Cogito ergo sum. Descartes famous words. What do they actually mean to us?

Discussion in 'Serious Discussion' started by SOCRATE_MMXII, Aug 30, 2012.

  1. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    12,163
    12,696
    340

    I have the need to reply to make some things clear... :)

    I had the chance to read Spinoza and your "And freedom, in his philosophy, is self-determination.” made me to understand that completely different. (Until I have read 'him' myself...)
    He was influenced by Kabbala, his 'substance', his idea of god.......actually not far away from my-self.
    But why I had to post here again.....

    ".....musste gezeigt werden, wie in einer deterministischen Welt Freiheit möglich sein soll. Spinozas Antwort lautet: Die einzige Freiheit, die der Mensch besitzt, liegt in seiner Erkenntnis begründet. Nur als erkennender ist der Mensch frei."

    "....it had to be shown up how in a deterministic world freedom should be possible. Spinoza's answer is: The only freedom a human has got is reasoned on his knowledge / cognition. Only as a cognitive the human is free..."

    And that is exactly the same what I meant when I said one loses freedom if the 'Self' becomes determined.
    Only the undetermined is absolute free. "The more is determined the less is possible" I said..


    This is called in Eastern Phil. for instance Advaita-Vedanta the Self (The undeterminable 'I'), or the god-essence “Atman” = Odem.

    OKI, that's all, bye.:)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  2. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    3,865
    1,024
    120
    #462 gorski, Oct 2, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2014
    But he is pre-determined not to even have grounds to be able to wish anything he is not supposed to wish, as either unattainable or "bad for him".

    Hence, freedom has no grounds on which it can even be tested, let alone assert itself. Says a man who reached for stuff he could not attain...

    He was dealt with swiftly and then turned and... Oh, well, became patronising... :D

    "I didn't manage, ergo, don't even try, booo-hooo..." :p

    Honestly...:rolleyes:
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. BrianCohen

    BrianCohen Guest

    #463 BrianCohen, Sep 30, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
    :D
     
  4. Katzenfreund

    Katzenfreund MDL Expert

    Jul 15, 2016
    1,372
    817
    60
    Indeed, according to Eastern practical philosophy, a version of the opposite is considered as true.

    In deep meditation, you expel all thoughts from your mind, which enables you to experience the "Self", or pure existence. And even a slight thought destroys this experience.
     
  5. NavyRet

    NavyRet MDL Novice

    Dec 19, 2016
    10
    2
    0
    Hiya Katz. I am because I think. would be a better expression. By thinking, I am able to state that I exist. A rock cannot think, so it cannot state it's own existence.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  6. Katzenfreund

    Katzenfreund MDL Expert

    Jul 15, 2016
    1,372
    817
    60
    Hi NR,

    Then there is Ambrose Bearce's* version:

    Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum [I think that I think, therefore I think that I am.] (Ambrose Bierce)

    * One of the wittiest creators of quotes, in my view.
     
  7. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    3,865
    1,024
    120
    Yep, easy to do, when you decontextualise it... Try the opposite and see how far you get... ;)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  8. Joe C

    Joe C MDL Guru

    Jan 12, 2012
    3,536
    2,095
    120
    I am therefore I think?
    Goes in line with a drunk redneck screaming "Hey y'all....Watch this!"
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  9. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    12,163
    12,696
    340
    #469 Yen, Dec 19, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2016
    It makes no sense to fiddle with old westerner stuff. It has had its meaning in history...but did not create self-awareness besides of the Church's personal god. How could it, Descartes just discovered another idea of himself.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  10. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    3,865
    1,024
    120
    #470 gorski, Dec 19, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
    Says a man who actually isn't trained in Philosophy etc.

    Btw, listen to this and cringe, Yen! :D :D :D

     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  11. Michaela Joy

    Michaela Joy MDL Crazy Lady

    Jul 26, 2012
    4,082
    4,654
    150
    We can build machines that think. But they can't even come close to being able to feel.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  12. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    3,865
    1,024
    120
    They may be able to compute but think?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  13. Katzenfreund

    Katzenfreund MDL Expert

    Jul 15, 2016
    1,372
    817
    60
    It’s a circular argument:
    I think therefore I exist; and I exist therefore I think.
    Which indeed proves nothing.

    The question that matters is: What makes me exist so that I can think?
    But like most questions that matter, science has no answer.
     
  14. Michaela Joy

    Michaela Joy MDL Crazy Lady

    Jul 26, 2012
    4,082
    4,654
    150
    @gorski: You're right. It's not thinking in the sense of pondering, but we can fool ourselves into believing that they 'think'.

    Truth is, we still have no clue as to what cognition really is. And every time we come close, we're proven to be the arrogant fools that we really are. :)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  15. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    12,163
    12,696
    340
    #475 Yen, Dec 20, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
    From Mohammed to Mammon? :D

    Depends what one defines as difference. If thinking relies on a determined amount of 'factors' then computer can think…more or less good.

    The question is if (your) existence has a cause at all. I mean ‘what’ could make you exist without to be existent itself? And ‘what’ is its cause then and so on and so on…

    It's hard to argue with cause and effect there where time has its cause as well...
    People need to accept consciousness beyond dual principles. Scientists are lost in the big bang theory where they ‘calculate’ a start around 13.82 billion years ago.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  16. Katzenfreund

    Katzenfreund MDL Expert

    Jul 15, 2016
    1,372
    817
    60
    Indeed, scientists are lost in most matters of fundamental importance.

    As for the big bang theory, even if we fully accept it, it doesn’t solve the quandary of the creation of the universe, but merely shifts the question to:

    A big bang of WHAT?
    and
    How (and when) did whatever underwent the big bang get there?

    Because the human mind cannot conceive a big bang of non-existent nothing in non-existen space.
     
  17. R29k

    R29k MDL GLaDOS

    Feb 13, 2011
    4,893
    4,491
    150
    Nothing needs to be solved the problem is humans can't understand infinity so they try to find finite solutions.
     
  18. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    3,865
    1,024
    120
    Yen, show me a machine that can think dialectically or coming up with an innovative solution.

    In other words, your "if" is a mighty big one...:D

    P.S. Arabs used to have great philosophers...
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  19. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    12,163
    12,696
    340
    The big bang theory relies on a retrospection of linear progressive time. It comes from the perspective of time/space already. It is a strict product of linear thinking and cause and effect made from a 'virtual' finite observer which is not included itself into the theory as if 'it' would be 'outside'!
    ('Problem' mentioned by R29k)

    I replace non-existent nothing and non-existent space with SPACE.

    'SPACE' does not exist per se and never does and time also. (That is conform to the mentioned singularity). It appears as space/time relative to an as a finitely object perceived identity, the observer. ('Problem' mentioned by R29k)

    It appears as expanse when watching a night sky...but also as 'depth' of the Self. Without relation to 'that' observer both are indistinguishable, though.

    Only the relation to the objects 'in there' which are not SPACE itself it 'appears' as space between objects...
    SPACE is nothing where nothing does not mean the dual counterpart of something, it is the substrate so to say that allows objects to exist in space/time where they come and go.

    In simple words: Finiteness is reasoned in the relation to a finite identity, which needs time/space to relate/locate finite objects to each others.



    Can you name some? Which epoch? :)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  20. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    3,865
    1,024
    120
    Herr Splitter! :D :D :D

    EDIT: (a hint) Hair-splitter...:biggrin::p:D
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...