查看完整版本 : 哲學討論之我思故我在

noeyesee1 2006-6-10 02:29

{but it may not be so, may be just like some realists said, the existence of a thought is independent of the existence of any other thing. It sounds queer but it is possible, so althought it is hard to deny the true of this statement, but it is not a logical truth.}

I were trapped some ten years ago by silimar sentences what you have put down.

Thought, mind, consciousness, yes, maybe separable from the existence of a being, a thing, a lifeform. However, "I think", this thought is no other thought, but my thought, my mind and its mine, from the usual context of language. Then absurdity (not redundancy) follows "therefore I am". Agree?

Correct me if I am wrong, this sentence is once used as a proof of oneself's existency, is that right?
The question "Prove that you exists" is also absurd since it is proved straight away.
If I ask you to prove your existence, then it is proved, or else the question is nowhere to ask?  
I (the subject) asking (the operator) you (the object) to ...
The question imply that you are already exists!
A fraud? or simply the imperfection of our language structure?
"I think therefore I am", how can I think before I am?

Our daily use language is, as far as I concern, is a mess.
I think Ludwig Wittgenstein had made this point quite clearly. Our usual language is quite deceiving.
Or maybe, I were deceived by him-
<Philosophical Grammer- Ludwig Wittgenstein>
Who knows?

s037816 2006-6-10 19:40

Thanks for your detail reply. However there may be another similar objection for this statement and it would not open to your objection.

Let think about the truth condition of the proposition "I think". In some cases although the referent of the indexical "I" does not exist, but the proposition can still be true. For example, when you watch the novel about Sherlock Holmes, and sometimes he would say "I think...."in the story. We would definitly agree that Sherlock Holmes is thinking, since he said "I think..." in the novel; but we would not agree that he is existing, or when Sherlock Holmes said "I exist" in the story, we would not accept that to be true.

may be there is some other way out but I can't see it, so I think the above exmple can be a counter example of the "I think, therefore I exist".

noeyesee1 2006-6-12 14:29

[quote]原帖由 [i]s037816[/i] 於 2006-6-10 07:40 PM 發表
Thanks for your detail reply. However there may be another similar objection for this statement and it would not open to your objection.

Let think about the truth condition of the proposition &q ... [/quote]

Appreciate your response.

As I had shown or trying to show that, in varies occasions, we had to be careful of choosing what sorts or which specific part of the language for rational or formal debate, discussion.

It seems that now the argument had stretched to the extent of
"the definition of existence", a symbolic sense or a real fleah and blood object, a tangible ot intangible one.
What is your choice?

We sometimes use language for illustration (to teach, to learn, to acknowledge), sometimes for fun (to joke, to create jargan), sometimes for agression (to lie, to deceive, to quarrel).

Our knowledges, up to this moment, if not entirely, have substantial amounts base on abstract concepts.  (A=B, not A implies not B ......)

I would not question its existence A, or B , since someone including me myself, had made them exists. (i.e. THE DEFINITION)

So, novelist creates their characters, (the characters are made exist), they exist in our conciuosness.

Thoughts may exists before an other thing as you claimed, it nevertheless, is the case vice versa.

But this is not what I am arguing about.

What I had tried to point out is (as previously said), our daily language itself have loads of loopholes, imperfections that led to such statements "I think therefore I am", which I consider silly (I were confused by it once), and ironically, we inevitably have to use "language" to express, to communicate.

"I think therefore I am", no matter how famous it is, or how philosophical it sounds, I consider simply in the sense of its contextual meaning - ofwhich I sugesst contradiction or in a more vulgar terms "silly". And this sillyness is due to the imperfection of our language.

Back to your "thought is independent of the existence of any other thing", may I ask if "thought is independent of the existence of any other thing" or thought is not a property of some thing. Could you please define "thought". Appreciate.

s037816 2006-6-14 21:55

Let me clarify the discussion:

Based on my understanding of your posts, I guess your position is that "I exist" is something that we don't need to prove, or it is illegitimate to ask for its proof. The reason is that the question implies that I already exist.

So it is part of your argument that "I think, therefore I exist" is something trival, and necessarily true.

But I do not agree about that, and my novelist’s example is a counter-example for that.

But what I don't understand the relation between the loopholes of our ordinary language and your thesis that it is trivial. Are you tried to explain why the proposition is trivial by the loopholes of our language?

if it is so, then what I am arguing is that it is not trivial.

And I have some presuppositions about the meaning of this statement. I presupposed that it is a material implication between an epistemic description "I think" and an ontological description "I exist".

Based on this presupposition, I gave my novelist's example for showing that it is not trivial.

May be it is the time for discussing the meaning of existence. I admitted that I can’t give a precise definition about the word “existence”, but I think there are at least two senses of existence, the first sense is that “x exists” means x is an actual object (actual objects are the object existing in the actual world, but the distinction of actual and non-actual world may be arbitrary.); in this sense my counter example hold, since Sherlock Holmes is only something imaginary and not an actual person; however, if “exist” can be applicable to the imaginary characters or objects, then Sherlock Holmes definitely exist, and the statement” I think, therefore I exist” may be trivial as what you have claimed, but if "existence" is in this sense, then if "x" has a meaning, then x exist.

[[i] 本帖最後由 s037816 於 2006-6-14 09:56 PM 編輯 [/i]]

noeyesee1 2006-6-15 23:47

This discussion is getting funnier than I would expect.

Shall we put it this way:-
Supposing you ask me: "Prove that you exist"
By this sentence, my existence is proved straight away. Since you had used the term "you". (Simple enough?)
You made me exist!
Let now consider a different scenario, that there is no other object in this universe but me, and I ask "Prove that I exist", then straight away again, it is proved. I am asking "me" to prove my existence.

Because our language was developed in such a way, that, we are confined by our language structure. Nevertheless, some often like to muck about language to create some illusion that others may seems deep and adorable.
And that is what Ludwig was trying to tell us throughtout his works that we are in many occasions, abusing our language, and the language itself, especially usual language, is not a proper tool for certain analytical tasks.

Now back to the "existence".
Allow me to define "existence" loosely hereby, that,
(not necessary agreed by you of course, but for the sake of constructing a norm for discussion) an object (L) exists or said to be existed if arbitrarily, there is other object apart from (L) itself, had denoted one property or some properties of which describing the object (L).

So, ghosts, spirits, according to this definitions, exist.
So our n-dimension manifolds exists
So all formulaes exists
So the empty set {0} exists

So an object exists if they had laid an footprint or impresssion on our consciousness. Whether they have actual physcial or visual properties, according to the definition above, is not necessary.

What would you reckon? Any other suggestion differ from the definition above?

Then, back to the statement "I think therefore I am".
All I suggesting is, for this sentence, a little sentence with correct grammer, full stop.
If it is used to proof for oneself's existence, then it is either proof straight away, or it has become too silly to rephase. This is all due to as I suggested (affected by Ludwig of course), our language is not a fine tool for this sort of analytical task.

Not, if quoting from you, "is illegitimate to ask for its proof" or "don't need to prove". see ****
And I also suggest that, we are merely deceived or confused by that Descartes, who know how to abuse language.

Sorry for getting the text too long
You comments are most welcome


*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

fansofbrucelee 2006-6-24 10:54


lovinghsbc 2006-6-28 15:19

笛卡兒的"我思故我在"是知識學的基本主義 (fundamentalism) - 即是沒有可能被懷疑的才算是知識.



那麼, 是不是因為其它知識都可被壞欵, 因除了我"一殺的存在"以外的知識都無法合理地建立起來呢?

科學的解決方法是說: 我們不需"絶對不能被懷疑"來合理地建立知識, 只要附合以下兩點, 我們就可以認為合理:

1. 有機會被否証

2. 還未被否証

這是現代知識學很簡單, 但非常重要的理論!

[[i] 本帖最後由 lovinghsbc 於 2006-6-29 12:44 AM 編輯 [/i]]

655556 2006-6-29 00:35



noeyesee1 2006-7-5 13:27

[quote]原帖由 [i]lovinghsbc[/i] 於 2006-6-28 03:19 PM 發表
笛卡兒的"我思故我在"是知識學的基本主義 (fundamentalism) - 即是沒有可能被懷疑的才算是知識.


再終極一點的 ... [/quote]

I absolutley agree with its historical background and its application.

My argument was, we have to be careful with our language when we use it as a tool on debating.

After Descartes, philsophy did not stop being developed, did it? Ludwig Wittgenstein had pointed out, many of our philosophical problems were in fact, not a problem at all. It was just our language imprefections which had lead to some deadlocks. On the other hand, a handful of us, (those smart guys), who truly know this nature imprefection, were fiddleing with language to create some pesudo philosophical problems. To deceive. As I were trying to manifest in my previous post.

memnoch1 2006-7-5 15:03

Ah, but, my good monsieur, this 'pseudo philosophical problem' is exactly an observation that attacks the very nature of our being,our understanding of existence. Instead of merely language imperfections, we indeed have been educated with a 'general mode of living' from childhood. Let's make a more solid example, we all learn from kindergarden that apple's are red, ate it's flesh that's yellowish, but if I am to attempt to ask you to point out a certain degree of red that's adequate to indicate what's the colour of an apple, I am sure we'd all choose a red with a different tone and hue. And we know that some people are born without the sensory cells to detect this red wavelength in their eye. So which one is the 'reality'? We are all born biased, with different degrees of variation, from a small degree of variation that how you and me perceive the colours in our mind, to a large variation in our views of politics, religion, and generally everything. Decartes considered that from his moment of birth, all these infomation of reality flood his brain, but what if... just what if, all these sensory deceive him of what the reality is.... does sound a little bit 杞人憂天。不是和莊子有點異曲同功嗎?「昔者莊周夢為胡蝶,栩栩然胡蝶也。自喻適志與!不知周也。俄然 覺,則蘧蘧然周也。不知周之夢為胡蝶與?胡蝶之夢為周與?周與 胡蝶則必有分矣。」《莊子‧齊物》 I also see an idea in buddism somewhat related to this topic. 無眼耳鼻舌身意﹐無色聲香味觸法。To my understanding, it's exactly asking us to release all the boundary, limits and definitions of 'being' we've been taught from childhood in order to relieve us from the chain of 'reality'. We can define a lot of formulas and equations to decribe the nature of 'reality' that is happening around us, these logics, as we definied it, are much more durable than a simple certainty of our existence. Every 'reality', 'existense' changes with time(sun around the earth, etc), and all arguements begin with the definition of 'morality, being, ideal' around us. Some people think eating dogs are cruel, some people think it's natural, some people eat other people for food, but there's no right or wrong in all these actions, for all of them are a mere 'defined morality' we learn from our education from birth till now. Doesn't we all have a tendency to argue with who's right and who's wrong? Human oftens belong to a pathetic race that only feel secured by judging and condemning others.  Therefore, both buddhists and new age teachers emphasizes the importance of stopping our  judgements.  No beauty, no ugliness.  No sadness, no happiness.  No owning or losing. No God or godless.  No muslims, no buddhists.  When there is no judgement, it's nirvana :) 然而亦如子曰:「不語怪力亂神。」無答案的虛空究竟﹐畢竟亦非凡夫俗子之易勘破。況且「吾生也有涯,而知也無涯。以有涯隨無涯,殆已!已而為知者,殆 而已矣!為善無近名,為惡無近刑,緣督以為經,可以保身,可以全 生,可以養親,可以盡年。」《莊子‧養生》

[[i] 本帖最後由 memnoch1 於 2006-7-5 03:21 PM 編輯 [/i]]

『道家』 2006-7-18 10:48


bububee 2006-7-26 03:44


y2k2001 2006-8-1 01:04


如何界定"我" 是關鍵



哲學角度 :????(答案交給你)



*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

y2k2001 2006-8-1 22:45

[quote]原帖由 [i]真鬼[/i] 於 2006-8-1 02:13 AM 發表

甚麼是 "才"
甚麼是 "了"
甚麼是  "所以"??

:smile_30: [/quote]



*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

y2k2001 2006-8-2 23:26

[quote]原帖由 [i]真鬼[/i] 於 2006-8-2 01:02 PM 發表



[b][size=3]可惜red_sun 兄 同 funny 兄不在.:smile_39::smile_39:[/size][/b]

rocky_li 2006-8-5 18:50



ls79ad 2006-8-13 03:45




有時間,打好基本功,睇返一兩本introduction to philosophy 先出黎吹水串人la


ls79ad 2006-8-13 04:00

[quote]原帖由 [i]y2k2001[/i] 於 2006-8-1 01:04 AM 發表
&q ... [/quote]

笛卡兒的proposition 是
    "我思 => 我在"
<=>    "~我在 =>~我思"
<=>    "我不在 =>我不思"
<=>    我不在,我就不思

而不是 "那麼我不思,我就不在?"

This is very fundamental logic. 李天命不會教的.

marcohunter 2006-8-19 03:17

能夠睇到咁多位前輩既高見, 小弟獲益良多~
由於我只係中學生 -_- 見解可能比較膚淺... 請多加批評及提醒.

我認為 「我思故我在」 入面既「思」及「在」既次序係不容置疑的~
「我」「在」於哪裡呢? 如果涉及到「我」以外既事物...
咁「我」既意思就唔夠確切喇~ 因為並非代表「真我」, 而係代表「我」「在」既空間中既「我」, 而唔係代表唯一的「我」.

希望各位可以幫我去理解下 -0-"

ls79ad 2006-8-22 17:02

To: marcohunter
「我思故我在」 "I think, therefoe I am"
"我在"的原文是 "I am",是"我存在"的意思.不是"我在某地方"的意思
"I am"的"我存在"是不涉及身外物,也不涉及肉身的,即不是物理上的存在

marcohunter 2006-8-23 01:48

哦 =.="
有d明... 唔該哂 -0-"


*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

y2k2001 2006-9-17 18:18

[quote]原帖由 [i]ls79ad[/i] 於 2006-8-13 04:00 AM 發表

笛卡兒的proposition 是
    "我思 => 我在"
<=>    "~我在 =>~我思"
<=>    "我不在 =>我不思"
<=>    我不在,我就不思

而不是 " ... [/quote]



joencc 2006-9-17 20:05

[quote]原帖由 [i]y2k2001[/i] 於 2006-9-17 06:18 PM 發表


(咁耐先發現原來你quote我文) [/quote]

咁樣你就唔係討論笛卡兒的 Congito ergo sum,而係憑字面推斷並自我解釋「我思故我在」囉~


y2k2001 2006-9-17 20:26

[quote]原帖由 [i]joencc[/i] 於 2006-9-17 08:05 PM 發表

咁樣你就唔係討論笛卡兒的 Congito ergo sum,而係憑字面推斷並自我解釋「我思故我在」囉~

雖然話盡信書不如無書,但係書都唔睇自己解釋,會比人指為不學無術多過喎~ [/quote]

我倒想知道 點樣  "我思" 而 "我不在" 是如何同時出現.
既然 我思 暗示 我已在,討論當然不會是 "你在不在" 而是 "怎樣的你存在".


[[i] 本帖最後由 y2k2001 於 2006-9-17 08:28 PM 編輯 [/i]]

秦皇 2006-9-25 18:03

[quote]原帖由 [i]y2k2001[/i] 於 2006-9-17 08:26 PM 發表

我倒想知道 點樣  "我思" 而 "我不在" 是如何同時出現.
既然 我思 暗示 我已在,討論當然不會是 "你在不在" 而是 "怎樣的你存在".

無記錯仲 ... [/quote]



[[i] 本帖最後由 秦皇 於 2006-9-25 06:10 PM 編輯 [/i]]

y2k2001 2006-10-2 05:05

[quote]原帖由 [i]秦皇[/i] 於 2006-9-25 06:03 PM 發表


對笛卡兒來說,除了最後懷疑自已那概 ... [/quote]
如果他想就是他存在,我未必存在,你自己也說過了,思可以是假的,因此他所思我不可作準,那還要不是只有"我"  "思" 才真正有價值嗎?

加上......我說"思" 暗示了 "存在".......不在怎思.......思就是存在的證明........
雖然秦皇兄你說了一堆看,但其實你也一早將"我" 這個慨念放進其內,
而且你所說懷疑自己到不懷疑自己的過程,跟我所說的"暗示存在" 有分別嗎?

[[i] 本帖最後由 y2k2001 於 2006-10-2 05:08 AM 編輯 [/i]]
頁: 1 2 3 [4] 5
查看完整版本: 哲學討論之我思故我在