Je pense, donc je suis - is this right ?

[Langbein]

"Je pense, donc je suis" - is this right ?

"Je pense, donc je suis" - "Im thinking therefor I am"

<Rene Descartes>

Is this correct ? Why should I have to think to know that I am ?

Is there any good reason to believe that this expression is correct or is just a result of some historical fashion ?

It is possible today, to say something like this: "I'm tired of all this thinking but still I believe I am" ?

Is this logikal "fundament of all fundaments" for Rene Descates still valid today, or are there other alternative fundaments to relay on ?

 

[HallsofIvy]

DesCartes' problem was deciding if there was anything we could be absolutely sure of- without having to assume that what we see is true, etc. That is, is there anything at all we cannot "doubt"? His conclusion was that the one thing he could not doubt, was that he was doubting! From that he concluded that there must be something doing the doubting- perhaps more accurately, "I doubt, therefore I am".

 

[AsianSensationK]

Find a counterexample. Prove that you can think and not be at the same time.

Why should I have to think to know that I am?

Is Descartes ruling out other possibilities for you to know that you exist without good reason? I think not.

I don't think you should take the meditations as being exhaustive of all possibilities either. Doesn't seem like that was Descartes intention with the work.

 

[Crosson]

Find a counterexample. Prove that you can think and not be at the same time.

All I experience is a stream of thoughts, I only assume that "I" am "thinking" the thoughts. In other words, perhaps there is no thinker but only a stream of thoughts.

 

[Langbein]

DesCartes' problem was deciding if there was anything we could be absolutely sure of- without having to assume that what we see is true, etc.

Did he really say that ? What is the argument to claim that he said that ?
(It would be very interesting as this would mean that he said something wery diffrent from what I thought or belived he did say, until now. But I did not say that I'm right about it".

If you look at the sentence:

"Je pense, donc je suis" - "Im thinking therefor I am"

I think it says something like: Because I am thinking I can now that I am. (= I have existence.)

If he said something like: "I am thinking. This is something I am quite sure about." - This would be something else.

One other problem I'm not really sure about is what Descartes would mean with the term "thinking".

If Mr. Descartes were sitting down looking at the sunset and enjoing life, would he be considering that he was "thinking", or would it be only at that time that he was doing mathematics and that kind of stuff that he was "thinking".

Is thinking according do Descartes much the same as "reasoning" or "argumenting" or will it also include some other intellectual activities.

Would Descartes consider a hunter hounting for wild animals in Afrika to be "thinking" in the same way or at the same level as an english scientist at that time ?

Did Descartes connect the ability to rational thinking to the term existence ?

Did Descartes with the term "Thinking" mean "rational thinking" or would he also include in the term "thinking" also other intelectual activities.

Would "enjoying the sunset" or "love to hunt" or "love to drink" be thinking for Descartes ?

In general: Were emotions concidered to be "thinking" for Descartes ?

Find a counterexample. Prove that you can think and not be at the same time.

Machines are doing a great job for rational reasoning today.

An inexpensive PC with the right program can easy outperform me while playing Chess. The machine will be more clever than me while doing the rational reasoning related to Chess.

Did Descartes really express something like this: All those that thinks and make reasoning like a machine, they exist, while all those that has not the capability to "rational machinery alike thinking", they do not "exist" on the same level like me.

What about a 1 year old child that still have not learned to speak, and that does not have the capability to think the thought "I think so therefor I am", does it not exist ?

What about cats, monkeys, elephants and dogs, do they exist ? Do they "think". Do they have some emotions ? (As Descartes would have seen it)

What about my one year Hewlet Packhard Laptop, that such a great rational thinker, at least when it comes to chess and calculus, does it exist ?

Is existence connected to emotions ot is it connected to rational "machinery alike thinking" ? (As Descartes would have seen it.)

To be honest I have not read Descartes for years, and I have not read him to much either, so it could be that I am wrong about what he really said ?

Anybody who knows bether ?

 

[Langbein]

Find a counterexample. Prove that you can think and not be at the same time.

Is "thinking" equal to "rational thinking" or is relating emotionaly to someone or something also "thinking".

Will a lazy man, a dog or a child, and someone just enjoying life also be existing ?

What about a machine or a man that performs cold and precise calculations without any relations to emotions, will it be "thinking" ? Will it be existing ?

What is the differece between a "calculating man" and "calculating machine" ?

Who got the "existence" ?

Why might it be that the one got "existence" while the other propably does not ?

 

[madphysics]

Do you neccesarily have to think to be? Some creatures are born without any higher brain function, but they still are.

 

[loseyourname]

He wasn't concluding that only thinking things exist, but that because he is thinking thing, he can conclude that he exists. He can doubt the existence of all other things, but in order to doubt his own existence, there has to exist something that is doing the doubting, thus proving its existence through the very act of doubting it.

 

[nabuco]

I think Descartes was a bit silly actually. You can't doubt the existence of a lot of things before you doubt your understanding of what "existence" means. If you find yourself unable to accept the existence of a lot of things, that can only be because you have some mental disorder.

(we did not invent the language so we can't say that a sentence like "X exists" is not necessarily true; some might be)

 

[AsianSensationK]

Machines are doing a great job for rational reasoning today.

An inexpensive PC with the right program can easy outperform me while playing Chess. The machine will be more clever than me while doing the rational reasoning related to Chess.

Notice the subjective nature of Descartes' statement. I am, I exist. Not "That guy thinks, so he must exist." Descartes' wasn't aiming for that. When I asked for a counterexample, I also phrased in using the second person. "Prove that you can think and not exist at the same time."

How are you going to do that?

I think it's cool to question the nature of thought, what constitutes a thought, and how other beings may think, but that's not really the same as questioning the truth of Descartes' claim, is it? It's more like using Descartes as a springboard into other topics.

All I experience is a stream of thoughts, I only assume that "I" am "thinking" the thoughts. In other words, perhaps there is no thinker but only a stream of thoughts.

That is a valid criticism, and decently undermines Descartes' claim. Until I can figure out what this "I" is, I might have to hold off asserting that I exist.

 

[loseyourname]

It was noted by Descartes critics even in his time that his conclusion was too strong. All he could really prove was that thinking existed.

 

[AsianSensationK]

Good point to know, loseyourname. I have believed for a while that particular criticism came from Nietzche, but it's probably from someone earlier.

In general: Were emotions concidered to be "thinking" for Descartes ?

From the second meditation, p19, edited by Cottingham:

"But what am I then? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling, and also imagines and has sensory perceptions."

Those all qualify as thoughts according to Descartes. Again, I doubt that this list is meant to be exhaustive, but it does provide some decent examples.

 

[honestrosewater]

Do you neccesarily have to think to be? Some creatures are born without any higher brain function, but they still are.

That is not implied. (P implies Q) does not imply (~P implies ~Q). Google http://www.google.com/search?q=denying+antecedent". (Also note that (~P implies ~Q) is equivalent to (Q implies P), whichever form you meant.)

By the bye, http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/59" is freely available in several languages from several places online, so you don't have to speculate about the rest of his argument based solely on this one sentence. You can read it for yourself and ask questions here as necessary.

 

[lunarmansion]

"I am" of Descartes is a tautology. Kant has a good discussion of it in the Critique of Pure reason- and shows how it is a tautology. It does not tell you anything about the "I". It is an empty concept. Descartes has to smuggle in the idea of God to show that there are two distinct substances- the mind or the "I" which is a thinking substance and matter-apart from the "I" everything can be reduced to matter and motion-and, hence, can be reduced to physics. In short, Descartes was founding a metaphysical ground for physics-in the Aristotelean scheme physics was the trunk which ended in metaphysics as the branches-with Descartes it is the reverse-the tree is reversed and physics is the branch, hence, a need for a metaphysics to ground it.
This has resulted in the mind body problem which has plagued philosophy ever since-stuff that no longer interests me at all-but on which I wasted a few years on as a philosophy major for my first degree. Nice to get a sense of the history of ideas though.

 

[sneez]

Descartes was founding a metaphysical ground for physics-in the Aristotelean scheme physics was the trunk which ended in metaphysics as the branches-with Descartes it is the reverse-the tree is reversed and physics is the branch, hence, a need for a metaphysics to ground it.
This has resulted in the mind body problem which has plagued philosophy ever since-stuff that no longer interests me at all-but on which I wasted a few years on as a philosophy major for my first degree. Nice to get a sense of the history of ideas though.

Exactly. Now the western science world is plagued by this and does not even realize that (which is worst than if it was just plagued). Since the god of descartes was done away with, there is a gap which we don't know how to close. The obvious apprach is to reduce everything to matter, which resuled in bunch of philosophies of science, still did not bring long term solution...

 

[Moridin]

I like 'I am, therefore I think'.

 

[Voltage]

I rather like: I think, therefore I think I am. I think. Sorry!

 

[Langbein]

"Of cource I am. I'm just bussy doing some thinking."

 

[Langbein]

From the second meditation, p19, edited by Cottingham:

"But what am I then? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling, and also imagines and has sensory perceptions."

Those all qualify as thoughts according to Descartes. Again, I doubt that this list is meant to be exhaustive, but it does provide some decent examples.

Realy interresting. Did Mr Descartes really say this, with the same weight on all the mentioned variants of "thinking" !?

Possibly an imaginary interview with Descartes would have given this comment: "Me - a rationalist - oh not at all, the history just made me to be one." :-)

 

[Langbein]

This has resulted in the mind body problem which has plagued philosophy ever since-stuff that no longer interests me at all-but on which I wasted a few years on as a philosophy major for my first degree. Nice to get a sense of the history of ideas though.

Could it be that the "mind body problem" is not the problem at all, but it is "the instrument" itself, the way in which western philosophy tradition have thought that thinking should be performed, for some houndred years, that might be the problem ?

Could it be that methods derived from physics is not wery well suited for metha-physics ?

 

[nabuco]

Could it be that the "mind body problem" is not the problem at all, but it is "the instrument" itself, the way in which western philosophy tradition have thought that thinking should be performed, for some houndred years, that might be the problem ?

That seems more or less what I think. To me Western philosophy is an attempt to solve artificial problems. All philosophers use the same method: they pull a concept out of thin air, mistake it for something real, then spend centuries trying to figure out what the concept really means. The whole attempt ends when some clever guy figures out a way to expose the meaninglessness of the problem.

Could it be that methods derived from physics is not wery well suited for metha-physics ?

This is obvious to me. Physics is nothing but the set of problems that can be solved using a particular methodology; that is why the scope of physics keeps growing. Metaphysics, on the other hand, is the set of problems that have no knowable solution. More specifically, metaphysics is the set of problems that are created by our careless use of language.

 

[lunarmansion]

That seems more or less what I think. To me Western philosophy is an attempt to solve artificial problems. All philosophers use the same method: they pull a concept out of thin air, mistake it for something real, then spend centuries trying to figure out what the concept really means. The whole attempt ends when some clever guy figures out a way to expose the meaninglessness of the problem.
This is obvious to me. Physics is nothing but the set of problems that can be solved using a particular methodology; that is why the scope of physics keeps growing. Metaphysics, on the other hand, is the set of problems that have no knowable solution. More specifically, metaphysics is the set of problems that are created by our careless use of language.

I would not go so far as to say philosophers try to solve artificial problems. Many highly creative mathematicians and eminent scientists were also philosophers. I would not say my degrees in philosophy and classics were a waste. Perhaps not as practical as my science and Math degrees are going to be. Classics and philosophy just give you a good sense of the history of ideas and a broad generalist outlook.

 

[Langbein]

Many highly creative mathematicians and eminent scientists were also philosophers.

Could that fact be a part of the problem ?

 

[honestrosewater]

Could that fact be a part of the problem ?

(Sorry, I tried to resist, but...) What problem?

If philosophers developed theories for the sake of developing theories, would you consider that a problem, or a waste? You can apply the theories to practical problems, and the practical application is sometimes a main focus of a philosophical work, especially, in my experience, in ethics. Should we perhaps distinguish between pure and applied philosophy as is done for pure and applied math?

Also, to echo what I think lunarmansion was saying, what do you gain by restricting yourself to only one theory? Do you think that you lose or gain by having choices? If you think of a theory as, say, a pair of glasses, as something that bends, colors, and filters the way that you see your world, why wouldn't you want to have people who invent different kinds of glasses? Maybe not everyone can see as clearly with the same glasses, or maybe life is more enjoyable through some than others.

 

[Langbein]

(Sorry, I tried to resist, but...) What problem?

Well the problem might be that philophy is not something that exist by its own. It might be that technology, philosophy, ideology and politics is connected togehter as a whole, whith influences in both directions.

How answers is given in philosophy might reflect what is concidered to be right or rong in a society.

Once it was common to regard this idea to be true that the world could be considered to be a big rational machine, and the humans rationally working machines with some built in soul. The quality of the soul were much regarded to be a function of the ability of rational thinking.

At that time when the the western sivilisations considered themself to be superior to other people due to what they were the superior "thinkers".

So it were nothing than just a natural thing to build colonies abroad in coutries were lesworthy people were living and to go to Africa to catch some slaves to be used as a working force on the farms as they were concidered not to be real humans, as they obviosly did not make the same "thinking" while being met in Africa.

The development of western philosophy also led to the devolopment of the ideas and the works of the German philosopher Fredrich Nietzche. One part of this ideology is that some people are superior to other, and that the best of all moral values were to fight and win and to be the emperor over other people. Adolf Hitler picked up this idea.

I think that the development of western philosophy and political ethics from Descartes and up does contain some strange things that should not be repeated.

I believe that a philosophy that connect the ability to rational thinking to the human identity as humans is fundamentely inncorrect.

I think I would rather see the identity of the human beeing connected to more something like an emotional condition of existence and as the role of "the creator of their own unique world".

Also I would see it like that there is not culture that is superiour to each other and that human beings and different cultures has their equal value and equal right to live their life according to their values and their culture.

Also I believe that the Indians of America, the people of the African savana and the people from the jungle of Borneo and South America knows a lot more about the relationship between nature, and man, than we do in the western internett culture.

"I'm thinking - therefore I am" - Sorry Rene, you were a child of your time, and you have been dead for quite a while now.

The right sentence should be: "I feel existence - therefore I am".

Pure reason will in the best case lead to pure blindness and in the worst case to pure madness. Thinking while listening to your heart might lead to wisdom.

This were actually something Aristoteles already told us some thousands years ago, so where does all the progress take us exept for round and round, a partly desroyed nature, some never ending wars, and a unnknown number of nuclear bumbs ?

Well at lest all this development and all this progress gave us Chuck Berry and his song "Around and Around". :!)

 

[lunarmansion]

First of all, you should not blame philosophy for the fact that some politicians twisted these ideas. As an aside, nowhere does Nietzsche talk of a particular master race. If some politicians got hold of his ideas and twisted them, you cannot blame the philosopher for that.
A great deal of advances in logic were made by asking philosophical questions during the last century and these have found a direct application in software engineering. Here is one example of pure thought finding applications.
The theorems of mathematics, the products of pure thought, increasingly find applications in the physical world in a curious way.
Pure thought is neutral. Do not confuse politics with it.

 

[Crosson]

Philosophical contributions are more rare, but also more important, then scientific ones. Only a superficial glance at history leads to the impression that science has advanced man; if we put our mindset in the historical setting we see that philosophy advanced man and science and technology are results.

 

[honestrosewater]

I think that the development of western philosophy and political ethics from Descartes and up does contain some strange things that should not be repeated.

Do you think that philosophy needs a dictator, to only allow ideas that you approve of? I imagine this isn't what you think, since it's at odds with your other comments about authority in philosophy, but that does seem to be where some of your ideas are leading.

Unless it's your opinion that people should aim to be more like rocks, plants, worms, or some kind of non-rational animals for whom things like truth, goodness, and beauty don't exist (which, even if you don't develop to be self-contradictory in the stronger sense, still doesn't seem very friendly to itself), we're stuck with at least some philosophy anyway. Some of the things that you suggest about basic human rights, the sovereignty of the individual, etc. remind me of John Stuart Mill. Have you read him? Of course, some of your other comments stand in stark contrast to those ideas, so I'm not sure.

I wonder how your ideas about progress would judge other human endeavors like, say, art. Do your see any progress or value in art? Or do you expect everything to work as science works, even things that don't work as science works? Should every discipline introduce peer-review, restrict itself to only observable phenomena, repeatable experiments, etc.?

Also, your criticism doesn't seem fair unless Descartes was asking what might lead to wisdom and answering that only pure reason would. Is that what he was doing?

 

[Langbein]

First of all, you should not blame philosophy for the fact that some politicians twisted these ideas. As an aside, nowhere does Nietzsche talk of a particular master race. If some politicians got hold of his ideas and twisted them, you cannot blame the philosopher for that.
A great deal of advances in logic were made by asking philosophical questions during the last century and these have found a direct application in software engineering. Here is one example of pure thought finding applications.
The theorems of mathematics, the products of pure thought, increasingly find applications in the physical world in a curious way.
Pure thought is neutral. Do not confuse politics with it.

Actually I do not blaming philosophy or Nietzsche either. I know that there is no master race in Nietzsche’s books, except that the master above masters were considered to be the master himself. (Ref: Ecce Homo).

I do not thinks that the philosophers can be blamed at all for how the society developed, but I believe that there have been and is a connection between technology and philosophy. Actually I believe that the connection has been stronger the other way, so that development in technology have had some important influence on how philosophy have developed.

I guess that development in the society, in philosophy, and technology as a whole is connected together as part of a whole system.

It might be true that "pure thought" in some way is neutral, but because of this neutrality it might also be used for anything, of which some of the alternatives might be very wise or very good.

When it comes to Nietzsche he has used to be one of my favourite philosophers, even though I do not agree with him. As I will read Nietzsche I will rather see him as a indicator of a time, and a general development in western history, a culture and the society around him.

When it comes to Nietzsche I will rather consider him to be a “trueteller ” and a victim of his time. I think he did a great job about telling about his world and the developing trends in his time.

 

[Langbein]

Philosophical contributions are more rare, but also more important, then scientific ones. Only a superficial glance at history leads to the impression that science has advanced man; if we put our mindset in the historical setting we see that philosophy advanced man and science and technology are results.

It might be the other way as well. Technology has thought man how to think “the technical way”, and lead to development of political systems, society and in philosophy where all of this might not be equally good.

 

[Langbein]

Honestrosewater ->

I think a discussion related to philosophy should be related to the arguments and ideas, and I do not believe that people that has another opinion than me, in any way, is related to worms and animals.

I think that other point of views and argumentations, that is different from mine, is valuable as far as I am able to understand it.