Two suggestions

Ken Edwards

Two suggestions

Question. Do I exist?

The philosopher Dascarte once used these words: "I think therefore I am" to prove that he exists.The phrase implied the direct, immediate, certain knowledge of his own existence. Thought requires a thinker.

I suggest here that the phrase: "I think therefore I am" does, indeed, prove that I exist but for two additional reasons.

First: "Thinking" is an Action and it is an obvious truth that all Actions unequivocally exist in the Real Universe. I might also say: "I eat therefore I am" or "I sneeze therefore I am" or "I walk therefore I am".

Therefore I exist.

Second the phrase "I think therefore I am" proves that I exist because it uses the pronoun "I".

There can only be 2 possibilities here. Number one. I Exist. Number two. I don't exist.

If I don't exist than nothing I say exists and this discussion is meaningless.

Therefore I exist.

Are my suggestions correct?

Ken Edwards

Banno

↪Ken Edwards

The phrase is supported by an argument; Descartes systematically doubts as many of his beliefs as he can until he finds something that he cannot doubt - that there is someone doing the doubting.

His argument would be better parsed as "I doubt, therefore I am".

Hence, "I walk, therefore I am" will not cut it. He might be deluded that he walks, but he cannot be deluded that he doubts.

Welcome.

Ken Edwards

Very well. The difference between walking and doubting is that walking is an action performed outside of my brain whereas doubting is an action performed not only inside of my brain but performed by my brain.

But if I should say, "I doubt, therefore I am" would that not prove that I exist?

Banno

But if I should say, "I doubt, therefore I am" would that not prove that I exist? — Ken Edwards

Not too sure what you are asking. I think the argument is cogent. However, there are things built in to it that show it to be a bit over the top.

The most obvious is that positing such an argument requires language. Language requires some sort of social standing; it's not solipsistic. Hence, in order to even commence to doubt in the way Descartes does, it is necessary first to hold some things as true - the meanings of the words one is using in order to doubt.

Doubting can only take place against a background of certainty.

Ken Edwards

Sorry, I sent you an incomplete suggestion.

I should have said:
"I doubt, therefore I am"
"Doubting" is an Action and it is an obvious truth that all Actions unequivocally exist in the Real Universe.

Therefore I exist.

NOS4A2

↪Ken Edwards

First: "Thinking" is an Action and it is an obvious truth that all Actions unequivocally exist in the Real Universe. I might also say: "I eat therefore I am" or "I sneeze therefore I am" or "I walk therefore I am".

I would push back on this because I don’t think it’s obvious that all actions unequivocally exist. When I jump, for instance, something called a “jump” doesn’t immediately pop in to existence and vanish when I’m finished.

ArguingWAristotleTiff

@Banno
A portion of your reply has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page.
Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution. :flower:

Mww

I might also say: "I eat therefore I am" or "I sneeze therefore I am" or "I walk therefore I am". — Ken Edwards

You can say this if you wish, but Descartes covered it as not in accordance with his thesis, in Principles of Philosophy, Pt 1, Sec 9.

To say “I doubt therefore I am” is valid in itself, but reducible. Probably why ol’ Rene didn’t stop at doubting as the irreducible ground of his argument, but only as the necessary condition for it, given in ibid Sec7.

Best to keep in mind exactly what he’s demonstrating in this particular part of the thesis.

Ken Edwards

↪NOS4A2

I would push back on this because I don’t think it’s obvious that all actions unequivocally exist. When I jump, for instance, something called a “jump” doesn’t immediately pop in to existence and vanish when I’m finished.

All natural actions such as a volcano don't suddenly pop into the real word just because we name them either. They are events in an infinite chain of events. We describe them as individual "events" but they do not "really" exist as individual events.
If you do, indeed Jump then it is an event in the real word .

I am getting confused.

If you did indeed jump then it does indeed become an event in the real word.

frank

↪Ken Edwards

Descartes was actually pointing out that you can't doubt that you exist. Therefore your existence is a ground to work up from (as opposed to the sorts of grounding the church gave at the time).

There is no proof of that which can't be doubted, so Descartes wasn't offering a proof in this case.

deletedmemberTB

Did anybody catch theirs yet?
And what's the great attraction to tail-chasing [your own in this case; i get it when it isn't].

Ken Edwards

↪ArguingWAristotleTiff

Ken Edwards

A portion of your reply has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page.
Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution.

Thank you very much for your kind words, ArguingWAristotleTiff. That was certainly unexpected. I am very pleased. Do you think Partisipants there are actually considering my words?

EnPassant

Very well. The difference between walking and doubting is that walking is an action performed outside of my brain whereas doubting is an action performed not only inside of my brain but performed by my brain.

But if I should say, "I doubt, therefore I am" would that not prove that I exist? — Ken Edwards

Walking is the same in this context as thinking because he cannot know he walks unless the knows - ie thinks - he walks. Even if he is not walking he thinks he walks therefore he thinks therefore...

counterpunch

↪Ken Edwards

You should read Mediations on First Philosophy by Descartes. It's not very long and quite comprehensible, because, no - that's not quite it.

Descartes is doing a thought experiment in which he sets out to doubt everything that can possibly be doubted in order to find something that cannot be doubted.

He doubts the world exists, or that he has a body - so, "I sneeze therefore I am" doesn't work. He arrives, eventually, at - I think therefore I am, as something that is certain.

Ken Edwards

I am not thinking about the meanings of these words: Thinking Doupting and Walking. I am merely using these words as examples of Actions that are performed by my subject. (Moveing matter through space.) I still think it is obvious (ie that it is an intuition) that all movements of matter through space exist in the real universe.

And if my subject moves matter through space then he Must logically exist.

ArguingWAristotleTiff

↪Ken Edwards

I believe some on the internet hang on every thought that comes out of here. :razz:
In all seriousness, I actually quoted @Banno so it was a portion of his reply.
However, you are on my radar to follow a bit and see what you have to share.
I'm excited that you are here, you seem to have an easy going persona and you are talking with the legendary Banno. :cool:

Ken Edwards

Thank you very much I am working on a few things. My approach is observational rather than scholastic

Ken Edwards

Article submissions. Do you still allow artical submissions. I have an artical that begins with an anecdote but works thru what I consider to be an area of cultural self censorship. Would that be acceptable.

Ken Edwards

I am not sure yet what stories are Where in this forum. I began a long thread in "Interesting Stuff" It is called "All in your head. Some simplified thoughts about Thoughts".

Did you read it?

Two suggestions

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions