What does /his/ think of him?What strikes me about Descartes' cogito ergo sum is how undeniably correct it is, and how even the strongest objections to the "I" in that statement have never really managed to beat the sheer unfiltered logic behind it. Most philosophers who criticize the "I" argue that it doesn't prove you're the one producing those thoughts, since they could've been inserted by some external force, but even that would still require thinking to filter and process those inserted thoughts, which means the objection never disproves the validity of what Descartes was arguing.
>>18688419Read Charles Sanders Peirce, his first two essays in particular (they are brief) before you lock yourself into a many centuries-old method of logic that has always been sharp, but has become rigid and brittle.
>>18688419He was an Enlightenment revolutionary, which means the c*ckservative tradcath retards of /his/ think he was le heckin freedom man.NO, you are not an essential component of existence because you think. Self-deification is Jacobin drek and WILL lead to you being lynched by the death squads under my command.
>>18688419>but even that would still require thinking to filter and process those inserted thoughtsAccording to foucault, you'll never achieve emancipation by your own means because the system is rigged, its only left for a few people and they pay the price of being labeled as outcasts-"abnormal"
>>18688455>He was an Enlightenment revolutionary, which means the c*ckservative tradcath retards of /his/ think he was le heckin freedom man.?
>>18688419>I think>Therefore, I amNo shit, "I think" already presumes you exist. Why anyone would take this garbage seriously astounds me (but not really).
>>18688419>cogito ergo sum is how undeniably correct it isI am thinking therefore I am cannot even be sure because it relies on human logic and human logic cannot be proven so Descartes kinda missed the point
>>18688461>Surface level of understanding>Can't draw implications from a propositionYou're brown but the point is that if you think you exist OF YOUR OWN MERIT/ACCORD. The statement is a Luciferian usurpation of existence.
>>18688478>I am thinking therefore I am cannot even be sure because it relies on human logic and human logicThe statement aimed to reduce uncertainty rather than claim greater confidence in our imperfect observations.
>>18688485>Surface level of understandingEven non-mammal babies have no trouble knowing that they exist. To think that you need to make a circular "argument" to "conclude" that you exist is stupid beyond belief.>OF YOUR OWN MERIT/ACCORDNo one cares about your made-up distinctions and qualifiers.>The statement is a Luciferian usurpation of existence.Take your meds.
The GOAT. Follows Saint Augustine and constructs on the Medieval Tradition rather than blindly reacts to it, (contra Enlightenment NIGGERS that misunderstood him; read Gilson and Brehier) and is complemented by Malebranche.
>>18688507>Take your medsYou are the reason we are all in thrall to Judeo-Norman bankers. You are the reason I do not have a gf. Pray I never find you.
>>18688512Catholicucks are so pathetically mind broken they now admit Roman Christkekery is pre-Enlightenment ideology. What a tragic self-own.
>>18688419He made an obvious observation, which ancient philosophers made thousands of years before his time. >I think, therefore I amWow so profound... if you're a mentally stunted bible believer.
>>18688519>which ancient philosophers made thousands of years before his timeYet you can't name a single one off the top of your head, let alone name the work where this statement is put up and if it resembles Descartes' premises.
>>18688519>He made an obvious observationSo obvious that it resulted in a dozen or so philosophers after his time arguing for/against his point? So clever anon.
>>18688534Free will is covered in Aristotles virtue-ethics. It's obvious. Once you understand virtue & vice, and that practicing virtuous behavior over time leads to becoming a more moral character, you immediately realize that it's a choice in your own hands. It's your behavior, your character, your decisions.Aristotle didn't use the word "decency" either but he defined it in virtue-ethics as well.>Yet you can't name a single one off the top of your headI just did.>let alone name the work where this statement is put up and if it resembles Descartes' premisesEudaimonia. >>18688535>So obvious that it resulted in a dozen or so philosophers after his time arguing for/against his point? So clever anon.Yeah it's a tragedy that Abrahamic faith held back human potential for so many centuries, intellectually stunting the global population as a consequence of bible belief. People unlearned ancient philosophy and were taught church dogma in its place, for a very long time.
>>18688419>What does /his/ think of him?I think it would've been better if he never published anything. He marks a terrible moment in Western thought, when we start thinking of the world in cartesian discrete terms and philosophy becomes a quest for logical certainty. Cogito is the most glaring example - "yay finally an immovable founding stone on which we can build philosophy that cannot be questioned". But it's been nearly 400 years and we have yet to put it to any good philosophical use. All the while the premise that certainty is the goal has fucked us over massively and "I am" being the lone certainty has isolated us from everything besides our own thoughts. Lots of modern man's isolation is driven by the cartesian framing. >never really managed to beat the sheer unfiltered logic behind itThe logic is circular. If you define thinking as needing an existing I, then "think" implies "I am". It's completely certain the same way any circular argument is. And equally un-insightful. We should abandon the whole thing.
>>18688546>thinks the cogito is about free willwhat? Descartes' argument has nothing to do with free will or proper moral character. The point of the statement is that the one thing you cannot doubt with any certainty is the existence of your own mind.
>>18688557>Descartes' argument has nothing to do with free will or proper moral character.Wow so he's pretty worthless then, as a philosopher. >The point of the statement is that the one thing you cannot doubt with any certainty is the existence of your own mind.Why would you doubt the existence of your own mind in the first place? That's a mental handicap you have to be conditioned for.
>>18688519>>18688546>>18688553Meditations is about justification for top-down centralized planning. "I think therefore i am" is a neat tidbit of it. >>18688565Descartes's own contemporaries brought this up to him and his reply was essentially: can't build a wall on a shaky foundation.
>>18688419There are tons of responses to him. Just rejecting rationalist epistemology will do it. Rejecting the existence of any Cogito like Hume/Buddhism or like Nietzsche will do it too. Charles Sandes Peirce's rejection that we can actually doubt as he says is another good one.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb9Ko0flGOQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P5_kcyEGu8
>>18688553Descartes said this in the replies:>When one becomes aware that we are thinking beings, this is a primitive act of knowledge derived from no syllogistic reasoning. He who says, 'I think, hence I am, or exist', does not deduce existence from thought by a syllogism, but by a simple act of mental vision, recognizes it as if it were syllogistically deduced, the major premise, that everything that thinks is, or exists, would have been known previously; but yet that has rather been learned from the experience of the individual--that unless he exists he cannot learn. For our mind is so constituted by nature that general propositions are formed out of knowledge of particulars.I know your response will be that if he didn't want it read as a syllogism, he shouldn't have written it like one, and that's fair. I shouldn't have used the word "logic" in the OP. But Descartes seemed aware of the flaw in his own argument, which makes me want to give him the benefit of the doubt and read it as intuition than strict logic.
>>18688553>All the while the premise that certainty is the goal has fucked us over massivelySorry for the late reply on this. It's been a while since I read the Meditations, but I always thought Descartes' aim was less about achieving certainty and more about eliminating UNcertainty. That might sound like a small distinction, but he was well aware of how limited human knowledge is, so his real goal was cutting out guesswork.
>>18689142The idea was that necessarily and universal truths could be squeezed out from each other and this also inlcluded laws of nature as static universal laws. He did not think in terms of probabilistic laws as we do today, or in terms of natural processes either. These would be built upon each other. This view is called foundationalism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPer1FKjCaUHere are some of the alternatives.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m57qN16jlwk
These two are more linked to views that center induction and probabilities and with these you can have accounts where there are no universal and necessary truths.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z8sDiaY65Y
I think, I am is the introduction to a long thesis that's basically the ontological proof.
He tries to squeeze that one out of the cogito as he does other truths. Thee idea in Desacrates version is that one has an idea of God. God is, by definition, a supremely perfect being. A supremely perfect being possesses every perfection. Necessary existence is a perfection. Therefore, God possesses necessary existence .Consequently, God necessarily exists becauses where else could the idea of perfection come from. However, this is considered a mask man fallacy because all he showed us is that he has an idea of a perfect being, there is nothing making that idea true necessarily.
