I found this scribbled on a piece of paper I had in my room. Forgot about writing it, must have been drunk or high.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What's the point of insights if i can't remember them afterwards. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ''The question rose to me, who am I? I played with the thought in my head, am I the sum of my ambitions, the sum of my perceptions or the sum of my thoughts? It occured to me that my ambitions were simply thoughts, and my perceptions just thoughts formed by senses, and my thoughts were a result my perceptions and experiences. So where do 'I' (the self) fit it? I am a whole, and all else is a part of me. Emotions, thoughts, memories, sight, sound, touch, smell. I am nothing more or less than the experience of being 'me'.''
man, that's some good :m: everything makes makes sense in a wierd sort of way when you're high. what you need to do is get a cassette recorder and listen to yourself later. some of that :m: philosophy will blow your mind.
I thought that exact thing at one time. wasnt on weed though. In fact I still think that......Unfortunately I dont think I will wver know who "I" am...........
Odd isn't it? Surely all have heard that almost no one has an original thought that some one else has not had in the history of mankind. With all our multitudes that are and that have been, this question too has been asked in many ways. None have come up with the defining answer that that closes every question with a solid statement. Such is to be human. To be able to questions ones existance and then go looking for the proof. Proof is and will be intangable. Accept that, "I think therefore I am." You will be miles ahead, in the end.
I think therefore I am: look out with this one. It only counts if you don't think to much of the term "I". What "you" are can probably best be described like a plane of sand on which images can apear and disapear again. A recurring image, but one which is inherently not worth more than the idea "banana", is the image of an ego, an "I". I think therefore I am, in this view, equals: a plane is a plane is a plane.
Cogito ergo sum isn't a valid syllogism unless the suppressed premise is made explicit. Also, in his Aphorisms, Lichtenberg pointed out that to begin with I think, is already to assume the conclusion. Here's how I view the argument: Thinkers think. (the suppressed premise) There is some thinking going on here. Therefore, a thinker exists here. One complaint is that this argument asks us to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps, i.e. a thinker that hasn't yet concluded if it exists has to know beforehand that "thinkers think." But even if one does have to bootstrap this argument; Is there nothing at all doing the bootstrapping? Valid or invalid, an argument itself doesn't exist without an arguer. This brings us to the meta-argument: Bootstrappers bootstrap. There is some bootstrapping taking place here. Therefore, a bootstrapper exists here. You might object that this is just a silly loop. All right then: Silly loopers loop. There is some silly looping taking place here. Therefore, a silly looper exists here. Self-referential arguments are anomalous and often paradoxical (some would call them pathological). Here I agree with J.P. Sartre when he says, "Existence precedes essence." Plainly speaking; we turn up, and then we define ourselves. In this context I sometimes think of a nature program that I've seen in which a male chimpanzee was brought into a room with a mirror on the wall. The chimp immediately charged over to challenge what he thought was a rival male. After some fuss and bluster you could almost see the moment that a light went on in the chimp's brain. He began to move his hand slowly as he looked in the mirror, and then back at his hand. He suddenly realized that he was looking at himself. Descartes' Cogito might be thought of as our mirror, of sorts. The Cogito argument works for me because it effectively silences the question. In this world of many questions and few answers I rarely find myself asking myself if I exist. I ask where is this place that I exist and what is this thing that I think of as myself, etc. So here I'll agree with Wet1. I think of the Cogito as a primal rhapsody. Michael
You are right that my thoughts are in no way original, My reasoning centers arround the human concept of the self. I think this was more of a realization than a rationalization. There is a step between realizing that you are nothing more or less than the very person you are right now, nothing else matters besides right now. It's psychological and I can assume that many many people live in the past and the future as opposed to right now. The ability to enjoy a moment for what it truely is, that which is 'you' and defines 'you' and not a fleeting experience, is unrealized for many. As it was and often is for me. Now that I am more aware of myself in this context I can feel more at peace. Meditation has realy helped here. I think it's a trend of the day, more and more people are living in a stressfull world and concentrating on future fortunes and grumbling over past misfortunes all their lives never stopping to look at what is arround them and that which realy is, the future isn't and the past isn't, now is.
But isn't "you" or your "self" really a fleeting experience in itself? According to Buddhist belief: More in depth here.
You are of course right, I didn't express myself correctly here. I was refering more to the thought process that most people have than to the definition of the momentary conciousness, the fact that our conciousness is a constant flow is an axiom ofcourse.
There is a danger here of confusing mind and consciousness. Thoughts occur in mind, experiences occur in consciousness. Take away all thoughts and all that is left is consciousness. Findings from contemplative practice suggests that once thoughts are quieted then consciousness ceases to contain a sense of 'I', and is reduced to simply a state of being, equivalent to nothingnesss but experienced as bliss. But there is just bliss, no 'I' experiencing it. 'Is-ness' is a common term for this but all terms are inadequate to describe an experience. The available philosophical and scientific evidence support this view. However that evidence is usually interpreted very differently for cultural reasons so it might be less contentious to say that the available evidence does not contradict this view. The problem with the discussion is that most people live their lives in their minds, concerned only with their thoughts (perceptions, feelings etc) and therefore have a limited sense of consciousness as seperate to mind. Perhaps this will change now that science is facing up at last to the implications of the fact of subjective experience.
