yesterday i crashed my car rearended another i wasnt thinking therefore i didnt exist for that time would this stand up in court
2007-02-02 07:11:08 · 28 answers · asked by charlescyl 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
nope but it will make it onto one of those lists of insurance though and we will all be laughing
example
i drove into the oncoming bus as it was early this morning
2007-02-02 07:14:19 · answer #1 · answered by crunchymonkey 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Descartes didn't mean it that way, but I get your joke.
read this analogy:
I see smoke, therefore fire.
The smoke did not cause the fire. In fact the claim has nothing to do with causation, I'm not stating the fire caused the smoke either. All I'm saying is my evidence that a fire has existed is that I wittnessed smoke.
Rene Descartes concluded in the meditations that he existed (as a thing that thinks) b/c he thinks. This was independant of the senses and external world. ...
The peson above me made a common mistake in reading Descartes (he was not saying that he, Rene Descates, Human, Philosopher, Frenchman existed, but A THINKING THING, which he calls "I" exists) no big deal, VERY common mistake even among philosophy students who read Descartes in full.
......
2007-02-02 17:12:15 · answer #2 · answered by Unconvincable 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your unfortunate accident I think shows the flaw in Descartes' premise. A person could not be thinking, and still exist. Moreover, an individual could be comatose, not thinking, and still existing. We could apply that to animals, a dog hiding a bone, it later digs up. It could be applied to wasps building a nest. Surely that was not the essence of what Descrates meant.
We could also say I take a crap, therefore I am. In closing, I think Descrates' premise is weak. It appears at first glance to be more than it is.
2007-02-02 16:05:56 · answer #3 · answered by Rev. Dr. Glen 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The original form of "I think, therefore I am" was uttered by Descartes in French, "Je pense, donc je suis." Then, as Latin was the language of philosophy, this was translated to: "Cogito ergo sum." I believe you are confusing that with "Cogito ergo bibo," a fraternity cheer which in English means "I think, therefore I drink." It will not hold up in court, but the bailiff will hold you up, if need be.
2007-02-02 15:34:03 · answer #4 · answered by invinovirus 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Something that cannot be seen does not exist at the time"
I cannot see you, therefore you do not exist.
Therefore you have a witness to your non-existence.
Unfortunately a non-existent court may see it differently leaving you with a on-existent bank balance.
You could call out "I'm pink, therefore I'm spam" and go for a lunacy plea!!
2007-02-02 15:23:02 · answer #5 · answered by alan h 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're just quite confused after the accident , the fact is that you were existing , you just weren't thinking ( which is possible: we cannot think without existing ,but we can exist without thinking ! )
2007-02-02 15:30:24 · answer #6 · answered by rewsna 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So the argument would be... where were your thought processes? What were you looking at in your mirrors to cause these accidents ?.......Somehow I don't think "I was in The Twilight Zone" will help your defence.
2007-02-06 15:07:22 · answer #7 · answered by trishadee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a nice thought and a great (and certaimly very original) but I doubt it would wash with the CPS.
2007-02-02 15:24:22 · answer #8 · answered by Daisy the cow 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. it's not a viable defense. The brain is always working, so you WERE thinking......you were just thinking about something else.
Nice try though.
2007-02-02 15:15:17 · answer #9 · answered by kj 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no ... you misunderstand the quote.
it's a philosophical thing ... Basically, can it be that if you doubt the existence of god, you must doubt your own existence?
The answer, of course, is no .... because you think, therefore you know you exist
2007-02-02 15:15:46 · answer #10 · answered by Bob Danvers-Walker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋