In the statement, “I am,” or, “I believe in objective reality,” who or what is the “I” that makes such a statement?
emmm that depends a good deal on whom you ask. Freud would answer totally different than Berkeley would… mhh tough question…
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/freudspsyche.gif
maybe this helps a bit?
It’s probably the same “I” that says ouch when you drop a hammer on its finger.
Good point, Roper. To put it another way:
“Materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself.” -Schopenhauer
I got five dollars on the res extensa and res cogitans.
Anybody wanna bet?
For he who goeth, not to be confused with Goethe, however Goethe did goeth where I’m about to tell you to go but wenteth for different reasons.
Anyway, (ahem)…he who goeth into yon cold infinity, and who taketh up the pen unto which it shall write, or write unto, rather, (since a pen can’t write on itself) shall also, by virtue of the rarity and solice of this understanding, remain immortal. For we know and feel that we are eternal…
Thank you.
The trick is to rid the “I” of too many meanings, many of which are contradictory. The I as self is a valid adaptational response. The I as ego is a social imposition on the former. IMHO, Descartes got it backwards. One must exist in order to think. Existence needs no proofs. It is!!! It antedates thought. When I say that “I” am responding to the thread here, I am stating that there is a subjective point of reference from which observations can be made. Physics had to recognize this; why can’t philosophy?