Originally posted by Stormhe was looking for something certain, coz he knew the perception can be wrong
To those who are arguing about Descartes' "Je pense donc je suis", explain me how he came to conclude that because I have the impression you don' t know what you' re talking about.
Ok: Descartes: "Hmm Since I doubt pretty much everything I have to find something that I don'T doubt".....so he is looking a bit and then he figures "Dude, my existence, dude...If I doubt everything there must be an I ergo I doubt therefore I am....wait a minute isn't doubting a kind of though? Ajh yes....I think therefore I am"
I figure it went something like this right storm?
Bardock you haven't answered my question.
I doubt that u know wtf you are talking about
Tell me if a camotose person obeys that concept?
YES OR NO
f&*&^^ all the other shit you are talking and answer the fUC*&^ng question.
Just cuz u claim knowing something doesn't mean anything if you can't explain it in a concise manner
Originally posted by Clovie
he was looking for something certain, coz he knew the perception can be wrong
and everything can just be the effect of his imagination, so he conculeded in that his mind has to exist coz otherwise he wouldn't have been abled to ask any question.
in the very short and simple words, coz i'm unable to translate it properly 🙁
The point that I am trying to make is how do u know that you are existing? Whose to say that everything that happens to us is but the figment of a higher being's will. In that instance, we merely exist as long as the being dreaming or imagining us will it!!!!That's all I am saying and therefore dispute his statement. Therefore it's not an existence from our own self awareness but rather us having our strings pulled and therefore being told that we exists.
In his Meditations, Descartes attempts to arrive at a fundamental set of principles that one can know as true without any doubt. To achieve this, he employs a method called methodological skepticism: he doubts any idea that can be doubted.
The foundation of his doubt is that his opinions are largely established by his senses but that the senses deceive us (the example of the straight stick that appears bent when partially submerged in water).
Secondly, he proves that at any given time he could be deceived, such is the case with realistic dreams. In a dream, we perceive things that seem real, but do not actually exist.
Further, Descartes is able to doubt absolutely everything since it cannot be ruled out that an evil genius (le malin génie) - a supremely powerful and cunning being - has employed all his energies in order to deceive him.
Descartes has reached the point where he must begin to rebuild by searching for certainty. By doubting everything, Descartes consequently doubts his own existence.
It is here that a certainty is unearthed. If he convinced himself of something then he certainly exists.
Descartes has shown that by doubting his existence, he exists. But in what form? You perceive your body through the use of the senses; however, these have previously proved unreliable. So Descartes concludes that at this point, he can only say that he is a thinking thing. In doubting, he is thinking; therefore by thinking, he exists as a thinking thing. Thinking is his essence as it is the only thing about him that cannot be doubted. Thus, through Cartesian doubt, Descartes has arrived that he must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by him or conceived in his mind.
Thank you Storm. TX for clarifying that with me. I understand further where he is coming from. My opinion doesn't change at all. Because although I understand him, I disagree. I agree with his entire notion of perception and deception and further I believe that him believing he exists, because he thinks that same evil has in fact already deceived him.
You might not understand or call me mad, but I have gone through school and college and I wished that I had a better professor in Philosphy than I had because I truly believe otherwise but thanx for taking the time to explain it further.
Bottom line is saying that because I question or thought of something, then I exist is stupid. If people really thought about it, and not because DECARTES the great french philosopher said it then perhaps you would see that merely saying that I think therefore I have to be cuz if not then I wouldn't have thought of thinking it???WTF is that???
Well that applies only for humans right? What about animals, do they exist or I guess since this can;t apply to animals so we are not gonna think about it. Makes sense people!!!Only question things that fit certain paramaters not everything.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One cannot disagree with it. In order for one to question his existence, he must have a mind to question with. In this way, the fact that one thinks is a reinforcement of his existence.
Huh. *points at screen* I like that. Well said.
(And yes, that was my exact reaction upon reading.)
Okay I can'T say that I 100% agree with descartesy but this one point you people always brought up "If he is right than animals/stones/comatose people don't exist" is wrong. Descartes just says that he can'T be sure of that but that because of his doubt he can be sure of his own existence. You don'T have to agree with him, there are many other great philosophers with other ideas....but please, people, at least understand what he's saying and stop making bullshit remarks.