"I think, therefore I am."
- Thread starter Griffstar
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Friend Griffstar,Griffstar said:
You have a lot to learn about trolling in philosophy. Socrates annoyed the hell out of everyone he met just by refuting every idea they came up with; using their own (invariably unsound) convictions against them. Socrates used logic. You merely set up a solipsist strawman. Admittedly, solipsist strawmen pretty much set themselves up, but it'd be far more satisfying to you and a much more resounding triumph of your vastly superior intellect to lead the solipsists into their own traps. You wanna be the Gadfly? Earn the distinction through cunning, not by insulting everybody whose posted so far behind the veil of faux intellectualism.
I'm aware, I'm saying the question today is irrelevant because it's already been answered.Griffstar said:
I'm sorry? I have no idea who "Gadfly" is and had no intention of "trolling" you guys. And if you noticed, the top part of my post was supposed to be a quote of somebody who was responding to me. I have not insulted one person in this thread.SenorNemo said:
I don't find it wasting time to ask people a question that is interesting to me. Maybe to you it is, but you cant assume something is a waste of time to everybody, it's just like me saying that eating it a waste of time. My opinion but isn't nessisarialy right.Venereus said:
You know Descartes was actually a dickhead, who dissected live animals? I never knew that. Broke my heart.
Anyway, using the Cogito, I can only prove that I exist. Not necessarily in this form, but I do exist. You, however? For all I know, you could easily be a falsehood. An imaginary figure in my demented psyche.
That said, I am comfortable in this life- Someone referred to the Matrix, and I am inclined to agree. There was nothing wrong with that particular illusion, to my memory.
Anyway, using the Cogito, I can only prove that I exist. Not necessarily in this form, but I do exist. You, however? For all I know, you could easily be a falsehood. An imaginary figure in my demented psyche.
That said, I am comfortable in this life- Someone referred to the Matrix, and I am inclined to agree. There was nothing wrong with that particular illusion, to my memory.
I am but a being of your imagination within my own. I think that instead, you should prove to me that you exist.Griffstar said:
If only you exist, and everything else is a fabrication of your perception, that means you are the sole inventor and therefore 100% responsible for:
-Teen pop sensations such as Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus
-Every single war and every single war crime
-Every rape and murder
-Kraft Guacamole flavoured spread (No Avocado)
-Michael Bay movies
-Edible Underwear
-Jersey Shore
-The cancellation of Firefly
-The sushi that gave me food poisoning last month
-Yogurt Soda
-Child Porn
-And more!
Are you really willing to believe that?
-Teen pop sensations such as Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus
-Every single war and every single war crime
-Every rape and murder
-Kraft Guacamole flavoured spread (No Avocado)
-Michael Bay movies
-Edible Underwear
-Jersey Shore
-The cancellation of Firefly
-The sushi that gave me food poisoning last month
-Yogurt Soda
-Child Porn
-And more!
Are you really willing to believe that?
Ah, then pardon me, I did not notice you were responding to a specific person. It seemed as if you were dismissing pretty much every response that came before it. I still hold that your use of a strawman when you could have easily disassembled whoever you were responding to was lazy, but I don't see it as necessarily mean spirited.Griffstar said:
"The Gadfly" was a nickname given to Socrates for his often infuriating habit of striking up philosophical conversations with random people he met and disassembling every assertion they tried to make. Sorry, I should have explained the reference.
I dont think I can without the proper learnings, and this particular subject does not interest me enough. Now, put some dollar or euros and yuans in there, and its a different story.Griffstar said:
So I'll pose to you this question. Prove that you exist to me and that I do not imagine you and all that I perceive to be true, and you will have my asnwer.
Probably already been said but you might want to read 'Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy'. In his first meditation he argues even if he is being deceived about his own existence he cannot be decieved that he can comprehend the notion of the possibility of being deceived therefore he must exist if only as a thinking being. Personally I think the rest of his argument (concludes God exists) is somewhat weaker.Griffstar said:
All right, you nihilistic bastard, I'll play your game.Griffstar said:
Here's hoping there isn't a character limit.
I quote:
Existence exists - and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness; a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two - existence and consciousness - are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.
To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was - no matter what his errors - the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.
Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Man cannot survive except by gaining knowledge, and reason is his only means to gain it. Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses. The task of his senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason; his senses tell him only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind.
All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity, nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one's thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one's mind and evict oneself from the realm of reality.
Reality is that which exists; the unreal does not exist; the unreal is merely that negation of existence which is the content of a human consciousness when it attempts to abandon reason. Truth us the recognition of reality; reason, man's only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth.
I am, therefore I'll think.
Thanks for warming me up for my essay.
If this is a dream of mine or yours or whoever I hope they wake up, it's turning into a nightmare for me
I don't. Instead, i take your thread-title as what it implies: Proving that i am.Griffstar said:
Proof: Something that doesn't exist, cannot have any consequences. Conversely: Consequences must happen because of something. What this actually means: There cannot be interactions, without there being interactions. Something cannot be, without being. Contradiction.
Since I am doing something, something that i interprete as "I" must exist. And this at minimum must be that which is done.
Actually, claiming that something does not exist, simply because of its location... is even more arrogant, because it makes existence a matter of personal preference. And similarily, claiming that chauvinism is "human nature" (which is nothing else than claiming that it is predetermined for every human) is also quite arrogant.
Isn't it great how selfish the selfdeclared "altruists" are?
