name a more catastrophic error in Western philosophy than "cogito, ergo sum". i'll wait
-
-
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
-
O_o wait, you think LINES EXIST?!
-
oh, i meant the other "exist"
-
there are no lines, there's only the idea of lines
-
ah, you finally found the correct response to the original challenge: Platonism
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
personally I'd go after "cogito", as Descartes doesn't know that he's thinking, just that he's aware, someone else might be doing his thinking for him and feeding him the output, of which he is aware! But I think by 'cogito' he actually meant <insert latin for awareness here>
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But the statement "I exist" doesn't come with any qualification as to what 'I' am. I could be completely deluded as to my true nature, and 'I exist' would still hold true. I guess it depends on what we think is mean by 'I' though.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.