FANDOM


philosophyforums Edit

Member Banno http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/descartes-i-think-therefore-i-am-vs-kants-i-think-53397-2.html Here's where the muddle comes to the fore. "I think, therefore I am" is valid because it is an example of existential instatiation, thus presupposing a language in which the instatiation can take place. Languages are never private(Wittgenstein). Hence his certainty is built on his membership of a linguistic community.

Member Scg8866t Edit

Member Scg8866t seems to grasp the circularity problem.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/members/scg8866t-45023.html What exactly is this “I” that Descartes uses in his argument? Can Descartes have knowledge of it? One might naturally assume that this “I” refers to the self as a thinking subject. But if the “I” refers to a thinking subject, then Descartes argument is flawed in that it commits the fallacy of begging the question. Descartes is trying to prove that he exists as a thinking subject, but by stating that ‘I think’ (in the premise), he automatically presumes that he exists as a thinking subject...

Vongehr Edit

http://web.archive.org/web/20070208214427/http://physics.usc.edu/~vongehr/phil_html/expo.html

From "Cogito, Ergo Sum" to the Exponential Function: A Derivation via the Principle of Evolution (1997)

Links Edit

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/atheism-and-theism/

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/05/is-atheism-intellectually-respectable-on-romans-11820.html

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.