Ha :| I'll stop at some point I swear. And I'm not trying to make it semantics, I actually feel like others are doing that, but I appreciate all the feedback.

Descartes proves he exists, but before he does he supposes it...

I don't think its semantics, I think people aren't able to question this.


I guess thats the best I can't say it....if no one can see that then I think I'm just crazy thats all

I think I want to make '2' accounts of everyone.

Yorkshire?

Was purely me being silly. He had already posted using his original account. I have absolutely no idea of where he was raised.

To re-rail, again, verbs require nouns.

I ended up using the year, I like the '2' better though.

Yes it is kind of circular, and personally I don't buy it. It might be persuaded a little by, 'something therefore something'. But using the 'I' world is very egotistical.

never had someone agree, I was sure it could happen though ha

I wasn't sure if this was a real response the first time....are you saying its not him supporting his theory of existing but that its an English lesson? Showing man is a 'thing' or 'noun' wouldn't prove or suggest existence would it?

Not quite what I meant.

It is a thinking lesson, not an english lesson.

There is no such thing as falling (the verb or action) without something (the noun or actor) that is falling.

Remember that, in his simple statement of existing, he was only trying to prove existence, not anything in particular about the nature of that existence. He had an action that he was certain was occurring, therefore there must be a actor or an object.

Not a northerner, never duplicate, very rarely keep originals.

I can however, use a computer.

If you read about all the things Descartes believed, that were badly wrong and wrong-headed, then you lose a bit of the luster, and can more easily realize that the Cogito isnt really saying anything. I'm sure it was brilliant at the time though, and I'm just standing on the shoulders of giants (theres another guy who believed some really stupid ****ing things).

I believe durka has said that what's now accepted as following from the premise "I think" is the conclusion, "therefore there is thinking". or something like that.


PairTheBoard

Coordinate geometry tho.

I don't know what durka refers to, but the rest seems to be what I was pointing out ....I think is a conclusion, and has no basis...

anyways, this won't likely go any further.

As I understand it, "I think" is a premise asserted as self evident. There are then two things to argue about. First, is it really self evident? And second, putting aside the first question, if we take the premise "I think" as given, then what can be concluded from it? According to durka, what is generally accepted these days, given the premise "I think", is the conclusion "therefore there is thinking" rather than the conclusion "therefore I am". The idea then being that from the premise "I think" it follows that something exists, namely "thinking".

Although this seems a little strange to me that something called "thinking" is held to exist more reliably than the "thinker" doing the "thinking".


PairTheBoard