can anything be known past "i think, therefore i am"??

Question

i think there can be.

i mean isnt it true that cartesian philosophies made some epistemilogical mistakes? i hear that that idea that nothing can be known past that is very outdated and pretty much ancient and is realy only studied because descares was the grandfather of philosophy.

but i mean if you think about it. you can prove that other minds and reality exists through theory and through common sense and logic.

after all, even though you can prove the existence of a reality through theory and arguments, technicaly speaking you cant actualy "know" or "prove" it there because you can rely on emperical evidence because emperical evidence requires experience.

the only grounds that ideas arguing AGAINST reality can NOT hold up to logic and can hold as an irrefutable theory ONLY on the grounds that we cant know the nature of such a reality.

Answer 1

If you try to break free of logic to get past that, then you really don't have any ground to stand on. That really is the only thing absolutely certain, but in order to live our lives, we have to accept some things anyway. It might even be shown that this statement is false, though I doubt it. However, even then, we are what we are, whatever it is.

In response to your additional details:
I don't see how you can prove other minds and so on exist. There's no logical proof for them. You go on to talk about various things like knowing and not knowing, but that's the point. The only thing I can know is that I am. People get tongue-tied when they start talking about all of this other stuff, so I haven't ever read or thought anything that disproves what I've said. Feel free to go on, though. I just don't see how you can prove anything else through logic and "common sense."

Answer 2

Come on;surely you 'all know this has been answered

"ad nauseam" by such brilliant scholars as Sir karl Popper;

So,without much more ado(or argument) we can say that

"i think therefore i am" is part-PRESENTLY- only a major

part, of european and of course our world history. As such,

IT CAN be CHANGED(the history teachers and professors

teach not,but they are mistaken); and changed for the worse

but hopefully for the better. And please dont forget-like

nearly ALL of our past so-called Geniuses like Decarte,

taught at a time when hardly anyone was included in the

educational process or system - ther was NO universal

education,and most people were completely removed and

unaware of such discussions. We can say that "the

grandfather of philosophy" was not subject(and of course

completely unaware) of what we can call criticism-darwinian

criticism; that type-of-criticism that you and i have been not

only been subject-to but taught "under"(as have all modern taught

darwinists).
If you dont think this is correct you ought to
research other famous statements; i mean statements that

did rightly shake-up-the-world-however small that world was,

but are now superceeded(or "superceeded"!). Eg, kurt

Godel's famous proof that Math can contain no everlasting

truth. Understandably,most mathematicians have forgotten

him; but not some of us.
And we can easily see that for

higher maths, this well applies(chaos theory and others);

but that for the likes of 2+2, this will still equal 4(!)

And we Must understand the likes of these statement-rather

THEIR IMPACTS. For if we dont, just one thing happens-

History "turns around" and then suddenly we find that such-

and-such are rediscovered. So i cannot emphacize the

importance of this; if we do not learn(and learn from our

mistakes too) then we may well learn something that was

discovered and known before; and we may not get AS FAR

as them- due to our darwinian educational mistake!!!!!

(And thus Darwinism Could set-us-back, so to speak, in our

quest for better knowledge).

Answer 3

In my opinion, there is no way to prove someone who believes
that statement to be inaccurate. It is the epitome of abstract
thought. All other existence is based on relayed information
from beyond our perception. In other words, when an
individual closes their door there is no way for the individual
to prove that the visual world doesn't disapear and then
reappear when the door is opened. Everything which
is beyond our perception is considered for truth based
on an assumption that other people exist when the door
is closed to relay that information which transpired while
the door was closed. Anything which changed outside
the door which is observed can only be considered to
have changed by causality based on conjecture that
a change is possible when the door is closed.
Most epistemology relies on the assumption of existence
beyond our perceptions and does not attempt to prove
it, but instead takes it for granted. In my opinion, I think
past "I think, therefore I am" by stating that things happen
which "are, but I can't prove I thought"(or did not think for
that matter). Furthermore, it is more rational to me to
believe that changes which happened while the door
was closed happened as some natural causality rather
than ponder how it could have possibly changed it if
I wasn't perceiving it, but still there is no proof whether
my opinion is more factual.

Answer 4

without the aid of perception, experience and memory it is not possible. thinking is not enough.

i do agree that Cartesian philosophy is flawed. because if it is not, you wouldn't be asking this.