Cogito ergo sum

You are a retard that cannot understand the cogito ergo sum argument. For Descartes, I (Ego) = consciousness, and when he says "I think, therefore I exist" he is well-aware of the narrow and broad sense of thinking; the former being thinking of (something), and the latter thinking; the very act of thinking, i.e. being conscious. I am conscious, therefore I exist, I as a res cogitans. That argument cannot be disputed but imbeciles from Gasendi to our days keep failing to understand it l.

That's not a good objection at all

It's like a friend saying "I think therefore I am," doesn't mean anything to you. maybe means something to them but you cant peer into their soul

> It requires a thinking thing as a starting point.

If an argument for existence requires a thing to exist as a starting point, it doesn't really get anywhere

It's a tautology

Claiming a separate ontological category today is blatantly retarded scientifically illiterate, BIGLY. Mind/consciousness is an emergent property of the high iq brain. Anyone who thinks this isn't evident lost themselves in philosophical/linguistic hair splitting on why it's not "quite" that, only to use it as an excuse to regress to wild pre-enlightenment-like speculation. Mind relates to brain like aesthetic of operating system to bits and bytes. The hierarchy and interdependency have been demonstrated convincingly. Let it go.

Nearly all eastern philosophies reject this, but western philosophy is still hung up on this. It's not that you are because you think, you are because you simply are. The self is consciousness, not the mind, and as such you continue to exist when the mind ceases to function. Such is the case in deep sleep and samadhi. Hence why western philosophy is so diverse and largely fails to come to s complete end, it relied on dry philosophy from the mind an not direct experience with reality derived from meditation.

the point is that, for the question "do i exist?" to be asked requires that there BE something to ask it; therefore the answer can only be "yes".

Physically speaking, you continue to exist when your consciousness ceases to function, too.
But "existence" is an abstract concept that we can perceive due to possessing a mind. An animal devoid of reason wouldn't be able to perceive "existing" therefore technically speaking nothing would "exist" for it.

I am because I am. Not just because I think, whatever this ''I'' is; it is.

You don't understand the cogito.

No it hasn't but Analytic Contrarians struggling to remain relevant will pretend like it has using faulty logic and semantics

That's the point. It is a defense against radical skepticism. You can know *for sure* that something exists because something (me) is contemplating the question.

can you summarise it for me user pls
i am a pseud, so i dont know (still at the greeks)

Best post first post. From Beyond Good and Evil:
>When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking--that I know what thinking is.
>With regard to the superstitions of logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact, which is unwillingly recognized by these credulous minds--namely, that a thought comes when "it" wishes, and not when "I" wish; so that it is a perversion of the facts of the case to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." One thinks; but that this "one" is precisely the famous old "ego," is, to put it mildly, only a supposition, an assertion, and assuredly not an "immediate certainty."

I'm not saying God doesn't exist. But all the so called "proofs" are bullshit

This is pretty fucking good. Skeptical as all fuck, but damn.

Ofcourse it has been refuted. Zizek crushed it:

The main feature of cogito is its insubstantial character: “It cannot be spoken of positively; no sooner than it is, its function is lost.” Cogito is not a substantial entity, but a pure structural function, an empty place - as such, it can only emerge in the interstices of substantial communal systems. The link between the emergency of cogito and the disintegration and loss of substantial communal"

Nietzsche made this mistake

speedreader detected
>When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions... for instance... that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause

>One thinks; but that this "one" is precisely the famous old "ego," is, to put it mildly, only a supposition, an assertion, and assuredly not an "immediate certainty."

This line and the paragraph containing it is an addendum to Nietzsche's core argument in the preceding paragraph, and is only presented as an amusing triviality.
In any case, the idea here is that "I think, therefore I am" is based on a flawed premise, since we don't know there is an I that does the thinking; it may very well be some other force, which is hinted at by the fact that we do not have direct control over our thoughts. So all we really have is "Think," which in no way implies "I am"- at most it can imply that something is, somewhere, and only if we accept that thought requires a subject, which Nietzsche points out previously is something that must be taken as an axiom.

>namely, that a thought comes when "it" wishes, and not when "I" wish
Consciousness doesn't generate thoughts. It is simply aware of them. It doesn't matter where the thoughts came from. The important thing is that there is a consciousness that perceives that they belong to it.

Following that logic we can't state that there is such a thing as "immediate certainty" at all.
In the first place we would need a mind to perceive the certainty of something. Then in order to verify the certainty of mind itself we would need a tool that exists outside of it but no such tool exists. The mind perceives itself.
Still from the relative perspective of our mind we can say that whatever we perceive is certainty. You know, for arguments sake.

>only if we accept that thought requires a subject
And who is "we"?

>Following that logic we can't state that there is such a thing as "immediate certainty" at all.
That's Nietzsche's larger point, really. Absolute truth is unknowable, so we ought to concern ourselves with what is useful rather than what is true.
You and I, here in our discussion. I'm not attacking the existence of the ego, just repeating Nietzsche's argument that Descartes' argument doesn't hold water. You're picking a stupid grammatical point anyway, since I could just as well have phrased it as "if it is accepted that" (obscuring the necessity for an ego) or "if it is true that" (eliminating the need for an ego). I shouldn't even be responding to your low-effort post, but I already wrote this so may as well post it.

>cogito
I just FUCKING clicked on one of my mouse buttons that moved back a page and deleted what I said, and I've disabled backspace from doing this, now mouse did it. AIDS

TL:DR
>Sum, ergo sum
Awareness is irrelevant to prove existence. Or are you implying.
>I am aware therefore I'm aware
>Cogito, ergo cogito.
No, The statement is about existence, and existence is.
>Nothing is impossible.
It goes with the words.
>I AM

>Awareness is irrelevant to prove existence

Descartes skipped a few steps by invoking the "I"

It should be "there are thoughts therefore there is a thinker."

Or, better yet "there are thoughts therefore there is something."

"prove" might be an error.
Nothingness isn't a state of something, nothingness can't be, nothing is literally impossible; Sum ergo sum.

>Absolute truth is unknowable, so we ought to concern ourselves with what is useful rather than what is true.
I completely agree with that. I am just saying that Descartes statement makes sense if we define certainty in that frame. It's just a matter of semantics.

>You're picking a stupid grammatical point anyway
Eh, grammar reflects the structure of our thought. "We" is a subject and will be a subject by whatever name we call it. A subject is perceived regardless of how we interpret it.
Basically as an earlier user said "thinking" in the context of Descartes statement means "being aware" of thoughts.
"I am" means "I am aware that I am aware".

The problem is that "cogito ergo sum" is not a good representation of Descartes' line of thought. Descartes himself did not use this dictum in the Meditations, the main source on the foundations of his philosophy (only about two times in less central works).
"Cogito ergo sum" sounds like an implication (a therefore b), but this was not the aim. The point is that we cannot separate thought and existence in our minds. This intuition (expressed as "sum res cogitans" or "I am a thinking thing) is clear and distinct, and therefore a valid axiom in Descartes' philosophy.
It seems hard to refute the intuition, but the deduction "cogito ergo sum" can certainly be refuted. The most powerful critique was first formulated by Lichtenberg, who said that it cannot be assumed that "I" think, it is at best "something" that thinks.

This is pretty much what I wrote before deletion.
>I am something, whatever this something is; I am.
Sure you need cogito to cogito.
But...
>Cogito, ergo cogito
Doesn't have the right ring to it you know.

was nietszche the origin of postmodern thought

"Only things that exist can be. Nothingness is a state of non-existence. Therefore it cannot be. Therefore reality."

wew lad, do you really belive this?

SHUT THE FUCK UP and go read Plato plz.

you don't need to bother yourself with all this postmodern fashion, but you do need to get a basic grip on the basics!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we pull a Peterson and oversimplify postmodernism to mean "all viewpoints are equally valid," Nietzsche is very much not a postmodernist. For him, the views of a "master morality" are infinitely superior to views of a "slave morality." The main similarity is that both Nietzsche and postmodernists would agree that neither viewpoint is "true."

I see "valid" as synonymous to "true".
Of course we can interpret the statement "all viewpoints are equally valid" as "all viewpoints should be respected" which sounds a lot like a positive statement claiming truthfulness.
If value is subjective then we can assign any value we wish to any statement.

No.
>Cogito, ergo sum
Is an empty statement.
Existence doesn't require you to be aware of it. The reverse is also true. Point is the only thing anyone can ever truly prove, is that there is something.

Cogito only proves to yourself that you are, now that you know that, what do you realize?

Pretty good bait.
Fuck off nihilst.
>2+2=4
Oh man, what a revelation.

How did I provoke your indignation with my innocent comment?

If everything matters/has equal value
>then nothing matters.
You learn that in economics for retards.
And just general biology dicating us.
You can say you like eating shit how ever much you wish, but you won't if you don't.

Consciousness is the manifestation of the spiritual soul, it never ceases to function. Spiritual nature is eternal, only material nature is subject to birth and death. Consciousness is not born therefore it cannot die; it is unborn and eternal. Never was there a time where consciousness didn't exist, nor will be a time where it doesn't.

Existence IS consciousness, simply put. Animals can perceive existence because they are conscious. You cannot grasp existence, of consciousness by means of the mind. Just as water cannot rise above its given level, the mind cannot rise higher than the platform of thought. Consciousness transcends thought.

>If everything has equal value
I don't remember saying such a thing. Quite the opposite of that. Not that it has any direct relevance to the current discussion since we are talking about truth, not about value.

This doesn't seem all that impressive. It's just Nietzsche being autistic about the definition of the word "think," instead of grappling with the actual idea Descartes is putting forth.

>Of course we can interpret the statement "all viewpoints are equally valid" as "all viewpoints should be respected"

Truth/value/matter, is pretty much the same thing, in this context.
If 99.99% of people hold the same value, perhaps it is not so relative.
If not that, then wtf?
Are you saying facts are relative?

Biology doesn't dictate anything because it doesn't exist.

Illiterate.
He's demanding that Descartes and his lovers first show evidence of a 'thinker'. He's demanding proof of the self.

Logic itself is a function of thought, so this is just begging the question. He's working on the presupposition that there is a self and there is thought, and that thought comes from self.
Not impressed.
His proof for God is garbage.
>IF I THINK REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALY HARD AND STILL CANT DOUBT THE IDEA OF GOD THAT I HAVE, THEN THERE IS A GOD

>a thought comes when "it" wishes, and not when "I" wish
thoughts are formed by the brain, i am the brain, therefore i create thoughts
bam, NEETzsche btfo

Prove consciousness exists.
Oh wait you can't because that would mean taking out fr*nch dick from your mouth,

...

>Truth/value/matter, is pretty much the same thing, in this context.
Oh, no, I disagree, in this or any context.
>If 99.99% of people hold the same value, perhaps it is not so relative.
As long as it is possible that they should hold a different value then there is no way this value is absolute. The "Every rule has an exception" rule has an exception when it comes to the absolute.
>Are you saying facts are relative?
To an extent.

Brain's don't exist

>Prove consciousness exists.
I know that consciousness exists because I consciously experience things, which is something that can only be done by a conscious thing.

Not proof, sorry! You're still applying a function of consciousness to prove that consciousness exists!
May as well say the colour 'red' proves that existence exists.

>consciousness is the ability to experience things
>i experience things
>therefore consciousness exists

Cartesians are even more annoying than Stoicshitters.
>IF YOU DONT COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS AS ME OR REJECT MY DOGMA THEN YOU JUST DONT UNDERSTAND
Except you twats do it to a logical statement instead of lame self-help

>consciousness is the ability to experience things
Meaningless semantic babble
>i experience things
Proof
>therefore consciousness exists
Non sequitur.

>dude you have to prove the self to prove that thinking proves the existence of the self
wtf i love arguing in circles now

To be fair it seems like both sides are doing the same thing here

The existence of this circle is the fault in Cartesian logic, you tool.

brains exist as lower-level manifestations of our minds

Nothing is absolute.
Ala: being absolute is irrelevant, if it's a 99% certainty that it probably is, Batman.
Something with 1% probability is not equal something with 99% probability BATMAAAAAAN

You're using the faculty of your mind to engage in speculation of consciousness. You just as you cannot grasp mind by the senses, you cannot grasp consciousness by the mental speculation. You either have to receive perfected knowledge from somebody liberated or investigate reality yourself by way of meditation (jnana)

Well, this is just a matter of semantics. By consciousness I mean something like awareness of awareness. I don't know to what extent it overlaps with your concept of "spiritual soul" though I think the way most people use the term soul is similar to the concept of consciousness as I mean it. Also by "mind" I assume that you mean "awareness".
Well, I see "consciousness" as something builds on top of "awareness".
Of course in this sense awareness is intermittent while consciousness is continuous so from here stems the percept that consciousness exists independently of awareness I guess.
>Existence IS consciousness, simply put.
So basically I agree with that. And so does Descartes.

>Animals can perceive existence because they are conscious.
This is probably not super relevant to the discussion but a lot of animals don't really possess consciousness so they can't perceive something like "existence", which is an abstract concept.

I am not entirely sure exactly what point you are trying to make and how I, of all people, have provoked to make it.

>Also by "mind" I assume that you mean "awareness".
No, mind is not consciousness. Mind is by nature material. That is to say you are not your thoughts, not your imagination, not your memory, and so forth. Even when the mind ceases consciousness persists. In deep sleep and samadhi the mind is silenced, yet your actual self, soul existing as consciousness, persists.

>This is probably not super relevant to the discussion but a lot of animals don't really possess consciousness
Animals still possess the same spiritual consciousness that a human does, the difference is animals lack the proper intelligence, the intellect also being material, to discriminate between self and not self.

>Mind is by nature material.
Wrong, it is actually the material which is mental

Primordial material energy, prakriti, precedes its manifestation just as white light precedes all colors. The inferior energy is matter manifested in different elements, namely earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego. Both forms of material nature, namely gross (earth, etc.) and subtle (mind, etc.), are products of the inferior energy.

If most people thinks needless pain is bad, then pain is probably bad, if pain is bad, cutting of your hand is bad cause it causes pain, if losing your hand is bad, cutting off someone else's hand is bad. The losing of hands is bad.
Something isn't relative if most people would agree. Like Peterson postmodernism.
Peterson's meta-values. Truths more true than basic blind science true.

>Something isn't relative if most people would agree
But what if I happen to disagree with something most people agree on?
>Truths more true than basic blind science true
I am not acquainted with your lingo. I see to reason to distinguish between truths.

Nope
False; please go shit on the streets somewhere else, I'm eating here.
>muh intrasubjectivity
Still relative, retard.

>mind is not consciousness.
I also made a distinction between mind and consciousness. I made a distinction between awareness and consciousness as well.
>mind is by nature material
I see no point in arguing about that.
>That is to say you are not your thoughts, not your imagination, not your memory, and so forth
Yes, even the point made by Nietzsche was that consciousness is not the source of thoughts which is something I agreed with. Consciousness is simply the awareness of our thoughts.

>Animals still possess the same spiritual consciousness that a human does
Well, I don't want to argue about that either, and it is probably not relevant to the discussion, but as I said I don't agree that all animals possess consciousness. Still we can project consciousness onto them just like we project consciousness on other people.

Basically I am trying to say that Descartes statement is not all that different than yours.

Cogito ergo sum is basically irrefutable.

It's basically "I have the ability to think, therefore I must exist in one form or another." You could be a brain in a jar somewhere, or a computer programme in a simulation, or maybe even a primate on a 4.5bn year old lump of magma revolving around a ball of nuclear fusion. It's proof that there is something rather than nothing, and that "you", however that is defined, are part of that something.

Point is society hold certain values that reach beyond what material science can explain.
The pillars of civilization.

Personal opinion is irrelevant.
Like taste, most people actually like the same things, it's just a divergence on the degrees and tolerable amounts.

And we're not really talking about taste or preference.
If you think causing pain in others is ok, then you're wrong. Both metaphysically and in pure biology. Majority rules, but that's not the only thing.

Unless you're playing devil's advocate, you should actually read Maps of Meaning. Or you know who's been memed every day past half year.

I won't be spooked by you!

>MUH CIVILIZATION!!!!!
Irrelevant horseshit. Civilization must burn. Majority does not rule, I rule them, Humanist. Biology is garbage and there are no 'metaphysics'

Wrong. You're still presupposing a thinker and an existence. Read the fucking thread.

>Like taste, most people actually like the same things, it's just a divergence on the degrees and tolerable amounts.
Wrong.

I also can't prove that traps are gay, even though they definitely are.

>Point is society hold certain values that reach beyond what material science can explain.
Nah, you're just lazy.

>Personal opinion is irrelevant.
I don't have much else to go by.

>Like taste, most people actually like the same things, it's just a divergence on the degrees and tolerable amounts.
And black is a shade of white.

>If you think causing pain in others is OK, then you're wrong.
It might not be OK for others but if it's OK for me then it's OK for me.
Is it so hard to get it through your two brain cells that people can exist who can hold a belief without needing to impose it on other people?

>It might not be OK for others but if it's OK for me then it's OK for me.
>Is it so hard to get it through your two brain cells that people can exist who can hold a belief without needing to impose it on other people?

Well that sure is an overwhelming contradiction.

Feel free to point it out.

Your second statement imply a value to be true, and needs to be true. Your first statement opposes the second.

It's ok for me to impose my values on you, cause I say so.

Whats cool about this is that it opens space for you to doubt your own reality, since this "something" can be anything, not necessarily (you). You could as well be a character in a screenplay.

I didn't tell you not to impose your values on me.
I was simply asking you if you are aware that disagreement is not necessarily a claim to the truthfulness of an opposing position. By disagreeing with you I don't conversely demand you to agree with me. I am simply stating that I do not agree. I've noticed that that some people tend not to be aware of that.

>tfw all the p-zombies ITT cannot comprehend consciousness

Well yeah in a sense, foucault for one was pretty influenced by him. Particularly the genealogy of morals, which gave him the idea to do a genealogical review of sexuality and justice

How do you know it's you that's conscious not some proxy on another planet having your body's experience? how are we defining you?