"Cogito ergo sum."

Post Reply New Topic

Though this phrase isn't actually used in his most important work, it sums up what he was driving at fairly well. Rene supposes that the one thing that he cannot possibly reject is his own existence, due to the fact that, to have thought, there must be an agency to produce it. The one thing that he could not dismiss was his own sense of awareness. As a person who has had experiences with depersonalization, though, I know all too well that even this can be rejected by the mind. It is possible to be cast into a universe in which one's own existence is uncertain. Therefore, I am led to ask this question: is it necessarily true that the persistence of subjective thought denotes a subjective self?

I feel that there is some sense in this question, somewhere, but I am having difficulty articulating it properly.

Yeah I have had depersonalization often in the past. I usually experience it when I look in a (sometimes)mirror. My natural self-awareness malfunctions.

My opinion evolutions end game is a massive computer centerd at the physical point in space of the big bang running massive calculations. Since I feel that is what will
happen. I then think what if it has allready happen?

This is going to sound cyclical..


But to question ones own existence, is an act of existing in itself, is it not?

That's just a repetition of what I raised questions about above. Can you really infer "your" existence from thought processes? Am "I" something that can or should be objectified, or am "I" an occurance?

What I was trying to say..

Was I find my "self" in the questioning, not in the answers to the questions.


Because the answers are only transitory, the questioning nature, the "method of my journey" is what defines I.

Circular arguement.

I think therefore I am.

I...so you have to exist. think...let's assign an attruibuite therefore I am...so because you assumed you existed to assing yourself an attruibuite, you exist.

Liberation shall be found through death. Death is the meaning of life and will always be. It's the only logical explanation I can think of, and I've pondered about existential questions since I was a toddler.

Some would arguably say that reproduction is the meaning of life, but I believe humans are different from animals here. Humans have a greater sense of bonding and monogamy, although example of monogamic relations can be found in some bird species.

Death is the end, and after that... We do not know what happens, if anything.

I believe humans will cause their own extintction judging by the state of todays society. Something has gone wrong, humans strive for material wealth as opposed to spiritual health. The indirect striving for happiness through possessions is the curse of man. It has always been and always will be.

I don't believe in big bang though. Magic rain on dead rocks cannot cause life, at least not according to my definition of common sense. Now, I do not intend to offend any "big bangers" here. Its just my opinion on what I regard as a trivial theory.

Some people believe in the astral, that there is a paralell dimension or a spirit world. This theory isn't that inferior to me, as I have had some "not of this earth" experiences through deep meditation. I was able to reach a state where I didn't feel my physical body and achieved a state of serene peace. This lasted a few seconds and was achieved for hours and hours of meditation.
In my current stressed out state, there is no way I can achieve something similar again. Sadly enough...

EDIT: I noticed that I misinterpreted the thread. I apologize for this. Delete my post if its too off-topic

I think that the gist of it is that one can no more reject one's empirical senses than one can reject one's sense of self. There is no rational basis on which to hold one over the other. One's sense of self is, after all, something that one can very well be stripped of. One could as easily turn solipsism on its head as defend it, as radical as it sounds. I understand that Rene's argument is circular, Sighold, but I wanted to make an exploration into another aspect of it.

It's an interesting idea griff but i just can't get my head to countenance it. I think my sense of self is too strong, i don't trust my senses but i do trust my thoughts.

I think i can concieve of a world created by something which could fool all my senses, but i can't imagine a world created by something which could create "thought patterns" i attribute too myself, without those thoughts constituting a "self".

Not sure if i explained that clearly, essentially saying that regardless of wether or not our existance is real, the fact that I can think of myself as an I means I have a self, even if it's all just a big trick by some cosmic demon, the trick worked too good.

Doesn't really answer your question, but it did make me think, cheers.