Nothing is everything.

"I think, therefore I am."
Descartes?

"Life is like a hot bath. It feels good while you're in it, but the longer you stay in, the more wrinkled you get."
Robbert Oustin

"Don't cry because its over, smile because it happened."
Unknown

Discuss, or feel free to add your own.

Here's two more:

"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
John Lennon

"Life is full of misery, loneliness, and suffering - and it's all over much too soon."
Woody Allen

"My life's like one great big ball of [doodoo]"
Eminem

"Come to me, all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and you shall find rest unto your souls."

Matthew 11:28

Originally posted by whodey
"Come to me, all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and you shall find rest unto your souls."

Matthew 11:28

Who said that in Matthew? 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by lioyank
"I think, therefore I am."
Descartes?

A presuppositional inference; one cannot think if one's existence has not yet been ascertained and since Descartes believes existence is dependent upon thinking, he's somewhat screwed.

Originally posted by Starrman
A presuppositional inference; one cannot think if one's existence has not yet been ascertained and since Descartes believes existence is dependent upon thinking, he's somewhat screwed.

You are confused about the propositional content of his statement.

He is in fact saying that thinking is dependenet upon existence, that is, that existence is a necessary condition for thinking, hence the correctly stated implication. A claim of the form "A implies B" expresses that A is logically dependent upon B, or that B is a necessary condition for A. It does not express, as you have incorrectly stated, that B is dependent upon A.

He is not claiming that existence is dependent upon thinking. If that were his claim, then he would have said something propositionally equivalent to "I am, therefore I think" for reasons analogous to those above.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You are confused about the propositional content of his statement.

He is in fact saying that thinking is dependenet upon existence, that is, that existence is a necessary condition for thinking, hence the correctly stated implication. A claim of the form "A implies B" expresses that A is logically dependent upon B, or that B is a necessary condi ...[text shortened]... ropositionally equivalent to "I am, therefore I think" for reasons analogous to those above.

Yes, perhaps I should rephrase; my intention was not to show the falsity of his statement, but rather his reasoning process surrounding the creation of the 'cogito'. Descartes was trying to say what he could have no doubt about with reference to existence. If existence is only indubitable to him by the recognition of self in a thinking process, then the use of 'I' cannot preceed the presence of the thinking process since the use of 'I' implies existence. To say 'I think' presupposes the presence of the very conditions necessary to remove the doubt against 'I' in relation to existence. Of course he's a thinking thing and existence is a necessary condition of thought, but it is clear from reading the meditations that the 'cogito' is his attempt to prove existence, which it does not. Semantics? Maybe, but in the search for what one can have surety about in relation to existence, one must first prove existence before one can see if an existing thing can think.

Something like this maybe (I'm not very good at things like this to be honest)?

There is an I, there is a thinking thing, there is existence, such that I think therefore I exist. This implies that existence is known and that I is a part of that, the very thing Descartes was doubting and trying to show surety about.

If I've failed to explain what I mean I apologise, perhaps we could discuss this by PM, I find it greatly interesting, but I am pretty crap at formal logic.

Also worth mentioning, when Descartes was meditating on the nature of his own existence, formal logic and its application, particularly to language, was not a process he had at his disposal and whilst he may have been the first philosopher to use algebraic methods for analysis, what you and I call logic is far removed. He certainly would not have expressed his thought in such a formal way, considering that the Meditations are a greatly discussive collection.

Originally posted by Starrman
To say '[b]I think' presupposes the presence of the very conditions necessary to remove the doubt against 'I' in relation to existence. [/b]

Suppose Descartes had instead been deliberating about the existence of alligators, and during that deliberation, a green one crossed his path.

He might exclaim, "That alligator is green, therefore alligators exist."

Would you characterize that exclamation as having the same flaw?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Who said that in Matthew? 🙂
Kelly

Why it was JC himself. Just a little light in a dark world.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Suppose Descartes had instead been deliberating about the existence of alligators, and during that deliberation, a green one crossed his path.

He might exclaim, "[b]That alligator is green, therefore alligators exist."

Would you characterize that exclamation as having the same flaw?[/b]

You're right of course, but Descartes makes it very clear that when he sits down to begin the Meditations he closes the door, quietens the mind and begins his focus purely within, so as to minimise the world from having input. His method requires more than just a logical view of the data at hand.

"To-day, then, since I have opportunely freed my mind from all cares (and am happily disturbed by no passions), and since I am in the secure possession of leisure in a peaceable retirement, I will at length apply myself earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all my former opinions.

His position is one from which he begins to reduce what he thinks he may know down to what he can have no doubt in, from there to build up what he may know in surety.

But we are talking from different points of view. You - from a position of logical analysis and I - from a literary/psychological analysis.

This reminds me of something RC and I have talked about; the layer of 'worlds' wherein perception lies, a metaphysical focus within which perception is bound by different rules. The world of numerical interpretation and the world of common sense interpretation. Ideas I have not fully explored by any means (I'm reading 'Godel Escher and Bach' at the moment in an attempt to further this).