1

why "thinking" jumped into the conclusion of "existence" as things can exist without thinking too. and what are all the other method except this that could prove our existence?

RaGa__M
  • 325
  • 1
  • 3
  • 7
  • Thinking when with reflection on the process of thinking (what cogito is) immediately (this is not a logical inference at all and needs not to be) opens that there is somebody or something monitoring the process intimately. Here is then the existence. "To know is to know that I know". We don't have to prove our existence. – ttnphns Jul 19 '19 at 08:22
  • No, To know is to "think and come to know" that you know. "I know" is a result that thinking produces it. – RaGa__M Jul 19 '19 at 08:29
  • You are speaking now of the focusing on the final judgement when the object of the thought is "whether I know or not". I was speaking about a reflection accompanying a thought about, say a "this tree". When I think about the tree and reflect, while still thinking tree, at that thinking, I automatically bring about the existence of a subject besides the object. Reflection is the splitting of the thought process, not changing the object. – ttnphns Jul 19 '19 at 08:38
  • Things can exist without thinking, but can they think without existing? More to the point, how does "I" come out of "thinking"? Like other "methods", this one is flawed at "proving" something if one is determined enough to doubt it. – Conifold Jul 19 '19 at 09:17
  • @Conifold which existence do that "they" need for thinking? and "I" is just what has been presupposed already "I think": we presuppose even before we are proving our existence? – RaGa__M Jul 19 '19 at 09:31
  • I am not saying it is false. – RaGa__M Jul 19 '19 at 09:32
  • Even if "thinking" is granted "I think" is a leap based on empirical association (to a "subject") that defeats the purpose of "proving". Once you have that, "I exist" is a trivial inference from definitions of the words. But then follow further existential leaps known as the Cartesian Circle. You should read the linked answers. – Conifold Jul 19 '19 at 09:39
  • 1
    Also see: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/55469/33787 – christo183 Jul 19 '19 at 09:42
  • Actually in eastern philosophy – Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism, Zen... – its the other way round. Thinking is a disturbance and disorder imposed on being. The discussion in the other question linked by @christo183 has useful pointers. – Rushi Jul 19 '19 at 10:51
  • Your reformulation to "I think therefore I am thinking" has the same dialectical force as the original. It still brings us to the "I am", and that was point. – transitionsynthesis Jul 19 '19 at 19:59

0 Answers0