I think, therefore I am...

Doesn't the first 'I' in this statement suppose the 'I' in the first place.....sort of saying...I am, therefore I think, therefore I am.

He was stating that verbs require nouns.

Does implies doer.

LOL nice user name, I see I'm not the only one who forgot the password to my old email and was too lazy to email an admin about it

even money on chezlaw2?

Nice. I figure that my writing style (and how my tone and reasonableness is predictable like clockwork due to my daily regimen of imbibing) will prove I am me after a bit and all will be taken care of with no undue effort by me.

Wanna discuss whether my arguments are duck-like or not?

I couldn't even guess what my email address was, let alone the password.

Sadly, during the forum being down, my employer made an offer that I couldn't refuse that will severely limit my abilities to indulge in playing here.

I would bet against. Northerner, and all that. Probably keeps duplicates of all his documents.

He is Felix and I am Oscar.

It's a nice test how many posts it would take to spot imposters of certain regulars. If I made durkadurka332, I think I could pull that off for about a week, but I may slip up and offer a conciliatory remark instead of a fallacy citation and les jeux sont faits...

I think we determined that your arguments were duck-like by way of an etymological regression error; I was actually saying that your arguments were like an antiquated plane design.

Sadly may not be the appropriate adverb here, but you will find a way to do what is right.

I'm convinced that you are you.

I think you might misunderstand Sartre though. Nearly certain.

Unless, of course, you mean the literal "les jeux sont faits" implying playing of hands to win rather than having concern with whether your hand deserves to win.

Yes, but it took you a bit of time and I did eventually have to explain the joke, despite my general disdain for such.

Les jeux sont faits. Or, more plainly, ce sera sera.

Tautologies don't get you from A to B.

That was Ed Rooney who misunderstood Sartre

We needn't rehearse now what was some serendipitous silliness.

Shantih shantih shantih

Descartes was just trying to get to what he perceived as the most basic truth he could.

What do I know to be unequivocally true? That I exist. How do I know this? Because I can think it.

This does not, however, presuppose self-awareness to be a 100% certainty.

And "I am, therefore, I think" would also have to acknowledged as true, for anything that can't think could not come up with that statement.

Thx for the re rail.....

Yes this is what I thought, admittedly I know little about him and his statement.


^^^ presupposed 'I"

A machine set to give random letters to infinity could.

But could it understand the statement?

But we can't really ask/use that yet, because if my point is valid...then we don't understand the statement.

Your threads are fun, but u keep boiling it down to simple semantics