I am is necessary for I think. — Lionino

That is an irrational leap. It doesn't follow logically. If it is necessary you are for you think, then what is the point saying therefore you exist? It sounds redundant, circular statement, and doesn't prove anything.

By the way, it is necessary T in symbolic logic writes □T. Not ¬(¬T)

There's a reason both of us think you've got it backwards here. You aren't being completely rational here. You DO have it backwards. — flannel jesus

P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q

Your claims that "you think therefore you exist", deduces "If you don't think then you don't exist."
A simplest symbolic logic based on Modus Ponens demonstrates you guys claims are a contradiction.

No, it is the same mistake over and over and over. The newborn does not think, but it exists, existence does not imply thought. You are confusing explanation with causation. — Lionino

The whole point is so simple, but you seem to be trying to make it complicated needlessly for some reason. The point is that you don't need to think to exist. Existence doesn't need thoughts. It exists, because it does.

Was SJ a stoic?

That's fascinating. Thank you. — Truth Seeker

:grin: :pray: :pray:

I think because I am, which is incorrect, as we know, because, unless you are a panpsychist, you think not because you are but because of many reasons, including that you are.
This is definitive proof that cogitō ergo sum is not inverted. Farewell, さらばだ. — Lionino

If you still insist that "You think therefore you are." is correct, then when you were just born, and was not able to think, does it mean that you didn't exist? What a contradiction.

Time to wake up from the slumber mate. :D

I didn't say for certain. For the fourth time, I said it not logically necessary that there is life in Mars. You need to research what logically necessary means. — Lionino

I have no idea what's your fascination with logical necessity, and keep repeating yourself with the term here. The point is that is not relevant to your statements that you know life doesn't exist in Mars, or Cogito.

No, because that is not what the word "therefore" means. You are thinking of "I can only come to think if I exist", which is exactly Descartes' point. The city is wet, therefore is rained. I am sneezing, therefore I have a virus. In X therefore Y, Y is the cause, X is the consequence.
You are simply getting confused with the meaning of words. — Lionino

This seems the real confusion and linguistic muddle.

Funny that you say Descartes got something wrong when we both know you have not read Descartes. — Lionino

I don't need to read the whole Descartes to know that his main theme in Philosophy is illogical. No one needs to.

A mere fact that you don't know something does not mean that something doesn't exist. It isn't too deep knowledge to understand. To someone with no senses, everything might sounds nonsense. Hope it is not the case with you.

There is nothing more to add apart from asking you to re-read my posts again.

Ah yes, the never ending pool of knowledge about "unknown existence" lmao. What a conversation-ender. — flannel jesus

If you think about it, there are many unknown existence in this world. Until you know about them. Why is it so difficult to see?

I cannot roll my eyes hard enough at this non-answer. — flannel jesus

Well flannel, if you try think clearer, perhaps you could see better. It is not all that easy to understand the deep knowledge and logic, suppose. :chin:

I took the thirsty horse to the river. It is now up to the horse to drink the water, or keep suffer from the thirst. I can do no more afraid.

And one more thing - I forgot to add, is that we are all existence on the road according to M. Heidegger. Even if, we feel and it looks as if the world and us are stationery, we and the world are on the non-stop journey. A journey to the end of the visit to the earth to the unknown destinations.

If you agree that something can't think unless it exists, then "I think therefore I am" ought to make sense. Do you think something can think without existing? — flannel jesus

There are two types of existence. The known and unknown. Unknown existence can be like non-existence. In that sense, yes unknown existence which is perceived to be non-existence can think.

The assumption is borderline SYNONYMOUS with "I think, therefore I am". The two statements seem like alternate phrasings of the same idea. One is just a little more poetic. — flannel jesus

No it is not. They are reverse in the cause and effect. They are not synonymous.

Thank you for your advice. You didn't answer my questions about your worldview. Why is that? — Truth Seeker

You are very welcome. Sorry for not having answered your question. Well actually I don't have a worldview of my own. That is why I am keep reading philosophy and psychology.

If I had my own world view, then I would go up into a mountain, and start meditating. Not yet. I am not sure if it will ever happen. But who knows. We keep on trying until our last days. Now that is a philosophy. :nerd:

And one more thing - sometimes no answer can be the best answer in Philosophy and the World.

The assumption I'm referring to is "Before thinking takes place, something must exist". This assumption and "I think therefore I am" are compatible, more compatible than "I am, therefore I think." — flannel jesus

The assumption "Before thinking takes place, something must exist." eradicates need for saying "I think, therefore I exist."

"I am, therefore I exist." was introduced to notify the reverse is false.

Yeah, that's what everyone else thinks except you. "Cogito ergo sum" works with that assumption, your reversal of it does not. — flannel jesus

Who is everyone and where is the assumption? What reversal are you talking about? I was only putting the cart behind the horse, of which Descartes put in front.

My worldview is evidence-based. If I become aware of incontrovertible evidence for the existence of souls and gods, I will stop being an agnostic atheist and become religious. I have researched the top twelve religions on Earth and none of them are evidence-based. This is why I am an agnostic atheist. I am open to new evidence e.g. if you show me incontrovertible evidence for the existence of fairies, I will stop being an agnostic afairyist. Do you understand my position better now? What is your worldview? What is the basis for your worldview? — Truth Seeker

If you read Kant's CPR, then he says our knowledge has limits. We don't have to know everything with 100% of certainty. Trying it would be futile exercise. Because our reasoning has antinomies. It is limited. And moreover, much of the needed data is not available for us to know things with certainty.
So that is a fact. You must accept that. And move on. If you read Kant, and understood the points, then you would either want to move up to Analytic Philosophy, Phenomenology or Existentialism.
If you mastered all these subjects, then maybe you would look into Religious philosophy.

You know that Religious topics are in different world which cause and effect principles work different way to the ones in the empirical world. You will then use your faith and intuitions rather than reason and logic for your analysis and observations for the subjects you want to enquire.

No. Plenty of things presumably exist which don't think. — flannel jesus

We are excluding the existing things which don't think in the discussion. We are only talking about the existence which thinks i.e. humans in here.

Before thinking takes place, something must exist. Thinking is not prior to existence. Thinking is a posteriori of existence. Descartes got it wrong, and is in deep confusion in this Cogito ergo sum muddle.

Ah, so then let's reword your previous question: — flannel jesus

The two different perspectives, the perspective of "being" and the perspective of "becoming" (process), each if taken to account for the totality of reality are reductionist. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are a variety of ways that happens. One way is, in medical science, you conduct a double blind study with placebo on the efficacy of a medicine in treating an ailment, you publish your study, and then other people can go on and repeat that study. Eventually, in successful cases, the studies are so successful that the rest of medical science comes to be convinced that that medicine does in fact effectively treat that ailment, and that's how it goes from personal knowledge to "objective knowledge". — flannel jesus

Yes, it seems a good explanation for the process of objectifying some subjective knowledge.

Not all things you might call "objective knowledge" happen in simliar ways. That's just one possible, but relatively common, narrative. — flannel jesus

There must be also the underlying principles for objectifying subjective knowledge such as "consistency" of the knowledge. For example, when Newton saw the apple dropping from the tree in his garden, he induced the law of gravity. At that moment of time, it must have had been his own subjective knowledge. But through the objectifying processes, it became an objective scientific knowledge ever since.

There must be "consistency" in the details of the knowledge for that to happen. If apple dropped in Japan, and it kept on floating in the air instead of falling down to the ground, or landed in the kitchen table by itself as soon as it dropped, then it couldn't have been accepted as an objective scientific knowledge or law. But it must have been falling down straight onto the ground as soon as apple dropped from trees wherever in the world, that consistency of the movement was the base of the objective knowledge.

I was wondering if there would be any other conditions like that in the process of subjective knowledge becoming objective knowledge.

what do you mean by "objective knowledge"? — flannel jesus

Objective knowledge just means that it is the agreed knowledge publicly or academically. If you went to the garden, and found something scientific for the first time in history, and you are the only one who knows about it, then it is a subject knowledge.

If you can't notice how this is completely different from Descartes' argument, this is beyond my powers. — Lionino

It was a reply to your irrelevant sentence, you know for certain there exist no life in Mars. It is strange for one to deny any knowledge on what one said, and got replied to.

Think is a verb, psychological is an adjective, exist is a verb, ontological is an adjective. You classified one as the other. Ok, so what? And the classification is faulty, ontology is a field of philosophy, psychology is a (pseudo-)science, you don't classify loose verbs as "psychological", it is gibberish. — Lionino

It is not a gibberish. It is saying that "Think" is a psychological concept, and "Exist" is an ontological concept. There is no logical transition between the two. It is an irrational leap to say "Think", therefore "Exist".

Thinking does not happen if there is no existing. Existing happens every time there is thinking. Thinking implies existing. I think therefore I am. Not the other way around. — Lionino

That is why it has to be (at a generous stretch) "I exist, therefore I think." No?

No, that makes no sense, existence does not imply thought. — Lionino

Existence comes first. Logically, and ontologically.

Ok, time to sleep. — Lionino

Perhaps your lack of sleep was making you feel everything hazy. Sleep well and sweet dreams. :nerd:

You have to look up what "logical necessity" is. — Lionino

You are talking about totally something else. The point is how your point for getting lot of backings implied, the popular media backings rather than logical backings. Because you had not shown any.

Yeah, and one implies the other. As Descartes and the editors have already explained, you can't think without existing, one thing begets the other. — Lionino

Then he should have said, "I exist, therefore I think." He obviously misunderstood something.
He put the cart in front of a horse.

Sum, ergo cogito, makes sense. But it doesn't say anything new or exciting, does it? Moreover, it is a circular statement. How the hell does he know that he exists? He was supposed to doubt everything.

Just because you arbitrarily put two verbs into two boxes that are just adjectives, it does not mean anything. If it were obvious you would be able to explain yourself very easily, but there is no argument. — Lionino

Now I don't understand here. What do you mean?

You would be surprised. — Lionino

At your misunderstandings :)

I also have no clue what this means. — Lionino

Nothing obscure in there at all. :nerd:

I said no such thing. My statement was that it is not logically necessary that there is life in Mars, which it isn't, all you need to do is acquaint yourself with the meaning of logical necessity. — Lionino

You haven't shown any logical argument for your point. When it is logical arguments, you would have evidential or hypothetical premises before your conclusion. You haven't shown any of that. Hence your saying your point has much backings, was inferred as the popular media backings.

It doesn't matter, it can be anything, that is the point. I walk therefore I move. "Well but you didn't say where you are walking so the statement is illogical". It is a nonsensical argument. — Lionino

You walk therefore you move? "Move" and "Walk" are the same class of the terms, which are both motions. There relation is semantic, rather than logical or epistemic or ontological. "Think" and "Exist" are totally different type of entities. Think is psychological and Exist is ontological. There is no logical or any type of correlations between the two. It is so obvious, but you seem to be not able to see the point here.

And there is nothing necessary about the Earth being flat or otherwise. — Lionino

When I said "backing", I was meaning the logical arguments or scientific evidence, rather than the media backings. You said that your claim had a lot of media backings, and I was saying media and popular opinion backings don't offer the necessary ground for your claims.

That it is illogical does not follow from it having no content, that is nonsensical especially when logic deals with syntax, not semantics, content is irrelevant. Even then, neither of those two are true, it is both logical and think has content because it means something. You are denying something that is self-evident. — Lionino

Thinking must have contents. You cannot just say "I think, therefore I am". What were you thinking of? Were you thinking of a beer? Or a burger? or chips? We don't know what you were thinking of. You should have made clear the content of the thinking for your conclusion "I am". (You = Descartes)

And "Cogito" is not sufficient or necessary logical ground for existence. It is epistemic perception of existence, which is the ground for the existence. Existence cannot be deduced logically.

No, he does not speak directly in terms of freedom. However, authentic Being-one's-Self is a choice. Please see Being and Time at 312-313. — Arne

:cool: :up:

All non-living things are conscious as well as living things. — bert1

In that case , aren't non-living things' consciousness different nature to the living things consciousness? They can't possibly be the same type, class or nature of consciousness. If so, how would they be different? If not so, why wouldn't they be different?

My claim that there is no life in Mars has plenty of backing. — Lionino

"The earth is flat." had more plenty of backings for far longer time.

Good thing that was not Descartes' argument. — Lionino

I was just pointing out "I think therefore I am." is illogical.
The "think" has no content.

Logic does not use evidence. — Lionino

Evidence or arguments or whatever. Your claims don't have any backings.

If cogito content was "I think I don't exist."
— Corvus

What? — Lionino

"You think you don't exist, therefore you exist.", is a contradiction.
For your cogito's empty content, "you don't exist" could be posited in there.

It's not just Hinduism that could be true. All religions and the worldviews they offer could be true. I am an agnostic atheist because the evidence does not support any religion. Most religions believe in immortal souls that either reincarnate or resurrect despite the lack of evidence for the existence of the soul. It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything such as souls and gods and imaginary creatures such as fairies. Just because it is impossible to prove a negative, it does not make them true. — Truth Seeker

Isn't your acceptance of all religions and the worldviews they offer as possibility contradiction to your true belief, which is an agnostic theist's view? Why do you accept them as possibility for being true?

If you are an agnostic atheist, then shouldn't you reject all the religious claims as false and impossibility? Are you being an unauthentic agnostic atheist? Or your acceptance of the religious claims as possible truths were dishonest? Which is the case?

You use the phrase "objective knowledge", but it should be explicitly noted, 100% certainty in science is not attainable. — flannel jesus

"Objective Knowledge" does not have explicitly and necessarily 100% certainty. All scientific knowledge is bound to be disproved at any time.

Because... it is not logically necessary that there is life in Mars, and we know there is none there. — Lionino

What are the evidences for the claims?

You say the cogito lacks content, which doesn't make sense, then you say "what if the content was...", implying it has a content different from what you were about to say, meaning it has content. — Lionino

Cogito was empty, so I put some contents to demonstrate anything can be put in as the content, even the contents which doubts or denies the existence of Descartes. If cogito content was "I think I don't exist.", then the conclusion "therefore I exist.", would be a contradiction.

well, how can a subjective experience be compared to another without being in accordance to a standard of some kind? I think every subjective experience has something to do with objective knowledge...does the knowledge itself become or is/can be subjective when used from/obtained from a single subjective experiences alone? — Kizzy

I was asking the relations between subjective and objective knowledge. How are they linked? Or are they linked at all? Is one pre-condition of the other?

Problem of scientific knowledge is that the foundation of the knowledge is based on observational activities which are subjective perceptual processes. How do they elevate one's perceptual observations with possibility of fallibilities and subjective in nature into objective apodictic knowledge?

And finally, I personally think there's an alternative term for what the paper calls 'lived experience', which helps to orientate the discussion more clearly in the context of the philosophical tradition. I wonder if there are any guesses as to what this word might be? — Wayfarer

"Lived experience" sounds like a historical topic due to the word "Lived". What about "Having been lived"? And the "experience" is always someone's experience. There is no such thing as objective experience. Can one's own subjective experience have anything to do with the objective knowledge?

It is possible that Hinduism is true. No, I am not a Hindu but there are Hindus on Earth. It is impossible to test the hypothesis that living things are souls who reincarnate according to karma in an illusory universe called Maya. — Truth Seeker

Why do you think it is possible Hinduism is true? What about Buddhism, Christianity? Hinduism has Karma and Maya. Christianity has Garden of Eden, the Heaven and Hell. Buddhism says you will be reincarnated to this world into some other species according to your Karma.

What attracts to you to Hinduism, but not to Buddhism or Christianity?

An excellent point to make. Both. Being-in IS our existence. Questions like that beg for a reading of Being and Time. — Astrophel

Great question. Existence is a "mode" of being (other modes of being are "present to hand" and/or "ready to hand."). And existence is the mode of being of that being that IS "being-in-the-world." And the being that is being-in-the-world" is "Dasein." Ergo, existence is Dasein's mode of being.

Astrophel is correct, your question begs a reading of Being and Time. — Arne

:nerd: :pray: Being is closely linked with temporality i.e. past present and future. Men is not just Being but Dasein viz "Being There in the world". I did read Being and Time a few year ago. It was a tough read. Will need to read it again to refresh the points. Recall there had been reading groups for Heidegger in here too.

Contrast to Sartre (please correct me, if this point is wrong), Heidegger doesn't seem to say a lot about freedom and Being. Rather Beings are limited by temporality which are destined for deaths. Death is the final events for all Beings which happens to the Being in most personal intimate way i.e. strictly alone to the Being itself.

It is just a supporting observational fact, which saves further analysis, investigations and observations on the point for the conclusion. Inductive conclusions are subject to be proven to be incorrect of course if new counter factuals (objective evidences or findings) emerged just like the scientific theories.

Nobody's an existentialist because these 4 people denied they are" — flannel jesus

The claim was based on the inductive principle,
1. that the most famous would-be existentialists were denying that they were the existentialists.
2. Definition of existentialist is obscure.
3. It is impossible to go and ask the whole population on the earth if they are existentialist in practicality.

Therefore it is safe to conclude, that there is no such people who are existentialist.

Because other people than that short list of people could be existentialists. "These people denied they are, therefore nobody is" isn't much of an argument. My gramma denies she's a Muslim, therefore nobody's a Muslim. — flannel jesus

It is not just that fact, but definition of existentialism has been obscure. What is your definition of existentialism and existentialist?