I think he said it in his meditations, I think it was Med II No, he implied that he was a thinking being, but the famous quote was never stated in the meditations.
Hi Platipus - welcome to the forum. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Descartes does state it - here is an excerpt from "Discourse On Method and Related Writings" pg. 25: "Finally, since I thought that we could have all the same thoughts, while asleep, as we have while we are awake, although none of them is true at that time, decided to pretend that nothing that ever entered my mind was any more true than the illusions of my dreams. But I noticed, immediately afterwards, that while I thus wished to think that everything was false, it was necessarily the case that I, who was thinking this, was something. When I noticed that this truth 'I think, therefore I am' was so firm and certain that all the most extravagant assumptions of the sceptics were unable to shake it, I judged that I could accept it without scruple as the first principle of the philosophy for which I was searching."
Got ya - I guess I missed what you were getting at. Sorry for the confusion (on my part) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Unfortunatly, no I don't know of any. The ones I do know of are more like flame fests rather than discussion, if you know what I mean. I will assume (only because you asked me) that you do not either? If I am wrong in that assumption please feel free to correct me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! While I am here - have you ever heard of Paul Ricoeur? If so, any thoughts?
I know of some, but they contain topics taboo to most people here and a prerequisite is getting over subjectivist thinking, so... Here's a good intermediate: www.thephora.com
Descartes isn't so bad to read, esp. for that era. It is a cake walk compared to Kant. As I remember, the scheme goes: 1) I have the clear and distinct idea of God. 2) Clear and distinct idea of God is a result of actual God. 3) Actual God is not a deceiver. 4) If we are careful we can, therefore, know stuff about the outside world. The cartesian circle suggests that 4. is actually 1. 2 is also dodgy IMO.
