1. Joined
    07 Feb '03
    Moves
    1058
    30 Jul '05 23:23
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Behind all the makings of your mind,
    before all images, thoughts and words,
    can you find an “I” that’s not just another thought,
    another making of your mind?

    If not, who is “I”?
    If so, how will you tell
    anyone else?
    The I of today is tommorows memory, each day, each hour, each minute, each second, there is a new I.
  2. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    31 Jul '05 02:46
    I believe this is correct:

    I am, and I think. They are each self evident.
  3. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    31 Jul '05 02:54
    Originally posted by Serendipity
    "Cogito ergo sum" (Descartes 1637 Discourse on method/The meditations)

    "I think therfore I am" do you agree with this statemenent or its inversion "I am therefore I think"
    First, 'cogito, ergo sum" doesn't appear in the Meditations. Second, the proper translation is "I am thinking, therefore I am".
  4. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    31 Jul '05 08:32
    I'm ok, you're ok.

    I'm ok with that.
  5. Joined
    07 Feb '03
    Moves
    1058
    31 Jul '05 08:47
    Originally posted by bbarr
    First, 'cogito, ergo sum" doesn't appear in the Meditations. Second, the proper translation is "I am thinking, therefore I am".
    I'm not an expert on Latin, but every book I've read which mentions 'cogito ergo sum' , translates it as 'I think therefore I am'
    maybe it has a better sound to it than your translation.

    Anyway as much as your interest is appreciated (albeit an intrusion of pedantic correction), it would be more utilitarian if your focus was on the question at hand 🙂
  6. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    31 Jul '05 09:48
    Originally posted by Serendipity
    I'm not an expert on Latin, but every book I've read which mentions 'cogito ergo sum' , translates it as 'I think therefore I am'
    maybe it has a better sound to it than your translation.

    Anyway as much as your interest is appreciated (albeit an intrusion of pedantic correction), it would be more utilitarian if your focus was on the question at hand 🙂
    Well we actually need an expert on French. This is what Descartes wrote:

    Je pense, donc je suis

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
  7. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36105
    31 Jul '05 10:30
    Originally posted by Serendipity
    "Existence of the being would ontologically preceed the existence of the mind. " lucifershammer


    How so!?
    Maybe I'm using the term "ontologically" too loosely. But the idea is simple - for a mind to exist, it is necessary that the being that the mind is a component of exist; but the converse is not necessarily true.

    Not sure if I'm being clear enough.

    LH
  8. Joined
    07 Feb '03
    Moves
    1058
    31 Jul '05 10:32
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Maybe I'm using the term "ontologically" too loosely. But the idea is simple - for a mind to exist, it is necessary that the being that the mind is a component of exist; but the converse is not necessarily true.

    Not sure if I'm being clear enough.

    LH
    But isn't Descartes implying that you have to be consciously aware of your being to be?

    i think therefore I am

    I dont think therefore I am not 😕
  9. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36105
    31 Jul '05 11:141 edit
    Originally posted by Serendipity
    But isn't Descartes implying that you have to be consciously aware of your being to be?
    Not as I understand it.

    Descartes is trying to look for propositions (I think Barry Stroud called them the "privileged class of propositions"😉 that cannot be doubted and, hence, must always be true. Since the proposition "I think" cannot be doubted (to do so would be self-defeating), he concludes that the proposition "I am" cannot be doubted (since no being can think that does not already exist). I believe I'm on the same page as Descartes here.

    The way you've expressed it makes it look like the Berkelian idea that beings cease to exist when you are not consciously aware of them.

    LH

    EDIT: Actually, the contrapositive of "I think, therefore I am" is "I am not, therefore I do not think". 🙂
  10. Joined
    07 Feb '03
    Moves
    1058
    31 Jul '05 11:17
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Not as I understand it.

    Descartes is trying to look for propositions (I think Barry Stroud called them the "privileged class of propositions"😉 that cannot be doubted and, hence, must always be true. Since the proposition "I think" cannot be doubted (to do so would be self-defeating), he concludes that the proposition "I am" cannot be doubted ...[text shortened]... the contrapositive of "I think, therefore I am" is "I am not, therefore I do not think". 🙂
    In both cases I dont agree with his cartesian approach, I'm more of a Nietzsche fan
  11. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36105
    31 Jul '05 11:20
    Originally posted by Serendipity
    In both cases I dont agree with his cartesian approach, I'm more of a Nietzsche fan
    Either beings exist outside one's consciousness of them, or they do not. Nietzsche cannot agree/disagree with both simultaneously.
  12. Joined
    07 Feb '03
    Moves
    1058
    31 Jul '05 11:22
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Either beings exist outside one's consciousness of them, or they do not. Nietzsche cannot agree/disagree with both simultaneously.
    But he helped with the postmodern emancipation from the enlightenment, And we can both agree and be happy for that 🙂
  13. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36105
    31 Jul '05 11:27
    Originally posted by Serendipity
    But he helped with the postmodern emancipation from the enlightenment, And we can both agree and be happy for that 🙂
    Postmodern emancipation from the enlightenment? 😕

    There is an interesting article by Michael Kalish on the influence of Nietzshe on Mein Kampf:

    http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm
  14. Joined
    07 Feb '03
    Moves
    1058
    31 Jul '05 11:30
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Postmodern emancipation from the enlightenment? 😕

    There is an interesting article by Michael Kalish on the influence of Nietzshe on Mein Kampf:

    http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm
    We all know that the nazi intelligensia distorted the words of Nietzsche just as the communist intelligensia did with the words of Marx and Islamic fundamentalists did/do with the words of Muhhamed
  15. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36105
    31 Jul '05 12:44
    Originally posted by Serendipity
    We all know that the nazi intelligensia distorted the words of Nietzsche just as the communist intelligensia did with the words of Marx and Islamic fundamentalists did/do with the words of Muhhamed
    Neither I (nor the author of the article) denies this.

    But what exactly did you mean by "postmodern emancipation from the enlightenment"?

    LH
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree