“Cognito ergo sum.” or “I think, therefore I am.” most popularly attributed to Descartes who is also credited with leading the push from Aristotelean Philosophy, into a more Modern Philosophy.
But does the logic of this postulation denounce and discredit the spirituality and senses of humanity itself? Is thinking really a challenge to nihilism or sophism, or is there a more prevalent marker of ones existence that includes the senses and spirituality or soul?
Some consider the fact that we, as human beings, suffer as being the marker to existence. Would we choose not to suffer, if indeed we had a say in the matter? Does the fact that we suffer prove that we exist or that others do exist? Surely we would not wish for people to suffer famine, enslavement, torture, abuse, loneliness, illness, sorrow or the like. Does Descartes and other philosophers like him, place too much on the idea of thinking and ignore the other important factors?
Imo it depends on how you take the “i think therefore iam” personally i see it as someone who has gained self-awareness and sees that they then have more control over what type of person they are. I think therefore iam the result of my choices, rather than being dragged along by every ebb and tide of popular belief and therfore being the result of peoples expectations of you. I dont know if thats is correct but thats how i see it.
That’s exactly my point though. Is self-awareness a big enough factor to know that others exist? It’s enough to know that you exist, but everyone else could exist only in your mind, as the nihilists suggest. But does suffering of both human and animal prove that others exist outside of your existence?
And wouldn’t that make suffering a larger marker of existence than self-awareness? Should it be, “I suffer, therefore I am.” stating both self-awareness and awareness of others.
Also, we suffer from the moment we are born to the moment that we die. We suffer the raw pain of that first cold air and breath, then immediate hunger and through life we suffer until the end of our days and our last breath. So, does life begin at suffering and not at thought? Sure there are people who are alive, and yet do not have thought processes. But you can see the pain and suffering on their face often enough to remind you that they are indeed alive.
I suppose it depends on what you term as existance. Is it enough to be recognised by someone else as being there, ie a rock is not living but its there i can see it, touch it etc therefore it exists to me. Or do you term existance as the moment of an awakening to realise that who you are in the entirety. I feel that others exist they stimulate certain senses that then ticks certain criterias to make me believe that they in fact are there. As to the level of existance i feel that other people have varies greatly and depends on their level of awareness. Real or figment of my imagination I dont think thats it matters they are real enough to me and if you spend too much time dwelling on it you will find yourself going in circles, definate answers your not going to get from these questions as they rely to much on what you define terms as and that is very individual for each person.
I believe that there is no way to prove that we exist. For all we know, we could be in the matrix, or the dream of another being. We could be programs programed to think we exist when in reality we don’t really exist at all, but at the same time i’m not saying that we don’t exist, but we must accept the possibility that we may not really exist. The closet possible way to tell we exist it to go to heaven or hell and be told by God that we do/did exist, but at the same time we may not really exist and it could be another program like us, so there is no real way to tell that we exist.
Yes. You must define the term ‘existence’ before making a claim as to whether or not you do, which are the only the only two options. Either you do exist, or you don’t.
Descartes’ infamous sentence has long since been recognised as fallacious because although he is correct in claiming that “thinking” exists, it is wrong to then suppose the existence of an “I” which thinks. All we can prove is that there is thinking, and not some isolated substance that thinks.
I don’t know what approach I’m taking on this. Um, thinking can only happen inside of something, presumably the “I” that we’re not sure really exists.
Well, if the blob of thinking thinks to itself that it’s something, then it becomes “I” to itself. Or perhaps “We”.
Well, if “I think; therefore I am,” then that would also go with, “I think of you, therefore you are.” Or something like that. In that case, if “you are,” then you also think. Then it it goes:
“I think, therefore I am.”
“I think of you, therefore you are.”
“I think you think, therefore you think.”
“You think, therefore you are.”
“You think of me, therefore I am.”
“You think I think, therefore I think.”
You an see the self-sustaining cycle.
The mass of thought that we begin with becomes an “I” and also creates another mass of thought, called “you”.
Last, what the sentence also says is that it doesn’t matter if you are “real” or not. The fact is, you perceive yourself to be here, and that is what counts. If we’re not real then so be it. I’ll just go on living my life anyways.
I don’t think it’s fallacious in the least. People make the mistake of reading the Meditations as if they were simply Descartes laying out his philosophy for us to read, but that’s not how it is at all. We’re suppose to interact with it, we’re suppose to put ourselves in the place of the protagonist and ask these questions of ourselves. If you do just this, the very idea of saying thinking is occurring without attributing it to something that thinks and without that thing being you the thinker, then it is absurd. Although I do like Nietzsche’s question to the Cogito: I am, therefore I think or thinking, therefore I am?
Anyways, to answer the OP’s question, there is more to human existence. The Cogito was only supposed to be Descartes’ Archimedes’s ground for finding absolute truths. He himself said you’d have to be mad to actually doubt the existence of the external world.
Personally, I think that Heidegger was right when he said the first fact of human existence is being in a world and caring (to use a Heideggarian terminology). You find yourself thrown into a world within a certain time period within history with it’s own norms, etc. etc. that all your actions are “about”, hence the term “care”. To deny this would require madness.
we have evolved to compete and survive, where the robot hasn’t, if we program the robot with this, maybe the robot will start to claim that he is, and then we’ll have to recycle a lot of metal.
I don’t get what you’re on about. You either are or you are not. What Descartes was doing was showing that even if he doubted the existence of everything else, he could be sure of his own existence because it would be impossible for him to experience himself doubting unless he existed and was therefore able to doubt. His argument says nothing about freewill whatsoever and to exist most likely does not require freewill at all.
EDIT - is what you are saying this: that we could possibly be a computer programmed to think we’re a human in an environment? Because if so, in “Meditation Two” Descartes simply says he’s aware of himself thinking so he is, that would stand true whether or not you are a computer.
BUT, unlike Descartes, Heidegger was probably not looking for absolutes and I think the chances of being a machine in the sense of an electronic system built by something to be convinced it had flesh and lived in a nature full of trees and grass isn’t very probable. As I said before, even Descartes said it would be mad to actually doubt the existence of the external world and being human…
But does this raise another question? Does it really matter? We get by in the world as we experience it, right? And it’s very useful, so why bother with a supposed world behind the appearance of the world? Why not just throw it away and live in a world of possibilities and probabilities?
@Lord_Liberty - I have thought about this myself. Descartes doubts everything, yet he maintains “I” exist, when in order for there to be an “I” there has to be a “you”. However, Descartes divides his thinking abilities into categories in the third meditation. One of these categories is ideas that pop into his head without his permission, including clouds, dogs, people and God. I guess it could be argued that he is distinguishing himself from the ideas of his thoughts he is doubting the objective reality of.
Meh, probably. I’m making an argument that the thinking cycle is self-sustianing.
About that robot…well, if something happens to it, say, gets a virus, it goes haywaire. No real difference from a person. So, if it knows it’s thinking, then yes it’s real.