|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Feb 2, 2007 17:27:16 GMT -8
I think you don't think, therefore you aren't. By referring to me as "you" in the first place, you've already assumed that I exist. Therefore, your argument is a contradiction. |
|
|
|
Post by Kuat on Feb 2, 2007 20:14:46 GMT -8
I think you don't think, therefore you aren't. By referring to me as "you" in the first place, you've already assumed that I exist. Therefore, your argument is a contradiction. Hold it! What do you mean "exist"? |
|
|
|
Post by Muramasa on Feb 3, 2007 0:43:59 GMT -8
Actually, the statement of "I think, therefore, I am" is a poor argument because the conclusion is already assumed in the premise. It basically says "I exist and am thinking, therefore, I exist." Just replace "think" with any other verb you can think of it will be undoubtedly correct as that premise is made unimportant as the conclusion is assumed in the first premise of "I." Incidentally, Cognito ergo Sum is rather poor usage of latin. By referring to me as "you" in the first place, you've already assumed that I exist. Therefore, your argument is a contradiction. Ah, but in your previous statement, you implied that the fundamental argument for Ergo Sum Cognito is that it is an argument that is circular in nature due to the verb "exist". But I've only mentioned you as a possible place holder in the universe, but the lack of any verb that denotes having an existance as well as any direct reference to the fact that you are you and not Hue nullifies your own existance whist reinforcing my own. |
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Feb 3, 2007 3:20:54 GMT -8
Well, as I see the argument, you state that you exist in that you think but you also state that I exist in that I do not think. I don't see how I am a place holder in the universe but in only as "you" is a pronoun. If I wasn't, there would be no reason to refer to me as "you." As long as you use a pronoun is used, you assume a noun exists in which it refers. That noun is "Patrick Bradley" or me in the strictest sense. Why would I even have a pronoun or noun if I didn't exist? Why would you feel compelled to inform me that I don't exist? In this way, the verb of asserting that I don't exist affirms that I do exist as there is no reason for me, let's say, to inform a unicorn that the unicorn does not exist. Hey, Easter Bunny, I don't think you exist! You're hinting toward solipsistic philosophy but solipsism only works as far as one assumes that others entirely do not exist and aren't worth recognization (i.e. "you").
|
|
|
|
Post by Muramasa on Feb 4, 2007 1:52:48 GMT -8
Yes, it is true that if I use the word "you", it would be by lingual definition a pronoun which is used to refer to a noun, be it proper or informal. But at the same time, I assert the fact that "you" could easily be anything, and just because I direct my conversation at any particular being or direction, does not insinuate in any pomp or circumstance that I would be refering to "you" Patrict Bradley, but quite easily I could be talking about You, Diver. And even in the most extreme cases, we could create a relation to a fabrication, but does that make the fabrication a phsyical reality? Only an ideal is there which in turn could really be anything of convience given a circumstance. Of course there has to be some base reference in order to establish communication, and ultimatley, if I were to bother to say that anything did or did not exist, one would require a point of reference anyways, but that doesn't not make the reference more or less real due to the power of the statement itself.
And even if solipsism is involved, one could rationalize that in order to extend the ego of the existing individual, place holders would be required in order to compare with the real self. Hence, imagine taking away Garfield from the Garfield cartoon. Whether or not Garfield is actually there is important, as John is still actively moving as an agent in his world, Garfield doesn't exist, but still interacts with John to further enrich it (perhaps in a rather masochist sense).
|
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Feb 4, 2007 2:14:37 GMT -8
Yeah, I saw the error in my argument as well last night (after a couple of drinks). It would assert that we can only know actual things while denying imagination. Which is obviously wrong. Again, I blame Descrates' argument for the exist of God for putting "concept to reality" thinking into my head.
But, then it must be said, that I do not not exist in the strictest sense as the imagined unspecified me still is. The Mighty Grothgar the Destroyer doesn't exist but does exist in imagination as being a thing that destroys and is evidently mighty. And I suppose that existence in imagination is at least more real than full non-existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Muramasa on Feb 4, 2007 21:43:34 GMT -8
Hmm, I guess you're right. Funny thing that spawned from a discussion about Descartes.
|
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Feb 4, 2007 21:59:32 GMT -8
I think it may relate to the paradox that to call something "indescribable" is a description of a sort.
|
|
|
|
Post by Muramasa on Feb 5, 2007 14:38:07 GMT -8
Isn't there a branch of philosophy that deals with such situations?
|
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Feb 5, 2007 15:07:05 GMT -8
existential phenomenology?
|
|
|
|
Post by Muramasa on Feb 6, 2007 11:33:33 GMT -8
Epistimology: And I'll form...THE HEAD!
|
|
