I Think Therefore I Am; Couldn't this be wrong?

Question

This statement, I think Therefore I Am, seems solid at first glance, but when you really think about it, it doesn't actually hold any sway! Let me explain, and please refute or comment.

"I" - Here is part of the problem right away! We assume there is an "I" to begin with, but that is what the statement is proving with its conclusion! It is like saying "The rock sits, therefore it is a rock". The statement "I am" at the end is claiming to be, but the act of existing is already established in the very first statement, "I".
Which brings me to the next problem, the concept of "I". The concept that we each hold of ourselves is flawed and incomplete because it is only one perspective on ourselves; i.e. our own. If it were a perfect concept of I, it would include the objective (3rd party) view of ourselves coupled with the internal one. Therefore, when someone makes the statement "I think, therefore I am", "I" is a limited concept, lacking of the whole picture. Thoughts and comments?

OK, apparently there is confusion over my argument. Using the statement "I" in any way is vulgar and unproven. My argument is subtle, but important. "I" is a concept, like everything else we think about. But the concept of "I" is not proven, simply asserted, making the statement a paradox. How do we know you are an "I", and individual. It SEEMS like that, but things often seem like things they are not. On a quantum level, you are not a separate entity from the world you are in, but seemless with it. Therefore, "I" remains unproven.

Thats a really good thought Ronin, but if it was "There is a thought", which is true, any "I" that would lay claim to it does not necessarily have sole ownership to the thought, only observation of it.

Answer 1

Interesting argument, but Descarte's proposal centered around the fact that having a perspective required that there exists an entity that has that perspective. So, to Descarte, just understanding that there is an "I", means that there is a being that exists.

A further examination of Descarte brings up other questions about his proposal. For example, is thought necessary for existance? To say, "I think therefore I am" supposes that we exist only as a result of thought. But, do non-thinking entities exist? For example, do trees exist if they do not think?

This discussion has been going on for hundreds of years, and there is a lot of criticism writen about the rationalists. Take a look at some of the existentialist philosophies if you really want to rock your world!

Answer 2

Interesting question and first two responses.
If you care to dig this deeply into such a trivial quesiton,
Then you should look at the Rosicrucian Order, it answers some age old questions about existence.

We know that the tree exists, but it is unable to think (as we do) and we think but some of our existence(s) are not worth living...
It is all part of a balance that we can not fathom just yet.

I remember reading of a scientist that put electrical sensors on a plant, and then THOUGHT of cutting the plant back.
The EKG (or whichever sensing device used) showed a positive response. This shows that ALL creatures are still creatures and that there is a universal power behind the scenes.

Answer 3

You didn't have enough headaches and had to create more? Actually, as you probably already knew, the original quote is "credo, ergo sum".

Whether I exists or not is immaterial, since if I doesn't exist there is no need to continue. If I chooses to continue ( and neither s/he nor you have any concern for I's existential dilemmas (or is it dilemmae)), the problem becomes is the rest of the universe real or a figment of I's demented imagination.

Answer 4

Of course this statement and concept could be wrong! Its a perception thing... Each persons perception of any given concept etc. will ultimately be different is some or many ways from that of the next persons!

Create something better or more accurate to replace this outdated concept!!!

The world is flat.... remeber that one and what came of it????? LOL ;)

Answer 5

You misconstue the statement. I think that I exist, therefore I do exist. It embodies the concept that all we really know is our egocentric view within our brain. We identify this existance as "I". And if I exists, then it is because of I's thoughts. Thus, I think, therefore I am.

The only problem I have with this, is that thinking and thoughts remain undefined.

Answer 6

Descartes theory is limited for it implies that a sentient creature’s very existence is the result of its consciousness. But consciousness itself is made up of two codependent parts - thought and memory. The very act of thinking cannot be achieved without using memory and memory, of course, is a product of the body and cannot be formed without thought.

I think it should be replaced with the following sentence - consciousness is the sum of thought, memory and sensory perception.

Answer 7

Cognition is occurring, therefore there is some form of consciousness present. The point is that to even doubt ones own existence, the doubter must exist.

Answer 8

the statement was an attempt to explain the difference between apriori and posteriori knowledge...the only "thing" we can know exists is ourselves, because we are the ones thinking...everything else is supposition based on external phenomenae as interpretted by the senses..
try instead "cogito ergo spud" which means "i think, therefore i yam"

Answer 9

"i" is a word that is used to describe our self awareness. but with your argument you cannot deny that you are in fact using thought to formulate an arguement. you therefore are thinking and as a thinking being you must be aware of the self or in other words "i". if you did not exist you could not be aware or unaware of yourself or any type of thought.

Answer 10

This has long been a critique of Cogito Ergo Sum (of course he wrote it in french). He assumes the "I" that he is trying to prove.

He should have started with "There is thought"