His central argument in this thread has been, if "I think therefore I am" is true, then it must also be true that not thinking implies not existing. — flannel jesus
I just wanted to check, is your argument here that if 'I think therefore I am' is true, then logic dictates that 'I do not think, therefore I do not exist' must also be true. But since the latter makes no sense, then something is terribly wrong with it all?? Or am I totally wrong to assume that? I could have misunderstood. — Beverley
That is a completely different objection than your "how do you know?" to something that is self-evident — Russell's objection being, by the way, mostly semantic. — Lionino
When he goes on to say “I am a thing which thinks,” he is already using uncritically the apparatus of categories handed down by scholasticism. He nowhere proves that thoughts need a thinker,nor is there reason to believe this except in a grammatical sense. — Russell, Bertrand. 1945. A History of Western Philosophy And Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 567.
Any 1 line argument is invalid because it is not an argument! — NotAristotle
I just wanted to check, is your argument here that if 'I think therefore I am' is true, then logic dictates that 'I do not think, therefore I do not exist' must also be true. But since the latter makes no sense, then something is terribly wrong with it all?? Or am I totally wrong to assume that? I could have misunderstood. — Beverley
Yes, correct. You have got it spot on. — Corvus
The inference is invalid. logic does not show that if 'I think therefore I am' is true, then 'I do not think, therefore I do not exist' must also be true. — Banno
'I think therefore I am' implies 'I do not think, therefore I do not exist'. It is logically valid.
People do exist until death once born, whether they think or not. We know that from the fact of the reality in the world.
Therefore I think therefore I am is false. "I am" has nothing to do with "I think". — Corvus
But I don't think or I think, therefore I do not exist is false — Corvus
The inference is invalid. logic does not show that if 'I think therefore I am' is true, then 'I do not think, therefore I do not exist' must also be true. — Banno
Banno, I am not convinced by the website/program you are citing. That program considers "If P then Q" an invalid argument, so maybe there is some problem with the way the arguments are being inputted? — NotAristotle
the 'I' is not logical here. To make it logical at a stretch (whilst having to make assumptions) we would have to change it to: 'He thinks therefore he exists.' Then, we can more logically say: 'He does not exist, therefore he is not thinking.' But, as I am sure we are all aware, the cogito ONLY works from the first person perspective. Therefore, it fails; it all fails. — Beverley
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.