I think, therefore I am

Post Reply New Topic

I agree with this slogan "You have the right to be yourself & no one can take that away from you." http://www.philsworld.com.au/as/index.htm This is a question that I have. Who am I? How do I truthfully know that I am being my true self? How do any of us truly know that we are being our true selves? Can we truthfully know who our true selves our? Can we be ourselves absolutely? Renee Descartes said that the quote "I think, therefore I am." This means by what he says what I think and how I think makes me who I am.

If this is true, then it means that if you change a way person thinks then you change who they are. You have changed their identity. Can I improve the way I think and how I think for something good and to make myself better? What if I could discover a greater self than my current self? Can I be something better than I truly am right now? Can I improve myself? Can I improve who I am?

I can only confirm that I think therefore only I am.

I think you are wrong.

ruveyn

Anyone whose avatar is a tesseract can't be all bad.

ruveyn

What about people that don't think? Do they exist or not according to your theory?

You shouldn't take this personally. It's only a theory.

Deleted

Last edited by Sand on 24 Oct 2010, 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

How is it that when I saw you had posed something new in this forum that it was going to be a personal attack in this thread against me?

Sorry. I just thought you were being a bit oversensitive.

But what about the context of the Descartes quote?

The problem was that Descartes (supposedly) had come to doubt a number of things about his faith. If ONE thing fell apart, then other things might be likewise doubted. And if there can be no certainty about anything, then even one's own existence is questionable.

What shakes Descartes out of all the nonsense was that the only way he could come to question everything he'd ever known was if he had some form of consciousness, the ability to think. One cannot think if he does not exist. And since Descartes can know with certainty that he exists, then he can begin to make up his mind as to what may be true and what may not.

Thinking, according to Descartes, simply means that you exist. Nothing more or less. That what/how you think makes you who you are is a conclusion you've come to entirely on your own.

I hope you get it figured out!

Aaah, but that raises all sorts of questions. Does a non-thinking brain damaged person still exist? Does an amoeba exist, (under the assumption that amoebas are not particularly intellectual)? Does the Earth exist without a conscious mind? Or, does the Earth think?

Agreed. Back when I took philosophy the first time around in college (loved it enough to take it both my first AND final semester of undergrad), I foolishly wrote on an exam that I thought Descartes' conclusion was a good one. While, for the purpose of the exam, my answer was an acceptable answer, my prof wrote in red ink "Not really."

And not that I really care to defend it as a good one now. I suppose if I were to try, I'd have to say that the ability to do anything is evidence of an object to itself that it exists. Descartes could verify his existence by noting that "thinking" was something that he did and only could do because he exists. A non-thinking dain bramaged person may not know for certain that he or she exists, but someone else might ascertain their existence. Assuming that an amoeba cannot think, it's opinion of itself (or lack thereof) is irrelevant--WE know it exists. Sand, I suspect you would argue that the earth has no conscious mind, yet neither of us would argue against its existence. So we have to conclude, I'd think, that one is not required to think to exist. Thinking is but one way in which a sentient being might verify its own existence should it doubt said existence. Non-sentient beings still exist, but it is beyond the purpose of a non-sentient being to know anything, much less knowing whether it exists or not.

I can't remember if that's the point my prof was trying to make. I loved that class. I just wish that I'd paid more attention and had been as outspoken as I am here. I think most of his students were big disappointments to him, but the tradition of classroom learning around here is such that we show up to absorb information and regurgitate it at a later point in time. You just simply can't do that with philosophy.

Although a person may clearly exist during his or her lifetime whether thinking or not, history is not particularly kind to non-thinkers and, for all practical purposes they cease to exist.

Personally, I interpret Descartes' postulate as an assertion that solipsism is the only truly defensible position, from an empirical standpoint-- i.e., from my own perspective, I can be certain that I exist, because my thought is in itself observable proof that I exist. However, I cannot be truly certain anything else exists outside me, regardless of whatever sensory information my senses indicate to me. For all I know, everything else could be an incredibly intricate illusion designed specifically to fool my senses-- like the proverbial shadows on a cave wall. Unfortunately, the problem with solipsism is that it logically begets nihilism, because if I cannot be sure anything else exists, I also cannot be sure that anything has value. Ultimately, "I think, therefore I am" is limited in its usefulness in adequately defending one's own existence. In my experience, some further leap of faith, beyond the empiricism of Descartes' observation as stated, is necessary if one is going to validate one's own existence and escape the trap of nihilism; existence cannot flourish within a vacuum devoid of value. I therefore endorse Camus' suggestion, that once we recognize the universe around us is absurd (which, in this case, means indisputable empirical proof of the external world is impossible, and so existence must be a matter of faith), we can liberate ourselves from the question entirely, because the point is moot. In other words, if I were to elaborate upon "I think, therefore I am", I would add the caveat that "all else is a matter of belief".

Last edited by Chevand on 24 Oct 2010, 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think I think, therefore I think I am.

A logical response to try and maintain the illusion of a complex reality. My mind is truly an astounding force to be reckoned with. I do not wish to get on its bad side.