For me, phenomenon are not explained by simply inventing a word, or observing something and saying, "you see, this is what is happening."

Me neither. But it's a bit tricky having a conversation with anyone else about them without inventing words.

Lol, I'm debating about adding this to my 100 reply rule. After 100 replies the argument is moot, unsubscribe bin. However this one is remaining a little interesting, so we'll see.

Cheers,
Russ

would you care to share with me what Descartes meant by the statement "I think therefore I am"?

I have convinced myself that there is nothing in the world - no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Doesn't it follow that I don't exist? No, surely I must exist if it's me who is convinced of something. But there is a deceiver, supremely powerful and cunning whose aim is to see that I am always deceived. But surely I exist, if I am deceived. Let him deceive me all he can, he will never make it the case that I am nothing while I think that I am something. Thus having fully weighed every consideration, I must finally conclude that the statement "I am, I exist" must be true whenever I state it or mentally consider it.

Here is Wikipedia's take on it.

Isn't it interesting that the mind (what I call Individual Consciousness) when it is asleep, does not remember when it is awake, yet when it is awake, it remembers that it was asleep and maybe dreaming.

I'd surmise he meant something rather similar to what he meant when he wrote this:



The fact that he thinks is the only thing that is beyond all doubt. And his existence is thus evinced by his thought.

Ah, well as long as Wikipedia has a take on it...

I find the approach to the argument interesting, seemingly traditional theistic, traditional non theistic, and non-traditional agnostic. all hashing the same point in different ways.

I hardly ever find the argument itself (any argument) as fascinating as I find the interaction of the participants.

I remember my waking life when I am dreaming.

Nice translation. I have over thirty translations of the Dao De Jing - all of them different. So ... are you positive that this translation is the one and only one that should be referred to? Are you positive that the interpretation of the original thoughts by the translator are the one and only one that is correct? Should we do away with all other perspectives, translations, ideas on what Descartes meant.

Well, compared with taking the phrase "I think, therefore I am" completely out of the context of ANY translation of his other writing, I think it's a good start.

What do you think Charles Dickens, who wrote in English meant by the phrase "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times"? Well, best finish reading the intro to A Tale of Two Cities if you want to know, rather than pulling it out of you know where.

As for context, we all choose our own. Did you consider that he might not write down exactly what he thought for fear of persecution? Is the fact that a person needs to earn a living and stay alive pertinent to a discussion? Maybe, maybe not. It all depends.

Here we go again with your continual efforts to undermine and destroy anything that can be known, any parameters or discernments or data or conclusions or meaning or anything at all.

Delimit your interpretations with the things we DO know, because destroying them only leaves us with nothingness.

You know what you know and you can know anything you want to know. Problems arise when someone insists that they she/he knows the Truth (which is fine) for both of us (that is not fine with me).

Disagreement is as much a part of this world as agreement... It hardly leaves us with nothingness. It leaves us with observations, ideas, and questions. That is plenty enough for me.

I am in doubt as to the propriety of making my first meditations in the place above mentioned matter of discourse; for these are so metaphysical, and so uncommon, as not, perhaps, to be acceptable to every one. And yet, that it may be determined whether the foundations that I have laid are sufficiently secure, I find myself in a measure constrained to advert to them. I had long before remarked that, in relation to practice, it is sometimes necessary to adopt, as if above doubt, opinions which we discern to be highly uncertain, as has been already said; but as I then desired to give my attention solely to the search after truth, I thought that a procedure exactly the opposite was called for, and that I ought to reject as absolutely false all opinions in regard to which I could suppose the least ground for doubt, in order to ascertain whether after that there remained aught in my belief that was wholly indubitable. Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; and because some men err in reasoning, and fall into paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for demonstrations; and finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am, was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search.

richrf,

How do you take lucid dreaming into account? Lucid dream - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During a lucid dream, one can manipulate what occurs in the dream. It is a strange concept, is it not?

I think we have great insight into Descartes' thoughts on the matter. What's most worthy of discussion are the implications of his philosophy in our greater understanding of certain philosophical issues, including metaphysics (because the physical might be a deception), morality (because all other people might be a deception), epistemology (because all we can truly know is that we are a thinking being).

To suggest that "I think, therefore I am" might be some sort of existential statement about that which accounts for our very existence seems to be not what he communicates.

Disagreement is not the problem. The problem is that cogito ergo sum is not a philosophy. It's a statement of pith worthy of a tombstone. But what it meant to Descartes can be learned, because his philosophy is extensively elaborated in his writings and because he himself said that the cogito was his central premise.


Incidentally, you are correct that cogito ergo sum does not appear in the Meditations verbatim, but the cogito (which appears elsewhere in his writings, including the Discourse on Method), directly refers to that argument I quoted.

The FIRST appearance of the cogito (which was written in French), is from the Discourse on Method, and you can see that it's the same argument:

Totally. To me it is amazing. I have never been there, so if you (or anyone else) has some accounts you can related to me I would appreciate it. I am interested in the general feelings that you observe and what you are dreaming. Thanks.

To suggest that "I think, therefore I am" might be some sort of existential statement about that which accounts for our very existence seems to be not what he communicates.

I agree -- people who make it into a discussion of ontology are taking it beyond what Descartes ever wrote.

What could go beyond the ontological silliness of animal spirits?!