LT3
28th May 2005, 04:19 PM
I have been thinking about Ren? Descartes ultimate existential axiom of the reality of humans, "I think therefore I am", and unless I am grossly mistaken I may have found flaw with it.
It seems to me that if he's presupposed his own non-existence then how can he be sure in the reality of his own thoughts...
The point of everything not being real is so humans can ultimately divide the real from things which may be illusions in the sake of finding out truth, so he had to go on pure logic in order to understand existence.
He wouldn't be able to use fact, because nothing can be said to be real?
Any one of those things could be illusion?
So when he had a notion, a vague realisation of his own thought, he assumed that real? If he himself is not real, his own mind not real until he proved it, how can his thoughts be suddenly said to be geniune?
Why could that not be manifestations of his concious, illusions...
Thoughts are not tangible.
So as you are in the void, the concept of thought reaches out to you,
because - really - you cannot percieve thought, but you understand the concept of thought and your previous knowedge tells you that you - as a human being - would be doing it now.
But you, the human, don't exist.
Now, to him, this meant that he must exist because of thought.
But on further inspection, wouldn't that negate the existence of the thought?
Since you can't perceive it, he's only going on his knowledge that it must be happening yet he's working under the assumption that he doesn't exist.
He's using previous knowledge in a blank void of nothingness?
How can that be a viable method of proving existence, a previous conceptual fact created by humans?
It seems to me that if he's presupposed his own non-existence then how can he be sure in the reality of his own thoughts...
The point of everything not being real is so humans can ultimately divide the real from things which may be illusions in the sake of finding out truth, so he had to go on pure logic in order to understand existence.
He wouldn't be able to use fact, because nothing can be said to be real?
Any one of those things could be illusion?
So when he had a notion, a vague realisation of his own thought, he assumed that real? If he himself is not real, his own mind not real until he proved it, how can his thoughts be suddenly said to be geniune?
Why could that not be manifestations of his concious, illusions...
Thoughts are not tangible.
So as you are in the void, the concept of thought reaches out to you,
because - really - you cannot percieve thought, but you understand the concept of thought and your previous knowedge tells you that you - as a human being - would be doing it now.
But you, the human, don't exist.
Now, to him, this meant that he must exist because of thought.
But on further inspection, wouldn't that negate the existence of the thought?
Since you can't perceive it, he's only going on his knowledge that it must be happening yet he's working under the assumption that he doesn't exist.
He's using previous knowledge in a blank void of nothingness?
How can that be a viable method of proving existence, a previous conceptual fact created by humans?