"I think therefore I am" is pretty much saying "Some brains have the ability to process and form concepts, therefore they have the ability to form a concept of themselves". It doesn't make any statement about the state of that ability to process, just that there are results from it. Some brains have the ability to construct a cohesive concept of themselves, "I", to represent the large number of separate networks and mechanisms that make up the organism and its processes.
@MorkaGraven First, this is translated so the word choice is a not a great flaw to start with. Second the parts with i believe aren't trying to convince anyone of anything.
@MorkaGraven As Timverma said, the translation from french is not correct. In the original text, the first "I believe" is "je me persuade" (I persuade myself).
I lol'd at decarted writing "Of God, that he exists". He formulated his own ontological argument in it. I'm like "Oh really, Rene? Kant has a few words to say on ontological arguments ;)"
@Drgamedood Even though I to an extent agree, a lot of philosophers thought Kant's objection was irrelavant, but if the original is defeated, there are still the other additions, some of the best are modal ontological argumetns.
@meeene4 It was pretty much agreed upon, before the rise of modal ontological arguments, that Kant put the nails in the coffin of the ontological argument for quite some time. One famous contemporary modal ontological argument is Plantinga's version. Which seeks to get around Kant's criticisms.
Descartes concept of the evil genius. Also, the concept of methodological doubt is introduced in there as well. It's in his book named, ''meditations on first philosophy''.
On the look for real spiritual guidance?Not getting any results from techniques that you have found?psychic abilities and powers, it is all possible.Let the spiritual revolution begin THE-HIDDEN-SPIRITdotCOM
He may have been right in assuming that God was creating his thoughts. In the sense that how does he know his thoughts belong to him at all? And that thoughts are not simply mental objects passing buy his perception much like physical objects pass by our view. However i think there for i am still works, because although you as an individual may not exist, but whatever produced the thoughts did, so something exists and you are that something, although the individual may not.
The notion of "Cogito Ergo Sum" is only valid to the early 20th century. Once with the internet, AI and other meta-psychological sentient, all will have to be reevaluated and redefined. Sorry Descartes, we managed to screw your work up.
@sinmantky How does the internet and A.I. do anything to disprove dualism, much less the cogito ergo sum. There is no advance in neuropsychology or computer science that cannot easily be integrated into a dualistic worldview. You really need to read some philosophy man.
The cogito argument actually presupposes that 'I exist'. Clearly a being that thinks must exist, but why should the being doing the thinking be 'me'? To even assert that 'I think' you have to know that the thoughts you are conscious of are being thought by you, which would require you to exist. So 'I exist' is actually contained within the premise 'I think'; thus the cogito proves nothing.
@t3hpighouse Your head must be in one big knot, you receive some thoughts that are not yours, and they travel to your brain at 24 billion miles an hour.
lol, I don't actually believe that the thoughts I have are not mine or that I don't exist; I was just pointing out that the cogito is not the correct way of establishing this.
lol, I don't actually believe that the thoughts I have are not mine or that I don't exist; I was just pointing out that the cogito is not the correct way of establishing this.
@t3hpighouse You make an interesting point, I think I've heard it before (Kripke?). However, I've always thought the real value of the cogito is that it proves existence. Whether or not it proves my personal existence is secondary.
I am absolute in love with his approach. He systematically dismantled the likely hood that anything existed all to verify that he existed. Such elegance and rationality rarely blends together in such a beautiful fashion. I can only imagine the sleepless nights he fought through before arriving to this conclusion.
@spruntfemalespray I never claimed to have read all his books, he's not high on my list of important philosophers, but I've read enough of his work to understand what he's all about. his philosophy was not, even for it's time, anything groundbreaking, I found it simply uneducating, pompous and potentially dangerous. if it's a philosophy you can appreciate, then I'm sure you've read all of his works, as I've read all of Rousseau and Spinoza. to each his own, we read what we appreciate.
@spruntfemalespray university does count, I benefit from the prominent philosophy professors who've read all the classics over and over again, their textbooks tagged with endless sticky notes to correspond with the authors, they're more than partially engaged in the study of philosophy. I've read most of Neitzche's work including Beyond Good and Evil, Zarathustra and Ecce Homo. I'm not going to concur simply from re-reading his work every ten years, but I'll always give it a passing glance.
@1Mafioso4 Only if you prefer fascism over freedom. I rarely hear of normal people expressing your point of view, except for mobsters and politicians. The last place I'd ever want to live is in a Nietzsche inspired society.
@1Mafioso4 you make my point, Nietzsche is radically nihilist and nationalist. people don't oppose Nietzsche inspired nationalism because they're weak, but because they're moral and rational. it'd be preferable to live in the wilderness and take one's chances with natural selection than to be appraised and commoditized or disposed of in Nietzsche society.
@1Mafioso4 Now I'm really confused. You say I've not read Nietzsche, but I've completed plenty of high-level philosophy courses, and everybody's read Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Ecce Homo. Everybody regards Nietzsche as nihilist and nationalist. I assume you like to talk about Nietzsche but it's you that hasn't read any of his writing. Good day to you.
Sorry, his style is godly, by god, wow. <3 For what does follow from that, indeed?! Perhaps, after death, his bodiless mind might exist. Intelligence consumes his eyes.
Mexo meus cabelos, ranjo meus dentes. Ambos os sons - do cabelo, sendo e, dos dentes - idem, mesclam num só pensamento - sentimento. Paro por aqui. Maj SJ.
Um, how could this be a false dichotomy? He's stating A^~A ... that seems to cover just about every possible state of affairs, since not-A stands for every possible conceivable (or maybe inconceivable) thing that isn't A.
"i Think therefore I am" buuut since I can say I and I is the subject of the proposition why do I think in order to be ? Isn't there something which is consciousness of myself without thinking ? Since this define myself , to say that "I" am knowing that I do it consciously why do I need the persuasion that i think ?!xD
@carusggg Isn't that's the point of the formula "Cogito Ergo Sum". You don't think in order to be. Like you said you're just there, an object. But you know you are because you think. Thinking raises your awareness of yourself. To me this formula is not a final result but instead just a starting point based on self-awareness.
im at the point where im not sure that i matter or that any1 does, that there is anything but living and death, nothing beyond. if there is nothing beyond then why am i here? because there is a god? if there is a god then where do the other animals of the earth go when they expire? science, proof, and space exist. the theory is that there is something beyond space, when i think about science and what is beyond space all i can think of a white blank nothingness, could it be something called god?
it is just ridiculous. His conclusion would be also valid if the made "I think, therefore I am not" because his doubts on everything makes it even unrational. This idea is plainly stupid. As any thomist would say: "just beat his head, and he will feel his existence". Cogito, ergo sum is not the base his falacious philosophy. It is the common sense, valid by itself, which without our mind is plainly dead.
@pedrohqb "I think, therefore I am not" would not be valid with this formula as you say it would. When you say "I think" you cannot conclude "therefore I am not". If you want to conclude "I am not" you have to argue the "I think" part, one cannot be linked to another as result of each other.
@ibster8 But why had he to do all this stuff to reach a conclusion that was pretty obvious? Instead, he just destroys all the bases of realistic thought in order to make the only evident truth is the self existence. But why? he could be only a limited part of a big reason, like the universe. The conclusion is plainly useless. It is pretty evident that we exist. It is not matter of discovering, it from the common sense. Yes, I'm a thomist.
@pedrohqb sometimes, things that we believe are so evident and our eyes can see so clear, we live to realize and get disappointed that it's not quite so. to me his conclusion is not the end result, it is a way, a tool, a starting point that needs to be realized as a condition for the further discoveries.
Rene Descartes had a Vision a Supernatural Being (Giant Winged Angel) told him Nature can be Conquered by Measurement. This is the Belief that body and mind are Separate and that that Human Beings, And all natural phenomena, are merely physical entities "the Soul can not be Proved" and so doesnt Of Course Exist, the... irony in that .Material science founded on the words of an immaterial being.
So beautiful. I think that sometimes the aesthetic dimensions of philosophical writing are unduly ignored. Obviously the focus is and should be on the argument and its implications etc, but this is the kind of thing I can just put on while I fall asleep or take a bubble bath. It's just as relaxing and aesthetically appealing as poetry or music for me. I love this video.
How does Descarte justify "I think therefore I am"? Is it simply that once you think, even if you doubt, you must exist at that moment, or are there other reasons?
It's been a while since my Early Modern class but that's essentially the idea in my understanding. Even if you think you don't exist something has to be there to have that thought, even if it only something that thinks. Of course, some have argued ways around this. The one that immediately comes to mind is that some have said that the argument only goes so far as to prove that there is a thought, not necessarily something thinking that thought.
I believe so. And if I remember correctly, I think Descartes himself said it wasn't a new idea. But I do think he might've been the first to basically narrow it down to the only thing you can know. I think he later added some other undeniable propositions dealing with geometry or something. I can't quite remember.
Yes he argued from a priori reasoning, claiming that through reason he can know things, but perception (empirical thinking) fails at doing this because as Ovid would say:
'Man's judgement is fallible'
So, Descartes is right on something, but what makes him think that man's judgement is not part of his thoughts on a priori and rationalism? Cannot rationalism and both empiricism be flawed, what is the reason for believing them to be true?
I can't be sure, mostly because I don't particularly agree with Descartes in general. I would guess that he would say that it is a clear and distinct idea; the very denial of the cogito is impossible. I think he would agree that certain rational characteristics could be flawed, maybe even all of them. But he would say that, even if it were true that our judgments were fallible in both rational and empirical ways, that the cogito stands as a truth. I don't know if that answered anything.
@skelayo lolwut? Maybe you're one of the uninformed. It's pretty clear that some people are more intelligent than others. So by your logic, creating means nothing. I sure as fuck can't come up with some quantum mechanics theory, but I could learn to memorize it... and since I could (hypothetically) be as 'informed' as the scientist that created it, I could be as smart? Hell no, I'm dumb as shit
lol I'm not too stupid to realize i'm stupid when compared to some people.
@JaysonD9903 Genius through experience. You are just as smart as the scientist, you just never bothered to gather the information that he has, but you you arent any less smarter then him becouse of that.
@skelayo I think you're missing my point. I could NOT have created the works of many of these scientists, but I can learn it after they pioneer it. Therefore I am not as smart as some of these people. Im not too prideful to admit that. There are different levels of intelligence, plain and simple. Some people's brains are just genetically better than others, as with bodies.
I don't want to imagine the spectrum, because the spectrum itself could be a lie and not exist at all. You're making it to hard for yourself, as for me, I have a reason for believing in my existance and it has to do with an appeal to the divine, from the looks of it you don't believe in the divine, so you have no basis on your existance or existance even exists in the first place.
I forgot his argument for God, the ontological argument for the existance of God? He uses the same style of argumentation, but it is soley subjective to an individual, isn't it?
You don't know if you exist, how do you know if you exist? Just because you're deceived doesn't mean you exist, you being deceived is a premise. You don't know if the premise is true, what if the deceiver doesn't exist, and your thoughts of being deceived are not true? Your false deception tries to prove you exist, but you don't even know if you exist, let alone the existance of deception. How therefore do we know that we exist if the deceiver is not known to be existing?
We could start to "argue" about this, but it's pointless. I know that I exist, because I came to this ultimate conclusion and until you come to this conclusion as well it would be really hard to prove this to you.
Just as before, I didnt understand that the existance of most of the things are unsure, debateable, and I didnt understand cogito ergo sum.
The only way to understand it is to come to this conclusion.
You don't know you exist, you just think you do, and unless you have a good reason to think anything is true nothing will be true or exist. So if I come to the conclusion that i am God, it proves that I am God? If I come to the conclusion that Einstein plagarized by General theory of relativity he did so?
I think that if you REALLY came to these conclusions, then yes, it would mean they "are" true. But you DON'T come to these conclusions, and this is the point.
I'm not sure whether TRUTH exists outside a subiectum, as Nietzsche said, everyrhing is subject to interpretation.
It might seem (and might be) that truth exists, but I think we cannot be aware of it.
Truth can be strectched, changed, guised, mishapen, attackled by malice, derided, but it will always be Truth and it is not subjective. Nietzsche was an influential philosopher, but he was non-theless a nutjob. Also the same way I concluded that I was God and the founder of General relativity is the same way you conclude you exist, why should I be wrong and you be right?
Okay, I do not think that I can explain it any better than Descartes.
If you completely understand and believe that what you see/hear or sense in ANY way are unsure and fallable, and you understand that reality is only a matter of belief in the stimuli, than you suddenly remain alone "somewhere" deep inside with yourself. This is when you got rid of ALL uncertanties (and notably all of the "existing" things). You don't know where you are or what you are, you only know that you CAN think...
descartes made an ontological argument for the existance of God, he said for anything to exist he must exist, he said he was an axiom just like 2+2=4. I don't think if you're an Atheist you can use Descartes as a person to help prove your existance. maybe I am just mere thoughts, and so are you, but I have a different philosophical framework.
I know, I'm not using Descartes for anything, neither anybody else, simply because that would need BELIEF,and that is what I am trying to evit. I didn't come to this conclusion (that I exist) with the help of Descartes. I came to it by myself, and then I realised that others (Descartes) was trying to say the same thing, but i couldnt understand his point, until I came to the same conclusion...
no,you do know it, because the act of doubting the truth of that proposition ," i think therefore i am" is truth of the proposition itself, as it is by definition nessesary to think to doubt. So you argueing with the idea proves it. Bit circular i know, but pretty much true. You thinking your God doesn't actually require you to be an all powerful deity. That's the difference.
It makes you depressed to think about it too long because what does it mean when nothing is truly certain (except our existance) at all?
We must live in some sort of political system- may it be democracy, fascism or communism or whatsoever - but if we can't say with assurance what's the real or best thing to do?
i believe that peace of mind is very useful for thinking i think that everybody knows that but chaos chaotic erratic unstable unpredictable enviroments where would they take you what would you do when there is no time to go get away from all the things that smash the answers that the my poorly evolved mind looks for.
I once saw a episode of "Dr. Kats" in which a psychology patient stated, "I used to believe the brain to be the most fascinating and complex organ in the human body............but then I realized WHAT was telling me that".
Thank you so much for putting this together, LennyBound. It's really cool.
You said in another comment below that you might have been a substance dualist back in Descartes's time, if not for what you've learned about neuroscience. May I ask what you feel like are the conceptually important insights of neuroscience from a metaphysical perspective?
Reminds me of William Blake - "man's entire world exists in his imagination." Everything, f/the language you use to communicate, to culture, to conceptual understanding of your physical world, to your habits that make you "you", is entirely part of your imagination.
If only Descartes could see the error of his hardly-sceptical ways.
As I've said elsewhere, the problem isn't so much that Descartes assumes himself to live in a universe in which the law of non-contradiction is in effect (after all, we all assume this a priori everyday); rather, the problem with Descartes is that he does not recognise he's making this assumption, and thus incorrectly believed he's discovered a proof for existence.
(cont.) (...though it is obvious that a Cartesian rationalist would have a ready counterexample in mathematics and other "a priori" forms of cognition, though that leads us down roads better saved for somewhere outside youtube...). Either way, it seems to me that "think" is a loose verb referring to a highly diverse set of activities in the mind that don't look an awful lot alike, and bring with them various characters and presuppositions that Descartes doesn't account for or discard.
(cont.) SECOND, bracketing the complaints I've stated above, on a more technical note, Descartes helps himself to a highly ambiguous use of the word 'think'. What is this think? If it means all the various ways our consciousness deals with the world, then the existence of the external world is still presupposed, it has not been skeptically bracketed. It seems to me that an idea of 'think' that did not involve the outside world would be unrecognizable and unintelligible.
(cont.) If we take seriously the idea that forms of logical inference are not invulnerable to skepticism, then the very idea of an inferential escape out of skepticism is unfounded. It has no escape, if adopted as a starting point. This does not lead us down an abyss of skepticism however, because we need to realize that the skeptical maneuver is a highly-specific intellectual mood, one which brings with it significant ontological presuppositions about the nature of consciousness and knowledge.
I don't want to give the impression that I am overly critcial, since for a great deal of my life the Cartesian cogito was the only epistemic ground I had to stand on. However, I ultimately abandoned it as an illogical formulation on two counts. FIRST, Cogito ergo sum is a logical inference, and the forms of logical inference are fair game for skepticism and the "evil deamon". Perhaps this is an invalid argument, and Descartes is deceived into thinking that it is a valid form of inference.
Atman is brahman is the world. However, according to Descartes, atman is existant, but separate from brahman, brahman is almost nonexistent, and the world is the only thing that is real. However, I'd stick to: atman is brahman is the world. Nondual whole, nothing reduced to something, yet still discerned.
The problem here is that Descartes then takes the "I think therefore I am" calls this a clear and distinct perception, then claims that his knowledge in god is clear and distinct. Then, since it is clear and distinct god must actually exist as his own mind does... Since god actually exists, and is good, Descartes is not being decieved by an evil demon.... Utter crap. I want a shirt that says I hate Descartes... Hume, Kant, Locke, Berkely, Spinoza, and many many other philosophers are way better.
I'm never sure why I can't just as easily say 'senito ergo sum' or 'amo ergo sum' or...Well, you get the picture...Wouldn't it be just as much true that I would still be aware that I am, that I exist, even if I took those to be the default after my extreme questioning?...BUT I know that such a response is not aridly rational and is therefore the wrong answer.
I'm no Descartes scholar but I think the appropriate response is to say that only "cogito" will work since anything else can be artificially evoked by the evil demon/genius. I may think that I'm having a specific sensation, emotion, or feeling, but in actuality I don't possess a body or senses at all!
Now, why we can't also be wrong about thinking... I have no idea.
Yes, this is the conventional Cartesian orthodoxy...However, many philosophers have pointed to the obvious flaws in it. 'Descartes' Error' is a book which most clearly points out the critical flaws in this 'reasoning'....Damasio's book points out the flaws of divorcing feeling from thinking...A critical flaw which has driven too much of our philosophy ever since.
descartes doesnt separate perceptions from thinking. he believes that he at least seems to see things. i dont really think that he necessarily completely separates emotions from thought, such things should be just as indubitable as perceptions.
Basically asking if u exsist means u do because to ask the question u must be conshus so u think therefore u r
Gbros9599 1 week ago
After reading the paper "Are you living in a computer simulation", Descartes words seem very accurate.
tsjoencinema 3 weeks ago
narrator sounds like Data from star trek
pitchman1974 1 month ago
Fate led me here.
UberGamer1030 1 month ago
overwhelming...............the world and life overwhelms me at times
Theozzie11 1 month ago
He didn't doubt that he's an "I", whether he's really thinking or not, and whether he ever really doubted or not.
motionapplied 1 month ago
Did a Blog post about Descartes, should be easier to understand than this! Google hpwinchester descartes
orangesandlemons1231 2 months ago
dreadful voice
miklaes 3 months ago
"I think therefore I am" is pretty much saying "Some brains have the ability to process and form concepts, therefore they have the ability to form a concept of themselves". It doesn't make any statement about the state of that ability to process, just that there are results from it. Some brains have the ability to construct a cohesive concept of themselves, "I", to represent the large number of separate networks and mechanisms that make up the organism and its processes.
Dem212 3 months ago
@Dem212 And what school of philosophy are you appealing to here?
meeene4 3 months ago
"I believe" - The first flaw I notice in his speech.
Belief is a poor way out when convincing somebody that your concepts are accurate.
MorkaGraven 3 months ago
@MorkaGraven First, this is translated so the word choice is a not a great flaw to start with. Second the parts with i believe aren't trying to convince anyone of anything.
timverma 3 months ago
@MorkaGraven As Timverma said, the translation from french is not correct. In the original text, the first "I believe" is "je me persuade" (I persuade myself).
NFL9475 3 months ago in playlist That's France
This has been flagged as spam show
"i think therefore I exist" should be replaced by "I think therefore something exist'
danny3571 4 months ago
Comment removed
danny3571 4 months ago
Nietzsche & Kierkegaard: That's great René!
You derive the logical conclusion that "I" exists
by assuming that "I" exists (& thinks). Logically consistent but circular & trivial.
-
Hume: René, if you're so certain you got that right beyond all doubt,
you must be able to answer these question
with absolute certainty & without any assumptions:
1 - What is "I"? 2 - What is "thinking"?
(I'll cut you some slack and won't ask you about the nature of "existence")
dareartes 4 months ago
Deep shit
MrBoxingTiger 4 months ago
i love the song
akiemunchie 4 months ago
thank God there are people apart from me who think like this.... oh my life is confusing.
yummy796 5 months ago
I lol'd at decarted writing "Of God, that he exists". He formulated his own ontological argument in it. I'm like "Oh really, Rene? Kant has a few words to say on ontological arguments ;)"
Drgamedood 5 months ago
@Drgamedood Even though I to an extent agree, a lot of philosophers thought Kant's objection was irrelavant, but if the original is defeated, there are still the other additions, some of the best are modal ontological argumetns.
meeene4 3 months ago
@meeene4 It was pretty much agreed upon, before the rise of modal ontological arguments, that Kant put the nails in the coffin of the ontological argument for quite some time. One famous contemporary modal ontological argument is Plantinga's version. Which seeks to get around Kant's criticisms.
Drgamedood 3 months ago
Concept is very deeply explained in vedas and upanishads dating back to 3000bc.. Advaita is the word to look at.
praveenkalapatapu 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I doubt that Descartes existed
ScalerWave 5 months ago
Comment removed
ScalerWave 5 months ago
How does modern day determinism fit into cogito ergo sum?
ChickityChoice 6 months ago
damn he is brilliant!!
raja476 6 months ago
Descartes concept of the evil genius. Also, the concept of methodological doubt is introduced in there as well. It's in his book named, ''meditations on first philosophy''.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
go crazy!
meeshes 7 months ago
Is Nicolas Cage narrating this?
skate800 7 months ago 21
@skate800 Lmao! Nice!!
tequilajane08 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like to think I am
petenstace 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
On the look for real spiritual guidance?Not getting any results from techniques that you have found?psychic abilities and powers, it is all possible.Let the spiritual revolution begin THE-HIDDEN-SPIRITdotCOM
DawnTharpe 7 months ago
Beautiful.
AnimalFarm28 7 months ago
Am I so dependent on the body and the senses that without these I cannot exist?
Osirisboy07 7 months ago
I think therefore I am. Very smart person. And 3 not so smart ones...
TheCeo626Mixer 7 months ago 2
He may have been right in assuming that God was creating his thoughts. In the sense that how does he know his thoughts belong to him at all? And that thoughts are not simply mental objects passing buy his perception much like physical objects pass by our view. However i think there for i am still works, because although you as an individual may not exist, but whatever produced the thoughts did, so something exists and you are that something, although the individual may not.
Japanfeedo 8 months ago
To all you naruto fans looking at this vid: IZANAGI!!!!!!!
migeezel 8 months ago
I think therefore I am.... I think - George Carlin
migeezel 8 months ago
The notion of "Cogito Ergo Sum" is only valid to the early 20th century. Once with the internet, AI and other meta-psychological sentient, all will have to be reevaluated and redefined. Sorry Descartes, we managed to screw your work up.
sinmantky 8 months ago
@sinmantky How does the internet and A.I. do anything to disprove dualism, much less the cogito ergo sum. There is no advance in neuropsychology or computer science that cannot easily be integrated into a dualistic worldview. You really need to read some philosophy man.
CarlosMarti123 5 months ago
Cogito ergo sum not a dumbass
MrFlyingeclipse 8 months ago
This Is Amazing
FroggyMasterMajora 8 months ago
My brain just exploded.
mikeyab88 8 months ago
@mikeyab88 lol your brain just exploded and it took 500 years for it to do so :) welcome to the world that you know not! :)
rad4life1 8 months ago
This is beautiful.
Xxd3cayxX 8 months ago
INTELLECTUAL MASTURBATION
temokam 8 months ago
The cogito argument actually presupposes that 'I exist'. Clearly a being that thinks must exist, but why should the being doing the thinking be 'me'? To even assert that 'I think' you have to know that the thoughts you are conscious of are being thought by you, which would require you to exist. So 'I exist' is actually contained within the premise 'I think'; thus the cogito proves nothing.
t3hpighouse 10 months ago
@t3hpighouse Your head must be in one big knot, you receive some thoughts that are not yours, and they travel to your brain at 24 billion miles an hour.
truthseeker010101 10 months ago
@truthseeker010101
lol, I don't actually believe that the thoughts I have are not mine or that I don't exist; I was just pointing out that the cogito is not the correct way of establishing this.
t3hpighouse 10 months ago
@truthseeker010101
lol, I don't actually believe that the thoughts I have are not mine or that I don't exist; I was just pointing out that the cogito is not the correct way of establishing this.
t3hpighouse 10 months ago
@t3hpighouse You make an interesting point, I think I've heard it before (Kripke?). However, I've always thought the real value of the cogito is that it proves existence. Whether or not it proves my personal existence is secondary.
ThcPatient 10 months ago
so what the fuck? lol it sounds like he is just talking out of his ass...
amnesiai 11 months ago
@amnesiai Surely you're not serious.
Robikus 11 months ago
he has a very zen mindset.
SparadicMathematic 11 months ago
I am absolute in love with his approach. He systematically dismantled the likely hood that anything existed all to verify that he existed. Such elegance and rationality rarely blends together in such a beautiful fashion. I can only imagine the sleepless nights he fought through before arriving to this conclusion.
DamienZshadow 11 months ago
@spruntfemalespray I never claimed to have read all his books, he's not high on my list of important philosophers, but I've read enough of his work to understand what he's all about. his philosophy was not, even for it's time, anything groundbreaking, I found it simply uneducating, pompous and potentially dangerous. if it's a philosophy you can appreciate, then I'm sure you've read all of his works, as I've read all of Rousseau and Spinoza. to each his own, we read what we appreciate.
truthslap 11 months ago
@spruntfemalespray university does count, I benefit from the prominent philosophy professors who've read all the classics over and over again, their textbooks tagged with endless sticky notes to correspond with the authors, they're more than partially engaged in the study of philosophy. I've read most of Neitzche's work including Beyond Good and Evil, Zarathustra and Ecce Homo. I'm not going to concur simply from re-reading his work every ten years, but I'll always give it a passing glance.
truthslap 11 months ago
Rene Descartes walk into a bar, the bartender asks him "Would you like a drink?" Rene Descartes says "I don't think so," and vanishes.
dathwampeer 1 year ago 41
@dathwampeer Lmao that was awesome I'm gonna use that in class
mikeyab88 8 months ago
@mikeyab88 Yea, it's brilliant. I can't remember where I heard it though.
Haha
dathwampeer 8 months ago
fantastic presentation, Descartes is a continual inspiration.
truthslap 1 year ago
Lindo parabéns! Sou levado as lágrimas toda vez que assisto! Bravo, bravo, bravo...
joaocardosodecastro 1 year ago
We are part of the evolution...
Neroscot 1 year ago
What bullshit! This guy just ripped off The Matrix!
DannyAces 1 year ago 3
@DannyAces
joke right?
raidersSolja 1 year ago
@raidersSolja
The troll in me reeeeeeeallly wants to pretend to rant and compare the similarities and call Keau a revolutionary.
But the grownup in me just glared long and hard and won out. Yes. Yes it was a joke.
DannyAces 1 year ago
@DannyAces
*phew, :)
raidersSolja 1 year ago
@DannyAces Bahahaha
camelface1 1 year ago
fuck descartes.. NIETZSCHE FTW!!!!
1Mafioso4 1 year ago
@1Mafioso4 Only if you prefer fascism over freedom. I rarely hear of normal people expressing your point of view, except for mobsters and politicians. The last place I'd ever want to live is in a Nietzsche inspired society.
truthslap 1 year ago
@truthslap that's because you are weak and decadent, only the strong survive, the ubermensch
1Mafioso4 1 year ago
@1Mafioso4 you make my point, Nietzsche is radically nihilist and nationalist. people don't oppose Nietzsche inspired nationalism because they're weak, but because they're moral and rational. it'd be preferable to live in the wilderness and take one's chances with natural selection than to be appraised and commoditized or disposed of in Nietzsche society.
truthslap 1 year ago
@truthslap LOL!!!!!, you've obviously never read Nietzsche.. goodday sir
1Mafioso4 1 year ago
@1Mafioso4 Now I'm really confused. You say I've not read Nietzsche, but I've completed plenty of high-level philosophy courses, and everybody's read Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Ecce Homo. Everybody regards Nietzsche as nihilist and nationalist. I assume you like to talk about Nietzsche but it's you that hasn't read any of his writing. Good day to you.
truthslap 1 year ago
@truthslap ...anyone can claim to be anything behind a keyboard -.-.... I SAID GOODDAY!
1Mafioso4 1 year ago
@1Mafioso4 strange that you try so hard to externalize and project your own lack of understanding onto others. good day.
truthslap 1 year ago
Aristotle said it first, Knowledge within knowledge. Then St. Augustine said it, "if i'm deceived then I exist." He ripped this whole argument.
philsayssss 1 year ago
Dude.
derman077 1 year ago
Sorry, his style is godly, by god, wow. <3 For what does follow from that, indeed?! Perhaps, after death, his bodiless mind might exist. Intelligence consumes his eyes.
SnapeSoul 1 year ago
Ours thoughts are the only really truth. We are the brain, thats it.
clavitomalo 1 year ago
Stellar :-/
vrush23 1 year ago
INTP power.
Zaphenath4 1 year ago
very nice video
thank you
your vocal tone is nice to listen too as well :)
abuseforapie 1 year ago
Décartes entre dans un Starbucks et commende un café au lait.
Le serveur lui demande s'il veut du chocolat râpé sur le café
Décartes lui dit: «Je ne pense pas » et en un éclair, il disparaît.
auggiedoggy 1 year ago
in that case if we believe it is people see thing that arent there so are there for them but not for us if it would be there for us all would it ?
MrTimothytim 1 year ago
Am getting a tatoo of the words :D
Hurricane369 1 year ago
I've never heard this read out loud as a whole before, I didn't realise quite how lyrical it was. Beautiful.
ttasi7 1 year ago
Thanks for the upload!
MartaHetfield 1 year ago
perverting surrender of sipirit to knowledge is the way of abuse for global slavery to control sources for choosenones sovereignity.it is absurd.
artregeous 1 year ago
Mexo meus cabelos, ranjo meus dentes. Ambos os sons - do cabelo, sendo e, dos dentes - idem, mesclam num só pensamento - sentimento. Paro por aqui. Maj SJ.
jlsj11 1 year ago
Cool voice over. Would be better if you did inspirational speechs with footage from the tianiman square massacre.
pliskin100 1 year ago
Knowing that people like René Descartes lived amongst us makes me proud to be a human.
TheDawnBearer 1 year ago
My brain is.....hurty
pliskin100 1 year ago
"Jeg tenker, derfor er jeg (til)"
akselhovland1 1 year ago
"Jeg tenker, derfor er jeg (til)"
akselhovland1 1 year ago
@ogirv101
Um, how could this be a false dichotomy? He's stating A^~A ... that seems to cover just about every possible state of affairs, since not-A stands for every possible conceivable (or maybe inconceivable) thing that isn't A.
hegelec 1 year ago
Esse vídeo me emociona toda vez que o vejo! Parabéns LennyBound! BRAVO...
joaocardosodecastro 1 year ago
The romance of philosophy....nice presentation.
danny3571 1 year ago
"i Think therefore I am" buuut since I can say I and I is the subject of the proposition why do I think in order to be ? Isn't there something which is consciousness of myself without thinking ? Since this define myself , to say that "I" am knowing that I do it consciously why do I need the persuasion that i think ?!xD
carusggg 1 year ago
@carusggg Isn't that's the point of the formula "Cogito Ergo Sum". You don't think in order to be. Like you said you're just there, an object. But you know you are because you think. Thinking raises your awareness of yourself. To me this formula is not a final result but instead just a starting point based on self-awareness.
ibster8 1 year ago
@ibster8 do i really need to think in order to have the idea of I in me ?
carusggg 1 year ago
im at the point where im not sure that i matter or that any1 does, that there is anything but living and death, nothing beyond. if there is nothing beyond then why am i here? because there is a god? if there is a god then where do the other animals of the earth go when they expire? science, proof, and space exist. the theory is that there is something beyond space, when i think about science and what is beyond space all i can think of a white blank nothingness, could it be something called god?
ridatakahari 1 year ago
it is just ridiculous. His conclusion would be also valid if the made "I think, therefore I am not" because his doubts on everything makes it even unrational. This idea is plainly stupid. As any thomist would say: "just beat his head, and he will feel his existence". Cogito, ergo sum is not the base his falacious philosophy. It is the common sense, valid by itself, which without our mind is plainly dead.
pedrohqb 1 year ago
@pedrohqb "I think, therefore I am not" would not be valid with this formula as you say it would. When you say "I think" you cannot conclude "therefore I am not". If you want to conclude "I am not" you have to argue the "I think" part, one cannot be linked to another as result of each other.
ibster8 1 year ago
@ibster8 But why had he to do all this stuff to reach a conclusion that was pretty obvious? Instead, he just destroys all the bases of realistic thought in order to make the only evident truth is the self existence. But why? he could be only a limited part of a big reason, like the universe. The conclusion is plainly useless. It is pretty evident that we exist. It is not matter of discovering, it from the common sense. Yes, I'm a thomist.
pedrohqb 1 year ago
@pedrohqb sometimes, things that we believe are so evident and our eyes can see so clear, we live to realize and get disappointed that it's not quite so. to me his conclusion is not the end result, it is a way, a tool, a starting point that needs to be realized as a condition for the further discoveries.
ibster8 1 year ago
Truth is never false, nor could even have the possibility of being false.
99trow 1 year ago
I know i exist. But i do not know what i am. I am not sure if i am the thinking mind.
kitts21 1 year ago
I think therefore i am.
rebel4evr114 1 year ago
Descartes still continues to make my brain explode in philosophical orgasm
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago 54
Well done.
florianne23 1 year ago
Rene Descartes had a Vision a Supernatural Being (Giant Winged Angel) told him Nature can be Conquered by Measurement. This is the Belief that body and mind are Separate and that that Human Beings, And all natural phenomena, are merely physical entities "the Soul can not be Proved" and so doesnt Of Course Exist, the... irony in that .Material science founded on the words of an immaterial being.
CommonPurpose1 2 years ago
cogito ergo sum-i think therfore iam-iam able to think therfore i exist
garylmcguire 2 years ago
So beautiful. I think that sometimes the aesthetic dimensions of philosophical writing are unduly ignored. Obviously the focus is and should be on the argument and its implications etc, but this is the kind of thing I can just put on while I fall asleep or take a bubble bath. It's just as relaxing and aesthetically appealing as poetry or music for me. I love this video.
anrchyvk 2 years ago 4
Good reading. Good video accompaniment.
iwpoe 2 years ago
How does Descarte justify "I think therefore I am"? Is it simply that once you think, even if you doubt, you must exist at that moment, or are there other reasons?
freethinkerdangerous 2 years ago
It's been a while since my Early Modern class but that's essentially the idea in my understanding. Even if you think you don't exist something has to be there to have that thought, even if it only something that thinks. Of course, some have argued ways around this. The one that immediately comes to mind is that some have said that the argument only goes so far as to prove that there is a thought, not necessarily something thinking that thought.
waltonky 2 years ago
nope , that's the only thing and we know it is right because we see that is impossible to perceive it as wrong.
carusggg 2 years ago
Didn't Augustine ofhippo create the same argument? Didn't Augustine also prove that others exist as well through analogy.
ogirv101 2 years ago
I believe so. And if I remember correctly, I think Descartes himself said it wasn't a new idea. But I do think he might've been the first to basically narrow it down to the only thing you can know. I think he later added some other undeniable propositions dealing with geometry or something. I can't quite remember.
waltonky 2 years ago
@waltonky:
Yes he argued from a priori reasoning, claiming that through reason he can know things, but perception (empirical thinking) fails at doing this because as Ovid would say:
'Man's judgement is fallible'
So, Descartes is right on something, but what makes him think that man's judgement is not part of his thoughts on a priori and rationalism? Cannot rationalism and both empiricism be flawed, what is the reason for believing them to be true?
ogirv101 2 years ago
I can't be sure, mostly because I don't particularly agree with Descartes in general. I would guess that he would say that it is a clear and distinct idea; the very denial of the cogito is impossible. I think he would agree that certain rational characteristics could be flawed, maybe even all of them. But he would say that, even if it were true that our judgments were fallible in both rational and empirical ways, that the cogito stands as a truth. I don't know if that answered anything.
waltonky 2 years ago
Coito ergo sum
samdon815 2 years ago
I think. Therefore I am not a Dumbass.
Willzorh 2 years ago 50
@Willzorh Thinking does not mean you are smart. There are no stupid people, only uninformed people.
skelayo 9 months ago
@skelayo lolwut? Maybe you're one of the uninformed. It's pretty clear that some people are more intelligent than others. So by your logic, creating means nothing. I sure as fuck can't come up with some quantum mechanics theory, but I could learn to memorize it... and since I could (hypothetically) be as 'informed' as the scientist that created it, I could be as smart? Hell no, I'm dumb as shit
lol I'm not too stupid to realize i'm stupid when compared to some people.
JaysonD9903 9 months ago
@JaysonD9903 Genius through experience. You are just as smart as the scientist, you just never bothered to gather the information that he has, but you you arent any less smarter then him becouse of that.
skelayo 9 months ago
@skelayo I think you're missing my point. I could NOT have created the works of many of these scientists, but I can learn it after they pioneer it. Therefore I am not as smart as some of these people. Im not too prideful to admit that. There are different levels of intelligence, plain and simple. Some people's brains are just genetically better than others, as with bodies.
JaysonD9903 9 months ago
@JaysonD9903 That is where you and I differ. I am not my body, nor my brain. I am something beyond.
skelayo 9 months ago
@skelayo That is bullshit.
globalchaos1984 9 months ago
I don't want to imagine the spectrum, because the spectrum itself could be a lie and not exist at all. You're making it to hard for yourself, as for me, I have a reason for believing in my existance and it has to do with an appeal to the divine, from the looks of it you don't believe in the divine, so you have no basis on your existance or existance even exists in the first place.
ogirv101 2 years ago
I forgot his argument for God, the ontological argument for the existance of God? He uses the same style of argumentation, but it is soley subjective to an individual, isn't it?
ogirv101 2 years ago
ego sum dankness
UKSEANJW 2 years ago
today i came to the same conclusion, that there is only one certainty, which is I exist.
And this was the moment in which I understood, what Descartes meant, when he said, cogito ergo sum.
applause
TmSensis 2 years ago
You don't know if you exist, how do you know if you exist? Just because you're deceived doesn't mean you exist, you being deceived is a premise. You don't know if the premise is true, what if the deceiver doesn't exist, and your thoughts of being deceived are not true? Your false deception tries to prove you exist, but you don't even know if you exist, let alone the existance of deception. How therefore do we know that we exist if the deceiver is not known to be existing?
ogirv101 2 years ago
We could start to "argue" about this, but it's pointless. I know that I exist, because I came to this ultimate conclusion and until you come to this conclusion as well it would be really hard to prove this to you.
Just as before, I didnt understand that the existance of most of the things are unsure, debateable, and I didnt understand cogito ergo sum.
The only way to understand it is to come to this conclusion.
TmSensis 2 years ago
You don't know you exist, you just think you do, and unless you have a good reason to think anything is true nothing will be true or exist. So if I come to the conclusion that i am God, it proves that I am God? If I come to the conclusion that Einstein plagarized by General theory of relativity he did so?
ogirv101 2 years ago
I think that if you REALLY came to these conclusions, then yes, it would mean they "are" true. But you DON'T come to these conclusions, and this is the point.
I'm not sure whether TRUTH exists outside a subiectum, as Nietzsche said, everyrhing is subject to interpretation.
It might seem (and might be) that truth exists, but I think we cannot be aware of it.
TmSensis 2 years ago
Truth can be strectched, changed, guised, mishapen, attackled by malice, derided, but it will always be Truth and it is not subjective. Nietzsche was an influential philosopher, but he was non-theless a nutjob. Also the same way I concluded that I was God and the founder of General relativity is the same way you conclude you exist, why should I be wrong and you be right?
ogirv101 2 years ago
Okay, I do not think that I can explain it any better than Descartes.
If you completely understand and believe that what you see/hear or sense in ANY way are unsure and fallable, and you understand that reality is only a matter of belief in the stimuli, than you suddenly remain alone "somewhere" deep inside with yourself. This is when you got rid of ALL uncertanties (and notably all of the "existing" things). You don't know where you are or what you are, you only know that you CAN think...
TmSensis 2 years ago
... and because you CAN think, the conclusion is inevitable, that you exist!
In what form, you don't/can't know. Maybe YOU are just mere thoughts.
TmSensis 2 years ago
descartes made an ontological argument for the existance of God, he said for anything to exist he must exist, he said he was an axiom just like 2+2=4. I don't think if you're an Atheist you can use Descartes as a person to help prove your existance. maybe I am just mere thoughts, and so are you, but I have a different philosophical framework.
ogirv101 2 years ago
I know, I'm not using Descartes for anything, neither anybody else, simply because that would need BELIEF,and that is what I am trying to evit. I didn't come to this conclusion (that I exist) with the help of Descartes. I came to it by myself, and then I realised that others (Descartes) was trying to say the same thing, but i couldnt understand his point, until I came to the same conclusion...
TmSensis 2 years ago
... Descartes' phrase Cogito ergo sum didnt help me, because i couldnt understand it.
That is why i said "The only way to understand it is to come to this conclusion."
TmSensis 2 years ago
no,you do know it, because the act of doubting the truth of that proposition ," i think therefore i am" is truth of the proposition itself, as it is by definition nessesary to think to doubt. So you argueing with the idea proves it. Bit circular i know, but pretty much true. You thinking your God doesn't actually require you to be an all powerful deity. That's the difference.
panteraboy123 2 years ago
Congratulations! Nice video! Parabéns...
joaocardosodecastro 2 years ago
It makes you depressed to think about it too long because what does it mean when nothing is truly certain (except our existance) at all?
We must live in some sort of political system- may it be democracy, fascism or communism or whatsoever - but if we can't say with assurance what's the real or best thing to do?
InternetRevolution 2 years ago
Wonderful!! Maravilloso!! Meraviglioso!! נפלא!! אז אני חושב שאני
adri6atheist 2 years ago 2
Decartes was very enlightened.
hvvvvp 2 years ago 2
I like trains
DrinkOfTheCloud 2 years ago 4
' i think therefor i am'?
SatoTM3 2 years ago
i translate that right? (study latin, 16)
SatoTM3 2 years ago
i believe that peace of mind is very useful for thinking i think that everybody knows that but chaos chaotic erratic unstable unpredictable enviroments where would they take you what would you do when there is no time to go get away from all the things that smash the answers that the my poorly evolved mind looks for.
praisethedog 2 years ago
I once saw a episode of "Dr. Kats" in which a psychology patient stated, "I used to believe the brain to be the most fascinating and complex organ in the human body............but then I realized WHAT was telling me that".
dlucas90 2 years ago 20
Nice. :-)
LennyBound 2 years ago
Great. I like it. THanks
TanajuraSoJura 2 years ago
Brillant!!
greenghost2008 2 years ago
Thank you so much for putting this together, LennyBound. It's really cool.
You said in another comment below that you might have been a substance dualist back in Descartes's time, if not for what you've learned about neuroscience. May I ask what you feel like are the conceptually important insights of neuroscience from a metaphysical perspective?
mattpeed 2 years ago
Studying Descartes is great ; even if, sometimes, some of his arguments (ex: concerning God) are 'easy'.
feloutre 2 years ago
I think I'll feature this on my channel for a while.
Nykytyne2 2 years ago
Reminds me of William Blake - "man's entire world exists in his imagination." Everything, f/the language you use to communicate, to culture, to conceptual understanding of your physical world, to your habits that make you "you", is entirely part of your imagination.
jlipin3 2 years ago
Def a man that is far ahead of his time. Good video.
BlazinAzn009 2 years ago
If only Descartes could see the error of his hardly-sceptical ways.
As I've said elsewhere, the problem isn't so much that Descartes assumes himself to live in a universe in which the law of non-contradiction is in effect (after all, we all assume this a priori everyday); rather, the problem with Descartes is that he does not recognise he's making this assumption, and thus incorrectly believed he's discovered a proof for existence.
Yours,
Alex Peak
allixpeeke 2 years ago
(cont.) (...though it is obvious that a Cartesian rationalist would have a ready counterexample in mathematics and other "a priori" forms of cognition, though that leads us down roads better saved for somewhere outside youtube...). Either way, it seems to me that "think" is a loose verb referring to a highly diverse set of activities in the mind that don't look an awful lot alike, and bring with them various characters and presuppositions that Descartes doesn't account for or discard.
jr3368a 2 years ago
(cont.) SECOND, bracketing the complaints I've stated above, on a more technical note, Descartes helps himself to a highly ambiguous use of the word 'think'. What is this think? If it means all the various ways our consciousness deals with the world, then the existence of the external world is still presupposed, it has not been skeptically bracketed. It seems to me that an idea of 'think' that did not involve the outside world would be unrecognizable and unintelligible.
jr3368a 2 years ago
(cont.) If we take seriously the idea that forms of logical inference are not invulnerable to skepticism, then the very idea of an inferential escape out of skepticism is unfounded. It has no escape, if adopted as a starting point. This does not lead us down an abyss of skepticism however, because we need to realize that the skeptical maneuver is a highly-specific intellectual mood, one which brings with it significant ontological presuppositions about the nature of consciousness and knowledge.
jr3368a 2 years ago
I don't want to give the impression that I am overly critcial, since for a great deal of my life the Cartesian cogito was the only epistemic ground I had to stand on. However, I ultimately abandoned it as an illogical formulation on two counts. FIRST, Cogito ergo sum is a logical inference, and the forms of logical inference are fair game for skepticism and the "evil deamon". Perhaps this is an invalid argument, and Descartes is deceived into thinking that it is a valid form of inference.
jr3368a 2 years ago
Atman is brahman is the world. However, according to Descartes, atman is existant, but separate from brahman, brahman is almost nonexistent, and the world is the only thing that is real. However, I'd stick to: atman is brahman is the world. Nondual whole, nothing reduced to something, yet still discerned.
MaBu888 3 years ago
The problem here is that Descartes then takes the "I think therefore I am" calls this a clear and distinct perception, then claims that his knowledge in god is clear and distinct. Then, since it is clear and distinct god must actually exist as his own mind does... Since god actually exists, and is good, Descartes is not being decieved by an evil demon.... Utter crap. I want a shirt that says I hate Descartes... Hume, Kant, Locke, Berkely, Spinoza, and many many other philosophers are way better.
tempemonkey2323 3 years ago
Thanks for the vid Lenny
Rybot9000 3 years ago
Excellent video, as they always are from you...
I'm never sure why I can't just as easily say 'senito ergo sum' or 'amo ergo sum' or...Well, you get the picture...Wouldn't it be just as much true that I would still be aware that I am, that I exist, even if I took those to be the default after my extreme questioning?...BUT I know that such a response is not aridly rational and is therefore the wrong answer.
2bsirius 3 years ago
I'm no Descartes scholar but I think the appropriate response is to say that only "cogito" will work since anything else can be artificially evoked by the evil demon/genius. I may think that I'm having a specific sensation, emotion, or feeling, but in actuality I don't possess a body or senses at all!
Now, why we can't also be wrong about thinking... I have no idea.
LennyBound 3 years ago
Yes, this is the conventional Cartesian orthodoxy...However, many philosophers have pointed to the obvious flaws in it. 'Descartes' Error' is a book which most clearly points out the critical flaws in this 'reasoning'....Damasio's book points out the flaws of divorcing feeling from thinking...A critical flaw which has driven too much of our philosophy ever since.
2bsirius 3 years ago
I actually just bought "Descartes' Error" a week or so ago and it just came in the mail yesterday. :-)
LennyBound 3 years ago
@LennyBound So what did you think of the book?
SinfulMessiah 1 year ago
descartes doesnt separate perceptions from thinking. he believes that he at least seems to see things. i dont really think that he necessarily completely separates emotions from thought, such things should be just as indubitable as perceptions.
meinonghitdatbong 3 years ago