Was he implying a causal relationship? What's the most obvious critique?
2006-12-26 12:09:41 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The causation of personal thoughts have to be accounted for, so if you can honestly come to the conclusion that you can think and have a conscious mind; you exist.
2006-12-29 03:47:45 · answer #1 · answered by Paley Pale 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What he means is that if I think, it is clear that I am that thing that thinks. And therefore, I know that that thing exists. I can doubt what I see is real, but I can not doubt that I am experiencing something. And since I am experiencing something, I must exist; in this case, thought.
There is a causal relationship in that 'I' is understood to be the necessary condition to thought. 'I' cause the thought which I experience.
One critique is that time separates the act of realization and the act of conclusion, if only by a fraction of a second. A thought is realized to have existed. You conclude it is 'I' who had the thought. But by the time you've concluded it, some time has elapsed. How do you know the 'I' that concludes to its existence is the same 'I' that experienced the thought? You could regress like this infinitely. -The idea has been pushed further by philosophers of personal identity, who have concluded 'I' don't really exist over time - I am a succession of different 'I's, neither identical to the last. (According to them).
Another critique concerns the causal relationship which is implied by Descarte's cogito. He concludes that 'I' exist and that 'I' is separate from the thought, i.e. that 'I' is a substance which somehow causes thoughts to occur. It would seem, however, that nothing in 'I think, therefore I am' would allow you to conclude to the existence of such a separate, causal agent. What if you are nothing but the sum of thoughts that have no cause?
2006-12-26 12:16:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
And you know that statement is the worst statement any body have ever said ... it has created so many wars and despair , because he proclaimed that thinking was him and never occurred to him that thinking in reality is an action of his brain .. the brain is a body instrument , just as is your hand , you move your fingers when you need to do it , so is the brain , one should use the thinking ability for necessary purpose , to solve a problem , to remember , etc... I am my self , I am superior than the brain power I can muster , I am energy , I am celestial body and yet only a sum of parts that function for my existence in this life , I am not my thoughts , I control My thoughts , I control My brain , as I control my hand , to be a good person and live in peace between you .
2006-12-26 13:26:43 · answer #3 · answered by young old man 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think; therefore I am
A statement by the seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes. “I think; therefore I am” was the end of the search Descartes conducted for a statement that could not be doubted. He found that he could not doubt that he himself existed, as he was the one doing the doubting in the first place. In Latin (the language in which Descartes wrote), the phrase is “Cogito, ergo sum.”
2006-12-26 12:27:38 · answer #4 · answered by Martha P 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Decarte was determined to find out whether he really existed or not. He stepped even to the lowest degree, doubting his own existence. He concluded that if he can DOUBT the fact that his mind can DOUBT, then he must really be existing. He therefore concluded, "I think, therefore i am". Meaning therefore i do exist!
2006-12-26 16:13:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, you can't prove that anything exists at all. Everything you see might be invented by your own mind, everything you touch, feel, hear, eat, etc. You can't PROVE they exist, because the proof can be invented by yourself, however, one thing you CAN prove is that you exist because your thoughts exist. The thoughts exist because they're there, and since you're thinking them, you exist.
2006-12-27 11:33:05 · answer #6 · answered by Scarlet 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We covered this in logic class in college.
His basic premise here is a pure statement of logic.
I know I exist because I have self awareness of my existence.
2006-12-26 12:14:20 · answer #7 · answered by JC 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
If you think, and are able to realize that you think, that proves self-awareness. And self-awareness is the knowledge that you exist.
2006-12-26 13:51:27 · answer #8 · answered by Kouya-chan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. Because he thinks makes him alive. 2. His thinking makes him who he is.
2006-12-26 12:15:57 · answer #9 · answered by GERALD S. MCSEE 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You only know you're alive when you are conscious / awake.
2006-12-26 12:53:10 · answer #10 · answered by Hercules' dirt box 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋