Does "cogito ergo sum" sound right to you? Does it make you feel alive?

Question

"I think therefore I am" sound pretty logical, but are you comfortable with this? Sure I can only be certain of my own consciousness and sure of nothing else, but I don't feel whole with this statement. "To be is to be perceived" sounds more human. I can think and realize that I must exist since something has to do the thinking, but if no one acknowledges my existence, then I am but a mere ghost in a world in which I want to be influential and a force of change. Does anyone else feel this way?

Answer 1

"Cogito ergo sum" is a translation of Descartes' original French statement: "Je pense, donc je suis", which occurs in his Discourse on Method (1637). ..."i think, therefore i am"...i eat therefore i hunger not...i walk therefore i travel...it was never meant to be taken so literal. it was just one man's attempt to solidify his own existencial place in the society of his day. one's place in life has to be earned and one is validated by the length and breadth of one's own experiences. even the tiniest contact we have with another in turn validates the person we are or are to become. from the first life breath your destiny was carved with impressions of all those around you who shape your waking world. your thoughts, dreams and hopes make you who you are. even the most standoffish person will at some point attempt human contACT no matter how briefly.you exist and you, yourself, confirm the value of your existence daily by glancing in that mirror to see your own reflection. therefore you are a force of change in your life on a daily basis for you choose to go out into the world with no false hopes or visions.and thats where true change starts...in our own life..in our own eyes..you are a strong, confident and secure person who does not or should not feel as if you are a mere ghost in the world...for a ghost is ethereal and nonfeeling.you effected change in so many others in the event of being born...being carried to term during pregnancy...taking your first step...saying your first word...making your first friend..your whole life has been about "change, growth and existence." it is only when we stop living that we stop existing, changing or touching the lives of others.to even write this proves one solid fact...you acknowledge your existence and the people who responded to your query did so because it touched them in some way...therefore you touched them. you were influential in their lives and they don't even know you. the statement was never meant to make you feel whole,the philosophical strategem behind it was to make one think.

Answer 2

Having in elementary school have to sing " I think therefor I am" everymorning, I decided to look into it several times. Though Descartes was stating an introduction to how he could prove he exsisted, taking the next step in the analysis that only if you think you exsist is more problematic. As far as "To be is to be perceived", while sounding more human, it has more to do with Ego than with reality or exsisting. Here is how I interpret what you are saying:

With Descartes, you are saying that your own consciousness is what you can be certain of and sure of nothing else. To begin with, if you are dreaming, your unconscious part of the brain is working and technically you could never know when you were conscious or not if you never woke up. You would however still exsist as a physical being in that state. So you cannot even be certain of your consciousness in certain states of mind. The problem I see with Descartes is for example, even if a bad one, a plant or non-human thinking thing. A plant does not know or is not conscious that it exsists ( at least I don't think so) but even if we humans were not around to perceive it ( which dives into your other point), the plant would biologically still exsist. It takes in light and water regardless of wither or not the Sun or river perceives it. From a chemical and biological standpoint we are not different. Thinking about breathing isn't going to make you exsist.

Now your comment on perception as an acknowledgement of exsistence is a little like the tree falling into the forest without anyone there to hear it situation. Even if you were the only person on earth, though your ego would not have anything to validate itself against or for, you would still be. Being influential and a force of change will influence your ego as far as to whom you will be perceived by but it will not prevent you or aid in your exsistence by itself. If all the world perceived you had no left hand, but you still had one, your hand would not be a ghost but would still be there for you to perceive it yourself. To add Descartes to this situation, even if you wanted to think you had no left hand too, it would still nevertheless remain there. If Descartes's idea of thinking and self-perception is already somewhat not a good basis for exsistence alone, someone else's perception of you is even more shaky. ( Since you cannot perceive that you are being perceived anyway, without using the senses)

If you were in a vacuum and you were an entirely closed system where even on an atomic level you made no impact on anything around you, then perhaps your consciousness may be all you would have left to prove your exsistence. ( Or unconciousness which would be a whole other mess in that case!)

So to me at least, perception by other plays very little role in the actuality of what you are (though sadly sometimes who we become) and I feel more comfortable exsisting because I do chemically/biologically rather than simply thinking it so by itself.

Answer 3

You are combining or mixing the famous sayings of 2 philosophers. Rene Descartes Cogito and George Berkeley's stmt that only the only real thing is perceived by someone by which he meant the mind of God. Both where attempts to answer the epistemological Q: What can I know for sure? W/o arguing the case for either philosopher's position, consider them as starting points for the modern discussions of what is an adequate theory of knowledge and follow the discussion trail into the present. Many philosophers have elaborated their positions and have added important insights and have improved upon their ideas. It's an evolving topic and science has shaped it but science is no substitute for philosophy which has more leeway to explore alternatives to the orthodoxies of the day.

Answer 4

The revised version is as problematic as the original.

If I clear my and meditate -- that is stop the inner chatter then, I am no longer thinking, therefore, I no longer am. Clearly, you can witness and view me as I go into meditation and then exist. My existence "I am" is not related to my thinking.

Further, at this moment in time. I am the only live human being present. I cannot perceive the other six billion of my species. As I cannot perceive them then, they must not exist.

Answer 5

"cogito ergo sum" is purely the 1st step in direction of enlightenment. the subsequent is to ask the question so elegantly placed by ability of Manuel from defective Towers - "Que?" Or in case you're unfamiliar with that character "WHAT am I?"

Answer 6

That impulse to affect the world is just a learned behaivor. Society has fed us these rules and ambisions that you can do this and cant that. You need to understand that there is alimit and one person can not achive something out of their physical body's reach. The happiest way to live is the simplest.....not to worry just be happy.

Answer 7

For one, I think it's a non sequitur. It makes intuitive sense but it is by no means an absolute proof. Absolute proofs do not exist. Science is an holistic effort.

Which brings me to my other point - I think I am more than a consciousness; I am also a body, and I determine that by various experiments and reasonings, none of which is either crucial or complete by itself.

Answer 8

Yes.

Answer 9

not really.
it reminds me of a cartoon i saw
"the last words of a pensive pig
-i pink therefore i ham-"

Answer 10

I think I might be, so am I thinking?