That depends on who is "understanding/interpreting it", how much that person knows of the author's immediate context, the work of its author, the history of Philosophy hitherto and so on... You are obviously not a philosopher and I am, by profession, so I can tell you that there are at least 2 thousand years of developments in that sentence. Is that a lot? I think so. But don't let that stop you belittling something you obviously know nothing about...
Speaking of "self-incurred immaturity"... Philosophers are not a profession. 2 thousand years before the age of communication are nothing. People still read the bible and that thing hasn't taught people a thing in 2000 years. Belittle someone whom is you are actually better than.
You're funny! For instance: http://www.higheredjobs.com/faculty/search.cfm?JobCat=89 http://www1.salary.com/Professor-Philosophy-salary.html http://philosophy.uconn.edu/faculty/ Either that or you are nothing... I know which way I may be leaning... perhaps... For instance: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199656493.do This book is no less than a guide to the whole of Western philosophy—the ideas that have undergirded our civilization for two-and-a-half thousand years. Why and how to study "nothing" http://www.philosophypathways.com/programs/soc2.html One of the best histories of "nothing" http://books.google.it/books?id=8kR...band A History Of Philosophy Volume I&f=false https://archive.org/details/historyofphiloso011991mbp Nothing on this Earth has done anything of the sort in absolute terms, else we wouldn't be talking in such terms... So, you have no point.... again... This is beyond language difficulties you have!
Those are teaching jobs, not philosophy jobs. Pointless insult... I am not a fan of insult hurling. My point was that 2000 years ago people laid out the best philosophies of their day in that book and it meant nothing in the long term. Morality is subjective, and one man's philosophy will be another's toilet paper given enough time. It's why we don't allow stoning people for working on the sabbath anymore. I changed 'who' to 'whom' and forgot to remove the 'is'. I will own up to that grammar failure.
Worry, not, Murphy, I will make you see the error of all your ways and make you retract all of your transgressions against Philosophy and philosophers... Incorrect: some of them were research jobs etc. Some philosophers are just that, publishing books, giving public lectures etc. Some are teachers, professors etc. What's unclear? Even so: philosophers were and will always be teachers just as Physicists or Chemists.... or you think that Linus Pauling didn't teach and if he did he was no.... whatever... ach...never mind.... By your glorious "idea" Adorno was not a philosopher because... or Socrates, for that matter... or Hegel... BRAVO, Sir!!! You have just made a new definition of a Philosopher... ermmm... that more crazy... And added more confusion to the internet! Thanx to semi- or uneducated lot (in matter they are writing on), such as your glorious self, these things occur... On the whole, your posts about Philosophy are nothing but 'insults' towards Philosophy and philosophers, not to mention completely pointless, as you will see... eventually... if you apply yourself... Your point is pointless, as the Bible is a collection of historical texts glued together later on, in an eclectic manner and therefore one can find whatever justification one needs in there for whatever one needs, as the "book" is utterly incoherent, not to mention badly translated from Ancient Greek (whichever philosophically relevant text in there might be considered in this sense). Morality is not absolutely subjective and one man's philosophy can not be reduced to one man's morality. You should slow down and start thinking a wee bit more carefully there... Who is "we" here? How is "we" established? Who decides for "we"? Under which principles? Stoning still occurs from time to time but it is still wrong, whatever the reasons, if one is not given the right to face one's accuser, in an open court, under various other circumstances so that the whole thing is fair. Or you have a better "idea" which is based on "absolute relativity of morals"? On the other hand, minimal mutual recognition (the legal aspect) is a must for all and their individual "morals" come after that. But it (morality) must be based in that mutually agreed and normative part, else they may be prosecuted, if caught. Or you have a better understanding of the matter at hand?
If you two are done fighting, explain this to me if you can since I am no philosopher ? "I think therefore I am" seems to imply that a thought process has to be involved to confirm existence, "I am therefore I think". Does this mean that existence is relegated only to living things ? And assuming that non-living things don't have a thought process, does it mean that they don't exist ?
Sorry, I can't do that at the moment, must go out with family... So quickly... Being and simply/merely existing is not the same in Philosophy, non... You will find "rotten existence" in Hegel, for instance... The crucial point to consider with "cogito" is establishing the individual, as Modern Subject. I.e. this was stripping any external authority (Church etc.) as the grounding of any sort for anything at all! A HUMONGOUS move at the time, as bold as bold can be!
<edit> I've not read your post , hence quoted here; Long abandoned thread. A common misunderstanding of "I think therefore I am" is that it is reversible ("I am therefore I think"), which would lead to the consequence that non-thinking things do not exist, which is clearly flawed. But, as you pointed out, thinking is a result of brain=being and being conscious, which is why being able to think about not existing proves that there is some existing= "thinker". Descartes had created an illustration of sorts, wherein a powerful demon tried to convince Descartes that everything he believed to be true, was in fact false. The demon could indeed deceive him (Descartes), up to the point of trying to convince him that he didn't exist. After all, if Descartes can think about the possibility that he (or anything else, really) doesn't exist, then that means that Descartes can think. And, if Descartes can think, then he must exist. If he didn't, then who would be doing the thinking?
Are you sure she is not talking about the Mosque and Salman Rushdie ? @sid_16 You do realize that backwards or not the meaning will amount to the same thing with a thought process involved ?!
The thread has woken up, but not the people. Cogito ergo sum is a misinterpretation, which was important to differentiate a human individual as own self-thinking, autonomous creature. The modern human. Descartes equated thinking with being, a major mistake. He did not conclude being, he concludes the root of ego. I would go that far that the reason that most have not overcome his mistake is responsible that we still stick in Modernity with all its problems. To be able to be aware of thoughts I never can be the thinker itself! The thinker is the 'voice' in your head (content), but there must be another consciousness, the awareness of 'room' where the thinking happens and that is being. The thinker dies when thoughts stop. But ‘I am’, the presence, the room 'where' it happens, the other consciousness remains unaffected. Jean-Paul Sartre got it, but did not go far enough. “thinking is a result of brain=being and being conscious” Another major mistake is to think that the brain creates consciousness. It is consciousness that creates the brain any moment as appearance and the attribute of appearance is impermanence. When the brain gets damaged, it does not mean you lose consciousness. It means consciousness can no longer use that form to enter this dimension. You cannot lose consciousness because it is, in essence, who you are. People need to learn that there is no relative without an absolute. And this absolute has no cause, no start no end. It is independent and relies on nothing. Any attempt for an explanation is flawed at once. For the thinker it is hard to accept. I think therefore I have an own idea of myself = ego. And when those thoughts change my idea of myself is changing, means the old ego has died. Nevermind!
You will never wake up, Yen-san - he never 'equated thinking with being' but understood it as a conditio sine qua non of.... Aaacchhh, never mind, indeed...