I think therefore I am

As a matter of fact, perception as such carries with it the notion of
permanence, as we mentioned in an earlier sermon. To perceive is to grasp a
sign. One can grasp a sign only where one imagines some degree of
permanence.
The purpose of perception is not only to recognize for oneself, but also to
make it known to others. The Buddha has pointed out that there is a very close
relationship between recognition and communication. This fact is expressly
stated by the Buddha in the following quotation from the Sixes of the Aṅguttara
Nikāya:
> Vohāravepakkaṃ ahaṃ, bhikkhave, saññaṃ vadāmi. Yathā yathā naṃ
> sañjānāti, tathā tathā voharati, evaṃ saññī ahosin’ti. "Monks, I say that
> perception has linguistic usage as its result. In whatever way one perceives, so
> one speaks out about it, saying: ‘I was of such a perception’."
> Translation Bodhi (2012: 962):
> “I say that perceptions result in expression. In whatever way one perceives
> something, in just that way one expresses oneself, [saying:] ‘I was percipient of
> such and such.’”
> Parallel MĀ 111 :
> “What is ‘knowing the result of perception’? It is verbalization. Following on
> perception there is verbalization. This is called ‘knowing the result of
> perception.’”
The word vepakka is a derivative from the word vipāka, which in the context
of kamma, or ethically significant action, generally means the result of that
action. In this context, however, its primary sense is evident, that is, as some sort
of a ripening. In other words, what this quotation implies is that perception
ripens or matures into verbal usage or convention.
So here we see the connection between saññā, perception, and saṅkhā,
reckoning. This throws more light on our earlier explanation of the last line of a
verse in the Kalahavivādasutta, namely saññānidānā hi papañcasaṅkhā, “for
reckonings born of prolificity have perception as their source”.
So now we are in a better position to appreciate the statement that linguistic
usages, reckonings and designations are the outcome of perception. All this goes
to show that an insight into the philosophy of language is essential for a proper
understanding of this Dhamma. This is the moral behind the Mūlapariyāyasutta.

So he is basically Ayn Rand then

not according to him

>I think, therefore I am
>i.e. I am thinking, therefore I am
The conclusion is contained in the premise. He knows there is thought and decided that that thought is him. He's performing circular reasoning in the form of begging the question.

No. The Hindoos beat him to it and did it a thousand times better

I shitpost, therefore a simulacrum of me exists on the internet.

No.. the thought doesn't have to be his, it could be given to him by the demon, but the fact that it is given to him implies that he exists for it to have been given. Granted I read this book when I was like 15 so I could have misinterpreted it.

the whole point is that even if his consciousness is being tricked and nothing is real, there has to be a consciousness of his to trick for that to happen. Even if his thoughts aren't his, he'd have to still BE to experience them on any level. In the end nothing else is certain but this

This only makes sense in the scenario given. What's basically being said is he can't come up with a scenario in which him existing is an illusion. This only reveals bias of viewing things with reference to a subject.
Simply put, it is very sound to conclude "there is thought" but it is unsound to say "these thoughts are mine" or "these thoughts were given to me." To think otherwise reveals there was actually no reasoning toward the conclusion that you exist because you think. Your existence is presupposed and a reason to support it is given in ad hoc fashion.

More like I think I'm right, therefore I am.

This.

I think therefore it is
>cogito ergo est

Attached: 1557179316749.jpg (500x705, 117K)

You know his 'je pense' was lifted
from Aquinas, right user?
You don't even understand what Descartes was wrong about.

The fact that I experience thought implies that I exist, at least on some level.

I want to start a philosophy bachelor this fall. There was a voluntary test, apparently many people have a wrong perception of what studying philosophy is actually about and this test should give them some feedback. One question was exactly about this sentence. Now it was not only that sentence, but the paragraph in which this sentence appeared. This showed me that a) the thoughts of Descartes are actually well reasoned and boiling it down to this single sentence makes it almost meaningless and b) only two or three people here seems to read at all.

no

Attached: fr.jpg (220x299, 12K)

Do YOU experience thought or is there mere thought?
Thought exists. Prove someone exists that possesses it as a part of them.

I already feel sorry for you course mates, seeing such an absolutely uneducated moron will be in their same lectures.

Thought arises emotion in me, there's a causal relation between thought and emotion. If I think about sad things I become sad, if I think about sex i become aroused.

>Thought arises emotion
A fair guess.
>in me.
Prove it.

It is true that there's a general correlation between what thoughts are present and what emotions arise, at least if one trusts their memory on such. But why must there be a subject who has these thoughts and emotions? All this explanation has done is added another dimension to the mental sphere without explaining why elaborating on why it is necessary for there to be a possessor of it.
Thoughts and affects are transient. They evaporate into the ether just as quickly as they sprung. At no point can a self be associated with them. They give no indication of an essence with how ever undulating they are. I see no more reason to think of thoughts as indicating my existence as Descartes thinks vision alone indicates his hand's existence.

without explaining why it is necessary*
Phone shit. My bad.

Those emotions and thoughts are what I call the self. You're trying to separate the properties from the object. Like saying, "you can't prove that thing over there is a chair. you can only prove it has four legs and a seat and a backrest."

are you implying octopi don't exist?

Peak brainlet pseudointellectualism.
This post should be framed

Attached: 1465050801808.png (596x617, 431K)

I'll repeat myself and elaborate further.
>Thoughts and affects are transient. They evaporate into the ether just as quickly as they sprung. At no point can a self be associated with them. They give no indication of an essence with how ever undulating they are.
I can't look at one strain of the mental, say a pang of disgust, and say that that affect is me. It disappears just as quickly as it is noticed. This maelstrom is all that can be experienced. You can't look at one emotion and say it is you just as much as you can't say the whole assemblage is you, because since it is chaotic and ever changing. What essence can you find in there that is possible to associate with yourself? Anger? Lust? Thoughts about how to respond to this post? None of those things are you nor is there collection. You want there to be something behind that chaos, a self. For Descartes that self is a soul that has thoughts and emotions. But you can't experience the soul or the self, only what you think is a consequence of it.
>"you can't prove that thing over there is a chair. you can only prove it has four legs and a seat and a backrest."
It's more apt to say that you're inferring a seat and a backrest when all you see are four long wooden blocks.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I don't believe in a soul or an essence. I believe that the self is a bundle of properties including memories, thinking faculties, and emotive faculties. We have the backrest, we have the seat, we have the four legs; you're just refusing to call it a chair.

It's doubtful that many would define the self as merly being that continually changing assemblage of thoughts and emotions. Rather they would define themselves as the subject that experiences them. But if you want to define yourself that way, then the semantic move can't really be stopped anymore than when someone says god is just the universe.

what if in my dream I think, am i real? even tho my reality i´m dealing is just a dream of mine

Attached: ,,.jpg (225x224, 7K)

>It's doubtful that many would define the self as merly being that continually changing assemblage of thoughts and emotions.
Read Hume and Parfit

>”I think therefore I am”
>not “it is a thing which thinks”
Anthropocentrism was a terrible idea.

probably

not sure about all that vivisection stuff though

yes because obviously somebody has to do the dreaming

It's not Anthropocentrism. It places the consciousness,as the only thing we can be sure of at the center. Humanity may, or may not be a figment of your imagination. But you are a conscious of having these impressions, whatever you may really be.

No, I really don't think s

Attached: alarmed.jpg (268x265, 76K)

U are special kind of dumb

There's a saying in my country
"Turkey thought thought and ended up in a boiling pot"
So if you like to think, watch out

Something is thinking and says " I "

I do not think, therefore I am. Clearing your mind of thoughts through meditation gives you a much more poignant sense of self.

Of course there's no way to verify any of this but just my 2 cents.

Attached: DeepThinkHelper.png (993x765, 672K)

Esse est percipi

Attached: 220px-John_Smibert_-_Bishop_George_Berkeley_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (220x296, 15K)

I thought meditation was about removing your sense of self tho.

All the strands of a spiderweb are interconnected, that doesn't mean though the individual strands don't exist.

The context of feeling more connected with everything around strengthens your own feeling of existence.

Again FEELING. Not objective or verifiable by any means.

I work therefore I am

Attached: Max_Stirner.jpg (529x768, 117K)

Hegel blown him the fuck out.

He was a Christian so the chances of him being right about anything are approximately 0.00001%.

yeah except i don't even need to think to am

Attached: skinnyboi.jpg (938x1200, 118K)

I think (I have a conscience) therefore I exist (my conscience exists)
this could be a dream but wouldn't matter, my conscience is above reality

And they also am.

Attached: cucuepw00sa31.jpg (246x229, 23K)

tango mea mentula ergo sum

I is so I be me

When you think about it, this statement is the only possible statement that is true beyond dispute.