Cognito ergo, cognito sum

[M.Dancer]

Descartes captured a profound self-awareness in the famous words Cogito, ergo sum. It was a self-awareness he gained by calling into question every proposition he had been taught, or had heard in church, or had read in a book. He decided to assume all things to be false until, as he put it, "presented to my mind so clearly and disctinctly that I would have no occasion to doubt it." Through this method, he discovered that the only thing he knew beyond all doubt was that he doubted. In his inner experience of himself doubting, he discovered his own soul - the place from which his doubting, and all his experiencing, originated. It was an epiphany - an epochal moment of illumination. Descartes caught himself in the act and existential moment of questioning. He recognized that he was listening to his soul.

Descartes formalized this epiphany into a philosophy which we now call Cartesian dualism. It concludes that human nature must consist of two distinct essenses: the thinking mind, which is the center of consciousness and is spiritual, not subject to the laws of physics; and the physical body, which operates under the same mechanical laws that govern machines and animals.

This dualistic philosophy reflects the universal human experience of inner conflict - a tension between opposing needs and tendencies within the self that triggers anxiety, shame and guilt. Dualistic philosophy has been linked with the religious problem of good and evil; an inner sense of moral choice between our temptation toward sin and our aspirations toward virtue. The distinction between the private inner world of introspective awareness and the public outer world of sensory awareness is self-evident; a complimentarity of inner awareness and outer perception, self and other, subject and object.

Descartes's philosophy began with his decision that he would trust no authority but his own experience and would believe only those things for which he could find within himself not even the remotest possibility of doubt. He resolved to systematically call into question every proposition he had ever been taught, or had heard in church, or had read in a book. He would assume to be false everything that was generally accepted as true, until he found a proposition that was, as he put it, "presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I could have no occasion to doubt it." [14] Through this method of systematic doubting, Descartes discovered that the only thing he could know beyond all doubt was that he doubted. In his inner experience of himself doubting, he discovered his own soul - the place from which his doubting, and all his experiencing, originated. He captured this profound self-awareness in the famous words Cogito, ergo sum: "I think [in this case, ÎI doubt'], therefore I am."

We now take as self-evident the distinction between the private inner world of introspective awareness and the public outer world of sensory awareness (including the awareness of our own bodies), but in fact it is only since Descartes that we have become able to recognize this distinction.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/psyc...frattaroli.html

Plagiarize much? How Wizzonian......

Edited July 12, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Xman]

As much as I can.

[ScottSA]

Descartes captured a profound self-awareness in the famous words Cogito, ergo sum. It was a self-awareness he gained by calling into question every proposition he had been taught, or had heard in church, or had read in a book. He decided to assume all things to be false until, as he put it, "presented to my mind so clearly and disctinctly that I would have no occasion to doubt it." Through this method, he discovered that the only thing he knew beyond all doubt was that he doubted. In his inner experience of himself doubting, he discovered his own soul - the place from which his doubting, and all his experiencing, originated. It was an epiphany - an epochal moment of illumination. Descartes caught himself in the act and existential moment of questioning. He recognized that he was listening to his soul.

Descartes formalized this epiphany into a philosophy which we now call Cartesian dualism. It concludes that human nature must consist of two distinct essenses: the thinking mind, which is the center of consciousness and is spiritual, not subject to the laws of physics; and the physical body, which operates under the same mechanical laws that govern machines and animals.

This dualistic philosophy reflects the universal human experience of inner conflict - a tension between opposing needs and tendencies within the self that triggers anxiety, shame and guilt. Dualistic philosophy has been linked with the religious problem of good and evil; an inner sense of moral choice between our temptation toward sin and our aspirations toward virtue. The distinction between the private inner world of introspective awareness and the public outer world of sensory awareness is self-evident; a complimentarity of inner awareness and outer perception, self and other, subject and object.

Descartes's philosophy began with his decision that he would trust no authority but his own experience and would believe only those things for which he could find within himself not even the remotest possibility of doubt. He resolved to systematically call into question every proposition he had ever been taught, or had heard in church, or had read in a book. He would assume to be false everything that was generally accepted as true, until he found a proposition that was, as he put it, "presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I could have no occasion to doubt it." [14] Through this method of systematic doubting, Descartes discovered that the only thing he could know beyond all doubt was that he doubted. In his inner experience of himself doubting, he discovered his own soul - the place from which his doubting, and all his experiencing, originated. He captured this profound self-awareness in the famous words Cogito, ergo sum: "I think [in this case, ÎI doubt'], therefore I am."

We now take as self-evident the distinction between the private inner world of introspective awareness and the public outer world of sensory awareness (including the awareness of our own bodies), but in fact it is only since Descartes that we have become able to recognize this distinction.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/psyc...frattaroli.html

Plagiarize much? How Wizzonian......

Excellent work my good man. Hopefully this gets him suspended.

Edited July 12, 2007 by ScottSA

[White Doors]

As much as I can.

omg.. what a maroon!

haha

[AndrewL]

1. How do you interpret Descartes' statement: "I think, therefore I am"?

2. What is your opinion of the statement? Do you agree or disagree with the point that Descartes has made?

Here is my take on it:

I wont reinterpret it since any interpretation of that sentence will never be as adequate as the standard interpretation that most people would agree as provided by MadMichael.

However i do have an opinion.

I disagree with his statement, and therefore, the standard interpretation.

It has been demonstrated that thinking itself absolutely requires an external world.

Human thought can be reduced to metaphor, and those metaphors are entirely dependent on there being a physical world from which we can grab the metaphors we use for thought. (note the physical metaphor of grabbing something that i just used to make a thought.)

Here is a link with all sorts of work being done in this area.

http://philosophy.uoregon.edu/metaphor/metaphor.htm

In brief. Thought cannot exist without there being a physical world in which we can begin to think and develop thoughts. Therefore, the fact that we think at all requires more than just a diembodied self. A disembodied self outside of 4 dimensional space, without limbs, without external objects, without tactile sensations cannot even begin to think at all. Thought itself is a product of a physical world that actually exists that we can interact with.

I feel that Descarte imagined that thought itself was not dependent on outside forces. But it turns out that thought is nothing but an extension of the physical world.

Andrew

Edited July 12, 2007 by AndrewL

[jbg]

As much as I can.

omg.. what a maroon!

haha

Nill illigitimi carborundum

[jefferiah]

How do you interpret Descartes' statement: "I think, therefore I am"?

I think, therefore I am. Nothing more, nothing less.

I always found it strange in English class when I was expected to write a page about a 4 line poem. The poet got away with 4 lines.

[Mad_Michael]

It has been demonstrated that thinking itself absolutely requires an external world.

Yes, this is essentially true, however, it cannot be positively and/or absolutely discerned entirely from first principles nor is it self-evident.

Descartes supposition does indeed stand alone in logical terms.

I other words, to prove that your statement is true, you must accept Descartes' assertion as being true as the foundation of your proof.

That our present day science may assert that Descartes' assertion is not medically true, this does not detract from it being logically true.

Thought cannot exist without there being a physical world in which we can begin to think and develop thoughts.

This was addressed by Kant. The space-time continuim is taken as the 'first principle' for this reason. It provides context and reference points for abstract thought.

The space-time continuim is a 'principle' because it is assumed, it cannot be proven by observation since one cannot absolutely trust sensory perceptions.

I feel that Descarte imagined that thought itself was not dependent on outside forces. But it turns out that thought is nothing but an extension of the physical world.

Actually you are moving into difficult ground here since God is a potential outside force upon which Descartes' thoughts could be entirely dependent upon (cf Bishop Berkeley).

[Mad_Michael]

How do you interpret Descartes' statement: "I think, therefore I am"?

I think, therefore I am. Nothing more, nothing less.

I always found it strange in English class when I was expected to write a page about a 4 line poem. The poet got away with 4 lines.

Technically speaking, your lack of understanding of the issue doesn't prove that there is no substantive meaning in it.

Nor does this mean that you don't understand the issue. "Nothing more, nothing less" is indeed precisely what the statement means. But that has huge significance that you apparently don't see. Your inability to see the significance doesn't prove there is no significance.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Mad_Michael

[AndrewL]

Yes, this is essentially true, however, it cannot be positively and/or absolutely discerned entirely from first principles nor is it self-evident.

Descartes supposition does indeed stand alone in logical terms.

I other words, to prove that your statement is true, you must accept Descartes' assertion as being true as the foundation of your proof.

That our present day science may assert that Descartes' assertion is not medically true, this does not detract from it being logically true.

Good point.

This was addressed by Kant. The space-time continuim is taken as the 'first principle' for this reason. It provides context and reference points for abstract thought.

The space-time continuim is a 'principle' because it is assumed, it cannot be proven by observation since one cannot absolutely trust sensory perceptions.

But we can trust that we do indeed have sensory perceptions - obviously we cannot trust the content of those perceptions to provide any absolute truth though.

Actually you are moving into difficult ground here since God is a potential outside force upon which Descartes' thoughts could be entirely dependent upon (cf Bishop Berkeley).

Or an evil genius. Or a team of alien scientists running an experiment.

Andrew

[jefferiah]

How do you interpret Descartes' statement: "I think, therefore I am"?

I think, therefore I am. Nothing more, nothing less.

I always found it strange in English class when I was expected to write a page about a 4 line poem. The poet got away with 4 lines.

Technically speaking, your lack of understanding of the issue doesn't prove that there is no substantive meaning in it.

Nor does this mean that you don't understand the issue. "Nothing more, nothing less" is indeed precisely what the statement means. But that has huge significance that you apparently don't see. Your inability to see the significance doesn't prove there is no significance.

i dont think i said there was no significance or the presence of a significance. maybe i lack an understanding of what i said though.

[jefferiah]

How do you interpret Descartes' statement: "I think, therefore I am"?

I think, therefore I am. Nothing more, nothing less.

I always found it strange in English class when I was expected to write a page about a 4 line poem. The poet got away with 4 lines.

Technically speaking, your lack of understanding of the issue doesn't prove that there is no substantive meaning in it.

Nor does this mean that you don't understand the issue. "Nothing more, nothing less" is indeed precisely what the statement means. But that has huge significance that you apparently don't see. Your inability to see the significance doesn't prove there is no significance.

i dont think i said there was no significance or the presence of a significance. maybe i lack an understanding of what i said though.

either way i still Am just as much as you Are

[Mad_Michael]

either way i still Am just as much as you Are

But you can't prove that or know it to be true.

You can only speculate upon that topic.

I could be just a figment of your imagination - or God playing tricks on you.

[jefferiah]

Who can only speculate upon that topic?

You seem quite sure I am here.

[KO2]

Doing pretty good cognitively, while under the influence, eh!

[jbg]

I always found it strange in English class when I was expected to write a page about a 4 line poem. The poet got away with 4 lines.

English? I thought they taught Canadian and French.

[jefferiah]

I always found it strange in English class when I was expected to write a page about a 4 line poem. The poet got away with 4 lines.

English? I thought they taught Canadian and French.

I took English as a second language.