What do you believe?

[Sophus]

Oh boy... I haven't figured out a good way to explain this. Apologies. Let's see if this works... Imagine waking up. This is how I experience it.

1) Awareness of the present.
2) Awareness of the passage of time.
3) Awareness of the material. Lets call it "that".
4) A denial. I think, "I am not that".

I just wished myself out of material existence.

"I am" is not a complete sentence. It doesn't specify what I am. To me it means "I am not that" or "I am distinct from the material universe".

Another way of explaining it... Compare "I" to soul. If you don't believe in immortal souls, compare "I" to a hypothetical mortal soul.

The act of thinking itself though was what Descartes claimed proved ones own existence. Not its conclusion.

[AlP]

The act of thinking itself though was what Descartes claimed proved ones own existence. Not its conclusion.

Well I'm a little suspicious of Descartes' claims. He thought he proved the existence of God you know...

I assume you mean Descartes' claim "I am thinking, therefore I exist"? "I" is not justified here IMHO. Ordinarily I wouldn't quibble about use of "I" because it's hard to write sentences in the first person without it. But he was actually trying to claim the existence of "I" by stating a premise that implies the existence of "I". Circular.

I think this is more appropriate: "it is thinking, therefore it exists". Also, as you know, I don't like leaving existence statements hanging. I prefer this: "it is thinking, therefore it exists in X". If something is thinking, what must X be? I think an animal.

My version of Descartes' claim is "It is thinking, therefore it is an animal".

[Sophus]

Well I'm a little suspicious of Descartes' claims. He thought he proved the existence of God you know...

I assume you mean Descartes' claim "I am thinking, therefore I exist"? "I" is not justified here IMHO. Ordinarily I wouldn't quibble about use of "I" because it's hard to write sentences in the first person without it. But he was actually trying to claim the existence of "I" by stating a premise that implies the existence of "I". Circular.

I think this is more appropriate: "it is thinking, therefore it exists". Also, as you know, I don't like leaving existence statements hanging. I prefer this: "it is thinking, therefore it exists in X". If something is thinking, what must X be? I think an animal.

My version of Descartes' claim is "It is thinking, therefore it is an animal".

You are brilliant my friend. I agree and don't really have anything to critique or add. Maybe someone else does?  

[Heretical Rants]

I believe that pragmatism is deeply flawed.

I think that pragmatists are trying to hide from reality.  Yes, you!

[Sophus]

I believe that pragmatism is deeply flawed.

I think that pragmatists are trying to hide from reality.  Yes, you!

 

[Phillysoul11]

The act of thinking itself though was what Descartes claimed proved ones own existence. Not its conclusion.

Well I'm a little suspicious of Descartes' claims. He thought he proved the existence of God you know...

I assume you mean Descartes' claim "I am thinking, therefore I exist"? "I" is not justified here IMHO. Ordinarily I wouldn't quibble about use of "I" because it's hard to write sentences in the first person without it. But he was actually trying to claim the existence of "I" by stating a premise that implies the existence of "I". Circular.

I think this is more appropriate: "it is thinking, therefore it exists". Also, as you know, I don't like leaving existence statements hanging. I prefer this: "it is thinking, therefore it exists in X". If something is thinking, what must X be? I think an animal.

My version of Descartes' claim is "It is thinking, therefore it is an animal".

All Descartes is attempting to do is find what cannot be rationally doubted, he already knows that the external world can be rationally doubted (meditation 1) Which is why cogito ergo sum carries the weight that it does. Descartes cannot rationally doubt his own existence. For if there is doubting, then their is one doing this doubting. If he does not exist, then there is nothing to do this doubting. He does not try prove that he exists, only that it is irrational to doubt his existence.

[AlP]

All Descartes is attempting to do is find what cannot be rationally doubted, he already knows that the external world can be rationally doubted (meditation 1) Which is why cogito ergo sum carries the weight that it does. Descartes cannot rationally doubt his own existence. For if there is doubting, then their is one doing this doubting. If he does not exist, then there is nothing to do this doubting. He does not try prove that he exists, only that it is irrational to doubt his existence.

Yes I suppose you're right. If he was still at the point of doubting the material universe, he wouldn't be able to claim he was an animal. I still think he overstepped the mark with "I exist" though. "It exists" seems sufficient. Or even "he exists" doesn't have the implications of "I exist" while not being quite as dehumanizing, though that is somewhat the point.