"I think, therefore I am"

Post Reply New Topic

So does that mean that everything that doesn't think doesn't exist?

Why is it not, "I am, therefore I think"? Is that not equally valid?

Too true so what other people think doesnt matter and in reality no one can no anyone only ones soul.

Rocks, air, water, all exist but they don't think.

But you don't hear many rocks saying "I think, therefore I am."

I never heard the guy who originally said it say it either, but does he exist right now? Rocks still exist as much as that guy does physically. Spiritually only Nephesh creatures exist, which in that case that dude still exists but the rocks don't and neither do plants.

I don't think so. The reasoning would go something like this:

If something has the ability to think, that something must exist.
I think.
Therefore I am.
This doesn't imply that everything that doesn't think doesn't exist.

It's analogous to the following:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
This doesn't imply that everything that is not a man is not mortal.

You know, what Descartes really said was "I'm pink, therefore I'm spam".

Ho Ho Ho!

I thought it was "I stink, therefore you scram."

codarac got it right.

descartes put that point in the context of methodical doubt: his goal was to form solid science, hence he cast off anything that could be doubted.
so, off with sensual input (farewell, empirism), as it could all be dreamt up.
and so on, reducing and reducing, until you reach the point you doubt quite everything but in the fact of you doubting, you cant doubt yourself as thinking substance (res cogitans).

actually, augustinus put that thought in a more elegant way before descartes:
he said something like "i am sure of my being, god and love" (or something along those lines)
to which the scepticist replied: "but what if you err?"
and augustinus responded that "who doesnt exist, cannot err"

Nope. Arguing from the inverse of a statement is invalid. Also "I am, therefore I think" is arguing from the converse of a statement and is also invalid.

If a statement is true, it is valid to argue from the contrapositive (converse and inverse combined) "I am not therefore I think not".

Actually, Popeye said it better: "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam".

theists are very real.

I like George Carlin's analogy: We have 3 types of brains, the primate brain which say 'Give peace a chance', the mammalian brain which says 'Give peace a chance but let's kill the motherf*cker first' and the reptilian brain which says 'kill the motherf*ckers, let's just go to the peace rally and get laid'. See, it's all about survival.

I find it more surprising the atheists are real too. They wont be forever though...

we all gotta die, some just accept it..others need to think they'll be immortal.