COGITO ERGO SUM: "I think, therefore I am..."

[absolute hardgainer]

I am therefore I train.

hardgainer (smart ass)

 

[HelenSL]

I am therefore i think.

I think therefore i speak; therefore i get in trouble.

*sigh*

I read a philosophy book that said Augustine had the idea first, that all he could know was that he existed. And he knew that because if he thought 'i don't exist' yet he had that though so he must exist. [the book said 'i think therefore i am' is the same concept]

Whatever. I know about zero about philosphy except Sartre's casserole recipe...put an empty glass dish in a cold oven and sit and stare at it for an hour...

i read that on the net somewhere, once...

love
helen

p.s. i am a post-modern Christian btw. that means i think the themes are more important than the literal word-for-word...it doesn't address whether the stories are true or not since the point is that the stories are beneficially educational and inspirational either way...or rather, the 'themes' of them are...

e.g. i like the anti-oppression theme and to the extent the church is not anti-oppression i think they missed the point quite - drastically...

and so on

 

[Jeff_rys]

Helen "I think therefore i speak; therefore i get in trouble. "

shouldn't it be:

I speak before i think; therefore i get in trouble.

 

[RyanH]

My premise is that all we really know is that we exist.

Everything else: the way we see colors, the objects we think we see, might all possibly all be an illusion. Our lives could be a dream in and of themselves.

Thus, the only thing we can really be certain of is that we exist----I think this view makes alot of sense.

Also, consider that when one does drugs, she often sees reality differently, thus how do we know that that illusion isn't the correct one?

 

[nycdefender]

Ryan, when we are in our "normal" state (say drug-free), we are able to directly observe that our will in action. For instance, I want to type this reply to you. My brain sends out specific messages to my fingers and hands. Furthermore, my brain creates syntax, so that I may try to communicate effectively. I think, therefore I do. The will's effects are observable and seemingly unobstructed.
Now suppose you smoke marijuana. You get high. Your will's ability to command bodily movement is slightly impaired. This is the observable effect. You do not perceive a distinct reality, nor has reality changed. The only observable phenominon that has changed has been your will.
My schedule is hectic today, but I would like to continue this debate tomorrow night, when I have more time to research--instead of extemporaneous thought.
Do me a favor Ryan (and others who are interested in this debate), keep this thread near the top until tomorrow night.

 

[Laserdude]

Philosophy is b.s., logic and physics are the only real issues people must deal with. Stop, go, don't run red lights and so on.

RyanH don't ask to be more phony than you already are.

 

[HelenSL]

Re: Helen "I think therefore i speak; therefore i get in trouble. "

shouldn't it be:

I speak before i think; therefore i get in trouble.

i guess you are speaking for yourself

speaking for myself, no, i said it as i meant it



love
helen

 

[RADAR]

I think therefore i think i'll take another Dbol!!!! RADAR

 

[WODIN]

How about this....before any of us makes a conscous choice to do something there is are stimula in various regions of the brain .5 to 1.5 seconds before any of us becomes conscously aware that we have made the choice to carry out any action...such as me typing this. So what is driving the choices we make? From a physiological standpoint it isn't the counscous mind.

 

[Imnotdutch]

Holy shit Small.......u wrote that????? I'm impressed

here's what derrida thought of that kind of metaphysics.. there are holes in his differance too but at least post-modernism is more inclusive.

edited to say that i wrote this summary of derrida... i'm a smarty pants

Derrida’s concept of “differance” elevated the notion of the ineffectiveness of Metaphysics due to the pluralities in meaning, forcing questions around the inclusiveness of the Saussurean notion of binary opposition. Derrida critiques this dual opposition through “differance”, which through in its indescribable condition, cannot operate under – therefore denying – the application of familiar metaphysical means. This denial of Metaphysics forms the crux of Derrida’s argument that the use of transcendent “logic” is ineffectual and impossible since meaning is not formed through the use of diametric opposition, as proposed by Ferdinand de Saussure.

Derrida sets out to enact closure upon metaphysical transcendence and dualities by proposing “differance”, a word which does not completely refer to any specific word within language, a word which operates more as a strategy because this system, according to Derrida, is beyond knowledge. According to Derrida, this substitution of an “a” instead of an “e”, references visual presence since the pronunciation does not change. This counteracts the emphasis upon the phoneme, or influence of the spoken word in Western Metaphysics. The phoneme, which is the smallest spoken unit of language, becomes whole and forms meaning through the addition of other phonemes. Derrida claims that this unit of language cannot create meaning singularly since meaning crosses and remains in flux due to its social construction, inferring that the phoneme itself must have differences from other phonemes in order to create meaning.

Derrida states that there are three “slippages” in which the plurality of meaning can be expressed – a “deconstruction” of Saussure’s binary opposition. These conditions include the reversal of terms in the opposition, thus empowering the secondary term. Another condition involves the phrasing of the secondary term as a condition for the existence of the first term, and the third circumstance involves the addition of a third term in order to engage and liberate the confines of the binary terms. The involvement of triangulation expresses a relationship between the two terms, yet it exceeds both terms.

Derrida utilizes “differance” in order to create a strategy to dismantle the binary opposition proposed by Western Metaphysics, a system which, for Derrida, could not properly incorporate the plurality of meaning through dual opposition. This strategy of “deconstruction” has been criticized for its apparent construction of a new Metaphysics, however, through this proposition Derrida creates a framework through which those who operate outside the dualities of “normal” have been able to form alternate discourses which become more meaningful than predominant diametric oppositions.