I think, therefore I am

The point is that thinking is beyond doubt because you must think in order to doubt anything at all. A better way to summarize it is, even in this process of doubting all things doubtable (skepticism), I cannot doubt my ability to doubt. You should understand this already if you know anything about that saying.

This quote is so overused and i think that most of the people don’t understand it. When i was a kid i thought that it means that he value intellectual activity so much that he just can’t imagine his life without it. I even used this quote to demonstrate people that i enjoy doing math

rude

>thinking is beyond doubt
No schizophreniaposting, but how do you know that "your" thoughts are yours at all, and aren't just being implanted into your consciousness by some external mechanism or entity?
>because you must think in order to doubt anything at all
That's patently untrue. You can doubt the veracity of things without ever once giving them a single conscious thought, just by relying on pure feeling, instinct, or intuition.

Before you get to any of that, you must understand the point at hand. When you doubt your doubt, you are already invoking doubt, and thus proving its necessity. I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.

>thus proving its necessity
I literally just described how one can engage in doubt automatically and instinctively, as a reactive emotional response, without any conscious thought whatsoever. Does your hand automatically recoiling from fire when you get burned prove that you exist too?

Yes, you can critique the "I" all you want, but that is not the core principle needing to be understood. What is important is the point that thinking is occurring necessarily if doubt is present. What Descartes was trying to prove was that there are things which exist beyond doubt (as in things we cannot doubt) to act as a solid foundation for the rest of our knowledge.

If Descartes had ever tried ketamine, LSD, or any other dissociatives, he'd have experienced firsthand the error of his ways and realized that his little maxim is objectively a load of crap and that nothing exists beyond doubt.

yes and they're called Boomers

Okay. I've tried a few of those things myself but I'm not sure I agree. A statement like "something exists" still seems hard to doubt, since something is necessary to be doing the doubting in the first place. I'm still worried you don't understand the meaning of what is being claimed by Descartes.

>how do you know that "your" thoughts are yours at all, and aren't just being implanted into your consciousness by some external mechanism or entity?
Wouldn't they still be my thoughts? All that changes is "I" am not the human body I associate myself with and I am actually that other external thing

try this one on for size: i fucked your mom therefore i'm your stepdad and i'm also going to leave you and your mom therefore you're a double bastard

>there is thinking, therefore there is a self that is thinking

hmm

If another man's child comes out of your wife, does that make it your offspring?

It's easily one of the most defining moments of philosophy. And humanity.

HELLO SIR HAVE YOU HEARD THE GOOD WORD OF MONISM

>A statement like "something exists" still seems hard to doubt, since something is necessary to be doing the doubting in the first place
What's so special about doubt? You're arguing in circles nigger, all you've done over the span of like five posts is come to replace "think" with "doubt". Getting real sick of your tautological bullshit.

No? I dont see how that analogy follows. If anything its more the "I" is the child. Finding out the man the child though was your father was cucked, doesn't prove the child doesn't exists. It just means the his father is someone else then he believed. Just cause my thoughts have an unknown origin doesn't change the fact that the thoughts are real and are what collectively are "me"

Our thoughts are being implated by a foreing entity, which is fundamentally the accelerated process of socialization where to in a crown generates its own language and their hierarchy of thoughts so the human points act accordly to the collective network so human communication and conception of self and live can function. In this new world as language has become not only word but high speed aesthetic, we become ultimately alienated by its flash and lights that are transmitted by social media

You must be trying hard not to understand. Read Descartes yourself if you care enough

I'm pretty sure your definition of "I" is very different from what dictionary, or common people define. Would you define "I" to people so getting a grasp what you are saying?

>I think therefore I am
>I think
woah woah where's this I coming from, I thought we were proving the I exists but it's already there.

Descartes is lucky he's dead because he could never, ever hope to recover from this degree of roasting.

Attached: WLhX0Mk.png (1212x276, 144K)

>woah woah where's this I coming from, I thought I could doubt that I even exist but I'm already there.
ftfy

Descartes at the time was going around creating extreme doubt about everything. And thus doubted we even existed. So smart guy devised this ingenious plan to show the devil wasn't fooling us. Clearly, he was the Kanye West of his time.
+++++++

This statement is a logical proof.

"I think" is an action requiring an "I" therefore "I exist".

QED.

*********

"Remember with great knowledge lies great responsibility. (De$cartes )"

ITS NOT MEANT TO BE A SYLLOGISM ITS NOT MEANT TO BE A SYLLOGISM ITS NOT MEANT TO BE A SYLLOGISM ITS NOT MEANT TO BE A SYLLOGISM ITS NOT MEANT TO BE A SYLLOGISM ITS NOT MEANT TO BE A SYLLOGISM ITS NOT MEANT TO BE A SYLLOGISM ITS NOT MEANT TO BE A SYLLOGISM ITS NOT MEANT TO BE A SYLLOGISM ITS NOT MEANT TO BE A SYLLOGISM ITS NOT MEANT TO BE A SYLLOGISM

I hate reddit

The really retarded part is when he implies this is a valid argument in favor of dualism and the immortality of the "soul" a paragraph later.

Cringe worthy quote, can't into basic logic. A statement of the form A=>B is not refuted by an instance of ((not A) and B) at all. Work out the corresponding true/false table. God this is literal formal logic 101

Shut the fuck up dirty rationalist

That quote sounds pretty rhetorical to me. He was making two valid points (that "cogito ergo sum" is shit, and that americans are largely thoughtless automatons) with one passing remark. Fuck off

Now I see why Evola is such a meme. This is fedora-tier stuff.

You're right, and he admitted this afterwards.
At first he gave the Meditations a subtitle saying 'in which immortality of soul is proven', and later on he changed it into 'in which the real distinction between body ad soul is proven'. He realized he had no strong argument in favor of the soul being immortal - he onluy stated that it was 'possible'.
When it comes to dualism itself, it is also rejected in his later works, mainly in his letters. He kinda lays the basis for phenomenology, stating that the clear ideas of res cogitans and res extensa are not sufficient in order to fully understand what we are.

dunno if reddit but what bugs me all the time is actually
that kind of misconception.

typical analytic sperg can't into banter

lmaoing @ every burger's ass right now son

Attached: pitkek.png (671x566, 479K)

holy shit this post has to be a joke. these are the type of people who "critique" evola

>Basically the sentence "I think, therefore I am" presupposes an "I" that is thinking
It doesn't.

>What a hack
What a hack.

This. Comment on the ethnic composition, "history," or "culture" of America and watch them writhe
t. American

>I am, therefore I think
Deep

Jesus Christ, this board is a fucking wasteland. Read him past the Wikipedia article, and maybe you'll get it. Retards.

Attached: descartesBTFO.png (1394x726, 569K)

What a shitty attitude. It's a shame the user you were replying to's consideration for your own good and understanding of Descartes was wasted on someone so purposefully ignorant as you. Read descartes you dumb fuck stop guzzling ketamine

Why does he let his putatively valid points then masquerade themselves with his fuzzy, obscurantist ''''logic''''. I've never even read anything by Evola,but this H A C C e r y... makes my brain's willy go soft instantaneously. How am I supposed to take this seriously

Attached: 41236536432632215e.png (774x728, 785K)

Fair enough. I've never read anything by him either, but it looks akin to the rhetoric of a politician. Not great, but I see and agree with his point. Much more nuance and justification is in order to be taken seriously but whatever

What, some italian cunt may disreagrd basic logic becuase 'le ebin continental rhethorician ! watch out once i let loose my obscurantist language xD'. Yeah not gonna let that slide kid

Attached: 435048896058642036467076652859568375405988.png (1090x959, 2.27M)

what is the school of suspicion? in the writings of marx, freud, and nietzsche develops, beyond prior skepticism of Hegel regarding the authority of consciousness in its perception of experiences and objects, a new skepticism regarding the authority and authenticity of the basis of consciousness in and of itself. In other words, ideas developed in the school of suspicion that consciousness not only fails to coherently perceive what it's looking at, but also fails to understand where it's coming from.

awful

What's that? No any actual, substatntial arguments in defense of the guy? Okay man

Attached: 1475628907257.png (444x522, 324K)

Agreed. Beckett in the Unnamable proved he was a FRAUD:

‘I think, therefore I am a mere state of confusion about identity’

BTFO

Did you just finish a semester in symbolic logic?

Kek. Best post ITT

kek

Why is 'therefore' always attached to this quote? Where did pseuds pick this extra word up from?

I think I am a hack, therefore I am a hack.

originally in french as je pense donc je suis

the french original says je pense donc je suis

>je pseud donc je suis

the French original says Japan dunk the Swede

kek based

Where do I start with Descartes?

In spanish is even worse bc the most known translation is "Pienso, luego existo" and 'luego' can have two meanings: Then (as smth that happens after another thing) and therefore (the intended). The former meaning is more used in everyday language.
So is commonly interpreted by memephilosophists as you said.

How so specifically

Descartes, in order to base his knowledges and philosophy on the surest possible base, tried to reexamine what he knew and how he knew them.

As a starting point, the most basic, the surest knowledge that he had, and was possible to have, he thought, was that of his own existence. I am thinking therefore i know that i exist.

And that was where you start.

Then he was like from there as a logical follow up you can know that god exists. Which im not sure what he meant but maybe it was something like,
If i exist
How can god not exist
Who is the existence of existence itself, that kind of spinoza shit, maybe, probably not though, i only read that one descartes book up to that point in english translation and also cannot into logic or math

Attached: 131452-131020.jpg (139x203, 7K)

Just read the Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy.

>america bad
Said the brit, for the hundredth time, as the police conducted their weekly raid on his apartment to take the last of his butter knives.

It's a joke, you fucking retard with downs.

Lol. People still believe this pseud meme in 2019?

I think you are really dumb.

Based

the Meditations says 'I am, I exist'
no need to 'therefore'

Easy

Attached: 1555937775378.jpg (3120x2718, 1.89M)

>Yea Forums, the comics

The circularity is the point you fucking retards, the only thing that cannot be doubted is thought's tautological identity with itself

Cogito ergo sum is the ultimate npc test. The npc simply cannot understand what it means to think, not as in thinking of something particual, but to think in the sense of the thought process, where every thought of something particular is merely an instance of the process. To think, to have the thought process is the precondition of any other mental operation.

>stop thinking for a while
>I don't disappear
Now what?

I giggled

Yeah, like 2500+ years ago.

Attached: 15376171192930.jpg (320x408, 49K)

WTF I LOVE EVOLA NOW

thoughts can not exist without a thinker

>psychadelics have revealed to me the answer, good thing i don't have to read anything anyone ever wrote, i bet descartes was an evil demon that wrote evil things to trap us into his mind prison, cause thats what people I have been told to disagree with do