name a more catastrophic error in Western philosophy than "cogito, ergo sum". i'll wait
-
-
how is that different?
-
"I think, therefore I am" is entirely different from "thought, therefore existence". that's how sneaky Latin is, the first person in "cogito, ergo sum" is invisible but it's there and it'll getcha
-
how is it different?
-
one considers that which you regard as "I" to exist, which is always a catastrophic error
-
So I guess you're reading "I" as meaning more than just "thing making this statement", which is probably a fair reading, but it can also be read as just "unknowable thing making this statement"
-
that's how fast it leads you down the garden path: you've already presupposed the existence of things a thing isn't making the statement because there are no things, a process is making the statement
-
a process is a thing, in terms of being an object of discussion. There's no contradiction in saying "I am a process"
-
enh, i guess, but that crosses the line i think exists where we've overloaded a common usage term too strongly to be useful for philosophy because people's implicit associations will distort their usage no matter how hard they try to employ the jargonized meaning
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.