I think therefore I am
are very famous words said by descartes but in which doctrine does he say it. As several documents I've looked at contradict each other.
If you know please reply

I think he said it in his meditations, I think it was Med II. But then, I think he said it in his Discourse on Method as well. :confused:

thx firefly

no prob, though as I said, I'm not entirely sure. :bugeye:

Hello reader

I am having a little bit of difficulty on understanding Discourse on method.

I get the sentence I think, therefore I am

However thats when my understanding comes to an abrubt end.

Is one of the arguments in the discourse

I know many things
I know one of these is true
therefore everything i know is true

If anybody does know please reply
terronie

I haven't had the pleasure to study Descartes yet but I'll be taking a philosophy class relatively soon, so I'll try to help you out based on what I can discern.


I know many things
I know one of these is true
therefore everything i know is true

I think the beauty of this philosophy is that it can be interpreted in many differnet ways, from different viewpoints.


You think, you're a person
You know you're a person, so that's one thing
And everything you know to be true (like when you hold a ball in the air and drop it it will fall) is, to you, a person, the truth. This is probably something you should figure out on your own, but I hope that I've helped somehow. Take care, and welcome to sciforums.

Ah, it's been over a year since I read the Discourse (and I'm more likely to stick bamboo splints up my own nails than re-read that damn thing!) but I don't think that's his exact argument.

More like;

I percieve many things
I know that one of these (wasn't it God?) is true.
Therefore, I can trust my senses.

But I don't think he stuck with this. I think he decided to trust his senses because he trusted God, who would not trick him, because God was good. Or something like that.

Polly:

I haven't had the pleasure to study Descartes yet but I'll be taking a philosophy class relatively soon, so I'll try to help you out based on what I can discern.

Pleasure? Pleasure? PLEASURE? What the hell sort of masochist are you? There are people who have disembowled themselves with plastic knives rather than read Renee. :D

Didn't Descarte once quote:

I yam what I yam.

No, Q, you're thinking of YVWH, who said

"I yam that I yam" :p

I can't help it xev-ah-lamadingdong (HAHAH), unlike everyone my age that I know (no understatement) I enjoy school. So, even though I haven't read...let's see what that name was...Renee, I still like to learn.

Alas, Flatland, by Edwin Abbott, is such a cool book, but because I didn't attempt to get into the higher english class (which I should have, but was depressed because I wound up with a C+ in a class that turned out to have the toughest teacher in the school) I'm stuck with morons who just don't get it. Christ, I'm just sick and tired of it, I mean, in spanish two, for example, I have some really cool people with me who just have a gift for understanding language (as well as a great teacher), but the people that don't get the language or don't even try just spend the entire time being dumbasses and tripping each other as they walk by. Heheh, not me, though, I sit next to a goth, oedipus, and a sh*tload of attractive--by my standards--girls.

What's my point, you ask? Well originally I just wanted to know if you, xev, had read Flatland, but I guess I just rantededed on education for awhile. I want to learn, even if the stuff is boring, because I'm terrified of becoming the type of person that I despise.

Polly:

I can't help it xev-ah-lamadingdong (HAHAH), unlike everyone my age that I know (no understatement) I enjoy school. So, even though I haven't read...let's see what that name was...Renee, I still like to learn.

Oh, okay.

*Xev hides the knout behind her back and blinks in perfect innocence*

He's very dry, for me.


Alas, Flatland, by Edwin Abbott, is such a cool book, but because I didn't attempt to get into the higher english class (which I should have, but was depressed because I wound up with a C+ in a class that turned out to have the toughest teacher in the school) I'm stuck with morons who just don't get it. Christ, I'm just sick and tired of it, I mean, in spanish two, for example, I have some really cool people with me who just have a gift for understanding language (as well as a great teacher), but the people that don't get the language or don't even try just spend the entire time being dumbasses and tripping each other as they walk by. Heheh, not me, though, I sit next to a goth, oedipus, and a sh*tload of attractive--by my standards--girls.

Oh Polly. Polly, Polly Polly. I know what you're going through. I went through it myself.

I wish I could tell you that it ends when you get to college, but it doesn't end, it just gets a bit better.

Most people are going to be dumbasses and won't enjoy learning, and they'll look down on you for it.

Don't ever agree with them when they do. Surround yourself with cool people, and don't let the rest bother you.

And yes, I've read Flatland. Geometry, science fiction and social commentary.

Yummy. :cool:

HA! Thanks for the encouragement. Take care.

Originally posted by Xev
More like;

I percieve many things
I know that one of these (wasn't it God?) is true.
Therefore, I can trust my senses.

But I don't think he stuck with this. I think he decided to trust his senses because he trusted God, who would not trick him, because God was good. Or something like that.
Don't know who I hate more, Hume or Descartes. :rolleyes:

I think, like you said, he (thinks he) can trust he senses cos he thinks he's proven that God is not malevolent (in fact he's benevolent - good) so he wouldn't decieve Descartes, or allow him to believe something that was wrong. (and there's the whole clear and distinct ideas - Descartes also thinks that anything which to him, after careful thought is clear and distinct, must be true)

*Xev has traumatic flashback of "Levithan" and goes in the corner to rock back and forth*

thx to all who helped

As tommorrow I have a presentation about descartes tommorrow and I now know what I'm talking about (to a point):D

Terronie

The question really is a one of measurment isn't it? If you can describe it by measuring it, then it becomes. This is a big part of quantum mechanics and highly organized levels of string theory.

But I don't want to go into the details because you will always get lost. Always that is if you know your way.

Knowledge - Get lost


Pine_net

You lost me already. :p

But carry on, I might catch on somewhere. :p

I am, therefore I think

is much more practical ..

.....and much more useless

Actually what he said was:
I think therefore I am, I think.
The last two words got cut by his editior :)

I think he said it in his meditations, I think it was Med II

No, he implied that he was a thinking being, but the famous quote was never stated in the meditations.

Hi Platipus - welcome to the forum. :)

Descartes does state it - here is an excerpt from
"Discourse On Method and Related Writings"
pg. 25:

"Finally, since I thought that we could have all the same
thoughts, while asleep, as we have while we are awake,
although none of them is true at that time, decided to pretend
that nothing that ever entered my mind was any more true than
the illusions of my dreams. But I noticed, immediately afterwards,
that while I thus wished to think that everything was false, it was
necessarily the case that I, who was thinking this, was
something. When I noticed that this truth 'I think, therefore I am'
was so firm and certain that all the most extravagant
assumptions of the sceptics were unable to shake it, I judged
that I could accept it without scruple as the first principle of the
philosophy for which I was searching."

In the discourse, yes, but the meditation? Nope! ;)

Got ya - I guess I missed what you were getting
at. Sorry for the confusion (on my part) :)

No prob, and thank you for the warm welcome! Do you know of any other decent philosophy forums?

Unfortunatly, no I don't know of any. The ones I do know of
are more like flame fests rather than discussion, if you know
what I mean. I will assume (only because you asked me) that
you do not either? If I am wrong in that assumption please
feel free to correct me. ;)

While I am here - have you ever heard of Paul Ricoeur? If so,
any thoughts?

I know of some, but they contain topics taboo to most people here and a prerequisite is getting over subjectivist thinking, so...

Here's a good intermediate:
www.thephora.com

Descartes isn't so bad to read, esp. for that era. It is a cake walk compared to Kant.

As I remember, the scheme goes:

1) I have the clear and distinct idea of God.

2) Clear and distinct idea of God is a result of actual God.

3) Actual God is not a deceiver.

4) If we are careful we can, therefore, know stuff about the outside world.

The cartesian circle suggests that 4. is actually 1. 2 is also dodgy IMO.

I donīt think therefore iīm George Bush. :confused: