Re: ANNOUNCE: First longer sentence in S7

>
> Actually, if you read Descartes (in the original Latin) you'll
> discover that the sentence he wrote doesn't contain a "therefore", nor
> any other connector for that matter. It is "I think, I am", *not* "I
> think, therefore I am" (a common mistranslation that was already
> common in his time, and that he fought against all his life). The
> sentence is *not* a law of logic. It is *not* an implication, it is
> *not* a cause-and-effect description. The sentence is a declaration of
> *EQUALITY*: I think = I am. It's the ultimate, undoubtable foundation
> of a philosophy based on getting rid on anything doubtable in order to
> find a solid foundation. The ego can't doubt its own existence for the
> simple reason that it is doing the thinking, the doubting, at the very
> moment it tries to doubt it, and reciprocally the ego exists as a
> purely thinking being, because anything else (the body, the
> sensations, etc...) have been doubted away (not because they don't
> exist, but because there is no proof, at the current level of thought,
> that they are more than mirages. The basis for Cartesianism is pure
> skeptism).
Does I think therefore I am imply cause and effect? How is this
different to:

he is dead => he is not alive

or

ab = 1 => a = 1/b

Neither of these are cause and effect, but they are implications, and
equality of the truth of statements ("I think", "I am") necessarily means

I think <==> I am

which necessarily means

I think => I am
I am => I think

Therefore "I think therefore I am" comes from "I think, I am" using your
interpretation. It is only a half statement of what descartes said if he
meant "I think = I am", but "I think therefore I am" is not false if "I
think = I am" is true. I don't for that matter agree with it if that was
what he meant, but I never liked philosophy, and I'm just pointing out
that he did (indirectly) say "I think therefore I am", if he said "I
think = I am".

Replies