When Descartes said, “I think…”, what his “I” was referring to, never existed.
Thus his conclusion, “Therefore I am”, was false (not to mention, a non-sequitor).
I am; therefore, I think.
The i is what Descartes tries to ascertain. His starting point is doubting his very existence, and not the composition of it. How can he be sure he exists? That he thinks, is the only proof, since thinking includes all other sub groups ; thinking he is thinking , thinking he is perceiving and acting, moving. All manner of human endeavor is thinking. He can be sure of that.
Since existenze has been reduced to phenomena, the new motto is esse est percipii , or i exist, because i perceive. Phenomenology and thought has been disconnected, because of the vagaries and horrors of the last great world war. It is simply taking a new attitude,one in which the disconnect is asserted simply for reason being tangential and unverifiable.
If the thinking process would be reexamined in the context of ‘consciousness’ , definitionally, and reconnected to ‘what is reasonable’, a reexamination of the outright dismissal of the cogito, could be attempted definitionally. It is the dissection of thought from consciousness , which gives pause, and Descartes may reply, that he is victim of the change in the way Being is interpreted, definitionally.
Descartes has been re-considered in this way.
Yes, Obe, you are right, but for Husserl’s and Heidegger’s phenomenology the world war (WW1) was not as important as you may think because Husserl fouded his phenomenology from 1900 to 1913 (thus: BEFORE WW1 [1914-1918]). Starting from the phenomenology Heidegger developed his existential philosophy, which became the first and the only real existential philosophy and conquered the world.
True, except that thinking that he is thinking or doing anything, isn’t proof.
The self that thinks “I”, doesn’t exist.
At all times, it is someone else who is thinking “for you”, your other self, your real self, one whom you will never know.
And yes, since WW2, All thinking has been replaced with suspicion, all certainty with doubt, all logic with probability, all facts with statistics, all love with hate, all faith with facetiousness, all truth with deception, all knowledge with opinion, all absolutes with relativity, all science with magic, Christ with Antichrist, matter with antimatter, and all good with bad. And all for a purpose/agenda. Which explains why I can find so much falsity promoted as truth.
Yes, that is no proof.
You are talking about the problem of the subject/object-dualism.
Actually, I was mentioning it as merely a political mind game, with purpose.
All of the most promoted and famous enlightenment era philosophers, can be proven to be incorrect. In this case, Descartes is taught to be the foundation of personal certainty. But such is merely another deception. Collecting up all of the deceptive philosophical ideas forms a maze of deception that leads up to only one place, the king of deception and manipulation, a Godwannabe.
Observing the manifest world in scientific terms, we use principles such as quantity, causality, energy-tranferring and interacting, motion, temporality. All these are enabled and interconnected by the laws of mathematics, which is the logic of objective equalies. It relies on given and exactly determined values, which can be defined in terms of each other. It is here that the philosophy of value ontology posits a break with the method of science. The philosopher is not satisfied with positing values as if they are unquestionably given, it is his task to investigate why, or more precisely, how they are given. Mathematics can not provide an answer to this, as such would go directly against the axioms of this science, which include always the word “if”. If “A” is given, then A is given as A. It does not posit that A is given - it is as if A can be anything - which is not the case. Possibilities are limited. Deepening of logical power occurs now that we have abstract terms for the possibility of existing.
The aim is to embed language into being, to absolve it of its abstracting, detaching compulsion. The means is to embed being into grammar.
The great philosophers of the modern age have attempted such positive statements in various ways, beginning with Descartes, who posited the certainty “I think therefore I am”, or, read properly in context, “I question that anything is, therefore I am”. Nietzsche and others observed that this “I” who questions is not actually given as an exactly understandable unit. What is this “I” that is, and that questions that anything is, and that posits that he is because he questions that anything is? Descartes accomplished bringing himself the experiential certainty that there is such a thing as himself. He does not bring the certainty that anything else is, in fact he calls this somewhat into question, challenges the other to reveal itself at least to itself; he does not reveal what they are or why they can be said to exist; If the only ground for knowledge of what is is to cognate in the way Descartes was doing, then only thinkers can be known to exist, and only by themselves. Clearly this is not a useful definition of being. It is also not an exact application of logic, as it assumes the “I” both in “I think” and “I exist”. The terms “I”, “exist” and “think” are not a mathematical terms: “I exist” can not mathematically be inferred from “I think”.
To draw certainty from Descartes logic, we must look at the meaning of the word “Am” in “I Am”. We must correctly observe the meaning of the verb “to be”.We must logically be satisfied with the given that what we call “being” by definition is in being (exists) - this is the only meaningful and correct way to employ the verb at all. The analytical certainty is “I am, therefore I am”. By this phrase, “I” is defined, namely, as that which, apparently, is said by itself to exist. What have we come to know by this? Nothing.
It is here that philosophy must break from science, from the pretense to be able to define the terms “I” and “exist” and “cognate” in terms of each other by exact inference. We must simply be honest, and admit that all three of these terms are simply understood by us, to mean precisely… what we understand by them! No further explication is necessary, no more exact explication is possible. The terms were called into being to describe exactly what we mean when we use the terms. They hold no deeper meaning than what they were invented to convey.
So to further philosophical understanding, that to which the terms “I” and “think” and “exist” were invented to convey must be explicated in more exacting terms. We can observe that these terms all three of them refer to the very same thing. “I”, “think” and “am” are all words indicating the same. This also includes the things to which other terms refer, such as “eat” or “walk”. As true as “I think, therefore I am” is, is also “I eat, therefore I am”. By disconnecting Descartes logic from his situation in which it emerged, we see that the “I” is posited as a condition of “think”, as much as “think” is a condition of “I”. Therefore, when I posit that “I eat”, I posit an “I” which, by common interpretation of grammar, means that I posit that (an) “I” exist(s).
We see that “I” simply means “existing” and that this existing can be expressed in the endless variety of verbs that may pertain to a posited I. That is all the I is; it allows a verb to make sense, to indicate an activity.
The term “I”, correctly used is thus always a reference to an activity.
Full text here.
The sentence “I am” and the sentence “I am not” can not be proven scientifically. Therefore, but not only therefore, philosophy is necessary. Is philosophy able to answer the questions: “Am I?”, “Am I not?”, “Is anything outside of me?”, “Is nothing outside of me?” …?
Science is not able to answer that questions (and many other questions). Philosophy has found some answers - the history of philosophy has made that clear. But its answers are not very much convincing.
James is asserting because the contents of awareness are doubtful, then awareness itself must be doubtful.
This is false.
Regardless of what you are, you ARE aware.
Not one of you can say aren’t aware of something.
Every one of you reading this are aware of what I’m writing.
James says your awareness doesn’t exist. That you’re not aware.
Consider that for a moment.
How could your awareness not possibly exist in this moment?
It is completely irrational to believe oneself doesn’t exist.
Where is the proof?
Your capacity to consider the question is proof enough.
James even admits that he knows of his thoughts, but when questioned, obfuscates with bullshit like this thread.
Here’s James admitting to knowing of his thoughts, but denying that he knows of his existence:
The only thing that James is asserting is;
A person never actually knows himself. He doesn’t know who “I” is and thus cannot conclude that such an “I” exists. And in fact, the “I” one uses for oneself, doesn’t exist, ever.
You are not who you think you are.
You’re redefining I to be something unintended.
I = awareness - thought
If you deny the existence of your own awareness/thought, I can’t bring myself to trust in your sincerity.
I am defining “I” as exactly what every person intends when they say it. And that is why it doesn’t exist. The “I” that you think you are when you say “I”, doesn’t exist. No one is who they think they are.
See, no straight answers from this guy.
James,
Are you saying your awareness doesn’t exist?
Yes/No?
No.
Try reading what I write.
Do you know you are aware?
Irrelevant to this topic.
Do you know you are aware of thought?