This statement, I think Therefore I Am, seems solid at first glance, but when you really think about it, it doesn't actually hold any sway! Let me explain, and please refute or comment.
"I" - Here is part of the problem right away! We assume there is an "I" to begin with, but that is what the statement is proving with its conclusion! It is like saying "The rock sits, therefore it is a rock". The statement "I am" at the end is claiming to be, but the act of existing is already established in the very first statement, "I".
Which brings me to the next problem, the concept of "I". The concept that we each hold of ourselves is flawed and incomplete because it is only one perspective on ourselves; i.e. our own. If it were a perfect concept of I, it would include the objective (3rd party) view of ourselves coupled with the internal one. Therefore, when someone makes the statement "I think, therefore I am", "I" is a limited concept, lacking of the whole picture. Thoughts and comments?
2007-03-18
11:21:16
·
16 answers
·
asked by
neuralzen
3
in
Philosophy