/lit/ - Literature

>asking for proof
How about proof that other minds exist? Oh, you mean you don't have it? You may as well ask the wind for proof it exists.

It presents itself clearly and without doubt.

Seriously though, even if you reduce the "self", sure, granted, every experience/sensation must have a corresponding subject. I can't even imagine how you can deny that, like what would you even mean by negating this?

>>18561920
>I
>think
No

>>18561920
so this is the power of pure rationalism...

>>18561920
He wrote a whole essay about it dumbass, Discourse on the Method
. That wasn't a bald assertion it was a conclusion of a chain of reasonings.

>>18561980
lmao ignore this bait the thread can still take off

the merely fact that trannies exist alone refutes him.

>>18561999
>"They dilate; therfore are not [women]."
?

>>18562045
>i think I am a woman
>therefore I am a woman
they are not....

>I smoke weed, therefore I am
proof?

>>18561920
By doubting your own thoughts, you think.
Ffs it's right there in the text.

So if I don't think, I don't exist. What a retard.

>>18561920
The "Cogito, ergo sum" statement has never been and will never be proven because it implies the existence of a consciousness unique to oneself, whereas thinking only implies that consciousness exists in general. The statement could more accurately be "I think, therefore something is."

>>18562226
>The statement could more accurately be "I think, therefore something is."
that's what he meant

there are thoughts

bottom text

>>18561999
Simplify your formula a bit. Just the fact that women exist.

>>18562132
Pretty much this. Minimally, the claim is that a time-slice of a mind cannot rationally doubt that it exists. If the time-slice /were/ to doubt that it exists, or try to doubt, such doubting (or attempt at doubting) would entail that the time-slice exists. Furthermore, Descartes claims that that entailment is apriori (indeed, it is supposed to be immediate and "clear and distinct"). So, even if the time-slice of the mind /psychologically/ succeeded in doubting its existence, it would not be a rational doubt.

>>18562226
>The statement could more accurately be "I think, therefore something is."
Or, "there are thoughts."

>>18562280
Oh, you beat me to it! >>18562493

>>18562280
how do I grow a mustache like this

>>18561920

>;

>>18561920
the moment you start questioning your own thoughts it's the moment you can therefore assume you exist, the evil genius can trick your senses and fake a reality for you but the moment you think about this concept is when you can confirm that when you think you ARE some manifestation of a being.

am i a retarded? i saw descartes in may so i'm still digesting everything

>>18561920
"I think it's going to rain thefore I am." Wiggy

>>18562226
>and will never be proven because it implies the existence of a consciousness unique to oneself,
What if the “I” used by everyone refers ultimately, without them even knowing it, not to a unique consciousness that is distinct from others but the shared universal consciousness?

>>18561920
Therefore you are what? Your thoughts?
"I am aware; therefore I am." Btfo stupid frenchboy.

>>18561920
I am; therefore I think.

>>18561920
Think about it mate
Ah well here you are

Is consciousness (what I am) nothing?
No. Therefore, I exist.

>>18561920
I think about unicorns on my bed, but it isn't there, therefore no

>>18561920
Literally a tautology, as Kierkegaard pointed out.

>>18561920
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONSlRyWezt8
Heidegger's Critique of Cartesianism

>>18563401
But the thought is, retard.

>>18561920
Soon enough I'll see to it that he won't be thinking

>>18561944
>your brain can't process this image so it means you can't think
fuck this retard

>>18562052
That's not what that is saying, you actual retard. He said "I think therefore I am" not "I think I am therefore I am".

>>18561920
we are always only aware of our own consciousness, and nothing else. This Descartes could not be deny.

>>18561920
It is not "I think therefore I am", it is "I am". My thoughts are my property, not I.

absolute sophistry
the self doesn't exist

>>18561920
I like Nietzsche's response - maybe it's just grammar. There is think and grammar says add a thing (I)