Why? and how is this possible? Also, would this be considered internal epistemic justification?
2006-10-24 16:01:16 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
No. Cause he's not linking to anything already justified. He's justifying his statement with the statement itself. Standpoint epistimology is wrong.
2006-10-24 16:07:59 · answer #1 · answered by Roka 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES! He had to in order to create a starting point for truth. So he took his knowledge to the barest point.
This justification of knowledge was likely acceptable to him because there was a world of other "knowledge capable beings" who supported this train of thought - they too could also acknowledge that they "thought and therefore were." Had he lived on an island where he was the only thinking being - he likely would have had a much more difficult time with this rationale - for as the only one who thought he was thinking - he may not really be thinking for it was something unverifiable.
The real trouble with this statement would only come in language. What is thinking - is it something that could hold the same meaning to others around him? And what is AM? Is it really a state of existence? Heck - what did I just write? Am I really writing or is writing something that I just made up? Can I make something up? Can I be?
I think - therefore I am.
2006-10-24 17:46:34 · answer #2 · answered by MLK II 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The statement in itself is a paradox. "I think" is an intangible event. "I am" is a relative perception of tangible existence. Thus the real and unreal conflict, for how can intangible thought determine the existence of tangible reality? It can only create a self serving idea of reality. "I think, therefore I am" is relative deductive reasoning. But more importantly, it's a declarative statement. The event of making the statement justifies his own knowledge, if only of his sense of self. "Je pense, donc je suis" is the "Founding Father" of the basic definition of internal epistemic justification. However, without external collective agreement on the theory of his own existence, it remains relevant to his own deductions. Therefore his sense of being is reasonable only to himself.
2006-10-24 20:10:26 · answer #3 · answered by G E 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i didnt like him. no, i think therefore....something..... thats more accurate... the very thing that we have yet to have any evidence of is the mind. i've never seen one.. i've seen a brain workin its magic though. so "i think therefore i am a brain"... that could be.
"i think" is not an intangable event! thoughts are physical processes! how can you not see that? if you were thinking and had no idea and never found out that i was injecting lsd into your frontal lobe.. your thoughts would change severely! from a few millionths of a gram of matter. thoughts are physical events. the self is not linked to the brain, its not related to the brain, it is the brain. the self is an emergent property of the matter that constituits the brain. the vast wieght of scientific data point to this. and only pseudoscience says the mind and brain are seperate.
2006-10-24 20:47:11 · answer #4 · answered by causalitist 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Cogito, ergo sum". I think he justifies his existence through awareness, not knowledge...It may be considered epistemic justification for the internal logic of his philosophical system.
2006-10-24 16:09:57 · answer #5 · answered by Nix 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think what Descartes meant was that because of his knowledge, his ability to think, and the fact he was thinking at that moment, all leads up to prove that he existed. I think therefore I exist.
2006-10-24 16:10:38 · answer #6 · answered by Rita 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Read Descartes again -- CAREFULLY!
His is argument is: "At the time when i think "I am! I exist!" it is true"
The experience of thinking proves existence of the thinker. Because if there was no thinker then who is thinking?
Also you should note that Descartes is most concerned with proving his own existence to HIMSELF, he is not concerned with proving it to anyone else.
2006-10-24 18:06:50 · answer #7 · answered by hq3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All philosophers are not objective they speak out their experiences :what about those who are in a coma or experience epileptic episodes , their brains activities are not normal nor can they think but they do exist too..
2006-10-24 16:18:12 · answer #8 · answered by Astarte 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think he believes that confidence is everything to success. He might want to tell people who are bullied, that if their confidence is enough, they'll succeed, even if many, many people discourage them.
It is also to tell people that there is always an answer to problems, and if they will put forth effort, they will succeed.
2006-10-24 16:09:13 · answer #9 · answered by Rayearth B 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, he said 'Cognito, ergo ego sum'
2006-10-25 08:46:40 · answer #10 · answered by SteveUK 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋