? You pulled this part out of context, and really, if you don't read each Meditation as a whole then the parts can be really misunderstood. As for Descartes himself, I find him to be really meh. His form of solipsism is incredibly annoying and some of his arguments in the Meditations is circular. I understand why he's important to look at, but besides from studying him to understand the context of some developments in philosophy, I don't really find much merit to studying him.
Eeeek, :/
|
I always thought of the Meditations as Descartes way of getting the church off his back by attempting to prove God as one of the things known. This way of thinking wasn't something he actually backed, and was actually proposed earlier by another philosopher known to Descartes who's name I cannot remember atm.
|
Ok, so imagine that it is possible for an advanced civilization to make a full simulation of life, like the matrix. In this simulation of course, all of its inhabitants wouldn't know that they are in a simulation, they would think they were in real life. Now, assume that these citizens of the matrix world achieved the level of technological prowess necessary to build a reality simulation matrix for themselves, which would contain yet another level of simulated reality in which people could live.
So, it follows that there could be an infinite number of simulated matrix realities each housing another matrix reality all branching off of the one true reality that built the first matrix.
For this reason, not only is it impossible for us to know if our universe exists in reality or not, the odds that our universe actually is real are incredibly small. Out of a theoretically infinite number of universes, only one is real and the odds that we are that one is just about impossible.
The Matrix is awesome...
|
If the deceiver is deceiving Descartes about the nature of propositions themselves, then he can't even know that he is exists. Epic failure. I guess we can't know anything at all. He just assumes he is able to make true propositions such as "cogito ergo sum" but if he is being deceived about this ability then ultimately he cannot prove his existence.
|
Descartes is always an interesting example because he was, primarily a mathematician, specifically a geometer. Mathematics at the time, and geometry since the Greeks, was headed in a very axiomatic direction. That is, start with as few assumption as possible, and logic your way to knowledge. Descartes tried to apply this method to philosophy- seeking a single indubitable truth upon which he could base an epistemology. Of course, he pretty much failed on all accounts, but so have many many philosophers throughout the ages.
Opinions on the subject of truth and knowledge range from "There is no objective truth" to "There is an objective truth, but we don't have access to it." to "Everything is generally as it appears." One of my professors in college put the tension well: if you are too stringent in believing things, then there will be a lot of important truths you miss, but you will believe very few falsehoods as well. If you are too lax, you believe many true things, but a lot of false things will slip in there as well. I tend towards the too stringent side myself, and am actively working on trying to become more credulous.
A few works that have shaped my thoughts on the subject, and which you should be able to find online somewhere.
Outlines of Skepticism Sextus Empiricus
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding David Hume
Ludwig Wittgenstein - On Certainty
Perhaps the strongest argument I've ever read on the subject that, to my mind, always puts me in my place is from the Outlines. He essentially says, have you ever been so sure of something, so sure of your logic and conclusions that you thought you could not possibly be wrong? Were then then proven wrong? If so, why are you so sure that what you are absolutely certain about right now is not similarly wrong? Of course we have to believe things in order to operate in life, but it's a very solid caution against believing anything absolutely.
Another one of my favorites comes from On Certainty. He essentially argues that that at some point it actually becomes absurd to question the certainty of some things. He takes as his example throughout the work as "Do I have a hand?" Something that seems the most certain thing in the world. But to be certain should require proof, so maybe you say "Well I see it!" But would it not be a valid response to "Are my eyes functioning correctly?" to say "Well of course they are, I see my hand right in front of me!" The overall point is that there is this sort of bedrock of things we are certain of that do not bear examining, since they can't really be broken down anything further.
|
The obvious problem with the notion of "I think, therefore I am," that awareness begets existence somehow, lies with the premise upon which his statement is founded.
Thinking is impossible to not do. Try to stop thinking. Go ahead. The mind is like a monkey in a fruit tree, always grabbing for another branch or another bite to eat. Monks spend their lives meditating and refining their mental control and meditations focus around single thoughts, that's the best we can do. Get it down to one thought instead of the thousands of things that race thru our mind in a minute.
Obviously what he means to say is, "I am aware and cognitively capable of interacting meaningfully beyond pure instinct with the stimuli around me, therefore I am." It still fails to suggest anything of significance. Most (re: all, I can't think of an exception) mammals are capable of some abstraction.
The notion that one's perception is proof of existence is a waste. We give "thought" a higher plane of worth in the West than in the East, where it is just another sense. If we accept that thinking is a necessary function of life, then so too is eating, sleeping, excreting waste, and the drive for procreation at abstract levels and taste, touch, sight, smell, and hearing. You cannot choose not what to hear in a room of sounds, you simply receive information. Similarly, we do not choose the entirety of what information the brain receives.
Descartes notion can only stand if we believe we truly are the "rulers" of our mind; however, life shows us otherwise. All the times we do something without thinking it through, all the times we are sad when we are attempting to be happy, all the inappropriately hilarious times, and so forth.
EDIT: The post above very nicely offers a western skeptical view of the notion. I am not versed in that mentality of logic and appreciate his deliberations. We both seem to agree that the mind is indeed only another sense and is not some special vehicle of truth.
|
On May 24 2011 08:45 redoxx wrote:
Ok, so imagine that it is possible for an advanced civilization to make a full simulation of life, like the matrix. In this simulation of course, all of its inhabitants wouldn't know that they are in a simulation, they would think they were in real life. Now, assume that these citizens of the matrix world achieved the level of technological prowess necessary to build a reality simulation matrix for themselves, which would contain yet another level of simulated reality in which people could live.
So, it follows that there could be an infinite number of simulated matrix realities each housing another matrix reality all branching off of the one true reality that built the first matrix.
For this reason, not only is it impossible for us to know if our universe exists in reality or not, the odds that our universe actually is real are incredibly small. Out of a theoretically infinite number of universes, only one is real and the odds that we are that one is just about impossible.
The Matrix is awesome...
There was movie like that called "the Thirteenth Floor". Probably a better example than the Matrix.
|
On May 24 2011 08:47 shinosai wrote:
If the deceiver is deceiving Descartes about the nature of propositions themselves, then he can't even know that he is exists. Epic failure. I guess we can't know anything at all. He just assumes he is able to make true propositions such as "cogito ergo sum" but if he is being deceived about this ability then ultimately he cannot prove his existence.
Not at all...he posits that this deceiver may also implant false a priori propositions, giving the example of mathematics, but the key distinction is that this is deception about the content of the propositions he knows, not the process in which he doubts or knows these propositions. In other words, no matter what he is deceived in, the fact that there is a subject to be deceived would indicate a self.
|
|
|
I know that in reality, I'm just a star of a reality TV show like Jim Carrey on the Truman Show.
It's alright guys. You can stop acting now, I found it out 
|
VIB, but the mere fact that you can and do think that means it is not true.
If YOU are capable of thinking you are the only Truman in the Truman show, then other people are also capable of thinkin THEY are the only person in the Truman show (it's shared/common knowledge). But the entire point of the Truman show is that there is only ONE True Truman, so if you CAN THINK you are the Truman, then you ARE NOT the truman, as you are not Forever Alone. C dinge diskours sonnent d'1 tip avek rien d'otre à faire k chialer
|
Gödel bro. There is NO way to proof any logical system.
|
On May 24 2011 14:44 ToDieFoR wrote:
Gödel bro. There is NO way to proof any logical system.
What you mean to say is that, without making an assumption at some level, nothing can be proven. You are therefore arguing that there is no way to inform said assumption in a meaningful way to make it less of a "blind" assumption. So you CAN prove a system but you must make a leap at some level to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
