Cogito ergo sum: not an absolute truth after all

It was nearly four hundred hears ago that Descartes wrote, je pense, donc, je suis, which was later translated into cogito ergo sum and I think, therefore, I am. After pondering initially, it seems indisputable that subjective experience guarantees function, and existence is a requisite of function.

However, this proof is easily defeated if we are to venture we are somehow deceived in our own thinking. If we are to guess, for a moment, that human logic is fundamentally flawed and incorrect, it is possible we are misled in our assumptions. If this possibility is indeed true, it may be that experience does not imply function and that entities do not need to exist in order for (their) function to occur.

-Ubuntu

No, cogito ergo sum is not necessarily true.  However, it's close.  Thinking itself (the activity) necessarily exists.  One cannot deny the existence of thinking, because it would require thinking to deny the existence of thinking.  Thinking does necessarily exist.

I think this thread should be banned from the board for committing the sin of Onan.

It was nearly four hundred hears ago that Descartes wrote, je pense, donc, je suis, which was later translated into cogito ergo sum and I think, therefore, I am. After pondering initially, it seems indisputable that subjective experience guarantees function, and existence is a requisite of function.

However, this proof is easily defeated if we are to venture we are somehow deceived in our own thinking. If we are to guess, for a moment, that human logic is fundamentally flawed and incorrect, it is possible we are misled in our assumptions. If this possibility is indeed true, it may be that experience does not imply function and that entities do not need to exist in order for (their) function to occur.

-Ubuntu

I'm not trying to be a "I'm smarter than you" poster here, but everything in philosophy requires an outline or assumptions.  When you debate x, you have to assume all the conditions around it are true.  In that thinking, x becomes sound.

No, cogito ergo sum is not necessarily true.  However, it's close.  Thinking itself (the activity) necessarily exists.  One cannot deny the existence of thinking, because it would require thinking to deny the existence of thinking.  Thinking does necessarily exist.

No, your logic is fundamentally flawed. EDIT: (In the hypothetical situation detailed above.)

No, your logic is fundamentally flawed.

Huh?

I hope you aren't trying to say "1 + 1 = 3" Ubuntu.

If you aren't going to operate within the rules of the universal methodology of logic then you aren't really saying anything at all.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

No, your logic is fundamentally flawed.

Huh?

I hope you aren't trying to say "1 + 1 = 3" Ubuntu.

If you aren't going to operate within the rules of the universal methodology of logic then you aren't really saying anything at all.

This is a logical argument. If fact, it's meta-logical.

How post-modern.

However, this proof is easily defeated if we are to venture we are somehow deceived in our own thinking.

You have to exist for your thinking to be deceived. Something that doesn't exist can't be decieved.

You said " entities do not need to exist in order for (their) function to occur." But if their function occurs, than they exist, and existence is simply the occurrence of their function.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

However, this proof is easily defeated if we are to venture we are somehow deceived in our own thinking.

You have to exist for your thinking to be deceived. Something that doesn't exist can't be decieved.

You said " entities do not need to exist in order for (their) function to occur." But if their function occurs, than they exist, and existence is simply the occurrence of their function.

Hm... "if function exists, function must exist." Very clever. Perhaps the first principles and all logical propositions are flawed at the fundamental level, however.

The problem you run into here, is that you have to use logic to conceive of a way for logic to be false.

The problem you run into here, is that you have to use logic to conceive of a way for logic to be false.

I am aware of this. But if I am incorrect, that leads to more uncertainty, giving my proposition more possibility of being correct.   :shock:  :lol:

WAIT PARADOX!

Saying "If logic is false, then logical statements are incorrect" is a logical statement. Therefore if logic is false this statement must be false. But if this statement is false then the statement is correct, which once again means it's false.

Oh noes!   :shock:

Uh oh... looks like this idea is logically self-defeating.  Oh well though, it is an interesting exercise of rational thinking.

Saying "If logic is false, then logical statements are incorrect" is a logical statement. Therefore if logic is false this statement must be false. But if this statement is false then the statement is correct, which once again means it's false.

Oh noes!   :shock:

If math is false, then mathematical equations and solutions are false.

Could 1+1=2 be False?  Can we find anywhere it might not work?

1 woman + 1 man can ≤ 3 people.
1+1≤3?  Hrm.
Does that mean that 1+1≤2?  MATH IS WRONG!

Sorry, I know it's silly.  

Saying "If logic is false, then logical statements are incorrect" is a logical statement.

Hum, first of all, it is not meaningful for logic to be false, so this statement, while a perfectly good English sentence, has no mathematical meaning.  I doubt that it is indeed a "logical statement".

Pretending for a moment that it is meaningful, and a logical statement, it is either true or false.  If we take it to be true.... then we can conclude nothing since, even though we're pretending that "logic is false" is meaningful, we're probably not going to be pretending that it's something we generally take to be true.  So the implication, if true, yields no conclusion.  If we take the implication to be false, then it must be the case that "logic is false" and "logical statements are incorrect", which, again being very liberal with semantics, is almost certainly a contradiction.  Thus it's probably the case that, pretending that your sentence is meaningful, it is true, which is totally uninteresting.

Just pretending, of course.  Really, I don't think the statement is logical or meaningful.

he's using illogic to beat our logic down!

shit, run for the hills!

Good job Erasmus. You're not only extremely well educated but lit up with ingenuity as well.