Before Or After?

bito · 6th December 2006, 08:45 AM

I think, therefore I am.

I Am, therefore I think.

Is there a difference?

WanderingTaoist · 6th December 2006, 09:10 AM

I think, therefore I am.

I Am, therefore I think.

Is there a difference?

Descartes seems to be coming up quite a bit in the philosophy forum these days!

The difference exists only in our minds. Obviously the first step in self-conciousness is the awareness that one is. How do I know that I am? I'm thinking, aren't I?

On the other hand, this then throws the notion of "I" into question. Am I only my thoughts? Am I, as Descartes maintains, "a substance the whole essence or nature of which is simply to think"? What about when "I" am developing in the womb? What about when I am asleep and do not dream? What of the Buddhist, deep in meditation? What of people born with irreperable brain damage? Does the "I" still exist?

If we want to understand what it is to be human, we must obviously come to terms with thought and knowledge, since they are of primary importance. But are they all that is? In a different thread abaris remarked that logos (reason or speech, for the purposes of this discussion) is a vital (maybe the primary) component of human existence, but it is not the only component.

To answer this question more, we must ask: Does "I" denote merely "conciousness"? Or the human being as a whole?

Maybe this is just ultimately a very thourough way of saying "I don't know." Perhaps the best philosophy is merely a very thourough way of saying "I don't know"...

locomotive · 6th December 2006, 09:27 AM

yes, beeing does not require thinking.

WanderingTaoist · 6th December 2006, 09:31 AM

yes, beeing does not require thinking.

Fair enough!

locomotive · 6th December 2006, 09:41 AM

but there are more things like when you look at something you say I am looking or when you hear you say I am hearing. Or I am walking.

scameter · 6th December 2006, 10:21 AM

Yes, there is a large difference. Thinking therefore being is idealist, and being therefore thinking is it's opposite, materialist.

WanderingTaoist · 6th December 2006, 12:40 PM

Yes, there is a large difference. Thinking therefore being is idealist, and being therefore thinking is it's opposite, materialist.

I agree.

And I wonder, can we synthesize these two views? Sure "material" and "ideas" are intertwined in reality?

scameter · 6th December 2006, 05:49 PM

Not with certainty.

MidnightSun · 6th December 2006, 10:41 PM

I think, therefore I am

Simone Weil.

Thomas Knierim · 6th December 2006, 10:58 PM

Taoist: Perhaps the best philosophy is merely a very thourough way of saying "I don't know"...

Hilarious! I guess you are in good company with this point of view. In an interview with Steven Pinker I recently saw, Steven referred to philosophy as the "science of unanswerable question." He may be right. For example, in ancient times, people mused about atoms and the shape of the world and this was called philosophy. The question whether matter was infinitely divisible belonged to the class of unanswerable questions. Today, these types of questions have become the subject of mainstream science, while philosophy has moved on to greener pastures.

Cheers, Thomas

6th December 2006, 08:45 AM	#1
bito Very Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,088	I think, therefore I am. I Am, therefore I think. Is there a difference? __________________ No thought returns void.

6th December 2006, 09:10 AM	#2
WanderingTaoist Advanced Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 265	I think, therefore I am. I Am, therefore I think. Is there a difference? Descartes seems to be coming up quite a bit in the philosophy forum these days! The difference exists only in our minds. Obviously the first step in self-conciousness is the awareness that one is. How do I know that I am? I'm thinking, aren't I? On the other hand, this then throws the notion of "I" into question. Am I only my thoughts? Am I, as Descartes maintains, "a substance the whole essence or nature of which is simply to think"? What about when "I" am developing in the womb? What about when I am asleep and do not dream? What of the Buddhist, deep in meditation? What of people born with irreperable brain damage? Does the "I" still exist? If we want to understand what it is to be human, we must obviously come to terms with thought and knowledge, since they are of primary importance. But are they all that is? In a different thread abaris remarked that logos (reason or speech, for the purposes of this discussion) is a vital (maybe the primary) component of human existence, but it is not the only component. To answer this question more, we must ask: Does "I" denote merely "conciousness"? Or the human being as a whole? Maybe this is just ultimately a very thourough way of saying "I don't know." Perhaps the best philosophy is merely a very thourough way of saying "I don't know"... __________________ Tao is the good man's treasure, the bad man's refuge.

6th December 2006, 09:27 AM	#3
locomotive Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 689	yes, beeing does not require thinking. __________________ as though could 'was' a what-who?? WTF!

6th December 2006, 09:31 AM	#4
WanderingTaoist Advanced Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 265	yes, beeing does not require thinking. Fair enough! __________________ Tao is the good man's treasure, the bad man's refuge.

6th December 2006, 09:41 AM	#5
locomotive Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 689	but there are more things like when you look at something you say I am looking or when you hear you say I am hearing. Or I am walking. __________________ as though could 'was' a what-who?? WTF!

6th December 2006, 10:21 AM	#6
scameter Tankare Join Date: May 2005 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,224	Yes, there is a large difference. Thinking therefore being is idealist, and being therefore thinking is it's opposite, materialist.

6th December 2006, 12:40 PM	#7
WanderingTaoist Advanced Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 265	Yes, there is a large difference. Thinking therefore being is idealist, and being therefore thinking is it's opposite, materialist. I agree. And I wonder, can we synthesize these two views? Sure "material" and "ideas" are intertwined in reality? __________________ Tao is the good man's treasure, the bad man's refuge.

6th December 2006, 05:49 PM	#8
scameter Tankare Join Date: May 2005 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,224	Not with certainty.

6th December 2006, 10:41 PM	#9
MidnightSun Guru Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Lithuania, Kaunas. Posts: 1,169	I think, therefore I am Simone Weil. __________________ "Only dead fishes follow the stream" "An apple falls from a tree when its most matured"

6th December 2006, 10:58 PM	#10
Thomas Knierim Administrator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand Posts: 2,031	Taoist: Perhaps the best philosophy is merely a very thourough way of saying "I don't know"... Hilarious! I guess you are in good company with this point of view. In an interview with Steven Pinker I recently saw, Steven referred to philosophy as the "science of unanswerable question." He may be right. For example, in ancient times, people mused about atoms and the shape of the world and this was called philosophy. The question whether matter was infinitely divisible belonged to the class of unanswerable questions. Today, these types of questions have become the subject of mainstream science, while philosophy has moved on to greener pastures. Cheers, Thomas

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode