Not sure if this is the right place for questioning philosophical theories, but I have a few questions about this one.
The sentence is “I think, therefore I am”. What if we don’t think? Let’s imagine, for example, that there is a god or gods, that are the only beings capable of thinking, and that everyone just recieves those thoughts from the god(s), just gets them delivered right to the brain. In that situation, we wouldn’t be capable of thinking, would we? (iirc this was one of the main critics to Descartes’s chain of to thought. In this situation, I think the sentence could be generalised to remain valid.)
The sentence is “I think, therefore I am” (or if we generalise it to remain valid due to the previous point, “if something thinks, it exists”). Why can’t it be “I eat therefore I am”, or “I breathe, therefore I am”? What makes thinking more valid than any other action we can do when trying to prove our existence? How is thinking capable of proving our existence at all if nothing else is said to be capable? In fact, what shows that thinking can prove someone’s existence? (this one feels like a reworded common critic, although I’m not sure)
I would like to invite anyone to comment/evaluate/counter/correct what I wrote here (just pls don’t attack me (>~<), attack the content instead). I know I could just research these things on my own, but I have a bit of trouble understanding the formal language that is used by specialists when discussing this type of problems, and I find it likely that others feel the same, so it felt cooler to talk about it here.
P.S.: it’s kinda sad that this theory doesn’t quite prove the existence of our brainrot homies :3
You can’t prove that material existence exists, but you experience your thoughts, so I think “I think” here more refers to experience/qualia/consciousness more so than anything else. You can’t really prove that anything at all exists, but you do experience something, so you know at the very least that your experience exists.
If we define “I” as the thinker, then the thought implies the existence of the thinker.
Whether the thinker’s perception of what “I” is is true or false does not matter. If the thinker believes they’re an individual french man in fancy clothes, but they’re actually a divine being imbuing all thinkers with thoughts collectively, the thinker still exists and can refer to themselves as “I”.
Not sure if this is the right place for questioning philosophical theories, but I have a few questions about this one.
I would like to invite anyone to comment/evaluate/counter/correct what I wrote here (just pls don’t attack me (>~<), attack the content instead). I know I could just research these things on my own, but I have a bit of trouble understanding the formal language that is used by specialists when discussing this type of problems, and I find it likely that others feel the same, so it felt cooler to talk about it here.
P.S.: it’s kinda sad that this theory doesn’t quite prove the existence of our brainrot homies :3
You can’t prove that material existence exists, but you experience your thoughts, so I think “I think” here more refers to experience/qualia/consciousness more so than anything else. You can’t really prove that anything at all exists, but you do experience something, so you know at the very least that your experience exists.
Re: your first point
If we define “I” as the thinker, then the thought implies the existence of the thinker.
Whether the thinker’s perception of what “I” is is true or false does not matter. If the thinker believes they’re an individual french man in fancy clothes, but they’re actually a divine being imbuing all thinkers with thoughts collectively, the thinker still exists and can refer to themselves as “I”.
I see! That’s a great point! Thank you!