What exactly does Descarte mean by 'I think, therefore I am'? In simple, layman explanation please?

Question

Sorry if I seemed dumb, but I don't get it. Does he mean one knows how to think with the brain, so one is a human being? And if one does not know how to think, then one is not a human being? As in animals don't think, therefore they are animals?

Answer 1

The background:
This is based on the skeptical ability of you, that you could deny all your senses as illusions and all of your senses are therefore un-trustworthy -- may be your senses are being feed by a lifeless computer.

The argument "I think therefore I am" means:
You, by thinking is evidence that there is a you to be doing the thinking. (There is an assumption here that you created the thoughts.)

Beyond that:
It is not necessary that you are the one who created the thought to begin with, only that you are aware of the thought.

However, going back to the background, your existence is already one of the basic assumption, so it is not really a valid argument, only a circular statement:

I exist, I think and therefore I exist.

Answer 2

The whole phrase is: the only thing that I can be sure of is, I think, therefore I am.

Descartes was saying that almost everything is up to perspective and interpretation. His view is almost guaranteed to be at least slightly different than another's. Therefore he cannot be sure of his observation as true and real, except for himself.

In layman's terms, Descartes was merely stating the recognition of self awareness as the only absolute that he could conceive.

And since we're on the subject, here is a Descartes joke:

Descartes walks into a bar and the bartender says, "Descartes, would you like a beer?"

Descartes replied, "I think not," and he disappeared...

Answer 3

Personhood was, and still is, closely linked to cognitive capacity ...see the Personhood theory ...u should be able to find it on Wikipedia.

How do u know u exist? ...because I think ...because I experience the world around me ...because I learn. 'Am' is used in a similar way to 'be' ...and is linked to the 'id' - rather than the 'ID'.

Descarte defines his existence by the fact that he thinks ...I am because I think ...if he did not think, would he be a person? ...a human? ...what would he be? If he did not think, perhaps he would just 'be'. Are u a person if u 'be'?

How do u define your existence? I am inclined to say "I am loved, therefore I am" ...I know that I exist because I am loved ...if I was not loved, maybe I would not exist as a person ...but now we r getting just too deep.

Good luck with your thinking :)

Answer 4

Descartes was thinking at a time when a lot of knowledge was covered by dogma - you were told what to think.

He decided to get better knowledge by doubting everything. He imagined a demon trying to trick him and went through all of his knowledge seeing whether it could possibly justy be an illusion. (A little like the "how do we know this isn't all a dream?" questions. Naturally he went through all physical appearences etc etc but came down to one fact that he couldn't possibly doubt:

His own existence

He isn't concerned, at least in this part of his enquiries, with WHAT he is. Still less is he really interested in "humans" and "animals" (he can't prove their existence). Just that he exists: this is his basic truth that he can be sure of and build his knowledge upon.

Answer 5

The "Cogito" is best grasped as an intuition, not a logical argument. Descartes had a general disdain for logicians and a predilection for clear and evident truths. The importance of the word "therefore" ("ergo") has been exaggerated by history and by interpreters of the work; it is almost better to phrase the statement "I think and I am." Otherwise you fall into the sort of post-Wittgenstein language games that analytic philosophers are wont to play.

Answer 6

In this particular essay, Descartes attempts to prove the existance of God (or in essence a higher being or power). But before he can do this, he must prove the existance of the human soul (or the human consciousness) He states that it is quite possible that our entire world may not truly exist - we may simply exist as a preserved brain, kept alive in a jar and fed impulses by some evil mad scientist and our entire world as we know it may be nothing more than our own imagination. (Sound familiar - does "The Matrix" come to mind?) Thus, everyone that Descartes (as the speaker) knows may not truly exist. However, he is capable of thought, therefore, even if physically he exists as nothing more than an immaterial consciousness, he knows for sure, that HE exists - be it nothing more than a thinking entity.

Hopefully I didnt confuse you more. ;)

Answer 7

He meant that awareness of one's own existence (thinking) is proof of that existence, or how else would the awareness happen?


Not really part of what Descartes was talking about, but... Concerning the issue of animals, it may help if you understand the meanings of sapience and sentience. No, animals are not -thinking- creatures, by our standards, but even a rat knows the difference between itself and another rat -- it has some awareness of its own existence as itself. A rat is not sapient, but it is (however slightly) sentient, by that definition.

Answer 8

This is a matter of self awareness and the identity of self. If you think you exist, there can be no doubt that you do indeed exist. Your existence becomes irrefutable and absolute. Saying it the other way around, "if you don't exist, then it's impossible for you to think."

Answer 9

I think, therefore I exist.

Seriously, I don't know but that makes sense to me.

Answer 10

Animals don't think about "who" they are, just "what" they are. They are just members of the group. If you never thought about who you are, you would be whoever you were told. "I think, therefore I am Rene Descartes". Besides your name, who are you?