“Mark and Bev Tindall” wrote:
Name an absolute truth …and prove that it is absolute. ……… Descartes ( a Christian philosopher) put forward the proof: Cogito ergo sum. (I think therefore I am.) He was wrong. All that he could really prove was I think therefore I think. Being (existence) is not proved by action of mind (or anything else). ……… So how can one think while not existing?
1. I exist therefore I think.
Something may exist without thinking eg a rock. Its existence is not conditional on its ability to think.
2. I think therefore I exist.
Can thinking exist without the possibility of something to do the thinking? Is thinking conditional on existence?
Since Descartes’ time the point has been that thinking is not the same as existing
Material behaviourists may claim that there is no thinking … only physical reaction in the physical brain to stimuli.
While one may be able to exist and think at the same time, the thinking may be delusional in other cases …and to be proved correct the statement must be true in all circumstances without exception. If I think I am a butterfly does it prove that I am a butterfly? No. Even if I think I exist as a butterfly I do not really exist as a butterfly. It could also be possible that our existence as humans may be a product of our thought …creating a thought of existence where in fact existence does not exist at all. How could we know for sure?
Since other possibilities exist the statement is not proven correct philosophically. Commonsense tells us otherwise but that is not philosophic truth … nor is it an absolute which is demonstrated by philosophic proof.
~~~
>From a netfriend:
To whom it may concern,
I believe your article on Descartes’s postulate, “I think therefore I am”, misses the intent of the statement. “I think therefore I am” is most definitely true, as there is no way that thoughts can be generated from nothingness. The statement puts no bounds upon that existence, not saying that everything that we perceive exists, or even that the way that we perceive our existence is correct, it means only that the fact that “thoughts” exist, whether they be physical reactions or whatever, correlates to the fact that in some way, shape or form, I exist. I cannot even prove that you exist, nor does this email, nor the rock of your example.
Nice to see someone discussing philosophy tho.
~~~
Discussion
No comments for “I think and I am”