I have posted what I think about the topic and I don’t actually care if my thoughts are conform to your Philosophy. I cannot, I don't have your special knowledge. And I don’t care if they are validated by those who know ‘it’ better. (Who validates the validator?) I just have taken my right to post my opinion about the topic. I have no claim that it is right and complies with your sight of the matter. And if you have the claim that a debate of Cogito ergo sum must be conform to your Philosophy, then it’s your claim. If I am wrong in your opinion, then I am wrong. I don’t know what’s your point here. I think therefore I am can be debated by everyone with own thoughts. When there would be a matter of Chemistry to debate then either you wouldn’t be able to contribute at all due to the lack of knowledge (you would not be able to post one sentence about), or you would be able. Then with your way to think about. Everybody who is developing a own sight of a matter philosophizes already. It is not comparable to Chemistry. Nothing else I did here. My way of thinking is conform to a Philosophia perennis.
"I think 99 times and find nothing. I stop thinking, dive into silence, and the truth is revealed to me." - Albert Einstein I like and I identify with this ... Have experienced many moments in which the search for a solution or answer is so intense, my mind is full steam that comes to consuming all my thoughts and my energy ... And after 999 attempts I stop myself totally hang of everything and right now both realize that what he sought was there in front of me, but I was too "busy" to see ...
I know this phenomenon. So can 'the truth' then be studied at all? Or is 'the truth' already 'in us'? Or does one need to think to get 'the truth'? Or exists 'the truth' without thoughts?
@sid_16: pay attention to the topic and you'll get it. @R29k: I really like the fact you're enjoying this. "Cogito ergo sum" - they mean nothing to me because I've stopped thinking and started contemplating. @softehard: I know the feeling. It happened to many times.
This really is a incognita for us, after all the "truths" depend on each viewpoint, and how we are all humanly "same" and "different" from one another there will always be many "truths" the right of a fact or thought. Foolish is he who thinks that their "truth" is absolute, since, for example, for those who are allergic to lactose milk is a "poison" and this is a "true" for him, but for others it is not. .. And how can we know about the truth? Acretido that obeying the first rule more vital to our existence that says: "Respect thy neighbor as thyself." After all this is for me the first "true" I believe. And making exhaustive use of it is that I get right back to those with whom I live, because if there is any that get in exchange of any property or money, he really has nothing ...
What a dialogue? Apparently, if I'm too stupid to recognize what the question was, Socrate is too important to explain it. There is a saying here it goes 'Fools rush in where wise men dare not tread.'
Actually, thinking is an exercise to be practiced every day, after all if we did not think, even here we would philosophize ... But that would not think we can contemplate the things that our thoughts lead us to build ... Simply think this fact: where would we be if no one had thought, dreamed, job and realized what we today call the Internet. In a hypothesis as remote as we walk beside a dinosaur, we would have the pleasure of knowing this forum ... For example: I'm in Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil, where the probability of being able to exchange words and thoughts with you personally? One in a googol? (10)100 ... And then there are those who still think the day that leads nowhere ...
Maybe for you, it has nothing to do, but for others is all about, because if this text cited by our colleague, and see how they thought existed before the "civilized man", even though he boasts of being the more correct, made in a land where he came with all his civility and destroying a people butchering Wed until that moment, had never killed a single animal, if not to feed themselves or their. That would be true Ecological Awareness. And now, after 520 years of wanton killing and destruction, speak aloud for all to hear: "We need to preserve the land so that our children can have a better life", when they were themselves killed, poisoned and destroyed everything in his path in search of wealth, none of them took with them when they died. And they want you to think is that the Indian was uncivilized.
He (Indian) was, Softehard. But so was the primitive, if more powerful, European in search of gold, killing everything in sight to get there. Whoever is claiming today that those bandits, rapists, murders or even mass murderers (sometimes to the point of genocide) were the civilised people interested in the well-being of the "natives"?!? We all know they were there for very different purposes! Today, a very slick bond dealer, financial wizard, hot speculative capital bastard "injector" (or was it an "investor", can't remember now... ) or arms manufacturer/dealer is no better! Let there be no doubt! Throw in the big business sociopaths and spineless politicians for good measure! Also, all those voting for them or not voting at all and doing fook all to change this atrocious state of things! But that is not the issue here. The issue is who opened the doors to other possibilities, whereby one isn't rooted in a clan/tribe/church or God, nation state or whatever external, like what one possesses, how much one is powerful and so forth. Of course, opening up possibilities of freedom (in relation to Feudalism) also meant opening up other, not so "great" possibilities... That comes with the territory. Anyone who thinks it is possible to have freedom without freedom to err is sadly mistaken!!!! But the start of Modernity was right there. And some can't see for the life of them what is in it. But of course they can't - they are not sufficiently well trained in Philosophy to understand it properly! Not necessarily stupid! Just badly informed! Moreover, when approaching the subject they already have an "idea" (read "prejudice"!) of "philosophy". Look at just one aspect of it - how crudely it is distorted when one uses a word "philosophising" a little earlier, when relating it (beyond belief!) to "thinking" and so on... They have no idea!!! But we are told that it is OK to do that in Philosophy, all that uninformed, messy nonsense - but not in Science (Chemistry). In Philosophy - they "think" - anything goes, however in Science only the esoteric stuff, only for the "invited/initiated"... How does one get "in"? Well, years/decades of education, special education even, specialised training... But for Philosophy? Oh, heck, shut up - anyone can do that! Guess what! You can't! This whole thread shows your incredible failure to get to grips with a Philosophical type of thinking, to begin with, never mind with particular philosophies etc. It would have been laughable had it not been tragic! I return you back to the issue: authority of knowledge! If it is not "all right" to try to BS your way into Chemistry, how is it "all right" to try to do it into Philosophy?!? By which magic?!? Now, if it isn't, then I suggest opening up your minds and learning first - just drop the pretence, down with the arrogance (and ignorance, as the two go together, hand in hand, pretty devilishly!)! I have already given you some really good literature where you can start informing yourselves properly! Without it you are doomed to talking sheer nonsense, at least most of the time, wasting your (and other people's) precious time on this Earth! (Similar to, say, me trying to convince you that alchemy is equally as valid as Chemistry...) And thus you are doomed to remaining in ignorance!!! Which is the worst thing one can do, if one claims that one is interested but... one doesn't actually feel like doing anything about it... That is pre-Modern! Now, I know where I stand on this one - with Descartes!
Who validates a scientist? Any mystery there? Why is it a mystery for Philosophy? It has nothing to do with me and my opinion. You are simply completely off the mark! WAAAAAYYY OFF THE MARK!!!! (I hope this rings in your ears long and strong enough to pick up the book on the topic, to read the bloody single chapter concerning the issues.... ) And I have given you the good literature but the help is unwelcome! And that is a very wrong attitude. Sorry, it must be said! D) Mystifying the issues now... See above! Nonsense! See above!
Who validates a scientist? Any mystery there? No mystery, a flaw that exists but almost every scientist ignores it. "And I have given you the good literature but the help is unwelcome! And that is a very wrong attitude." Why should I become motivated when you call Satre a poor sod (let us now keep Heisenberg / Gödel aside) and a pure analysis of speech according to Carnap says: If one wants to deduce a sentence of existence of P(a). a corresponds to the predicate P, so can this existence only be in reference to the predicate P and not be referred to the subject a of the premise. "Descartes is saying that if 'x' is thinking then 'x' exists" This conclusion is not logic. 'I think' does not conclude I am, it concludes that there is something that thinks. ? This meaning fits well to Satre: "The consciousness that says ‘I am’ is not the consciousness that thinks.” "If there were nothing but thought in you, you wouldn’t even know you are thinking" This 'witness' of thinking is actually not a part of thinking. So thinking cannot be referred to the existence of that witness. Till now no scientific expertise from you! Sorry, it must be said! D)
I am sorry, m8 but apples and pumpkins do not go to the same sack... It just doesn't work that way... And please, try to understand what I said about Sartre, don't distort it by taking it out of context... In effect, once again, you are ignoring all that is inconvenient and avoid the issues... Bah...
Mr. Descartes says "I think therefore I am". When mr. Descartes is sleeping he's not thinking ...this means he doesn't exist according to his own words, even though his physical body can be seen by his wife?
This is your philosophical response? C'mon...arguments, arguments, arguments. Scientific ones, please. There are no arguments, because the ego is bound to the body and can't see past it. P.S. This is the limit of EGO my friends. The ego's pushing back into its dark and comfortable cave and sits there scared, 'cause it knows it's fake, but gives you thoughts - useless thoughts 99.99% of the time just to keep you busy and not being able to express the divine spark within yourself.
WOW! Really? No kiddin'...give me a demonstration. WHAT are you thinking about when you're sleeping? Why IS OBVIOUS that you're thinking in your sleep? Did you experience that? Is there a scientific paper to prove it? Why? C'mon...where's now the scientist and rationalist in you? You wanted a scientific debate...I gave you one!