30 Jul 05
Originally posted by vistesdThe I of today is tommorows memory, each day, each hour, each minute, each second, there is a new I.
Behind all the makings of your mind,
before all images, thoughts and words,
can you find an “I” that’s not just another thought,
another making of your mind?
If not, who is “I”?
If so, how will you tell
anyone else?
31 Jul 05
Originally posted by SerendipityFirst, 'cogito, ergo sum" doesn't appear in the Meditations. Second, the proper translation is "I am thinking, therefore I am".
"Cogito ergo sum" (Descartes 1637 Discourse on method/The meditations)
"I think therfore I am" do you agree with this statemenent or its inversion "I am therefore I think"
31 Jul 05
Originally posted by bbarrI'm not an expert on Latin, but every book I've read which mentions 'cogito ergo sum' , translates it as 'I think therefore I am'
First, 'cogito, ergo sum" doesn't appear in the Meditations. Second, the proper translation is "I am thinking, therefore I am".
maybe it has a better sound to it than your translation.
Anyway as much as your interest is appreciated (albeit an intrusion of pedantic correction), it would be more utilitarian if your focus was on the question at hand 🙂
31 Jul 05
Originally posted by SerendipityWell we actually need an expert on French. This is what Descartes wrote:
I'm not an expert on Latin, but every book I've read which mentions 'cogito ergo sum' , translates it as 'I think therefore I am'
maybe it has a better sound to it than your translation.
Anyway as much as your interest is appreciated (albeit an intrusion of pedantic correction), it would be more utilitarian if your focus was on the question at hand 🙂
Je pense, donc je suis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
31 Jul 05
Originally posted by SerendipityMaybe I'm using the term "ontologically" too loosely. But the idea is simple - for a mind to exist, it is necessary that the being that the mind is a component of exist; but the converse is not necessarily true.
"Existence of the being would ontologically preceed the existence of the mind. " lucifershammer
How so!?
Not sure if I'm being clear enough.
LH
31 Jul 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerBut isn't Descartes implying that you have to be consciously aware of your being to be?
Maybe I'm using the term "ontologically" too loosely. But the idea is simple - for a mind to exist, it is necessary that the being that the mind is a component of exist; but the converse is not necessarily true.
Not sure if I'm being clear enough.
LH
i think therefore I am
I dont think therefore I am not 😕
31 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by SerendipityNot as I understand it.
But isn't Descartes implying that you have to be consciously aware of your being to be?
Descartes is trying to look for propositions (I think Barry Stroud called them the "privileged class of propositions"😉 that cannot be doubted and, hence, must always be true. Since the proposition "I think" cannot be doubted (to do so would be self-defeating), he concludes that the proposition "I am" cannot be doubted (since no being can think that does not already exist). I believe I'm on the same page as Descartes here.
The way you've expressed it makes it look like the Berkelian idea that beings cease to exist when you are not consciously aware of them.
LH
EDIT: Actually, the contrapositive of "I think, therefore I am" is "I am not, therefore I do not think". 🙂
31 Jul 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIn both cases I dont agree with his cartesian approach, I'm more of a Nietzsche fan
Not as I understand it.
Descartes is trying to look for propositions (I think Barry Stroud called them the "privileged class of propositions"😉 that cannot be doubted and, hence, must always be true. Since the proposition "I think" cannot be doubted (to do so would be self-defeating), he concludes that the proposition "I am" cannot be doubted ...[text shortened]... the contrapositive of "I think, therefore I am" is "I am not, therefore I do not think". 🙂
31 Jul 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerBut he helped with the postmodern emancipation from the enlightenment, And we can both agree and be happy for that 🙂
Either beings exist outside one's consciousness of them, or they do not. Nietzsche cannot agree/disagree with both simultaneously.
31 Jul 05
Originally posted by SerendipityPostmodern emancipation from the enlightenment? 😕
But he helped with the postmodern emancipation from the enlightenment, And we can both agree and be happy for that 🙂
There is an interesting article by Michael Kalish on the influence of Nietzshe on Mein Kampf:
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm
31 Jul 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerWe all know that the nazi intelligensia distorted the words of Nietzsche just as the communist intelligensia did with the words of Marx and Islamic fundamentalists did/do with the words of Muhhamed
Postmodern emancipation from the enlightenment? 😕
There is an interesting article by Michael Kalish on the influence of Nietzshe on Mein Kampf:
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm
31 Jul 05
Originally posted by SerendipityNeither I (nor the author of the article) denies this.
We all know that the nazi intelligensia distorted the words of Nietzsche just as the communist intelligensia did with the words of Marx and Islamic fundamentalists did/do with the words of Muhhamed
But what exactly did you mean by "postmodern emancipation from the enlightenment"?
LH