There are 8 choices, 10 votes for Pronoun91's debate

I think therefore I am'' - the only objective statement?

Discuss.
  • I reckon...
    Surely all else is pure subjectivity, even the nature of what we actually think; I believe that only in fact the pure act of thinking is the the only definite reality. Our physicality, ALL our beliefs, everything else we perceive in fact cannot definitely exist.
    20%  Voted for by Pronoun91, Lady Nightshade.
    View 8 comments
  • :

  • Just playing Devil's Advocate...
    Why does cognizance necessarily equate to existence? That is to say, why, really, does the fact that "I think" immediately mean that "I am"? "I think" may have no real meaning beyond its simple statement. Perhaps it ought really to simply be, "I think, therefore, I think." "I think, therefore, I am" is kind of like saying, "I drink, therefore, I thirst." Cognition is not necessarily contingent upon existence, is it? Perhaps you are simply "consciousness" if you will. Granted, it's farfetched, and I don't REALLY agree with this viewpoint, I'm simply playing Devil's Advocate.

    The fact that one is capable of producing mental objects does not necessarily mean that one exists. It could simply be illusory-- perhaps you ought to say, "I think, therefore, I am, so long as the dreamer who controls the first clause continues to slumber." Perhaps that you "think" is simply not real. "But if you perceive self-thought, then you must exist, at least unto yourself!" you argue. "Even if you perceive illusory thought, you perceive it nonetheless, and therefore you exist!" No more so than the fact that I perceive myself writing, and therefore am writing.

    Perhaps "I think, therefore I am" is subjective itself-- contingent on whether or not you trust yourself to the fact that you are indeed "thinking". Perhaps the only really objective statement is an abridgement of Descartes', simply read: "I am." I exist unto myself, not as evidenced by the fact that I am cognizant, but simply on the fact that my own Being, as it were, is self-evident to me. "I am", then, is a self-proving, objective statement, at least in terms of proving the fact to oneself-- you cannot still prove it to anyone else that "you are"-- perhaps to them you are illusory. But to yourself, you need not use the fact that "you think" to confirm that "you are".
    20%  Voted for by Xelgaroth, Molzahn.
    View 11 comments
  • :

  • "I think therefore I am" is circular reasoning.
    You are defining your existence by that of thought, but the statement still leaves gaping holes as to the definitive definition of self or thought.

    What can be considered thought? What can be considered self.


    Overall, I don't feel that this remark is objective at all.
    Voted for by Molzahn.
    View 6 comments
  • :

  • please explain
    ive heard this before, and i dont really understand what it means if someone can explain. and who says it ?
    i hate being the ignorant one. so help
    Voted for by enigma888.
    View 2 comments
  • :

  • How can it exist
    If you cant see it, touch it, taste it, smell it or feel it how can it exist. Seriously.

    If you leave a room empty of human existence,and close the door, how do you know there is anything behind that door. Sure you may have just seen it, but your not looking at it now. So how do you know.

    The same with people. Everyone can be made of your imagination, its a powerful thing. You just dont know.

    You can have theories,and think it could be,but you CANNOT be certain.

    Take that into consideration.
    Voted for by Lady Nightshade.
    View 2 comments
  • :

  • consequences
    The main problem I have with Descartes view on this [apart from the fact that he falls back on a benevolent god whenever cracks appear in it :-)] is that, far from being the foundation of sound knowledge, as he thought, it is the foundation of nihilism and relativism.
    If all we can know are our own thoughts and consciousness, then we have to essentially throw all science and even rationality (except perhaps pure maths and the like) out the window. I know that's not a logical fault with the argument (thought there are some) but I think it's a good utilitarian reason not to go along with it - plus I think Occam's might/should have something to say about such a tortuous and elaborate worldview that denies all common sense to the point of saying the entire world might not even exist!

    Anyway, it's all very fascinating and, as a point of interest, Descartes wasn't alone amongst enlightenment thinkers in having this tension between science/empiricism and pseudo-mystical subjectivism, it's pretty strong in Locke too and, sadly, makes some of that time's philosophy, great as it is, seem a little contradictory :-)
    Voted for by Alexander Hine.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • Not Objective
    If something is conditional upon an understanding that we do not currently hold, it is not objective.

    "I think therefore I am" is not objective.
    Voted for by Molzahn.
    View 1 comment
  • :

  • I think is the personalizing of thought
    Thought that is the very foundation of Consciousness and Awareness is far more infinite than man's intellectual bubble of "I think."

    Descartes put the cart before the horse. I Am is a statement of awareness. How can the thinking come before the awareness of the thought?

    It is truer to the nature of Life as Consciousness to make the statement "I Am, therefore, I think." I think as pure awareness; I think as sense awareness.
    Voted for by movingalways.
    View 2 comments
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →