If one were to not think at all, would they cease to exist? It's actually really hard not to think, especially with questions like THIS running through your head.
2007-01-29 01:56:26 · 11 answers · asked by johnmfsample 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
in the beginning there is death. all joshua kane's meet at birth. Joshua kane 1, never forgets the encounter. With very few exceptions, most other humans always forget. This situation is never conducted with the brain or the heart (as one might expect) but with the genitals. The tinglings we feel between our legs are not always caused by desire or fear. Mostly, it documents our negotiations with the Clattering Skeleton.
2007-01-29 02:17:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe this philosopher went into meditation for a certain period of time contemplating such questions between free will and determinism, as well as searching for the answer of the soul and the best he could come up with.... if I Know I exist if I think, that is not in question but how can you KNOW if another person thinks, you have no access to their brain... for all you know they could be a figment if your imagination, as you may be to them.
That is the great thing about philosophy, you can't answer any of these questions in this life time.
2007-01-29 10:34:53 · answer #2 · answered by celtic_goddess222 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
its not possible to function without the work of the brain. even if youre not thinking about things relevent to your life well your still thinking about how to keep going whether you relize it or not.if it werent for your brain functions well then your whole body would shut down and you would die.
lets say something happens where youre no longer able to think and your body was kept going by machines. you would still exist physically, but youd cease to exist spititually.
2007-01-29 11:07:03 · answer #3 · answered by Meeowf 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that's a logical fallacy. If a --->b, it is true that not-b--->not a, but that is different from your statement. I believe this is called the contrapositive. Certainly if someone doesn't exist, they won't be thinking. But a being might exist without thought, just mechanical and instinctive reactions.
2007-01-29 10:04:06 · answer #4 · answered by DinDjinn 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
interestingly enough, this same question was posed by the character Lisa Turtle (played by Lark Voorhies) on the 80's sitcom Saved by the Bell... this was the episode when she was trying hard to appear "deep" to impress a guy.
I know it's not the answer you are seeking... but the answers can't be found in philosophy anyway... as George Michael said "you gotta have Faith"...
2007-01-29 10:05:04 · answer #5 · answered by GreatWhiteNinja 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Maybe unconcious people are not thinking much - but they still "are". I think the statement is a little too brief to be accurate, its not supposed to be a fact though. Its just a nice string of words that has some sense too it but things exist without thinking, like...most things.
2007-01-29 10:48:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
This entire phrase is erroneous. Consider this, I think about things I do not want to think about therefore I am not I since I am not in control.
2007-01-29 10:27:16 · answer #7 · answered by Immortal Cordova 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
well when you die you have no brain signal therefore you are not thinking and you have ceased to exist.
2007-01-29 10:06:29 · answer #8 · answered by Roxas 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No !
Descartes was dyslexic, however.
Flip the statement.
I am therefore I think.
2007-01-29 11:21:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
my dad is dead.does he think right now ?he could in heven! if we are existing because we think my dad must be in heven thinking as he still exist in my mind and heart
2007-01-29 10:11:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋