| Question Home |
Position:Home>Philosophy> I think, therefore, I am question.?Question: I think, therefore, I am question!.!? That seems to fit nicely with the human species but where does it fit into everything else!. A dog obviously thinks so does it apply to them also!?
However, a chair doesn't think but it exist!. It exist just like a human exist or a dog exist but it doesn't think!. The quote only proves that we think on a one dimensional plane of existence!. I think it should be officially changed to It exist, therefore, it is!. Any thoughts on the subject!?Www@QuestionHome@Com Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: do not confuse existing because of thinking, with knowing you exist because you know you think!. Descartes was not saying he exists because he thinks, but that he knows he must exist because he was thinking!. Something must be doing the thinking! His phrase had nothing to do with his cause of existence, but with what he can know!. Besides, even if he meant that he exists BECAUSE he thinks, it still would not rule out anything existing but which cannot think!. Something could still exist for some reason other than thinking!. But again, "I think, therefore I am" does not mean anything of the sort!. It is only a statement of what can be known!. If you are thinking, then you must also exist!. Thinking requires the existence of an agent of thinking, the same as driving a car requires someone or something doing the driving!.Www@QuestionHome@Com In my opinion i think that it does apply to dogs because like you said a dog obviously thinks!. but where everything else is concerned i think in some twisted way it does apply!. i mean a chair obviously doesn't think cause it is an object, however the person who created that chair had to think!. Maybe (in my opinion) this statement isn't as one dimensional as you think, maybe you just have to look deeper!. However the statement you think it should be changed to does make sense also!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Very good question!. I believe by saying, "I think, therefore I am" one would be implying that thought is derrived from consciousness, and our ability to perceive ourselves and give ourselves a name, give our thoughts a word!. Basically, because we have an internal dialogue, we have the ability to coin the phrase, "I am!." So, it depends on what beings you consider sentient!. If you believe animals, too, have true consciousness (or what we consider to be consciousness ;) ) then, technically, this term would be misguiding!. However, saying, "It exists, therefore, it is" might be redundant, and although it makes more sense, its much more fun to twist these philosophical riddles around in our minds, isn't it!?Www@QuestionHome@Com I think, therefore, I am!. This cannot be inverted!. I am, therefore, I think!. This is not equivalent!. Thinking presupposes existence but not vice versa!.Www@QuestionHome@Com A chair may exist!.!.!.!.but it is not LIFE! A dog is, a human is, a chair is not!. Yet, how do we truly know dog's "think"!? Just what I think, and very good question! :)Www@QuestionHome@Com The idea "I think therefore I am" is not an attempt to solve all philosophical problems; it is a first principle, which is held to be certain and true and self evident!. Your statement is only an a-priori circumlocution equating "exists" with "is"!. The statement in question says that thought can not exist without there existing an essence of being!. It also underscores self awareness "I am"!. Thought is in some respects transcendental, as Kant would say, but I do not know much about that!. There are two senses in which there is more to thought than that which is thought: 1) if we point to something and say "tree" that usually implies that there are many other things which are "not tree", and if we are thinking of more complicated things, abstract things, we are continually differentiating, and navigating past other kinds of thought; 2) secondly there is the structure of our minds which gives rise to thought!. The nature of the transcendental is interesting, but I do not know enough to frame questions about in in philosophy yet!.Www@QuestionHome@Com if want details then look up the author who came up with it, Descartes!. he was worry about a demon who was tricking him seeing a chair and feeding him everything when everything is false!. kinda like optical illusions how light seems to bend when light hits water!. or like looking at yourself with funny mirrors in amusement park!. he was concern that the chair and dog that you see is just another trick!. so he was after something that can't be doubted!. i think i am means at very least, that thinking itself exist!. everything else including a dog and chair could be an illusion, but he was sure that thinking exist!. i think i am is not suppose to fit everything else!. when you say it exist therefore it is itself is a thought, which is the same as i think i am!. there are other ways of saying the same thing, so there is not much benefit in rephrasing it!. in Latin, it's cogito ergo sum!. however, "it exist" is too ambiguous!. the am means more like just is, rather than sentient!.Www@QuestionHome@Com |