Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Do you agree with this?

Calm down there IG-88.....

Under the hierarchy of "what am I", there are a few branches, and to think, is only a factor, other factors could also be experience, ect...

Going Descartes here, eh?

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.

"I think, therefore I am.
I destroy, therefore I endure."
-IG-88, Tales of the Bounty Hunters

You see thats the problem with the Droids nowadays

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...

To think is to exist. Congratulations!!! Your here....

He thinks u are a droid?

Peter I am happy to see that your posts make as much sense as always

They do live among us.

um ok ?!

Bardock let's go outside, I'm gonna whip your *** bash

Yeah, many people on this planet though 'aren't'' - if thinking means they 'are'

lil b, that's great!
And Peter, that's exactly what I meant!

Ass gets star-ed? coooooool
Anyway...no thanks petey

And thats exactly what DCLXVI meant ( can i just call you Satan?)

Sure, or Cody!

Hmm hard decision......I think I go for Cody, Cody.

Alrighty then....

f i can see you, then your probably there, or i just may be trippin out

Trippin...ya..or it could be worse, you could see dead people.

"I think, therefore I am."


Am what? It doesn't really say anything substantial, does it?

^ that is what I thought at first, but then, some say about existence and stuff... I think it's either the consciousness of oneself, or what experience has gave you, personality...

The problem with this statement as having being pointed out by Kant is the "I" in the equation: Kant said that there is nothing that suggests the existence of an "I", or an individual entity(the self). The "I" is thus an axiom - not proven but merely postulated. All we can say is that there is thought(thinking), but we have no proof that there is an "I" who is thinking the thought.

We should first define "think", "I" and "am"/being, otherwise Descartes statement is based on an unsubstantiated axiom.

and we beed to define therefore...don't forget that.

Originally posted by Player
The problem with this statement as having being pointed out by Kant is the "I" in the equation: Kant said that there is nothing that suggests the existence of an "I", or an individual entity(the self). The "I" is thus an axiom - not proven but merely postulated. All we can say is that there is thought(thinking), but we have no proof that there is an "I" who is thinking the thought.


Really? And I thought the only thing a philosopher is able to prove without a doubt through all the postulating is the existence of self. Everything else is theoritical.

The existence of self is not proven - read Kant and all the other Enlightenment philosophers.

Intriguing. So if the existence of self is not proven, nothing else can be proven anywhere... is that what you're saying?

Basically, yes. Everything is interpretation - no facts - nothing can be absolutely proven.

It's only humans with their "arrogance of certainty"...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Peter I am happy to see that your posts make as much sense as always
lol yes his posts are ery informative

Originally posted by Player
Basically, yes. Everything is interpretation - no facts - nothing can be absolutely proven.

Yes. No such thing as an absolute truth either. Everything is an interpretation and facts are based on the observment, and thus the fact are not facts in its own right but an observation.

"Something cannot bring itself into existence." Isn' t this an absolutely true statement? In order for something to bring itself into existence, it would have to exist in order to be able to perform an action. But if it already existed, then it isn' t possible to bring itself into existence since it already exists. Likewise, if it does not exist then it has no ability to perform any creative action since it doesn' t exist in the first place.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yes. No such thing as an absolute truth either. Everything is an interpretation and facts are based on the observment, and thus the fact are not facts in its own right but an observation.

People only jump in conclusion that there are no absolute truth when after repetition of failures in the search of truth... It's only the fear of the truth, nothing less, nothing more... for if one searches harder, one will eventually find truth...

Facts - lil b is a female...
- you have a name...
- you were born from your parents...

Why do you or those who want you to go to school if those were utterly rubbish?

are you sure of that peter?
Are you even sure that someone called lil b does exist
do you exist?
Do you read that or is it just an imagination?

Everyone has their beliefs, and thus everyone has their own absolute truth...

No everyone has there own belifs...thats true so far....but no one has an absolute truth since, chances are some people have some kind of truth partly but no ABSOLUTE one

Originally posted by Bardock42
No everyone has there own belifs...thats true so far....but no one has an absolute truth since, chances are some people have some kind of truth partly but no ABSOLUTE one

Bardock you are contradicting yourself... When I say EVERYONE has their own beliefs, and thus everyone has their OWN absolute truth(s)... I am NOT wrong in this... Offcourse I exclude those who are incapable of thinking...

"No everyone has there own belifs...thats true so far...." - I don't understand what you are trying to say... your whole paragraph is crap anyway...

There is an absolute truth - the mere facticity of Existence/Being as such - the 'is'. All that is - the whole infinity of being is the Absolute.

Yes I know that I just said that it is very unlikelly that any human actually knows the ABSOLUTE Truth.

Originally posted by peterKSL
Bardock you are contradicting yourself... When I say EVERYONE has their own beliefs, and thus everyone has their OWN absolute truth(s)... I am NOT wrong in this... Offcourse I exclude those who are incapable of thinking...

"No everyone has there own belifs...thats true so far...." - I don't understand what you are trying to say... your whole paragraph is crap anyway...

Actually you are contradicting yourself...in saying that everyone has his own absolute truth you say there is more than one Absolute truth ....wtf

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually you are contradicting yourself...in saying that everyone has his own absolute truth you say there is more than one Absolute truth ....wtf

I didn't know what to do with the truth, as I have added an "s" behind belief...

well don't get me wrong I am not trying to be mean to you or anything I am just saying what I mean

^ turned side after a sexy girl slap you?

I like spanking people and accepted ideas/beliefs.

Nope, I didn't. I just don't want you to feel bad.

Bardock, with the brain the size of a planet, what other body parts of you are the size of a planet?

You want to know that now don't you sexymisty

Originally posted by Storm
"Something cannot bring itself into existence." Isn' t this an absolutely true statement? In order for something to bring itself into existence, it would have to exist in order to be able to perform an action. But if it already existed, then it isn' t possible to bring itself into existence since it already exists. Likewise, if it does not exist then it has no ability to perform any creative action since it doesn' t exist in the first place.

No, its not an absolute true statement - its based on an observation, that was made a ''fact'' that something cannot do something else. Such statement might be absolutely wrong in 100 or 200 years time.Originally posted by peterKSL
People only jump in conclusion that there are no absolute truth when after repetition of failures in the search of truth... It's only the fear of the truth, nothing less, nothing more... for if one searches harder, one will eventually find truth...

Facts - lil b is a female...
- you have a name...
- you were born from your parents...

Why do you or those who want you to go to school if those were utterly rubbish?
No, again. Me being a female is an observation, and open to enterpretation - what you call a female, someone else might not. And me coming from my parents is again not an absolute truth - its an observation - the one that might shift drastically in years time.

The fact that sun rises and sets is also not an absolute truth but an observation fed to us as the fact. Years and years ago, such truth of how the sun sets and rises was complitely different and in that time it was considered the truth and nothing but - just as in 1000 years time, what we call truth now will be possibly discarded.

Sun sets are irrelevant.

The Sun doesn't set or rise purely because it doesn't move.

There are two genders, male and female. You are born one of these.

Don't see the difficulty here. You'll be a female in 50 years time (if you're here) unless you have a sex change. Even still, you were born a female.

Just because there are little absolute truths, doesn't mean everything is observation. Truth's don't lessen with time. The fact that there is a Sun won't demean as time goes on.

-AC

Originally posted by s|m
Do you agree with this?

What that basically means is that your mind cannot exist without a body. To make it more complicated does the mind stop to function when a person dies? The mind is not an on/off switch that you can turn it when you feel like it. It just happens and it all begins with experience. Our experiences shape our way of thinking.

Nope AC, you are wrong we might consider it absolute truth...but we can never be sure that ist actually is the absolute truth. At least there will always be the doubt of our existence and even if you don'T doubt that you can very much doubt if I exist or the sun or anything.
Look can you testify without a doubt that you are really a human (= meat) or isn'T it just possible that you might as well be I don't know maybe energy that just "dreams" all that...or maybe that you are an "alien" in a game, or that you are just imagined by some sort of god....well I know I can't I mean i liek to belive that I am a male human and that I am 18 and what not but sure of that I can't ever be. It might be a part of the absolute truth...it might as well just not. What if you are actually from the future and all what you consider as earth and your surroundings is a simulation of what the past was like ?

This actually was the only good thing aboot the Matrix that it kind of made that Idea belivable....oh and the Secial Effects...except for that the Movie sucked. Watch eXistenZ

Use this thread: Life: -=Reality -OR- Illusion=- to discuss that particular subject.

The mind is a bi-product of brain functioning. Evidence of this is that one can have a brain and not have a mind, as in the case of the comatose, but it is impossible for one to have a mind and not have a brain. Therefore, when the brain dies, the mind no longer exists.

You know that.....because?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No, again. Me being a female is an observation, and open to enterpretation - what you call a female, someone else might not. And me coming from my parents is again not an absolute truth - its an observation - the one that might shift drastically in years time.

The fact that sun rises and sets is also not an absolute truth but an observation fed to us as the fact. Years and years ago, such truth of how the sun sets and rises was complitely different and in that time it was considered the truth and nothing but - just as in 1000 years time, what we call truth now will be possibly discarded.

There is a difference in centuries ago and the present... we now have logical prove of it's existence as a fact, and not a out-of-no-where theory...

you see, learning is a wonderful experience where you are in the search for the truth, to gain contentment and curiousity from it is more important than to blame yourself from the foolish judgement you made years ago... We kept our findings, and even our mistakes from ancestral period to this present, and for the future to come... we don't just discard our view on the truth...

It is through the 5 senses which we gained our logic... Observation is one of them, so, why not? We first call facts by our 5 senses after we think of it, don't we? You single human observation out from the absolute truth just because humans make mistakes all the time don't you?

It is not for us to determine, or create to have what we seek, it is to discover, for everything is already on earth... We are just one of them, playing the game, experiencing life...

Bardock: Questioning things is good. Questioning EVERYTHING is rather silly.

Why do I need to question something as obvious as the sun? Why does it matter? People just get into it to make themselves seem more intelligent


-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Bardock: Questioning things is good. Questioning EVERYTHING is rather silly.

Why do I need to question something as obvious as the sun? Why does it matter? People just get into it to make themselves seem more intelligent


-AC



Bardock ready to put on your guns... lol..

I think TH Huxley put it best, so forgive me for quoting him...

"A little cosideration will show this formula to be full of snares and verbal entanglements. In the first place, the "therefore" has no business there. The "I am" is assumed in the "I think," which is simply another way of saying "I am thinking." And in the second place, "I think" is not one simple proposition, but three distinct assertions rolled into one. The first of these is "something called I exists"; the second is "something called thought exists"; and the third is "the thought is the result of the action of the I". Now it will be obvious to you that the only one of these three propositions which can stand the Cartesian test of certainty is the second."

That saying never works.I say it all day and everything bad happens to me.JM

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Sun sets are irrelevant.

The Sun doesn't set or rise purely because it doesn't move.

There are two genders, male and female. You are born one of these.

Don't see the difficulty here. You'll be a female in 50 years time (if you're here) unless you have a sex change. Even still, you were born a female.

Just because there are little absolute truths, doesn't mean everything is observation. Truth's don't lessen with time. The fact that there is a Sun won't demean as time goes on.

-AC


Ah, you are wrong there. Some people are born unisex. A disturbing thought, but yes...




This is the life of the true philosopher. Question everything, make sense of nothing.

As Socrates said: "The unexamined life is not worth living." As philosophers we MUST question everything in order not to fall into the trap of blind discipleship.

RSA

RSA? Haven't come accross that abbreviation before.

yeah right

Seriously, what is RSA - some lingo used in forums?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Bardock: Questioning things is good. Questioning EVERYTHING is rather silly.

Why do I need to question something as obvious as the sun? Why does it matter? People just get into it to make themselves seem more intelligent


-AC


You jujst need to keep in kmind that it might not be that obvious.....you see I don't question the sun, beliving there is one and all that stuff works for me. But if you one day wake up and you are a green bug eyed alien don't say I didn'T warn you

Yes that would be rather comedic.

Outside of pseudo-intellectual (and impossible) theories though, that's not gonna happen.

I agree that everyone perceiving reality different is a tremendous theory, however it's not provable or disprovable really. So it's a bit smart-assed to sit there saying "It's subjective" all the time.

It's not. If a lamppost is painted green, you can 99.999999% chance, see that it's green too. If you say, "Nah it's black", then you're being stupid.

-AC

RSA in sports ZA in country code

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes that would be rather comedic.

Outside of pseudo-intellectual (and impossible) theories though, that's not gonna happen.

I agree that everyone perceiving reality different is a tremendous theory, however it's not provable or disprovable really. So it's a bit smart-assed to sit there saying "It's subjective" all the time.

It's not. If a lamppost is painted green, you can 99.999999% chance, see that it's green too. If you say, "Nah it's black", then you're being stupid.

-AC

Well I agree with you.....but whats so wrong aboot considering it?

Nothing, I mentioned it ages ago, back when I first joined. I encourage it.

Just gets a bit ridiculous when people take it as face value.

Like when Lil said "You can't prove I'm a female" or something to that effect. It's just overly pretentious.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
You want to know that now don't you sexymisty

Misty's a GUY!!!!

Do ya still want to spank her??

Sorry off topic.

Originally posted by Misty Girl
Bardock, with the brain the size of a planet, what other body parts of you are the size of a planet?

If he's hot

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nothing, I mentioned it ages ago, back when I first joined. I encourage it.

Just gets a bit ridiculous when people take it as face value.

Like when Lil said "You can't prove I'm a female" or something to that effect. It's just overly pretentious.

-AC

Again I agree with you...its not on my daily thoughts, just sometimes when I am talking on a Philosophy forum.....you know

Cogito ergo sum
it is the conclusion made by De Cart
i think he has been thinking about the perception, and differences between what we see and what the reality is
also about what has been mentioned in matrix, that ppl can be just be brains in the word of illusion

and the what he meant (IMHO) is that if we think we gotta exist, coz otherwise we wouldn't be able to ask ourselves if we do exist.

Its Descartes not De Cart, but I think you are right.

I have never really thought about it but now that I am, I disagree with that statement. Is it safe to assume that because you are thinking therefore you exist and those that don't think therefore are nonexistent?.Biology has thought us that a living organism that breathes, eat, uses energy for it's metabolism and reproduces is alive. Therefore plants, bacteria, viruses they all are alive, and clearly exist, but do they think as us human do????Therefore that statement is flawed.

At night the plants gravitate near water and conspire.

Originally posted by LordFear
I have never really thought about it but now that I am, I disagree with that statement. Is it safe to assume that because you are thinking therefore you exist and those that don't think therefore are nonexistent?.Biology has thought us that a living organism that breathes, eat, uses energy for it's metabolism and reproduces is alive. Therefore plants, bacteria, viruses they all are alive, and clearly exist, but do they think as us human do????Therefore that statement is flawed. i think you should get to know ways by which he has taken with conclusion

coz it is more like 'the only sure proof of ppl existence is that they think, coz some that don't exist doesn't think'

and not that 'only beings which think do exist'

regardless of that is he saying that only people who think exist?
either way the criteria of what existence is is not solely based on whether or not you and I think or not. It is much more elaborate and intricate then that.

and it is the other way around
he says that the fact that you think is a proof that you exist.

Descartes concluded that in doubt, we exist.

Indeed, clovie is right ... Descartes doubts everything, he didn't take life or the earth or anything for granted...so he needed something to base his philosophy around...and as such he first said when i doubt everything I must exist or I can't doubt ands so he came to Cogito ergo sum...which he took as proof that he existed. This doesn'T need to be true but that is what he said to start his Philosophies off.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Indeed, clovie is right ... Descartes doubts everything, he didn't take life or the earth or anything for granted...so he needed something to base his philosophy around...and as such he first said when i doubt everything I must exist or I can't doubt ands so he came to Cogito ergo sum...which he took as proof that he existed. This doesn'T need to be true but that is what he said to start his Philosophies off. it is exactly what i wasn't able to explain cry thank you.

The only REAL problem with the basis of philosophy is when you spend your whole life questioning existence, existence passes you by. You miss the little things in life that make life what it is...

Originally posted by Clovie
it is exactly what i wasn't able to explain cry thank you.

No problewm Clovie

Oh and rborn did you ever cionsider that some people mifght like to question everything...maybe that is the little thing that makes their life what it is

Originally posted by Bardock42
No problewm Clovie

Oh and rborn did you ever cionsider that some people mifght like to question everything...maybe that is the little thing that makes their life what it is what are you drinking?

Hey how can I be sure that you are not a guy ?.....

clovie my point is that I disagree with his basis. The fact that he needed to state that to build his philosophy around I think is false. I don't agree with a direct correlaton between thought and existence. Sorry but I disagree

But Clovie is not argueing for Descartes, she just states what he meant...plus as philosopher you ate least need some base....so what is it for you?

Descartes' problem was that in order to identify an ultimate principle of truth, he needed to find an indisputable basic assumption on which all other knowledge could be based on. Descartes' basis is the doubt.

Yes.......and?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hey how can I be sure that you are not a guy ?..... you can't be sure.


Originally posted by LordFear
clovie my point is that I disagree with his basis. The fact that he needed to state that to build his philosophy around I think is false. I don't agree with a direct correlaton between thought and existence. Sorry but I disagree but i;m still not sure if you understand it correctly, coz earlier you seemed not to

Originally posted by Reborn Again
The only REAL problem with the basis of philosophy is when you spend your whole life questioning existence, existence passes you by. You miss the little things in life that make life what it is...

So that means I was right when I said that life is all about experience?

Hold on there, cowboy. Ease that ego.

There is thinking...the rest we don't know.

There is realisation, the rest is yet to be known... in other words?

The only thing one cannot question is whether his mind exists, for in order to question whether his mind exists, he must first have a mind to question with.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The only thing one cannot question is whether his mind exists, for in order to question whether his mind exists, he must first have a mind to question with.


Mindblogging, isn't it?


But if you're questioning your mind exists, then you must have mind to question it? So it's an oxymoron.

AM I HAVING A DEJA VU OR DID THIS REALLY HAPPENED BEFORE?

How can we prove it exists???

Originally posted by debbiejo
How can we prove it exists??? to form a question about existnece there must be some subject which will ask this question.
so it has to exist firstly.

I think it's more than thinking..People in comas aren't thinking like we are, and unborn babies aren't thinking in the beginning, but they still ARE.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I think it's more than thinking..People in comas aren't thinking like we are, and unborn babies aren't thinking in the beginning, but they still ARE.

When in a comatose state, there is no brain activity. Someone in a coma does not think or even dream.

But they can still say, they exist, and who knows what the inner mind or spirit is experiencing.

I agree. If you know that you think, then you are self-aware. And "you" is a personal reference, as opposed to something that you would normally say to, for example, a toaster (unless you're personifying the toaster) so yeah. I think, therefore I am.

You don'T get it....the "I think therefore I am" means that you can be sure that you exist cause you think this doesn't mean that things that don't think don'T exist but that we can't be sure it does.

I think what it really means is "I think therefore you, me, and others are"... Things can only exist in individuals mind... in spite of hallucinations, or imaginations... all exist if one's brain is to function that way...

No it doesn'T peter
What you say is a philosophy like Berkeley did. Descartes on the other hand is different.

who is Berkeley?

Berkley was an Idealist, Irish philosopher.

Yes and he belived that "to be is to be perceived (esse est percipi)"

Originally posted by LordFear
I have never really thought about it but now that I am, I disagree with that statement. Is it safe to assume that because you are thinking therefore you exist and those that don't think therefore are nonexistent?.Biology has thought us that a living organism that breathes, eat, uses energy for it's metabolism and reproduces is alive. Therefore plants, bacteria, viruses they all are alive, and clearly exist, but do they think as us human do????Therefore that statement is flawed.

Well yes, but the statement tries to prove that whatever has a conscience can live as an individual, creating its own "world" and questioning about life itself; a plant, for example, is only an inferior form of life, which cannot do that. I think the statement doesn't only reffer to the physical existance of things.
That's somewhat confusing, though, because the mind is also a physical part of the body, and emotions, thoughts, etc. are impulses.
These things make me wonder if what i see is real

We can't comprehend what it is "to be" because we are limited to what we see and experience, but it is important to comprehend what we don't see that is also just as real. Consciousness, thought, and energy impulses that surround every living thing.

The coma victim is a classic case upon which this ideology or statement can be argued that it's flawed. DesCarte certainly didn't account for someone in a coma. Is that person nonexistent because his consciousness is suspended? All of that person's biological criteria to be alive are still there. He lives, uses energy for his metabolism, eats although not self induced, and does have the necessary elements to potentially repoduce, therefore that statement doesn't follow this scenario

Goddammit don't you understand "I think therefore I am" doesn'T equal "I don't think therefore I am not", that are two totally different things....you first have to proof that you exist than you can go aboot to prove that other things exist.

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.

Originally posted by Storm
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. 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

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

Actually pretty much what cloviely said

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.

So we ared right

Anyway I actually first heard descarteds sentence as "Dubito ergo sum" not "Cogito"

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.

In order for one to doubt his existence, he must first exist. If you believe it is possible for one to doubt his existence and not exist, by all means prove it.

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.

Just so we are clear, you cannot provide an instance in which it is possible to question your existence and not exist? Something is stupid here and it is not the concept.

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.)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Something is stupid here and it is not the concept.

clapping That was great.

And now I'm done kissing your ass.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In order for one to doubt his existence, he must first exist. If you believe it is possible for one to doubt his existence and not exist, by all means prove it.

you made a good point...

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.

Consults are good at times, but still, one must consider, in order to achieve greatest satisfaction...

I never learn psychology or philosophy in school, but I still have knowledge about some areas of both...

didnt teach us sexual education in school either but damn do I know the stuff

^ you did share the experience with someone else..right????

S-E-X-U..... .....what is that finti?

Originally posted by debbiejo
^ you did share the experience with someone else..right????


Not before the "pleasure" was all finti's.

I think there should be a T-Shirt that says Front Side: "I think, therefore I am... Back Side: "....better than you"

That would be cool.

Make one!!!

yeah!
nice one, bardock

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In order for one to doubt his existence, he must first exist. If you believe it is possible for one to doubt his existence and not exist, by all means prove it.




Can you disprove it as well?
Maybe I can't prove that if something doesn't exist then how can it doubt it's existence?
But can you prove that because you doubt your existence therefore you exist???
You can't prove that fact neither.

Originally posted by LordFear
Can you disprove it as well?

Maybe I can't prove that if something doesn't exist then how can it doubt it's existence?

But can you prove that because you doubt your existence therefore you exist???

You can't prove that fact neither.

The existence of something cannot be disproven as it is impossible to prove a negation. If something does not exist, there would be no evidence of its existence, let alone its non-existence.

For one to be able to doubt his existence, he must first exist. If he does not exist, there would be no "he" to do the doubting in the first place.

Furthermore, whether or not my argument can be proven does not validate yours. In other words, even if my argument could not be proven correct, your argument would not be correct by default. Considering that I have just proven my argument, and by your own admission, you cannot prove yours, mine is correct.

Earth to Adam..Earth to Adam......You're always Sooooooooooo Serious...You gotta find your HAPPY place...

dont we all debbiejo, dont we all

... "I think not," said Descartes; and promptly disappeared.