Can't wait until you're actually ready to start looking at logic. — flannel jesus
Nope, never said anything like that in this thread. You must be dreaming, or believing that everything in the arguments and explanations were poems.Yes, you can explain 2+2 = 5 many many times and still be wrong. — flannel jesus
ust trying to analogize looking at the logic of the words before addressing the meaning of the statement. — Fire Ologist
To be sure, that is not what I am saying; but that certainty of my existence is not dependent on the cogito. Further, I suspect your exist was undoubted long before encountering the Cogito.banno saying he isn't certain of it. — flannel jesus
I don't, since it isn't. And that was directed at
I can prove it
— flannel jesus — Banno
Have you an analysis that shows the validity of "I think, therefore I am"? — Banno
If one is carefully considering whatever may exist, once one comes to be considering one’s own existence, one finds something existing that one can’t deny. — Fire Ologist
The “validity?” Of the cogito text? An “analysis”?
The point of the cogito, once you get the point, is that no analysis is needed; by analyzing anything further, you just make the point again. — Fire Ologist
The “validity?” Of the cogito text? An “analysis”? — Fire Ologist
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.