If the phrase "I think, therefore I am" is true, then what happens when you change how you think?

Comments

• But would you still exist, differently?

  • Report
  

  by Shavale is very happy on March 1st, 2009

• That would all depend on how you use the word exist. In one sense, no you would not chnage, you wouldn't suddenly grow two noses, or green teeth, but in another you would change depending on how your thoughts changed, you might lose weight, change the way you dress, gain confidence.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on March 1st, 2009

• Cool, good answer.

  • Report
  

  by Shavale is very happy on March 1st, 2009

• Thank you.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on March 1st, 2009

Comments

• If the subject doesn't exist, then there is no change as there is nothing relevant to the conversation to change. But my question assumes that the subject does exist, hence why what I asked was in the context of "If the phrase "I think, therefore I am" is true," and such.
  
  However, I do agree that Rene Descartes was being circular, but only if you take it literally, we knew/know what he meant and what he was talking about, and that is the very point of communication.

  • Report
  

  by Shavale is very happy on March 1st, 2009

• I actually have no idea what he was talking about. He proved his own existence by circular logic, that accomplishes nothing. He missed the whole point of his search for an ontological foundation -- which is to recognize that phenomena exist, but that entities are conceptual constructions.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on March 1st, 2009

• If you don't know what he was talking about, then how can you apply and rephrase it? To quote what you said before, "there are thoughts, so therefore there is existence." That is, in essence, the same as "I think, therefore I am" with the difference that yours is more general whereas Descartes's referred to himself.

  • Report
  

  by Shavale is very happy on March 1st, 2009

• No, it's not the same thing at all. Descartes posited an ENTITY called "myself" -- a presumption that has no support in his reasoning, then he proceeded to use that entity as the subject who is doing the thinking, and then tied the output back to the input as if it proved the conclusion "I am". It's nonsensical.
   
  What he was trying to do, if his report is to be believed, is establish something indubitable as the basis for his philosophy. Not only did he fail to do that, he fooled a long chain of people later to come and helped confuse them too.
   
  The only thing that could legitimately be derived from the experiment he ran was some form of "thoughts exist, therefore existence is". That says nothing whatsoever about WHO is doing the thinking or existing, or even whether such entities as beings are meaningful ideas.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on March 1st, 2009

• Well, I still disagree, but I see your point.
  
  Good debate. :)

  • Report
  

  by Shavale is very happy on March 1st, 2009

• The statement "I think, therefore I am" simply refers to that fact that all senses can be deceived and are fa liable. Hence, you can not depend on them to perceive the universe outside of yourself, and no perception of reality can be trusted or proven. Therefor the only truth is that you are self aware, and that you exist. However you could never absolutely prove that the existence of anything outside of your own self-awareness, or even the state of your own being.

  • Report
  

  by jiooij on December 9th, 2010

• Sorry, but you're just repeating Descartes' mistake. I don't think you understood the argument at all.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on December 9th, 2010

Comments

Comments