I read that a philosophy professor said once, “If you still have Cartesian-style doubts about how the physical could interact with the mental, then I suggest you buy a physical bottle of scotch, pour it down your physical throat, and wait to see if any mental changes take place.”
I love Descartes's proof and there is a simpler form using proof by contradiction: Let us assume that we don't exist. Given that assumption, we obtain: there should not be an assumption we can hold to be true (albeit temporarily). But, there is one. We just did assume it. Therefore we have a contradiction. There is only one premise we assumed to be true. And that led us to a nonsensical position. Therefore, we must accept that the premise must be false. Therefore, we know that it is not true that we don't exist. And that means that we know that we do exist. In one proof, we got two facts, one epistemological, one metaphysical. And there is not a single mention of "doubt" here. The lesson to take away from all this is that when we are ready to follow our assumptions to their conclusions we always get to truths and certainty even if we start on the wrong foot! That's the beauty of life. We can always learn more and more and we can stop and enjoy any moment we like. Do stop often. Be still. And enjoy.
@@Wavedawnt First let me clarify what proof by contradiction is, how it works. You may know this already. Please bear with me: It's a fundamental and important method of proof used in math. E.g., we want to prove that there are infinitely many prime numbers (when we start, given that there is no proof, we know that we don't know it!). So, we start with an assumption: there is a prime number P which is larger than all primes. We don't know this. But, we just assume it. Call that assumption A. Then, we proceed: let's multiply all the primes less than or equal to P (call that set S(P)) and add 1. Let's call that big number X. We know that none of the primes in S(P) divide X evenly. So, we know that either X is a prime, or there is another prime Y that divides X evenly and Y must be greater than P, because it is not in S(P). Either way, we have a new prime number bigger than P. And that last fact contradicts our first (and only) assumption, A. That contradiction tells us that A must be false. And that means that the negation of A is just proven to be true: There is no largest prime. Their number is infinite. Similarly, the great mathemician Descartes assumes the first modern philosophical proposition: "I don't exist." Call that assumption DA. Then, he proceeds: "DA is a thought and I am aware of that thought." But, that immediately is the contradiction. If I am aware of DA, I must exist. That's how I know (epistemological fact) that I exist (metaphysical fact). In short, I think, therefore I am. But, in fact that motto is too short and has confused many (I remember being puzzled by it, too, until I looked at it mathematically). What he really means is that I *know* that I exist, because of the fact that I am aware of my thoughts (or in short 'I think.") That last proposition is such a direct and clear reality of our experience that we accept it to be true. Don't we? Please also note that this proof doesn't say anything about the nature of the being we call "I". So, ontologically, the nature of being is still an open question. For me, that nature, or being (I am, We are) is an integral part of the whole nature, the universe. This is summarized by the short motto of the 20th century philosopher in the style of Socrates (who didn't write much and had many conversations recorded by others) Jiddu Krishnamurti: I am the world and the world is me.
@@BulentBasaran thank you very much for putting your time and effort in writing this ....i appreciate it man......I got it and i have screenshoted it and will read it again incase I forget it in future.....tysm 😄...can I get ur Instagram id or reddit id so i can interact with u....cuz i am very curious guy and u explained it in a simple manner....as Einstein said if u don't understand simply,even u don't understand it well enough...so please....
A better version of what you say is actually a real objection to Descartes' argument. Since we do not think in our sleep, do we stop existing in our sleep? xD
It’s pedantic of me, but I hate this joke because it completely misunderstands Descartes’ argument. He isn’t saying that thinking is the cause of his existence. He’s saying that because he thinks, he cannot doubt his own existence. In other words, the fact that he (or anybody else) is thinking is the proof of his existence, not the cause. Maybe people who tell the joke know this and don’t care because it sounds funny?
That's not included in the video, but Descartes did write about it. His proof of God is not as solid as his proof here. And how could it be? Can you magine a mathematical theorem that shows the existence of X without defining what X is? If we define God as a greater intelligence as you suggested, the problem is greater than what and how? Even a monkey knows (or can know) that the greater intelligence of Homo Sapiens doesn't make all the humans gods.
This was very good and clear. Was he saying that it depends on the quality of thought? Also, how would he answer: “How do you know you can trust your senses?”
Descartes has reasoned in the first Meditation that senses can be and are misleading therefore he adopted a method of reasoning in which he divests any assumption he believes is true (knowing colours, having a physical body etc.) to reason his way to things he can undoubtedly know for sure.
@@ptrssklvs7824 Hi, what other standard did he use then if he gave it all up? How did he continue to perceive or sense the world around him from using that premise?
I have a better version of the joke. A horse goes into a bar and orders a pint. The bartender says "you know, you're in here pretty often. Do you think you might be an alcoholic?" The horse says "I don't think I am..." and promptly vanishes from existence. See. This was a joke about Descartes' famous line from philosophy. "I think therefore I am." But If I had explained that before t he rest of the joke, it would have been putting Descartes before the horse.
Kristoffer Abildgaard Fantastic. Our plan down the road (perhaps over the next 3-4 months) is to help build out more usable resources for teachers who want to use this content in our classes. We are especially focused on helping bring the critical thinking content in w/ some lessons plans etc. but we will try to do the same for more general phil videos as well. Where/what grade level do you teach?
How can a thought "pop into existence"? It could be possible, I suppose, but I certainly have no evidence of it ever happening and I doubt that you do, either. Would a thought without a mind creating it even be defined as a "thought"? Besides, at some point your argument becomes self-refuting if you can't even accept the most basic of axioms such as the existence of your debate opponent.
greenghost2008 You asserted that thoughts can "pop into existence" without necessitating a being to think them. Yes, that requires support if you wish to be persuasive.
"i know that i know nothing, except that i think therefore i am" ;) (and yes i am aware of the problematic origin of this pseudo quote, "i know that...")
That's contradictory, a better phrase should be as Socrates said "The only thing that i know is that i know nothing" , also if you want to prove your existence you have already did since you have said " I think", thus you believe that there is a thing thinking, huge contraditions in this phrase too, as Nietzsche said, a better phrase would be "It thinks"
Niefeng TV www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-25/ yes i know this, i was making a joke upon the costs of this missacredited quote, and yes i am aware of this, and usually use the phrase it thinks.
Andy Stitt the perception of the illusion requires a perceptor. So even though the act of thinking is something completely different than what we assume it to be, the action itself (albeit caused by something else other than what I think I am) is being acted by an actor. It is only an argument against absolute skepticism that says nothing is ever possible to be known for certain, and cogito disproves it, but nothing more.
@@andystitt3887 The need for a perceiver could not be a deception as for illusion to be a illusion it needs to be perceived, you could argue the fact that illusion needs to be perceived could be deception, idea of deception, doubt, illusion is regulated on a meaning and ideas behind them, therefore there is a structure that we accept before we proceed to question other ones, so if thinking is a thinking the thinking that thinking I do not exist proves something that thinking does because of the structural acceptance that thinking is thinking, anything else can be argued within it's structure, that is what makes it special I guess, but if you say thinking is not thinking it could be illusion, illusion could be deception, deception could not be true if we were not thinking, if we don't think we can not exist, there is not structure and again you can say structure is an illusion. In that sense we are seeking knowledge beyond existence and logical truth, which is like ant learning trigonometry.
Everyone only quotes half but isn't the whole quote "I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I am"? I think the first part is just as critical as the second.
Descartes covered the problem of evil demons controlling our thoughts by assuming God would never be so mean as to allow that. That's one hell of premise to accept at face value, don't you think? Ambrose Bierce said it best when he mocked Descartes: "I think I think, therefore I think I am." As much fun as philosophy can sometimes be, the only real evidence is that provided by science.
Philosophy provides evidence if you allow for some fundamental assumptions (which Decartes tried to minimize). Philosophers can always doubt one argument in favour of another but that doesn't mean it provides no evidence. Science can falsify claims but when science produces evidence against a theory it is always possible to make the theory a bit more complicated to explain the evidence. Scientists, like philosophers, can always doubt their existing theory, science doesn't ultimately prove things, it only tries to disprove things.
I love Decates'... however,,, it makes the valid technical fallacy of no supporting secondary Premise so,,, the argument seems to better served with "I Think,,, at least I think I think therefor I think I am... or even I think and I think I am therefore I think I am.. or even thinking I am must show I think I am therefore I am... ihave used them in other ways as well,,, I really love Decartes',,, I think,,,
Daynein Spark He is Worth Every Moment of The Reading... and The Hopla la lah... Descartes' Rocks Hard.. and you gotta pay attention... He is really Deep... if Deep" defines as Brilliant...
Try Virgil or Aristophanes,,, or any one of the classic Tinkers... then read another Dozen or so.. and then get back with me ok... you will need all of them at some point so... any time you please feel free to jump right on In.. the Gene Pool.
Inductive Rhetoric Fictional Facts we accept as Empirical. Or Aspersion work to Drive a narrative's Plot.... However Logical Syntax makes Law... a Codex... with One Intent of Content...
Are kants syntetic + a- priori knowledges the same as this? i mean kant says that our intelect forms our knowledge so that we presive the thing that way that it is. but that we never can trully know "the things" real thing, how it really is?
He created a method to doubt everything, including every philosophy, including his own, so he wanted to make sure no method of doubt can deny his philosophy's absolute backbone. While doing so he proved to himself that senses can be misleading. Therefore he came to a conclusion I think therefore I am, but to seek knowledge beyond existence is like ant seeking to learn trigonometry.
So much for imaginary existence. "I fart there fore i yam". Nails it pretty good. Deny a squeak in an elevator and you could be rightfully tossed overboard. Used Corinthian leather has the same effect. . .
+Jonathan Jahn "So God created man in His image" Genesis 1:27 The name of God in the first book of Moses is YHWH which translates to "I Am" or "I Exist". There are no coincidences with God. :)
@@Legogris 4 years have past, but still, you can be sure you think therefore you exist, but can you be sure you thought in the past and therefore you existed, or you may have forgot some memories from your timeline, can you be sure you existed trough that duration, do we still exist during our sleeps? Interesting topics to discuss.
@@dota-ed4638 It's only because of your comment I know believe to have a memory of writing the above. As nothing can ever be proven, might as well try to make an interesting and fulfilling story.
i love this radical doubt.. i humbly suggest those who feel that they are madly in love needs to apply this theory so you don't get hurt too intense if things don't work well.. Thnx for the vids..
Study neuroscience, how our experiences can be mere chemical reactions and some electric signals, not to say these thing are not physical but they can still be pretty misleading. I'm not sure if your comment is supposed to be a joke or not, but I see no point made in there, what Rene meant by dreaming does not necessarily mean you are sleeping in a traditional sense, he means it could be matrix, it could be some greater power or nature of our own existence that is creating this whole experience trough their power. But still that would not change much.
Maybe when you are not thinking you are not aware of your existence.This day & age they can keep people alive that are not aware of their thinking. Maybe this is the definition of a coma.
to think that consciousness specially human mind is made of a diferent sort of essence and it is above all. Nevertheless Kant showed that it is only a psicilogism the most famous of all
thinking is a word or collection of some alphabets to resemble and idea. Idea is the real thinking, it could be called ajsidjasing or aidwjqoweing it doesn't matter. Someone calling a point x on geometric shape and then questioning is it really x? is a mere stupidity. But your argument could be valid in a way is your thinking the same as mine?
Doesn't Descartes' Argument contradict itself? To believe that When I doubt I, therefore cannot doubt that I doubt requires the supposion that we live in a logicaly consistent univese. I think that we do live in a logicaly consistent universe but by this very logic we could say that the universe only seems logical because of some force or entity and it's not actully itself logical. I really think there is no such thing as an unshakably true belief. Beliefs are always relative to one another. You can have a logical sistem but that does not mean it's true.
Descartes addresses this in the Meditations; he forwards an informal (i.e. not logical or extra-logical) version of the cogito argument, without unstated premises. The deductive form appears in the Principles of Philosophy, as a consequence of the former.
Sounds to me like bunch of ontological hodge-podge that: 1. doesn't answer question about essence of human being. 2. remains me of an argument: what comes first - 'chicken' or an 'egg'. Descartes quadrant is very useful; other then that it doesn't contain any useful dialectics that I can use to create any kind of algorithms to help in solving real life problems
René Descartes was clearly firing, in his humanistic revision of "modern" thought, a shot across the bow of Christian based philosophical thought. The entire foundation of his statement "I think, therefore I am" seems to have been chosen as a taunt to Christian philosophers; given that the God of the Bible chose to identify himself as "I Am". God is referred to as "The Great I Am" and he told Moses "Tell them that I Am has sent you." I believe that Descartes was inferring, rather heavy-handedly, that man is comparable to God.
I think it's deeper than that. Descartes evinces a rupture with traditional philosophical notions; Descartes identifies substance - that which necessarily exists - with what is near to his immediate, subjective experience, as opposed to an objective standard whereto it must conform. This clashes with the Scholastic conception of substance as something extra-mental or extra-individual; substances become nought but a representation by the thinking subject, and known only through attributes (viz. thought & extension) and their incidental modes (viz. ideas & bodies).
I still find it a serious leap in logic "Ï think therefore I am." The only thing I know is "I think therefore, I think" There is no evidence that I exist, just evidence of a thought, it might even not be 'mine', nor a cognitive thought. It could just be a harmonic in an accidental waveform with no rime or reason in x dimensional space. My best guess is at least 1 dimension higher that what I can perceive, but there might be 10 or 11 dimensions based on string theory. Take hallucinogenic drugs or serious mental illness, or physical brain damage as examples. In all of these a subject can be absolutely convinced of their reality, and for them it is. So then because a mentally ill person hardly ever knows he is ill or abnormal, and you can only prove your own thought not even your own existence "I think therefore I am" holds profound implications, and hallucinations either caused by the brain or chemical means is as real as you think they are, and as you are the thinker of these unfortunate souls you are their originating harmonic and their illness is in reality situated within your own harmonic.
There's no leap; you just didn't pay attention enough (or aren't very clever). I doubted all things - God, the sky, bodies, that even I myself have hands, feet, and a belly, or that what my mirror reflects is real - but what didn't change, in spite of my doubting, is that through it all I have been thinking, engaged in thought, and since I doubted everything that could possibly be doubted, the thinking agent - the thinking thing - is necessarily I myself and no else; for it couldn't be _nothing_ that's thinking, as that's a contradiction, and those thoughts - to the extent that I doubted everything else - are mine alone, ergo I exist. That's how Descartes arrived at his famous cogito argument. What I think need not be real, since in thinking I also doubted it. It's only later in the meditations that Descartes establishes the existence of things besides one's own existence, so your concerns about hallucinogenic drugs are unfounded.
I'm going to study with this for my Oral Comprehensive Examination. Please pray for me whoever is reading this. It will be on the next day (March 8, 2019) :D
Although this video does explain Decarte's thought experiment, Decarte is wrong and was clearly engaging in circular reasoning. Mark Twain, someone who might be considered a philosopher of sorts, proved Decarte wrong in the last chapter of his very cleverly devised story entitled, The Mysterious Stranger. (Also ref. The Thirteenth Floor)
I agree that it is very circular way of reasoning but it's also a step towards breaking people of beliefs that make not seens when you pair decarte's reasoning with the scientific method
yinYangMountain I agree with the circular reasoning part but I disagree with what you said about The Mysterious Stranger. Satan tells our main character that all is a dream and is merely a vision of this character. Satan himself says "Nothing exists save empty space--and you!" [...] Nothing exists but you". Satan is talking about solipsism here, so Satan agrees that you exist, it's merely the case that only you exist and nothing else.
I disagree. While I haven't read _The Mysterious Stranger_, I have seen _The Thirteenth Floor_ and I know the main character is simulated... but that doesn't make him "non-existent", merely non-physical. If he is just a computer program, then it is the computer program that exists. Where there is action, there is something acting. Also, I don't think Descartes was "clearly" engaging in circular reasoning because it isn't clear to me. Perhaps you could put his argument in a syllogism that demonstrates the conclusion is also a premise? Looking elsewhere online I found the reasonable syllogism listed below: 1: Whatever thinks exists. 2: I think. C: Therefore, I exist. While the first premise may be _axiomatic_ (widely accepted as true without justification), it isn't begging the question. This syllogism is valid.
Supernova Kasprzak Sorry for a bit of a long response here, I'm sharing some quotes. Are you disagreeing in regards to the fact that Satan in _The Mysterious Stranger_ is talking about solipsism or that imagined beings aren't real or something? I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. It is also important to note that circular reasoning (such as begging the question) is always valid. If an argument is circular it is valid, it's just trivially valid. The problem isn't validity, it's the fact that a circular argument in this situation doesn't really prove anything. The whole "I think, therefore I am" is circular because it assumes from the beginning that there really is an "I" that thinks in order to conclude "I am". I also think Søren Kierkegaard did a good job of showing problems with this by pointing out that "I think, therefore I am" is missing a few premises and if we look at the line of reasoning you presented its trying to add the missing premises. In Kierkegaard's reformulation of the cogito he showed that when we add the missing premises it is more clear that it is circular reasoning: Premise 1: "x" thinks Premise 2: I am that "x" C1: Therefore I think C2: Therefore I am We can see that this argument assumes there really is an I from the get-go so its just circular. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#S.C3.B8ren_Kierkegaard.27s_critique I think Bertrand Russell addresses your new syllogism quite well. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Among the critics, Bertrand Russell objects that “the word ‘I’ is really illegitimate.” Echoing the 18th century thinker, Georg Lichtenberg, Russell writes that Descartes should have, instead, stated “his ultimate premiss in the form ‘there are thoughts’.” Russell adds that “the word ‘I’ is grammatically convenient, but does not describe a datum.” (1945, 567) Accordingly, “there is pain” and “I am in pain” have different contents, and Descartes is entitled only to the former." Source: plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#4.1
Supernova Kasprzak Regarding Decarte's viciously circular argument: It is basically this: P1. 'I' [am] think[ing]; C. Therefore, 'I' [am] think[ing]. Regarding The Mysterious Stranger, -Mark Twain (1897-1908): His ending to a cleverly crafted story has been described as a poetic twist to the question of hard solipsism. In the Mysterious Stranger, the protagonist, Theodore, thought he existed as an 'I' doing the thinking; but how could he? I do not think this is what Decarte thought he was and/or what you imagine yourself to be. In any case, Twain casts huge doubt upon the knowledge of one's perceived identity. Regarding computers vs. an 'I,' vs. actions and acting: Well, my car has a computer; contained within it are acting programs creating various actions. This proves what? After all the philosophical pondering has concluded and one is exposed to neuroscience and the subsequent research, one finds there is no singular self to be found in our organic brains. It's simply not naturally intuitive. Drugs, strokes, and various neurological disorders make this clear.
After that he gives a super bs argument about how god must exist because only god would be able to think up god so he must be real and builds off that so basically I find none of the rest of it convincing after that at all and we are pretty much left with only knowing we are thinking things.
The cogito argument can't be used to argue for the existence of others, only yourself. I can not say you, Nikhil Pandey think, and therefore, exist. I can only say, I Murali think, therefore I exist.
![PHILOSOPHY - Kant: On Metaphysical Knowledge [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vZtQXteAE-w/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Kant: On Metaphysical Knowledge [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Philosophy Student: "Do I exist?"
Philosophy Professor: "Who's asking?"
oh wow...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHFKHKJDHSLKHCIEHFB:KHb
me right now lol
I remember Dr. William Lane Craig telling a story of such an event.
I'm asking,
I read that a philosophy professor said once, “If you still have Cartesian-style doubts about how the physical could interact with the mental, then I suggest you buy a physical bottle of scotch, pour it down your physical throat, and wait to see if any mental changes take place.”
You could also try kicking a stone. You will change as many minds
how do we know if that physical exists at all, you could be hallucinating every sensation, and it could only exist in your consciousness
@@jackworthington5205 How do we know you exist? You could just be a bot posting replies under random RUclips channels?
@@Vexas345 not possible, I'm way too smart and handsome to be a bot
@@jackworthington5205 That's racist. Bots can be smart and handsome too.
I can say for 100% certainty I didn't brush my teeth this morning.
Nigga i don't even know if my body exists
what does brushing your teeth mean? What is TEETH? WHO TOLD YOU YOU HAVE TEETH? THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF OUR CONVERSATION.
ok but can you really?
Thanks everyone for commenting!
Oh yeh
Thanks for creating these wonderful videos! Please keep them coming.
He should have replied, "I drink, therefore I am."
You know you are getting old when the morning after you realise there was no night before.
Hahahahahaha
I will drink to that
😂
I love Descartes's proof and there is a simpler form using proof by contradiction:
Let us assume that we don't exist.
Given that assumption, we obtain: there should not be an assumption we can hold to be true (albeit temporarily). But, there is one. We just did assume it. Therefore we have a contradiction. There is only one premise we assumed to be true. And that led us to a nonsensical position. Therefore, we must accept that the premise must be false. Therefore, we know that it is not true that we don't exist. And that means that we know that we do exist.
In one proof, we got two facts, one epistemological, one metaphysical.
And there is not a single mention of "doubt" here.
The lesson to take away from all this is that when we are ready to follow our assumptions to their conclusions we always get to truths and certainty even if we start on the wrong foot!
That's the beauty of life. We can always learn more and more and we can stop and enjoy any moment we like.
Do stop often. Be still. And enjoy.
Hey....can u please explain it in simple words ...i am not able to comprehend......that assumption that we don't exist part
@@Wavedawnt First let me clarify what proof by contradiction is, how it works. You may know this already. Please bear with me: It's a fundamental and important method of proof used in math. E.g., we want to prove that there are infinitely many prime numbers (when we start, given that there is no proof, we know that we don't know it!). So, we start with an assumption: there is a prime number P which is larger than all primes. We don't know this. But, we just assume it. Call that assumption A. Then, we proceed: let's multiply all the primes less than or equal to P (call that set S(P)) and add 1. Let's call that big number X. We know that none of the primes in S(P) divide X evenly. So, we know that either X is a prime, or there is another prime Y that divides X evenly and Y must be greater than P, because it is not in S(P). Either way, we have a new prime number bigger than P. And that last fact contradicts our first (and only) assumption, A. That contradiction tells us that A must be false. And that means that the negation of A is just proven to be true: There is no largest prime. Their number is infinite.
Similarly, the great mathemician Descartes assumes the first modern philosophical proposition: "I don't exist." Call that assumption DA. Then, he proceeds: "DA is a thought and I am aware of that thought." But, that immediately is the contradiction. If I am aware of DA, I must exist. That's how I know (epistemological fact) that I exist (metaphysical fact). In short, I think, therefore I am. But, in fact that motto is too short and has confused many (I remember being puzzled by it, too, until I looked at it mathematically). What he really means is that I *know* that I exist, because of the fact that I am aware of my thoughts (or in short 'I think.") That last proposition is such a direct and clear reality of our experience that we accept it to be true. Don't we?
Please also note that this proof doesn't say anything about the nature of the being we call "I". So, ontologically, the nature of being is still an open question. For me, that nature, or being (I am, We are) is an integral part of the whole nature, the universe. This is summarized by the short motto of the 20th century philosopher in the style of Socrates (who didn't write much and had many conversations recorded by others) Jiddu Krishnamurti: I am the world and the world is me.
@@BulentBasaran thank you very much for putting your time and effort in writing this ....i appreciate it man......I got it and i have screenshoted it and will read it again incase I forget it in future.....tysm 😄...can I get ur Instagram id or reddit id so i can interact with u....cuz i am very curious guy and u explained it in a simple manner....as Einstein said if u don't understand simply,even u don't understand it well enough...so please....
@@Wavedawnt Hi Vedant, I don't do reddit much, but, here it is ben_bulent
I’m not your friend, or anything damn. You think that you’re the man... I think therefore I am.
was forced to watch this, still was able to enjoy it
goede leerling berend
@@sarahveenstra1289 oh shit, ik ben gevonden
Descartes walks into a bar and drinks a beer . Bartender "Want another ? " . Descartes : " I think not" and suddenly disappears .
Clever
A better version of what you say is actually a real objection to Descartes' argument. Since we do not think in our sleep, do we stop existing in our sleep? xD
@@murathax6587 we dream though. Won't that be thinking?
@@inmiddleofsomewhere2455 the absurdity would be that we start existing and stop existing again and again
It’s pedantic of me, but I hate this joke because it completely misunderstands Descartes’ argument. He isn’t saying that thinking is the cause of his existence. He’s saying that because he thinks, he cannot doubt his own existence. In other words, the fact that he (or anybody else) is thinking is the proof of his existence, not the cause. Maybe people who tell the joke know this and don’t care because it sounds funny?
What I totally miss here in this video is that Decartes was also looking for the proof that there is a greater intelligence, aka God.
That's not included in the video, but Descartes did write about it. His proof of God is not as solid as his proof here. And how could it be? Can you magine a mathematical theorem that shows the existence of X without defining what X is?
If we define God as a greater intelligence as you suggested, the problem is greater than what and how? Even a monkey knows (or can know) that the greater intelligence of Homo Sapiens doesn't make all the humans gods.
@@BulentBasaran God is the maximum greater intelligence though
This was very good and clear. Was he saying that it depends on the quality of thought?
Also, how would he answer: “How do you know you can trust your senses?”
Descartes has reasoned in the first Meditation that senses can be and are misleading therefore he adopted a method of reasoning in which he divests any assumption he believes is true (knowing colours, having a physical body etc.) to reason his way to things he can undoubtedly know for sure.
@@ptrssklvs7824 Hi, what other standard did he use then if he gave it all up? How did he continue to perceive or sense the world around him from using that premise?
Am I reborn everyday as when i sleep i experience thoughtlessness. When the mind goes silent do I ceast to exist?
cease*
Bentley Mayes it could be that you don't remember the sleeping experience with your waking mind. Same is valid for being 'unconscious'.
You don't remember what you ate one year ago. Therefore you didn't exist one year ago...
Good one!
Congratulations on understanding a 300 year old joke.
I have a better version of the joke.
A horse goes into a bar and orders a pint.
The bartender says "you know, you're in here pretty often. Do you think you might be an alcoholic?"
The horse says "I don't think I am..." and promptly vanishes from existence.
See. This was a joke about Descartes' famous line from philosophy. "I think therefore I am." But If I had explained that before t he rest of the joke, it would have been putting Descartes before the horse.
Thanks. I am going to use this in my Philosphy Class in High School. :)
Hi Kristoffer,
Are you a teacher?
Yes. =)
Kristoffer Abildgaard Fantastic. Our plan down the road (perhaps over the next 3-4 months) is to help build out more usable resources for teachers who want to use this content in our classes. We are especially focused on helping bring the critical thinking content in w/ some lessons plans etc. but we will try to do the same for more general phil videos as well. Where/what grade level do you teach?
I teach students at a Danish Gymnasium which is equivalent to British Grammar School / advanced A-levels, or US High School. =)
Don't forget to mention the hard criticism the cogito got.
I am aware, therefore I am.
3:28 I think you invented the "MANS NOT HOT" song, or maybe .. Descartes did.
your subtitles arent going at the same time as the speech of the video
Hi, what is the software you used to make this presentation ?
"cogito, ergo consume". This is the modern version of Descartes previous statement. "I Think Therefore I consume". (I said This)
"consume, ergo sum" I consume, therefore I am
Cogito ergo helluor.
And again!!! I understood nothing...
me right now sitting in the library writing this paper. lol
Great explanation and animation.
Wonderfully clear and important video.
It doesn't prove that I exist. It proves that a thought pop into and then out of existence. I don't see how an actual being is proved by it.
I agree. (Ref. my comment and, The last chapter of, The Mysterious Stranger, -Mark Twain.)
A valid form of the argument would be, "Thoughts, therefore Something." I like that much better.
How can a thought "pop into existence"? It could be possible, I suppose, but I certainly have no evidence of it ever happening and I doubt that you do, either. Would a thought without a mind creating it even be defined as a "thought"? Besides, at some point your argument becomes self-refuting if you can't even accept the most basic of axioms such as the existence of your debate opponent.
We don't have to answer that question. All we know from the cogito is that it happened.
greenghost2008 You asserted that thoughts can "pop into existence" without necessitating a being to think them. Yes, that requires support if you wish to be persuasive.
"i know that i know nothing, except that i think therefore i am"
;)
(and yes i am aware of the problematic origin of this pseudo quote, "i know that...")
That's contradictory, a better phrase should be as Socrates said "The only thing that i know is that i know nothing" , also if you want to prove your existence you have already did since you have said " I think", thus you believe that there is a thing thinking, huge contraditions in this phrase too, as Nietzsche said, a better phrase would be "It thinks"
Niefeng TV
www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-25/
yes i know this, i was making a joke upon the costs of this missacredited quote,
and yes i am aware of this, and usually use the phrase it thinks.
So is he a skeptic?
More than that. More of a an extreme rationalist
*who had visions of divine spirits
no
is he wrong in his method or conclusion?
If you can't prove your post existence, what's makes you think you're thinking?
If I don’t exist then why are you asking me this question
Türkçe altyazı ekleyebilir misiniz
The act of thinking could be an illusion.
Andy Stitt the perception of the illusion requires a perceptor. So even though the act of thinking is something completely different than what we assume it to be, the action itself (albeit caused by something else other than what I think I am) is being acted by an actor. It is only an argument against absolute skepticism that says nothing is ever possible to be known for certain, and cogito disproves it, but nothing more.
The need for a perceiver could be a deception like the other "facts" that are subjected to doubt.
The nature of thinking can be distorted but there is still "thinking", so there is a thinking thing
@@andystitt3887 The need for a perceiver could not be a deception as for illusion to be a illusion it needs to be perceived, you could argue the fact that illusion needs to be perceived could be deception, idea of deception, doubt, illusion is regulated on a meaning and ideas behind them, therefore there is a structure that we accept before we proceed to question other ones, so if thinking is a thinking the thinking that thinking I do not exist proves something that thinking does because of the structural acceptance that thinking is thinking, anything else can be argued within it's structure, that is what makes it special I guess, but if you say thinking is not thinking it could be illusion, illusion could be deception, deception could not be true if we were not thinking, if we don't think we can not exist, there is not structure and again you can say structure is an illusion. In that sense we are seeking knowledge beyond existence and logical truth, which is like ant learning trigonometry.
Why does he keep thinking I have brushed my teeth this morning?
Everyone only quotes half but isn't the whole quote "I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I am"? I think the first part is just as critical as the second.
This is a great video, but the subtitles are set two seconds too early. Could you readjust them so they align with the speaker?
@Apocalyptic King What a rude comment!
How do you know you are thinking? What if the thoughts are not your thoughts. Just some echo of influence from outside the self.
U can never be certain that the thoughts you have are induced by mind or come to you.
Descartes covered the problem of evil demons controlling our thoughts by assuming God would never be so mean as to allow that. That's one hell of premise to accept at face value, don't you think?
Ambrose Bierce said it best when he mocked Descartes: "I think I think, therefore I think I am." As much fun as philosophy can sometimes be, the only real evidence is that provided by science.
Philosophy provides evidence if you allow for some fundamental assumptions (which Decartes tried to minimize). Philosophers can always doubt one argument in favour of another but that doesn't mean it provides no evidence.
Science can falsify claims but when science produces evidence against a theory it is always possible to make the theory a bit more complicated to explain the evidence. Scientists, like philosophers, can always doubt their existing theory, science doesn't ultimately prove things, it only tries to disprove things.
Really love the video! Did you make it in Prezi?
Tks!
No, I think the video is made through Sparkol
May I ask , was there a software used to draw the imagery on? Looks familiar
My brain just shrunk into a raisin 🤯😵
Maybe thoughts don't need a thinker or expire car?
I love Decates'... however,,, it makes the valid technical fallacy of no supporting secondary Premise so,,, the argument seems to better served with "I Think,,, at least I think I think therefor I think I am... or even I think and I think I am therefore I think I am.. or even thinking I am must show I think I am therefore I am... ihave used them in other ways as well,,, I really love Decartes',,, I think,,,
thats a lot of hooplah
Daynein Spark He is Worth Every Moment of The Reading... and The Hopla la lah... Descartes' Rocks Hard.. and you gotta pay attention... He is really Deep... if Deep" defines as Brilliant...
Daynein Spark Ever Read any of His Work Personally... to the Level of Comprehension... Try it...
Try Virgil or Aristophanes,,, or any one of the classic Tinkers... then read another Dozen or so.. and then get back with me ok... you will need all of them at some point so... any time you please feel free to jump right on In.. the Gene Pool.
Inductive Rhetoric Fictional Facts we accept as Empirical. Or Aspersion work to Drive a narrative's Plot.... However Logical Syntax makes Law... a Codex... with One Intent of Content...
What is the true nature of the doubter when he doubts?
Are kants syntetic + a- priori knowledges the same as this? i mean kant says that our intelect forms our knowledge so that we presive the thing that way that it is. but that we never can trully know "the things" real thing, how it really is?
What kind of software used for presentation
Could the perceiver be a creation of the evil genius? The Idea you need a perceiver could also be a deception.
0:55- "But Descartes' cobidgbkthnkden to which this appeals..." I must know what that word was
"cogito"
cogito argument
what app is used here to draw this?
take a shot everytime the word "doubt" is said in this video
why do i need this for philo re
Did Descartes want to know something beyond sense perception ?
In other words, what can we know certainly ?
He created a method to doubt everything, including every philosophy, including his own, so he wanted to make sure no method of doubt can deny his philosophy's absolute backbone. While doing so he proved to himself that senses can be misleading. Therefore he came to a conclusion I think therefore I am, but to seek knowledge beyond existence is like ant seeking to learn trigonometry.
So much for imaginary existence. "I fart there fore i yam". Nails it pretty good. Deny a squeak in an elevator and you could be rightfully tossed overboard. Used Corinthian leather has the same effect. . .
I finally understood what this meant.
Interesting view
If I am thinking, I exist. I am not thinking (bar joke). Therefore, I do not exist. Affirming the antecedent joke.
Cogito ergo sum I think therefore I am. I'M AM.
Really like the video and agree with it. Even the bible say it, Proverbs 23:7, For as a man thinks in his heart, so is he.
+Jonathan Jahn "So God created man in His image" Genesis 1:27
The name of God in the first book of Moses is YHWH which translates to "I Am" or "I Exist". There are no coincidences with God. :)
@@wroth_ didn't philosophers already state this idea many times throughout history BEFORE "god" "existed"???
There also exists people who don't think.
Am I the only one who has had their brain broken by this vid-- Oh wait- Now I don't even know if it is a video!!!
what about babies? can babies think and do know they exist?
I can be sure I think and exist, but I have no idea about other human beings, including babies.
pineal gland grows and finishes will have an awakening sense of self between 2 or 3 .
@@Legogris 4 years have past, but still, you can be sure you think therefore you exist, but can you be sure you thought in the past and therefore you existed, or you may have forgot some memories from your timeline, can you be sure you existed trough that duration, do we still exist during our sleeps? Interesting topics to discuss.
@@dota-ed4638 It's only because of your comment I know believe to have a memory of writing the above. As nothing can ever be proven, might as well try to make an interesting and fulfilling story.
I would argue strongly that we exst when we know - not just when we think. It ia arguable that we know even when we are in deep sleep.
Kim Whitfield but to “know” don’t we have to think first?
May I be sure that I am not Harry Potter?
i love this radical doubt.. i humbly suggest those who feel that they are madly in love needs to apply this theory so you don't get hurt too intense if things don't work well.. Thnx for the vids..
cool video! let me use your video on my video, I will tag you on video, thankyou
I think this gentleman needs to read a book on Ramana Maharshi and ask, "Who am I?"
Anyone else watching this for school work?
Descartes was the first person with a Piled Higher and Deeper degree.
Descartes: How do you know you aren't dreaming?
me: I don't know, But I do know that I'm not sleeping.
Study neuroscience, how our experiences can be mere chemical reactions and some electric signals, not to say these thing are not physical but they can still be pretty misleading. I'm not sure if your comment is supposed to be a joke or not, but I see no point made in there, what Rene meant by dreaming does not necessarily mean you are sleeping in a traditional sense, he means it could be matrix, it could be some greater power or nature of our own existence that is creating this whole experience trough their power. But still that would not change much.
@@dota-ed4638 chill bro. Its a meme. Aesthetic way of sarcasm. 😉 don't be too serious.
@@IsnieB Epic fail on your part. You know nothing.
@@kingstarscream3807 yeah, and that's just the thing. That I know I failed, that I know I dont know anything at all.
The intro is MUCH too loud compared to the content. You should remove it, or change it.
Warum kein deutschen Untertitel 😩
A thinking thing thing*✨
Maybe when you are not thinking you are not aware of your existence.This day & age they can keep people alive that are not aware of their thinking. Maybe this is the definition of a coma.
I'm here because of Battle Angel Alita
to think that consciousness specially human mind is made of a diferent sort of essence and it is above all. Nevertheless Kant showed that it is only a psicilogism the most famous of all
well ...how do you know that you're thinking? maybe the definition of thinking is not what you may believe thinking is :o :/
thinking is a word or collection of some alphabets to resemble and idea. Idea is the real thinking, it could be called ajsidjasing or aidwjqoweing it doesn't matter. Someone calling a point x on geometric shape and then questioning is it really x? is a mere stupidity. But your argument could be valid in a way is your thinking the same as mine?
watch ergo proxy , youll be blown away
谢谢你，太棒了
" I think therefore I am " confused and have a headache .
No, it can only further reciprocate that Einstein's theory was right, and that time is infinite, and the human mind is just one part of it...
Doesn't Descartes' Argument contradict itself? To believe that When I doubt I, therefore cannot doubt that I doubt requires the supposion that we live in a logicaly consistent univese. I think that we do live in a logicaly consistent universe but by this very logic we could say that the universe only seems logical because of some force or entity and it's not actully itself logical.
I really think there is no such thing as an unshakably true belief. Beliefs are always relative to one another. You can have a logical sistem but that does not mean it's true.
You should be a philosopher.
You clearly haven’t read any of Descartes’ work.
Descartes addresses this in the Meditations; he forwards an informal (i.e. not logical or extra-logical) version of the cogito argument, without unstated premises. The deductive form appears in the Principles of Philosophy, as a consequence of the former.
Sounds to me like bunch of ontological hodge-podge that: 1. doesn't answer question about essence of human being. 2. remains me of an argument: what comes first - 'chicken' or an 'egg'. Descartes quadrant is very useful; other then that it doesn't contain any useful dialectics that I can use to create any kind of algorithms to help in solving real life problems
René Descartes was clearly firing, in his humanistic revision of "modern" thought, a shot across the bow of Christian based philosophical thought. The entire foundation of his statement "I think, therefore I am" seems to have been chosen as a taunt to Christian philosophers; given that the God of the Bible chose to identify himself as "I Am". God is referred to as "The Great I Am" and he told Moses "Tell them that I Am has sent you." I believe that Descartes was inferring, rather heavy-handedly, that man is comparable to God.
I think it's deeper than that. Descartes evinces a rupture with traditional philosophical notions; Descartes identifies substance - that which necessarily exists - with what is near to his immediate, subjective experience, as opposed to an objective standard whereto it must conform. This clashes with the Scholastic conception of substance as something extra-mental or extra-individual; substances become nought but a representation by the thinking subject, and known only through attributes (viz. thought & extension) and their incidental modes (viz. ideas & bodies).
Omerta. For a wounded man may say to his assailant if i live i will kill you.If i die you are forgiven. Such is the rule of honor.
I still find it a serious leap in logic "Ï think therefore I am." The only thing I know is "I think therefore, I think" There is no evidence that I exist, just evidence of a thought, it might even not be 'mine', nor a cognitive thought. It could just be a harmonic in an accidental waveform with no rime or reason in x dimensional space. My best guess is at least 1 dimension higher that what I can perceive, but there might be 10 or 11 dimensions based on string theory.
Take hallucinogenic drugs or serious mental illness, or physical brain damage as examples. In all of these a subject can be absolutely convinced of their reality, and for them it is. So then because a mentally ill person hardly ever knows he is ill or abnormal, and you can only prove your own thought not even your own existence "I think therefore I am" holds profound implications, and hallucinations either caused by the brain or chemical means is as real as you think they are, and as you are the thinker of these unfortunate souls you are their originating harmonic and their illness is in reality situated within your own harmonic.
There's no leap; you just didn't pay attention enough (or aren't very clever). I doubted all things - God, the sky, bodies, that even I myself have hands, feet, and a belly, or that what my mirror reflects is real - but what didn't change, in spite of my doubting, is that through it all I have been thinking, engaged in thought, and since I doubted everything that could possibly be doubted, the thinking agent - the thinking thing - is necessarily I myself and no else; for it couldn't be _nothing_ that's thinking, as that's a contradiction, and those thoughts - to the extent that I doubted everything else - are mine alone, ergo I exist. That's how Descartes arrived at his famous cogito argument. What I think need not be real, since in thinking I also doubted it. It's only later in the meditations that Descartes establishes the existence of things besides one's own existence, so your concerns about hallucinogenic drugs are unfounded.
Is there a scientific justification for this philosophical statement?
@Tomás Iriarte :-so what controls thinking?
@Tomás Iriarte :-if someone is sleeping,he is not thinking still he exists
@Tomás Iriarte -and then suddenly when you wake up,that brain turns in full human being
Science is not a knowledge system in itself, its more like a method of investing knowledge.
Isn't the math at 1:56 incorrect? 565 - 232 = 323
I'm going to study with this for my Oral Comprehensive Examination. Please pray for me whoever is reading this. It will be on the next day (March 8, 2019) :D
SAME! But today
How did you go?
Hi! hopefully your Oral is successful,,,lol we will also having a oral evaluation tomorrow, and whoever read this,, hoping for your pray😂
@@jensentobera2345 I failed :'(
descarte é foda, slk.
Although this video does explain Decarte's thought experiment, Decarte is wrong and was clearly engaging in circular reasoning.
Mark Twain, someone who might be considered a philosopher of sorts, proved Decarte wrong in the last chapter of his very cleverly devised story entitled, The Mysterious Stranger. (Also ref. The Thirteenth Floor)
I agree that it is very circular way of reasoning but it's also a step towards breaking people of beliefs that make not seens when you pair decarte's reasoning with the scientific method
yinYangMountain I agree with the circular reasoning part but I disagree with what you said about The Mysterious Stranger. Satan tells our main character that all is a dream and is merely a vision of this character. Satan himself says "Nothing exists save empty space--and you!" [...] Nothing exists but you". Satan is talking about solipsism here, so Satan agrees that you exist, it's merely the case that only you exist and nothing else.
I disagree. While I haven't read _The Mysterious Stranger_, I have seen _The Thirteenth Floor_ and I know the main character is simulated... but that doesn't make him "non-existent", merely non-physical. If he is just a computer program, then it is the computer program that exists. Where there is action, there is something acting.
Also, I don't think Descartes was "clearly" engaging in circular reasoning because it isn't clear to me. Perhaps you could put his argument in a syllogism that demonstrates the conclusion is also a premise? Looking elsewhere online I found the reasonable syllogism listed below:
1: Whatever thinks exists.
2: I think.
C: Therefore, I exist.
While the first premise may be _axiomatic_ (widely accepted as true without justification), it isn't begging the question. This syllogism is valid.
Supernova Kasprzak Sorry for a bit of a long response here, I'm sharing some quotes.
Are you disagreeing in regards to the fact that Satan in _The Mysterious Stranger_ is talking about solipsism or that imagined beings aren't real or something? I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.
It is also important to note that circular reasoning (such as begging the question) is always valid. If an argument is circular it is valid, it's just trivially valid. The problem isn't validity, it's the fact that a circular argument in this situation doesn't really prove anything. The whole "I think, therefore I am" is circular because it assumes from the beginning that there really is an "I" that thinks in order to conclude "I am". I also think Søren Kierkegaard did a good job of showing problems with this by pointing out that "I think, therefore I am" is missing a few premises and if we look at the line of reasoning you presented its trying to add the missing premises. In Kierkegaard's reformulation of the cogito he showed that when we add the missing premises it is more clear that it is circular reasoning:
Premise 1: "x" thinks
Premise 2: I am that "x"
C1: Therefore I think
C2: Therefore I am
We can see that this argument assumes there really is an I from the get-go so its just circular. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#S.C3.B8ren_Kierkegaard.27s_critique
I think Bertrand Russell addresses your new syllogism quite well. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"Among the critics, Bertrand Russell objects that “the word ‘I’ is really illegitimate.” Echoing the 18th century thinker, Georg Lichtenberg, Russell writes that Descartes should have, instead, stated “his ultimate premiss in the form ‘there are thoughts’.” Russell adds that “the word ‘I’ is grammatically convenient, but does not describe a datum.” (1945, 567) Accordingly, “there is pain” and “I am in pain” have different contents, and Descartes is entitled only to the former."
Source: plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#4.1
Supernova Kasprzak Regarding Decarte's viciously circular argument: It is basically this:
P1. 'I' [am] think[ing];
C. Therefore, 'I' [am] think[ing].
Regarding The Mysterious Stranger, -Mark Twain (1897-1908): His ending to a cleverly crafted story has been described as a poetic twist to the question of hard solipsism. In the Mysterious Stranger, the protagonist, Theodore, thought he existed as an 'I' doing the thinking; but how could he? I do not think this is what Decarte thought he was and/or what you imagine yourself to be. In any case, Twain casts huge doubt upon the knowledge of one's perceived identity.
Regarding computers vs. an 'I,' vs. actions and acting:
Well, my car has a computer; contained within it are acting programs creating various actions. This proves what?
After all the philosophical pondering has concluded and one is exposed to neuroscience and the subsequent research, one finds there is no singular self to be found in our organic brains. It's simply not naturally intuitive. Drugs, strokes, and various neurological disorders make this clear.
It's "they-cart".
What if the evil neuroscientist is behind the thought of doubt? Then we don't exist, do we?
*Bruh ergo sum*
~Descartes
try....... sum ergo cogito
Dubito Ergo Cogito
Gosh she is super smart and cute.
Or have we been programmed to think...........
123
David star on a satan @ 4:30 no problem!
good vid tho helped with essay
After that he gives a super bs argument about how god must exist because only god would be able to think up god so he must be real and builds off that so basically I find none of the rest of it convincing after that at all and we are pretty much left with only knowing we are thinking things.
Billie led me here
mag answer na kayo guys
But what about people who are mentally unstable and are not thinking rationally....
Do they exist or not...
Please try to answer 🤔😀
The cogito argument can't be used to argue for the existence of others, only yourself. I can not say you, Nikhil Pandey think, and therefore, exist. I can only say, I Murali think, therefore I exist.