the meaning of "I think therefore I am"

[roger]

There are two different interpretations of Rene Descartes' idea, "I think therefore I am."

 

One is that we exist because we think. We think, therefore we exist.

 

The other is that the fact that we think is proof that we exist. "I think, therefore I must exist." To put it another way, the fact that we're aware of our existence is evidence that we exist.

 

Any thoughts on these two different perspectives on this idea, and which is what Descartes meant?

[Brian]

There are two different interpretations of Rene Descartes' idea, "I think therefore I am."

 

One is that we exist because we think. We think, therefore we exist.

 

The other is that the fact that we think is proof that we exist. "I think, therefore I must exist." To put it another way, the fact that we're aware of our existence is evidence that we exist.

 

Any thoughts on these two different perspectives on this idea, and which is what Descartes meant?

He meant the latter -- that I think is evidence that I exist but is evidence of nothing more (e.g., that you exist or what my existence consists of).

[Marblehead]

To me it speaks to the physicalist's point of view.  I think proves my physical existence.  No brain, no thought.

[Spotless]

It was actually:

 

Cogito Sum

 

Ergo was added

 

I think

I am

 

His arguement was basically:

Self evident

Instantaneous self affirming:

I think

And the immediate simultaneous:

I am

 

The word "therefore" is not part of his arguement. Though this aspect is fairly lost.

 

In fact the arguement was really more:

Cognition

Presence

Edited February 2, 2017 by Spotless

[Bearded Dragon]

To me it speaks to the physicalist's point of view.  I think proves my physical existence.  No brain, no thought.

 

I'd say so. You could really take it however you want, but in any case there is always the opportunity to look for yourself so it only really matters what you can confirm right away.

 

I've recently become fond of Rupert Spira's "shortcut question" which is "Am I aware?". It instantly turns awareness back on itself and it's somewhat obvious that existence is self-evident but not so obvious how that is the case. I wonder what Descartes would have thought of these inquiries. 

[Zhongyongdaoist]

There are two different interpretations of Rene Descartes' idea, "I think therefore I am."

 

One is that we exist because we think. We think, therefore we exist.

 

The other is that the fact that we think is proof that we exist. "I think, therefore I must exist." To put it another way, the fact that we're aware of our existence is evidence that we exist.

 

Any thoughts on these two different perspectives on this idea, and which is what Descartes meant?

 

He meant the latter -- that I think is evidence that I exist but is evidence of nothing more (e.g., that you exist or what my existence consists of).

 

There  can only be two interpretations to people who take this "sound bite" out of the context both of Descartes writings and the time in which he wrote them.  Brian is correct, and the general train of thought is the beginning of Descartes answers to complete skepticism about the existence of the the self.  It is however, as Brian points out, just the beginning.  It is not however "physicalist" in Descartes system, as Descartes considered Mind and Matter to be two different substances and this dualism is one of the hallmarks of his thinking.

 

The context in which he was writing was the Sixteenth Century revival of Skepticism beginning with Agrippa's The Vanite of Arts and Sciences, continuing through various authors such as Montaigne.  About 1600 Epicurean materialism also experienced a revival, largely championed by Pierre Gassendi, but quickly taken up by such thinkers as Hobbes.

 

A lot of useless speculation could be avoided if one simply took advantage of the internet, Wikipedia has a whole article on this very quote, as well as its development in Descartes works, and its meaning and influence.  I quote from the first two paragraphs:

 

Cogito ergo sum^[a] is a Latin philosophical proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think, therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed.^[1] It appeared in Latin in his later Principles of Philosophy. As Descartes explained, "[W]e cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt … ." A fuller form, dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum ("I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"), aptly captures Descartes' intent.

 

This proposition became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it purported to form a secure foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception, or mistake, Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence served—at minimum—as proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity—in this case the self—for there to be a thought. (Wikipedia article on "Cogito Ergo Sum")

 

I hope this is helpful.

[Taoist Texts]

There are two different interpretations of Rene Descartes' idea, "I think therefore I am." One is that we exist because we think. We think, therefore we exist. 

The other is that the fact that we think is proof that we exist. "I think, therefore I must exist." To put it another way, the fact that we're aware of our existence is evidence that we exist. Any thoughts on these two different perspectives on this idea, and which is what Descartes meant?

 

His statement is a logical fallacy. He skipped the reason to doubt the existence, contriving a meaningless tautology

 

"I think therefore I am."

 

But who is that I and why his existence needs proving?

[Bubbles]

His statement is a logical fallacy. He skipped the reason to doubt the existence, contriving a meaningless tautology

 

"I think therefore I am."

 

But who is that I and why his existence needs proving?

You should do some homework and actually read and study Descartes' works before posting such an inappropriate comment.

[Taoist Texts]

You should do some homework and actually read and study Descartes' works before posting such an inappropriate comment.

 

basically, critical thinking makes you angry.

[Pilgrim]

He thought, but where is he now?

 

No Presence

 

No Cognition

 

Tree falling in a forest no one present to listen, does it make a sound?

 

Because all is conditional & temporary does it make it unreal or all the more real for its temporary state?

Edited February 2, 2017 by Pilgrim

[Bubbles]

basically, critical thinking makes you angry.

This is not critical thinking, this is ignorance of what Descartes wrote and why. I am not angry at all, it happens that I have studied Descartes extensively so I know what I am talking about.

Everyone can use critical thinking, but the basic requirement is to know what you are criticizing.

 

Edited for spelling

Edited February 2, 2017 by bubbles

[Taoist Texts]

This is not critical thinking, this is ignorance of what Descartes wrote and why. 

As long as words mean anything why is not relevant.

 

here is the what:

 

"I think therefore I am."

 

Try to define 'I' or 'am' without the 'think'. See the circularity.

 

[Bubbles]

Looks like you don't really care about what Descartes meant, you are more interested into taking a sentence out of context and use your critical thinking on it. Cool, knock yourself out, it's fine.

[RiverSnake]

If i go into a deep meditative state in which i have no thoughts and am simply residing in emptiness....does this mean i'm dead? Consciousness comes before thoughts IME. 

Edited February 2, 2017 by OldWolf

[Pilgrim]

As long as words mean anything why is not relevant.

 

here is the what:

 

"I think therefore I am."

 

Try to define 'I' or 'am' without the 'think'. See the circularity.

 

 

That's One Tough Ga-zoo-kas Wot hates all Pa-loo-kas Wot ain't on the ups an square ya pulled out of your pocket there!

 

[Miffymog]

Descartes discourse really has little to do with consciousness or existence, it was simply epistemological, what can I know? The search for what 'I am' or what 'am I', was not the aim of the the text.

 

The only thing Descartes felt he knew for certain was that he thought. The whole 'therefore I am' has been given far too much significance and has distorted the simpler argument he was following.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Miffymog

[Taoist Texts]

Descartes discourse really has little to do with consciousness or existence, it was simply epistemological

 

 Ontological may be, fundamentally so?

 

Principles of Philosophy

In 1644, Descartes published (in Latin) his Principles of Philosophy where the phrase "ego cogito, ergo sum" appears in Part 1, article 7:

 

(Latin:) Sic autem rejicientes illa omnia, de quibus aliquo modo possumus dubitare, ac etiam, falsa esse fingentes, facilè quidem, supponimus nullum esse Deum, nullum coelum, nulla corpora; nosque etiam ipsos, non habere manus, nec pedes, nec denique ullum corpus, non autem ideò nos qui talia cogitamus nihil esse: repugnat enim ut putemus id quod cogitat eo ipso tempore quo cogitat non existere. Ac proinde haec cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum,[c] est omnium prima & certissima, quae cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat.

 

(English:) While we thus reject all of which we can entertain the smallest doubt, and even imagine that it is false, we easily indeed suppose that there is neither God, nor sky, nor bodies, and that we ourselves even have neither hands nor feet, nor, finally, a body; but we cannot in the same way suppose that we are not while we doubt of the truth of these things; for there is a repugnance in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks. Accordingly, the knowledge, I think, therefore I am,[c] is the first and most certain that occurs to one who philosophizes orderly.[h]

 

In other  words, this is an  ontological axiom: I,the observer,exist.

[Miffymog]

 

 Ontological may be, fundamentally so?

 

Principles of Philosophy

In 1644, Descartes published (in Latin) his Principles of Philosophy where the phrase "ego cogito, ergo sum" appears in Part 1, article 7:

 

(Latin:) Sic autem rejicientes illa omnia, de quibus aliquo modo possumus dubitare, ac etiam, falsa esse fingentes, facilè quidem, supponimus nullum esse Deum, nullum coelum, nulla corpora; nosque etiam ipsos, non habere manus, nec pedes, nec denique ullum corpus, non autem ideò nos qui talia cogitamus nihil esse: repugnat enim ut putemus id quod cogitat eo ipso tempore quo cogitat non existere. Ac proinde haec cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum,[c] est omnium prima & certissima, quae cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat.

 

(English:) While we thus reject all of which we can entertain the smallest doubt, and even imagine that it is false, we easily indeed suppose that there is neither God, nor sky, nor bodies, and that we ourselves even have neither hands nor feet, nor, finally, a body; but we cannot in the same way suppose that we are not while we doubt of the truth of these things; for there is a repugnance in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks. Accordingly, the knowledge, I think, therefore I am,[c] is the first and most certain that occurs to one who philosophizes orderly.[h]

 

In other  words, this is an  ontological axiom: I,the observer,exist.

 

 

I felt this was coming...

 

The original aim of his discussion and the vast majority of the text is concerned with what he could know. It is also the soundest and most solid part of his argument. The final attribution really is the weakest and briefest element. A extravagant flurry to capture the readers attention, but it is neither the substance, nor the substantial!

[Wu Ming Jen]

That quote needs some context.  I get annoyed seeing this quote placed on libraries and schools by people who think it means something to the effect of 'education is good'.  It is the first step in 'proving' Cartesian Duality, and can be understood as:  "I was wondering  whether or not I exist, and realized that I must because I couldn't be asking this question otherwise."

Cartesian duality is considered by most philosophers and scientists to be a flawed argument, but the validity of step 1 (your quote) is up for debate.  So it doesn't qualify as a fallacy.

Some great minds do think it is wrong, however.  They attack the concept of "I" and point out that from a strictly materialistic perspective, a person is a collection atoms existing in space and time.  Believing that individual people exist is a categorical mistake.  

[Marblehead]

If i go into a deep meditative state in which i have no thoughts and am simply residing in emptiness....does this mean i'm dead? Consciousness comes before thoughts IME. 

 

No, it just means that you are not thinking at the moment.

 

I have had many of the moments during my life-time and most were not during meditation.

[dawei]

His statement is a logical fallacy. He skipped the reason to doubt the existence, contriving a meaningless tautology

 

"I think therefore I am."

 

But who is that I and why his existence needs proving?

 

I thought he was a reductionist...  refuting every idea till the end.  He gave a final idea that doesn't make sense.

 

I thought Sarte said it better:  I think , therefore I am a thinking thing...