Language, Descartes and Existence

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Tyler, Apr 3, 2003.

  1. bold standard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    Also, I think Rand corrected most of the errors of that famous axiom when she rephrased it, "I am, therefore I think."
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ben nevis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    226
    If being born is to exist your birth must result in death, leaving your non-existence. However, if you had never been born then your death could never be, therefore you would live forever despite never having existed.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    Okay, to begin, sorry for the long wait in reply;

    Xev:
    "This seems a little, well, circular. Just the fact that I am speaking presupposes an "I"*. So it does not so much critique Descartes, but rather adds depth to his argument."

    Actually, that's entirely what I meant. The question of whether or not I exist is entirely useless.


    Pollux:
    "Is there any online data that may work as, more or less, a beginner's guide to the philosophy of language? Maybe something by Chomsky, since he's the only name I know...?"

    http://www.personal.kent.edu/~pbohanbr/Webpage/New/newintro.html


    bah, I had more to say but class is over.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Charles Fleming Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    225
    edited: my mistake

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. fadingCaptain are you a robot? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,762
    It is interesting to ponder the subtleties of language and existance.

    Depends on your degree of proof, but by seeking to prove your existance...are you not in fact supplying proof?

    I share similar views with bold statement. Objective reality is proven to me by the process of learning. Ever had mind expanding experiences where you see the light and learn something entirely new? Seems a separate reality must exist, especially when you do not agree with a viewpoint or if it is counter-intuitive...
     
  9. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390

    'i am" is an act of thinking. to further assert "therefore i think" is redundant
    "i think" contains within itself a sense of self ("i"). to have a conception of oneself implies that one is thinking. to further assert "think" is redundant.

    as to whether reality is a mental construct .................

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. bold standard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    Yeah, that's the funny thing. Anything that follows logically from something else could be called "redundant", but that doesn't invalidate it. Say you define "chair" as "an object made by people to sit in." You could say, "well that's just redundant, 'an object made by people to sit in' is already what you've said when you say 'chair'". See, but really definitions and axioms just help to clarify things, thus filter out contradictions in your thinking. Also, "I am" even when I'm not thinking. "I am" if I'm sleeping or knocked unconcious. I just don't know it, so that would have to be from someone elses perspective. I may be getting into territory I'm not totally certain of now

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Pollux:
    Isn't "here" included in the concept of existence?

    spookz:
    The statement "I am" is an act of thought, but the simple "I am" is not.
     
  12. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    your distinction eludes me. what do you mean by simple?
     
  13. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    The distinction is elementery. Stating "I am" is an act of thinking. However, being ("I am") does not require thinking...or even consciousness.
     
  14. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    i do not think you can characterize an object with a statement that obviously arises from a conscious being. if you do want to say something, it would be "it is". neither can an object characterize itself with the statement "i am". if it could, it would be an object with consciousness and we would then be right back where we started

    perhaps you wanna expound on your concept of "being"
     
  15. bold standard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    This is the problem I was starting to run into when I said that still "I am" when I'm unconcious. I stick by this hypothesis though, because when I awake I can still say "I was" while I was asleep. In order for that to be true, it would have to be true that "I am" while I'm asleep. Right..?
     
  16. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    bold
    asleep does not mean that we are not conscious. it seems to take a different form (dreams....). we maintain a low level of consciousness in the sleep state. i mean nothing really stops. the heart beats, we breathe....blah
    until actual physical death, shit goes on
     
  17. bold standard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    My mother who is a psychologist tried to explain this to me once, and according to her "unsconciousness" is actually considered a form of consciousness. She showed me in a textbook.. I'm not sure how this could be, but it might kind of solve our problem. So then, I still think it's better to say, "I am, therefore I think" than to say "I think, therefore I am." Because being is a prerequisite for thinking, not the other way around.
     
  18. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    so ahh... got any of your shit online? i am heavily into all things electronic
     
  19. bold standard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    oh, i've been wanting to do this, but haven't had an oppurtunity yet.
     
  20. CHRISCUNNINGHAM The Ethereal Paradigm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    That is probably one of the most vexing ideas that has every come to me in life. The fact that anything and everything is based on a redundent form of assumption.

    P1:A=A because A is A and A is A because A=A.

    P2:What is A?

    P1: Not, NOT A.

    P2: What's NOT A?

    P1: B

    P2: Well what's B?

    P1: B

    P2:B?

    P1: Yes B. B as in NOT A.

    Ad infintum....


    As for "I think, therefore I am"

    A ball doesn't think, so a ball must not be.

    Equally, if "I am therefore I think" then a ball must think, because it "is". ("Is" as in I assume it to exist as myself, and everything else I can perceive.)

    Unless "am" means "I think", and then it might as well be "I think therefore I think." Which is also redundant to say.

    And around 'round the mulberry bush we go.......

    The human brain is much more primitive then one might intially believe, because our rational and logical system actually contradicts itself.
     
  21. bold standard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    lol, what a strange attitude you have. I fail to see what is so "vexing" about the fact that all knowledge merely follows logically from a few axioms derived from experience. It is illogical to claim that logic contradicts itself, and if you were to attempt to prove it, the only way you could would be through logic, which you claim is worthless anyway, so maybe that's why you're so vexed? You can't eat your cake and have it too, sorry.
    Also, you're taking "I am therefore I think" out of context. This is only meant to be a personal statement, and kind of a joke.
     
  22. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Re: I think I look at it the other way:

    I swear it seemed to me that I'd just thought that up myself. Hehe, I even thought I was all smart and stuff for a second. LOL.. that's hallarious. I should know better..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Ah gosh sometimes I'm a colossal dumbass...

    *giggle*

    Okay, let the resmartification begin!
     
  23. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    ChrisCunningham- IMO you're spot on. All our knowledge is self-referential. This was Descartes problem, and we all seem to agree that he didn't really solve it. Perhaps he should have said 'thoughts exist therefore something is'.
     

Share This Page