I think therefore I am?

Question

I've read what other's have had to say about this statement, however non of them really asked what I've been thinking.

I believe this statement is incorrect, or perhaps incomplete.

The mere act of thinking does not make the concept of "I" true. Let me explain, just because I can close my eyes right now and think that I am an Astrounaut does not make me one. When we are in the state of 'doing' is when we really become the "I" in the statement mentioned earlier. Therefore, can it be said that this statement is incorrect because the mere state of thinking, we are not 'doing'... and therefore not 'being'. It is when we take action and physically manipulate our bodies into doing what we have thought that we really experience the essence of being alive and therefore living the "I" phenomena.

So, my question is, could the statement be more accurate if it went something like this...

"I think and when I DO what I think therefore I am".


?

Answer 1

I think it's perfectly fine as it is if you take into consideration the full reasoning behind it. You are correct when you say that by stating thought alone does not merit existence. I believe it was Descartes who said the quote. He stated this because he had at first refused to believe in his own existence but in end he said he had proven his own existence because he had challenged it. So because he was aware of himself and had the reasoning to doubt "himself" then, "he was."

Answer 2

I think therefore I am is an idealist's answer to the question..How do I know that I exist?
In philosophy there are two divergent schools of thought. Materialism and Idealism.
Materialism gives primacy to the world of matter, of things on the other hand Idealism gives primacy and only recognises the reality of the world of ideas.
To explain it further, you must have heard the adage that the world is an illusion, you must have also seen the film matrix which is based on the idea of an illusary world.
If i ask you...how do you know that you exist....You might say that I have a hand, I can see the world around me etc. , to which the idealist will reply by saying that what you see is just an illusion. You will find that its not that easy to refute this claim. The idealist will then go on to say that he knows he/she exists because s/he thinks and that is not an illusion

Answer 3

Right,and your statement shall be understood by every common man but it wouldn't be a quote coming from a philosopher.The basic premise of ,"I think therefore I am",is hinged on the thought process(key word-think) and no action is possible without a corresponding thought.So,shall we say that both statements(including your's) are correct?

Answer 4

I think I've heard that statement before...

"I think therefore I am" sounds it's incomplete, yes?
It's like that "I" is thinking to think itself.

I think it's not just doing "thinking," but "thinking because there is nothing to think besides thinking."

Let me visualize:
It's like staring into a wall but you don't know what you're looking at. You're blankly staring into the wall for nothing...
But actually you're trying to look whats beyond that wall and that makes you think even though there is nothing to think to.

Thinking nothing is different from nothing to think.
Hard to think of it.
But we all would want to know if there is something that exists beyond "I?"

Answer 5

I thought that the statement means I think therefore I exist. am= exist.

Answer 6

I think Descartes got it right. The mere fact he was thinking "I" he was in the state of "doing" e.g. Thinking.

But you put an interesting twist on it.

Answer 7

I think therefore you are. Maybe.

Answer 8

maybe it means "to think or not to be"... :D