/lit/ - Literature

And what question would that be?

>reading translations
into the trash

>>7098594
it doesn't need to be the first word of the sentence in order to be a necessary premise retard

>>7098584
what he should have said is "thought is occurring, therefore something exists"

>>7098584
Yes, Descartes wrote Meditations in English.

Fuckwit.

>>7098600
he's memeing you, the original french is je pense donc je suis, the more common latin version is cogito ergo sum

>>7098601
>chairs can't think
>therefore chairs don't exist

nice try

>inb4 hurr denying the antecedent

fuck off

ITT: People who haven't read Decartes, and/or, don't realise he didn't write in contemporary English

>>7098605
See
>>7098600

You fucking idiot.

"cogito" is first person conjugation

i think that quote sort of misrepresents his actual argument, which is (as far as i remember) broadly that you can reasonably doubt almost everything, but something has to be there to do the doubting ; something's thinking so something's definitely "there"

>>7098980
how do you that you are that something then? that something could be a rock for all you know


and we all know rocks don't exist

>>7098594
>je pense, donc je suis
same problem

>>7098980
Unless what "exists" is the facsimile of self-awareness projected by something else that is the thing-in-itself.

>>7098584
>not knowing the prior assertion that I stands for a thing that is thinking
>something is thinking
>therefor there is a thinking thing
>i think therefor i am.

>denying existence by means of existence

Fucking tryhards.

>>7099069
so if someone out there has a brain and is thinking, your instantly assume their mind and become them? are you some kind of consciousness goblin?

>>7099087
oops meant to reply to
>>7099047

>>7098983
the cogito isnt his criterion for existence - descartes later gives other arguments for the existence of external objects including rocks.
he is unable to doubt the existence of a "thinking thing", and takes this thing to be the "i"

cogito ergo sum

thinking therefore existing

unless you can prove you don't think, it's valid

COGITO ERGO SUM

It's supposed to be a foundational truth, a truism. If you cogito, you sum. No arguing there, it's mere assertion, an axiom

>>7098612
but you are though.

>>7098994
>descartes
>original language
>french

>>7099153
>>7098999
submit to the trips, you solipsist apologist fag

>I cogitate, therefore I am the result of two numbers added together.

wat

>Not realizing the essential identity of subject and object
>Not falling into the phenomenal world and accepting appearance as Truth by way of the labor of the negative
Hegel or die

>I wear pants, thank you, I'm Swiss

wat

>>7099201
>essential identify of subject and object
>phenomenal world
>appearance as Truth
>way of the labor of the negative

AHAHA YOU CANT MAKE THIS SHIT UP EVEN IF YOU TRIED

THIS IS WHAT PHILOSOPHY MAJORS WASTE THEIR TUITION ON

>>7099162
Wasn't he the dick man?

>>7099201
wow isnt it cool that you can say like a couple paragraphs and no one will understand 80% of what you're saying because you're smarter than them and not becausey ou're being obscuratn and dont yourself understand what you're saying? thats why i major in philosph y too

>>7099213
stemfags pls go

You can easily disprove this

>I think therefore I exist
>contrapositive: I don't exist therefore I don't think
>but if I don't think then who made the above statement?
>a contradiction has been reached therefore it is false
>QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM

was I before I thought?

>>7098584
what descartes is trying to say is there are limits to what you can reasonably doubt. you can technically argue that the act of doubting, i.e the act of thinking, doesn't necessarily imply the existence of the doubter/thinker, or offer some convoluted logic about the facsimile of self-awareness and cognition being projected upon the apparent "thinker" by another entity (???) but then all of philosophy - all of thought - breaks down to chase one question in a circle and cannot progress. there are some first principles that you just have to accept

>>7099224
truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

>>7099232
the limts of reasonable andu nreasonable doubt are far before what he approaches with cogito ergo sum except going all the way to cogito ergo sum implies that deconstruction prior to reaching the point of cogito ergo sum are less valid you fucking cuck;;;;;;;;;;;;;

So nirvana by definition doesn't exist?

>>7099239
yeah what if this daycart guy wasn't even speaking latin? what if "cogito ergo sum" was some alien language that means "I dion't exist"?

>>7099253
git gud

>>7099239
>the limts of reasonable andu nreasonable doubt are far before what he approaches with cogito ergo sum except going all the way to cogito ergo sum implies that deconstruction prior to reaching the point of cogito ergo sum are less valid you fucking cuck;;;;;;;;;;;;;
cogito ergo sum represents the essential doubt that must be resolved before further doubting can take place, something you'd know if you bothered to engage with cartesian doubt on even a superficial level. granted descartes worked backwards to arrive at c.e.s. but to say that cogito ergo sum does not by itself demonstrate that doubting the existence of the thinker is unreasonable is willful ignorance on your part i suspect. and lol at "the limits of reasonable and unreasonable doubt are before cogito ergo sum" as if him formalizing a system of thought before deprives a necessary product of that system of its implications. you're actually retarded

>I'm a thinking thing
why cant you be a thinking and a sensing thing? you can doubt whether your senses are reliable but can you doubt that you sense?

>>7099253
truuuuuuuuu

>>7099280
actual, this is not the RESOLUTION of doubt, but a RESIGNATION to doubt, have you EVEN read any CONTEMPORARY commenatry on descartse from the last 15 years??? you cuckkkkkkk;

since you MUST be baiting here's a PICTURE for u

>>7099293
ayyyyyyyyyyy lmao. go fuck yourself

Pic related: Descartes's skull scan.

>>7099224

Wouldn't the original proposition have to be put in the form of a hypothetical, since it contains the concept of implication, the "therefore"?

That would make the original "if I think, then I exist."

And the contrapositive of this would be "if I don't exist, then I don't think." And that doesn't seem contradictory.

It seems to me like this is the way to technically render Descartes's propositon, and it's merely the grammar of the traditional english translation that yields the contradiction you demonstrate.

>>7099303
>mfw you cant even meme at me anymore

>>7098999
In order for false self awareness be possible in the first place there must be an original self awareness somewhere else.

Not to mention that however false and imaginary the world is, it's still experienced in such a way that allows it to be called real.

>>7099575
Can't see any soul in that skull mate

>>7099216
What
I'm a fucking casual when it comes to philosophy and I understood what anon said

>>7098612
>>chairs can't think
>>therefore chairs don't exist

Retarded argument. It doesn't answer what >>7098601 said since the direct implication is not logically equivalent to the inverse but to the contrapositive.

Oh for fuck's sake /lit/. Descartes would have been familiar with Augustine's proposition "fallor ergo sum"; it's an easily recognised repositioning of the "thought" above "fault" in philosophy's view of what predicates the self.

>>7099288
...yeah. After establishing "the cogito", Descartes goes on in the text to write: "I know that I exist; the question is, what is this 'I' that I know?...What then am I? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling, and also imagines and has sensory perceptions...For even if, as I have supposed, none of the objects of imagination are real, the power of imagination is something which really exists and is part of my thinking. Lastly, it is also the same 'I' who has sensory perceptions, or is aware of bodily things as it were through the senses."

>>7098999
Kantian cleaving of the subject away from its ego explains this and accommodates both the cogito and Lacanian destabilization of the subject. Kant is the end of philosophy, faggots.

>>7100935
Socrates is the beginning of philosophy, the sophists is the end