I think ...therefore it doesn't matter!

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » I think ...therefore it doesn't matter!

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 07:31 am
I think the old statemen "I think, therefore I am" is severly outdated and is on par with blood letting and other old supersticious things.

Many waste time useing this statemen and regard it highly, when it imo holds no value at all other than navel gazing.

[edit] I have edited out what seemingly was a mountaint that stopped the process of thinking for some people in this thread.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 08:05 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;143486 wrote:
A stone doesn't think, but still it is!

I think the old statemen "I think, therefore I am" is severly outdated and is on par with blood letting and other old supersticious things.

Please put an end to it, it makes me so sad to see very intelligent people use this term.


Descartes did not say, "I am, therefore I think", he said, "I think, therefore I am". I think you have the two mixed up.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 08:37 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;143501 wrote:
Descartes did not say, "I am, therefore I think", he said, "I think, therefore I am". I think you have the two mixed up.
Please highlight where I state that, maybe I bumped my head lately and therefore can't see it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 08:48 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;143526 wrote:
Please highlight where I state that, maybe I bumped my head lately and therefore can't see it.


Because, when you wrote, A stone doesn't think, but still it is!, that is not an objection to Descartes's "I think, therefore I am", since he did not say (or imply) that a something could not exist without thinking. What he said was that something could not think without existing. So, to point out that a stone exists, but does not think, is no objection to what Descartes said, since nothing that Descartes said implied that something could not exist without thinking.

A little logic always is helpful.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 08:54 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;143532 wrote:
Because, when you wrote, A stone doesn't think, but still it is!, that is not an objection to Descartes's "I think, therefore I am", since he did not say (or imply) that a something could not exist without thinking. What he said was that something could not think without existing. So, to point out that a stone exists, but does not think, is no objection to what Descartes said, since nothing that Descartes said implied that something could not exist without thinking.

A little logic always is helpful.
That still doesn't make his pharse "I think, therefore I am" more valid, than what I claim, by saying "a rock doesn't think, but still is"
..still Descartes stuff is supersticious.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 09:02 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;143535 wrote:
That still doesn't make his pharse "I think, therefore I am" more valid, than what I claim, by saying "a rock doesn't think, but still is"
..still Descartes stuff is supersticious.


How does "a rock doesn't think, but still is" make Descartes's claim that whatever thinks exists, not valid? How does he deny that even though a rock does not think, the rock still exists? He doesn't. To say that all things that think. exist, is true (which is what Descartes said). But to say that all things that exist, think, is false. But Descartes never said that.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 09:11 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;143540 wrote:
How does "a rock doesn't think, but still is" make Descartes's claim that whatever thinks exists, not valid? How does he deny that even though a rock does not think, the rock still exists? He doesn't. To say that all things that think. exist, is true (which is what Descartes said). But to say that all things that exist, think, is false. But Descartes never said that.
What he says per se is true, very true, but it's an incetemen for navel gazing, that have no other purpose than endulgence.

I'v seen loooong and very deep discussions about such matter that have no purpose.

..as I said ..it doesn't matter, it has no value.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 09:23 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;143543 wrote:
What he says per se is true, very true, but it's an incetemen for navel gazing, that have no other purpose than endulgence.

I'v seen loooong and very deep discussions about such matter that have no purpose.

..as I said ..it doesn't matter, it has no value.


In other words, your criticism of Descartes was wrong, and based on confusing what he said, which was true, with the converse of what he said, which was false. The other stuff is irrelevant, and simply an expression of your own (uniformed) opinion.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 09:58 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;143547 wrote:
In other words, your criticism of Descartes was wrong, and based on confusing what he said, which was true, with the converse of what he said, which was false. The other stuff is irrelevant, and simply an expression of your own (uniformed) opinion.
No, you can't even point out where I am wrong.

Just because you love his pharse doesn't mean you should blindly defend it.

Please stop this empty rethoric.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 10:12 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;143565 wrote:
No, you can't even point out where I am wrong.

Just because you love his pharse doesn't mean you should blindly defend it.

Please stop this empty rethoric.


As I pointed out, you thought that because Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am", that he also said, "I am, therefore, I think". But that is wrong. If he has said the latter, then pointing out that stones exist, but do not think, would have been relevant. But since that is not what Descartes said, that criticism is not relevant. I am not defending the phrase, "I think, therefore, I am". I am simply pointing out that it is impossible for anything to think, or for anyone to do anything at all, unless it exists. If something does not exist, it cannot think, or do anything else, since then, there is nothing that can do anything. It would also be true to say, I eat, therefore, I exist, or, I go to the bathroom, therefore I exist. Could you go to the bathroom unless you existed?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 10:25 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;143571 wrote:
As I pointed out, you thought that because Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am", that he also said, "I am, therefore, I think". But that is wrong. If he has said the latter, then pointing out that stones exist, but do not think, would have been relevant. But since that is not what Descartes said, that criticism is not relevant. I am not defending the phrase, "I think, therefore, I am". I am simply pointing out that it is impossible for anything to think, or for anyone to do anything at all, unless it exists. If something does not exist, it cannot think, or do anything else, since then, there is nothing that can do anything. It would also be true to say, I eat, therefore, I exist, or, I go to the bathroom, therefore I exist. Could you go to the bathroom unless you existed?
You keep pointing this out, yet I don't see anywhere I have written it. I have in a previous post politely asked you to point out where excatly I have written that.

So in short you chasing your own tail and blaming me?
 
bloodninja72
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 10:25 am
@HexHammer,
The point was, how do we kow the rock exists, except for in our own minds. The rock my very well not exist. We think, therefore we exist, and the rock could be in our imagination.
His theory was not the answer t everything, and you can chose to accept it or not, and I see you have not chosen to accept it.

Thats all fine and good, biut he believes existence is the mind, not the body, for all we know our bodys dont exist. Maybe we're cought in some kind of matrix or some dream, but we still exist due to the fact we're able to think.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 10:34 am
@bloodninja72,
bloodninja72;143581 wrote:
The point was, how do we kow the rock exists, except for in our own minds. The rock my very well not exist. We think, therefore we exist, and the rock could be in our imagination.
His theory was not the answer t everything, and you can chose to accept it or not, and I see you have not chosen to accept it.

Thats all fine and good, biut he believes existence is the mind, not the body, for all we know our bodys dont exist. Maybe we're cought in some kind of matrix or some dream, but we still exist due to the fact we're able to think.


How could a rock exist in the imagination? I think you are talking about imaginary rocks, which are not, rocks at all. But why would you think that a rock you were kicking was an imaginary rock, and not a rock? The fact that it might be imaginary does not mean that we do not know it is not imaginary. For instance, just because all human beings might be males or females, and I am a human being, is no reason to think that I do not know I am a male (and not a female). Just because we might be in a matrix or in a dream, how does that mean that we do not know we are not?
 
bloodninja72
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 10:45 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;143589 wrote:
How could a rock exist in the imagination? I think you are talking about imaginary rocks, which are not, rocks at all. But why would you think that a rock you were kicking was an imaginary rock, and not a rock? The fact that it might be imaginary does not mean that we do not know it is not imaginary. For instance, just because all human beings might be males or females, and I am a human being, is no reason to think that I do not know I am a male (and not a female). Just because we might be in a matrix or in a dream, how does that mean that we do not know we are not?


Well, thats why you dont agree with him. Still how do i know you exist, or how do you know I exist. We can only assume. However, If we do live in a matrix, then wether all this is real or not is real to us and effects our assumed lives. So really we dont know. I cant tell you weather i agrre with his theory or not, im stil skeptical, but i like it anyway.

But taking this philosophers side... If we were in a dream, perhaps you are a female dreaming your a male. If you kicked a rock, then maybe you really did kick a rock or it is in the mind, that imagines life. I see your point, in fact it has made me think, but Discartes thought that concept, that he knows he exists because hes able to think about it. He doesnt know the rock exists, or anyone else exists, because he doesn't know if they think. He is not them. We can only assume that thy think becasue of science and common sense, but whos to decide science is real?
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 11:11 am
@bloodninja72,
What about 'I think therefore i am not'?
Is the rock just as real as me i just think it is not.?
 
wayne
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 11:14 am
@HexHammer,
Hex, I'm ......majical vanishing post #1
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 11:34 am
@wayne,
wayne;143609 wrote:
Hex, I'm with kenneth on this. You made an error in your presentation that clouds your intent.
Then please quote and highlight it.

I have now 2 times asked him for quotation and highlight, never happend.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 11:37 am
@bloodninja72,
bloodninja72;143590 wrote:
Well, thats why you dont agree with him. Still how do i know you exist, or how do you know I exist. We can only assume. However, If we do live in a matrix, then wether all this is real or not is real to us and effects our assumed lives. So really we dont know. I cant tell you weather i agrre with his theory or not, im stil skeptical, but i like it anyway.

But taking this philosophers side... If we were in a dream, perhaps you are a female dreaming your a male. If you kicked a rock, then maybe you really did kick a rock or it is in the mind, that imagines life. I see your point, in fact it has made me think, but Discartes thought that concept, that he knows he exists because hes able to think about it. He doesnt know the rock exists, or anyone else exists, because he doesn't know if they think. He is not them. We can only assume that thy think becasue of science and common sense, but whos to decide science is real?


If a female dreams she is a male, that no more makes her a male than her dreaming she is riding an elephant means that she is riding an elephant. To dream you are doing X does not imply that you are doing X, and to dream that you are Y does not imply that you are Y.

I know that I exist because I could not wonder whether I exist without existing. So, if I do anything at all, I must exist to do it.

As I pointed out, a rock doesn't have to think for it to exist. Who would believe such a thing. Descartes never said that if you exist then you think. He said if you think then you exist. It does not follow that because a rock exists it thinks. But it would follow that if a rock thought, then it would exist. You have to distinguish between: If X thinks, then X exists. Which is true, from, if X exists, then X thinks, which is, of course, false. As in the case of the rock.

That I might be living in a matrix does now mean that I don't know I am not living in a matrix. That a horse might be a female does not mean I do not know the horse is a male. If I told a person that I own a male horse, and he said, "well, it might be a male horse, but you don't know it is, since it might be a female horse" I would just stare at him. What could he mean?
 
bloodninja72
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 11:41 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;143622 wrote:
If a female dreams she is a male, that no more makes her a male than her dreaming she is riding an elephant means that she is riding an elephant. To dream you are doing X does not imply that you are doing X, and to dream that you are Y does not imply that you are Y.

I know that I exist because I could not wonder whether I exist without existing. So, if I do anything at all, I must exist to do it.

As I pointed out, a rock doesn't have to think for it to exist. Who would believe such a thing. Descartes never said that if you exist then you think. He said if you think then you exist. It does not follow that because a rock exists it thinks. But it would follow that if a rock thought, then it would exist. You have to distinguish between: If X thinks, then X exists. Which is true, from, if X exists, then X thinks, which is, of course, false. As in the case of the rock.

That I might be living in a matrix does now mean that I don't know I am not living in a matrix. That a horse might be a female does not mean I do not know the horse is a male. If I told a person that I own a male horse, and he said, "well, it might be a male horse, but you don't know it is, since it might be a female horse" I would just stare at him. What could he mean?


I see you point. It makes lots of sense, i thought you meant something else, like discartes was saying you have to think to exist, but anyway that must have been a misinterpretation on my part.
 
wayne
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 11:41 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;143486 wrote:
Quote:
A stone



Simply


I think the old statemen "I think, therefore I am" is severly outdated and is on par with blood letting and other old supersticious things.

Please put an end to it, it makes me so sad to see very intelligent people use this term.


This part .........majical vanishing post #2
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » I think ...therefore it doesn't matter!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/03/2024 at 04:24:03