cogito ergo sum (i think therefore i am)

[johningerslev]

so... what do you guys think about descartes 'only unquestionable truth'?

just wondered.

i think we can't be sure of the "i": what if "i" am a smaller part of a larger thing?

[xoxoxoBruce]

How do you know apparitions don't think?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by johningerslev

i think we can't be sure of the "i": what if "i" am a smaller part of a larger thing?

"Cogito, ergo sum" doesn't say anything about what "I" represents, or imply anything about what it means to be. Just that there is a thing that is thinking.

[Silent]

Shouldn't this be under philosophy?

[johningerslev]

(oops, someone didn't know there was a philosophy section)

also thanks happy monkey! upon re-evaluating the latin i see my mistake.

[ashke]

All I know (from reading an introductory philo books) is that it's not 'unquestionable' at all. In fact, that books disputes that idea, using it as some kind of case-study to explain how philosophy works.

[smoothmoniker]

Plato: We know things by virtue of being in the midst of them, and philosophy helps us understand them better.

[fast forward 1500 years]

The Enlightenment philosophers: No, we can only know things if they can be proven rationally from basic and proper knowledge, like 2+2 = 4. We have only a handful of properly basic truths from which to work, and we have to justify everything with that same kind of certainty.

Descartes: No, you only have one - "The one thinking, exists". But it's all good, because from that we can derive everything, including the fact that God has 10 fingers and 10 toes, and lives on the planet Kolob.

Kant: sorry bro, you don't even have that. It's possible that even our rational thought is a construct of the phenomenal on the noumenal. We have rational certainty of nothing.

Descartes: crap.

Derrida: Look at what you all did. You broke the damn thing. Now we have no knowledge of anything true.

Us normal people: Hey, what if we know stuff by being in the midst of it, and philosophy can help us understand it a little better?

[Undertoad]

You know, in turn memetics breaks ALL of the history of philosophy!

Smith: I've figured out the nature of the universe! It's xxxxxxx.

Public: We don't care because we don't know who you are. Your idea died before it was propagated.

Jones: I've figured out the nature of the universe! It's yyyyyyy.

Public: We don't care because your solution depends on a theory not currently accepted by the masses. The world is flat and we are currently ignoring anyone who says otherwise. Your idea died before it was propagated.

Johnson: I've figured out the nature of the universe! It's zzzzzzz.

Public: Oh that's simply too hard to comprehend! Thanks for writing it up but you're a poor writer so nobody bought your book. Your idea died before it was propagated.

Derrida: Deconstruction blah blah blah.

Public: Because the speedy nature of our time leaves us all a little confused, we enjoy thinking that maybe everyone is not on sturdy ground. We will copy and forward these ideas as important.

[xoxoxoBruce]

If someone make a statement, and everyone you know agrees with it, but you feel it's false, do you say so?
Or do you feel your thinking must be lacking something and change your mind?
Or just keep quiet?

[cowhead]

hee hee I like this thread therefor it exists.

as to xoxoxobruce, If I feel I am in the minority.. generally I try to explain my point quietly and simply. but! when the villagers start eye-balling the pitchforks and that damn big pile of wood whilst fondling their matchbooks.. that's when I start shutting up and running away. sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.

[tw]

Originally Posted by cowhead

hee hee I like this thread therefor it exists.

Eventually that hypothesis might answer this question: if a tree fell in the woods, would it make a sound. It's easier to read Descartes' book. Summer. Sun. Beach chair. I like that logic better.

[Troubleshooter]

The tree falling in the forrest analogy is a great one actually. It covers so many issues in philosophy, science and semantics in a short question.

If a tree falls in the forrest and no one is there to hear it, is there any sound?

1) If no one is there to hear it, is there any proof it fell in the first place?

2) Taking for granted that it fell, we know that enough trees have fallen to allow it to be taken as a law that one object impacting another causes sound waves to be produced.

3) The strict definition of sound requires a transmitter, a medium, and a receiver, so if no one, no one capable of hearing, is there to hear it then there is strictly speaking, no sound.

4) and so on as we parse the various ethical considerations when defining the proposals, facts, requirements, etc.