cogito ergo sum
 

As I lately tried to discuss this sentence with a friend I couldn't stop thinking about it. The discussion ended up in an argument because this friend agrees with it. I don't. I cannot see the evidence in this sentence. But what about you?
Ah and I have been reading Descartes' book since the argument, because I realized, it would be dumb to criticize him without dealing with all his arguments. So when I am finished, I'll say more.

Anyway, it's not the first time I am thinking about it, but the possibility of some other creature thinking me occupies me. It's not very likely, but I think everything is possible.

You exist as a thinking being, thus you exist. Know that, if nothing else exists, you, at the very least, are a real thing in some form.

Basically.

I got that so far, but I can't see the proof there. how about someone else is imagining a scenery with persons and I am one of those thoughts. So whenever I seem to think, it's only him imagining me.
so do I exist or am I a existence. argh it would be so more easy for me to tell this in german as there is a huge difference between this.
so for now I think this sentence is a circular argument. maybe I change my mind when I finished his book.

Hello first year philosophy essay topic. How nice to meet you again.

Yeah Jesus, I was thinking this reeked of 100 level philosophy, which raises the question:

Then who was sentence?

Me. The second I read your sentence it belongs to me.

Omg gaise gaise perception gaise

http://imgur.com/ozGoS.jpg

I think the problem with that phrase is that there is no definite answer. There are plausable excuses as to why we do and don't exists although the human mind finds it easier to comprehend that we do exist because well, here we all are.

The problem with the standalone phrase is that is doesn't define what constitutes thinking, it doesn't define what constitutes oneself, and it doesn't define what constitutes existence.

Exactly. I think that the said phrase needs to be revised. Damn ancient philosophers.

Why bother? Let's just fire all the world's univerity Philosophy departments and get on with our lives.

You have got the point here, at that time computers didn't exist, so they simply ignored the thinking definition probleem.
Right new i would say you exist if you have emotions.
Though this last statement will pose new problems when it come to plants and unicellular beings.

Before you answer the question you must ask what life is, how you go about categorising it and then you have to take into account what existence is

How do you define emotions?

I mean, I can only tell that you have emotions because of your physical reactions to them. But then I respond to the physical appearance and actions of CG characters in films too.

Sentiments are not emotions es:

Sentiments: a rock fall on my feet and i scream

Emotions: i see a beautiful sunset...

Emotion don't have a fisical and rational cause.

Of course they have a rational cause. Fear protects you by keeping you away from danger. Happiness causes a contentment with conditions that are conductive to good survival odds, and contrariwise sadness and anger encourage you to seek those conditions. Love holds together social units that provide offspring heightened survivorship.

For there to be a thought, there must be a thinker.

That's now my new favourite spelling of 'physical'. Took me a while to realise you meant that and not 'fiscal'.

Anyway... I'm thinking, therefore I exist. Even if it's just some dude imagining folks and I'm one of his little imaginations, I still exist. It just means I'm an imagination, and not a human being.

Yes.

Four hundred years is ancient, and good on you for thinking that philosophical texts aren't in a constant state of scrutiny and revision.

Correct. Being able to doubt yourself is proof of your own existence.

Buddhism contends that the thinker is the thought, but that's phoney baloney enlightenment for you.

Just.

Don't bother reading past that sentence in the Meditations.

For your own good.

Honestly, it doesn't matter. There's no point in thinking about it, because there are more or less only four possible outcomes and none of these are particularly fantastic (except the last one):

1) You come to the definite conclusion that you exist. Yay! Party time!
2) You waste the rest of your life thinking about it.
3) You realise that, in fact, you don't exist - well, great. Happy now?
4) You forget about the problem and get on with your life

If you read the context from which Descartes gets "I think, therefore I am" it makes a hell of a lot more sense.

But for God's sake, if you find this stuff hard, just wait to you get to other philosophies of the mind. Fuck you Nagel, fuck you.

Perhaps if you come to a definite conclusion you become pure and content with your existance?

4 is for sheep.

You have to ask questions if you want to acquire knowledge, where better to begin than by asking questions about yourself?

Now that is Nagel's philosophy, although thats with pure objectivity.

Basically "I think therefore I am" means in order for something to be decieved (like The Matrix) the thing being decieved must be a thinking thing and must exist.

It's not hard, how could it be hard? It's just pointless.

I'm sure I'd be much more content knowing for certain that I didn't exist.

Asking questions about things that will actually make a difference to your life?

i prefer going to work so i can pay the rent and go down the pub rather than sit pondering whether i fucking exist.

Of course, because that's how progress is made. By not exercising your mind.

I agree actually, if we truly exist or not is ultimately pointless. Are you saying all philosophy is pointless?

I agree, thats why philosophy is a very middle/ upper class thing to actually do.