Would Not ‘I Am, Therefore I Think’ Be Just As Valid A Philosophic Foundation?

Question

As ‘Cogito, ergo sum’? (I think, therefore I am.)? Could ol' Descartes have gotten it backwards?

Don't we, by the simple act of existing, think?

(Excluding those of us from your argument who may be brain-dead.)

October, a rock probably wouldn't be able to say 'I am, therefore I think.' We're talking about anything advanced enough to actually speak such a phrase here. You know, like humans?

Kristian, all animals think. And they do so without being human.

whatnow, esse quam videri? Assumptions can be self-defeating.

Answer 1

Being precedes thinking.

cordially,

j.

Answer 2

We think because we are human, not because we exist.


from your responses:
"October, a rock probably wouldn't be able to say 'I am, therefore I think.' We're talking about anything advanced enough to actually speak such a phrase here. You know, like humans?"


You try to dismiss October's point by saying, "We're talking about anything advanced enough to actually speak such a phrase here." If we assume the ability of speech, then your "I Am, therefore I think" statement does not provide the whole picture. Instead, you should be saying, "I am a creature capable of speech, therefore I think."


and another of your responses:
"Kristian, all animals think. And they do so without being human."

This counter-argument doesn't hold water, either. I only said that we think because we are human, not that all things that think are human. These are two very different claims.

Answer 3

Philosophy is never a 'right or wrong' subject as it relied on the individuals perception. It is thus perpetually open to interpretation and reinvention.

I personally think that Descartes hit the nail on the head with his interpretation. One would only need to look at the way that an infant sees its self as compared with the way that an adult.

Answer 4

No. "I think, therefore I am" means that being able to think is sufficient grounds for existing.

Your saying "I am, therefore I think" would be stating that existence is sufficient grounds for having thoughts. The example of the rock proves this is not correct. You are right, the rock would not be able to make this statement. But this is proof that your saying is mistaken. The rock surely exists, but despite existing, is not able to think.

If you want to limit your saying to only beings that can think, your are really removing any need for your saying at all. If we already know they can think, why do we need to prove it? What you would then be saying is not that existence by itself is sufficient for thought (rocks show it is not), but that a thinking existence is sufficient for thought, but this is so obviously true it tells us nothing of any interest.

Maybe you have in mind something like the fact that we are aware of our existence proves that we think, but even this reading of your saying is the same as saying our having a thinking existence proves that we think.

Answer 5

The concept of self before thought is very valid, but I think Descartes was trying to prove the existence of individuality by exercising on the evidence of individual mind.

The logic (from my point of view), is that although we "exist" but how are we to validate our existence. By saying "I am," you are irrevocably confirming your own existence already. But in Descartes, quote "Cogito, ero sum", his affirming his existence with self thoughts, as he was coming from whether we truly existed or we are mere figments of imagination of someone or something

Answer 6

No. Of course not. Descartes wasn't trying to prove that HE existed--he was trying to prove that PHYSICAL THINGS existed outside the mind--he used himself (as a physical self) as an example. It is incidental that the first physical thing that he proved to exist was himself.

AND, because he was trying to PROVE the existence of a physical reality, he couldn't ASSUME the existence of such a reality--that would be the fallacy of assuming the conclusion in the premise, also called circular reasoning.

Read the Meditations. It is clear that you haven't. It is worthwhile.

Answer 7

In all actuality, this is not a valid argument whether you flip it around or not. In all valid arguments, there must be a quantifier, subject term, copula, and predicate term. The actual argument should be:
All those who think are those who are living
or
All those who are living are things that think
or
No things that are not living are things that think
or
No things that do not think are living things

Take your pick

Answer 8

Good point... in fact I am, hence I think seems to be more straight-forward. However, both propositions could be illusory, since who knows whether we think on our own or we are simply made to think?

Answer 9

You have a valid point.

Answer 10

No because not everything that "is" thinks. A rock "is"
But everyting that thinks "is"