i am therefore i think...

[BrainEater]

or i think therefore i am... what makes more sense to you??? the latter is a statement by immanuel kant, a philosopher
from the renaissance times or so....
well i would say both could make some sense in their own way or so... i read that the central philosophical concept in his moral philosophy is called "the categorical imperative".
i am sure there are both kinds of people though .... maybe he just looked at it too one-sided or so..

but it also makes some sense, it just seems like a basic supposed logic of thinking and to say something about something like that only makes sense in some form of society, i would say... you have to do, what you have to do... :lol:

but as i see it, it can also be misguiding... maybe in the way we can see today, how thinking in a lot of places almost seems
to have become a disease, which people can't stop by themselves and it controls them, instead of them it.
also for example identifying with the transient appearances of the mind can possibly lead to painful (unnecessary?) attachment or something like that...

maybe a appropriate comparison could be a question like: "what came first, the egg or the chicken"???

i dunno lol... my answer would be: "life is a cycle". :rock: 8)

what you think??



peace

 

[Mescaline]

or i think therefore i am... what makes more sense to you??? the latter is a statement by immanuel kant, a philosopher
from the renaissance times or so....
well i would say both could make some sense in their own way or so... i read that the central philosophical concept in his moral philosophy is called "the categorical imperative".
i am sure there are both kinds of people though .... maybe he just looked at it too one-sided or so..

Actually the saying originally was "I think, I am" (btw, by Descartes in his Meditations, not Kant - See Meditation II for the "I think, I am" part). Followers of Descartes later added the "therefor" in interpreting his philosophy. Personally I think they were wrong to do this. What Descartes says is that it is certain that "I exist", and that he exists as often as he thinks. The way I see it is that thinking is his confirmation of his own existence. But he doesn't say that he exists because he thinks, but simply that they go together; they correlate. When he exists, then he thinks, and when he thinks then he exists. I would say the same.. Saying that either of them are because of the other is making the mistake of seeing causality where there is none. So instead of "I think, therefor I am" (or the other way around), I'd say it is "If I think, then I am" or "If I am, then I think", but either would be saying the exact same thing in my opinion.
Also this leaves open the question if there might not be other ways of knowing you exist, besides thinking, and even if thinking is necessary for existence. There might be existence without thinking..

maybe a appropriate comparison could be a question like: "what came first, the egg or the chicken"???

If forced to choose then existence has to be first. Because existence is needed for thinking to exist in the first place. But I think neither was actually first My guess is they came into existence together. There is no existence without thought, nor thought without existence. Or in other words, no experience without consciousness, no form without formlessness, no something without no-thing, no substance without essence, etc etc. :lol:

Edit: Maybe one could say that existence precedes thought in theory, but not in time. Like I said, existence is necessary for thought to exist in theory, but that as soon as there is existence there is also thought. Like the creator has to exist for there to be a creation in theory, but the concept of creator has no existence without a creation, as it only is a creator as soon as it has created something.

"life is a cycle". :rock: 8)

yes

 

[BrainEater]

lol.. yeah man you're right... sorry... i thought i knew what i was talking about, but i obviously wasn't... i am probably a little bit confused... maybe i should research a little bit better/more before...
and well maybe he did in fact mean it like you say he could have meant it. :lol:


peace

 

[Mescaline]

Haha don't have to be sorry, we all make msitakes. I only know because I'm being "forced" to read it for uni And we're here to learn after all right? It's a very interesting topic in any case.

 

[BrainEater]

haha yeah man... everything can actually be seen as an opportunity to learn.

as far as i can see, cause and effect are from some perspective or in some form maybe basically the same thing...
i think it's surely a matter of how you look at it a lot... i can tell for myself that often i only see one side at first or at all..
but i am also working on myself in that regard to evolve my partly very limited paradigms or so...
hmmm i wonder why i mixed up kant and descartes...
first a question regarding descartes... thinking to be... what does it really mean??? lol... somehow it reminds me what morpheus said in the matrix movie: "don't think you are, know you are."
so maybe his mistake was to think to be instead of knowing to be??? :lol:
hehe ...and a quote from kant... "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."
if you ask me, it's a remarkable quote.. what do you think man???


peace

 

[Mescaline]

as far as i can see, cause and effect are from some perspective or in some form maybe basically the same thing...

Hmm, ye, from that perspective it might not be so wrong as I thought to say "I think, therefor I am". As long as you don't presume that the cause precedes the effect in time, but only in theory. That would work just as well for any of those other word pairs as well. Creator as cause of creation, but not preceding in time, etc. for all the others. In Hindu philosophy the same is said... I read in Vasishta's Yoga something along the lines that at the beginning of the creation of this world that we live in, the "cosmic creator", Brahman, had a thought, which itself was the creator of all that exists. Lol, and if I'm not mistaken in Meditation III Descartes asks himself how he can be certain that the thoughts that arise within him are to be trusted. And he says that because God is a benign God and he is the one providing us with these thoughts, that the thoughts must be right in nature, because if they would not be, then God would be deceitful which a benign God cannot be. Of course this a pretty weak defense for claiming that one's thoughts are to be trusted haha, but it's pretty interesting how the "structure" is pretty much the same as in Hindu philosophy: Brahman/God --- (Thought --- Existence)

first a question regarding descartes... thinking to be... what does it really mean??? lol... somehow it reminds me what morpheus said in the matrix movie: "don't think you are, know you are."

Haha, well "I think, I am" is not supposed to mean "I think (that) I am" (like he's having doubts about his own existence, hehe). It's just two observations he made. He's very certain that he exists, so he says "I am".. then he asks himself "when am I?", and says "as often as I think". All he is saying is that he thinks, and that he is, and that they happen at the same time, haha: "I think, I am".

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."

That quote should be a universal law in itself It's too bad people are not willing to.. But well, who can blame them (or maybe I sould say us), it only works if all people in a society, or at least the majority, act that way.. But yea.. Imagine all the people if they would..

 

[BrainEater]

well maybe it's a universal law already... the question with that i would have, would be whether universal laws can be violated or so... and the answer would be probably yes and no, because if you would do it, in the end you would only do it to yourself.

concerning descartes i think it's totally fine to have doubts about one's existence. because at times and/or in some way or
another maybe we all can go through such phases, where everything doesn't seem real anymore etc etc...

the illusion of separation from god (yourself) is a tough one, but maybe it has a purpose, too... if you ask me, illusions have the purpose of hiding something... 8)
self-realization is amazing lol... :lol:

the crucial question you might want to ask yourself there is: do i control my thoughts or do they control me and how, why, etc etc???? something like that lol...

peace

 

[Mescaline]

well maybe it's a universal law already... the question with that i would have, would be whether universal laws can be violated or so... and the answer would be probably yes and no, because if you would do it, in the end you would only do it to yourself.

Haha, ye you're right. The universal law of karma I guess .

concerning descartes i think it's totally fine to have doubts about one's existence. because at times and/or in some way or
another maybe we all can go through such phases, where everything doesn't seem real anymore etc etc...

Ye, I didn't mean to say that it wasn't ok :lol:, was just explaining how Descartes'"I think, I am" was explained to me .
Also, to realize that you exist you have to doubt your existence first in my opinoin. If you never doubt your existence, then it will also probably never arise in your mind that you actually do exist, haha. Doubt might even be the only way that one's own existence can get one's attention.

the illusion of separation from god (yourself) is a tough one, but maybe it has a purpose, too... if you ask me, illusions have the purpose of hiding something... 8)

Exactly xD

the crucial question you might want to ask yourself there is: do i control my thoughts or do they control me and how, why, etc etc???? something like that lol...

haha, well, in my experience it's best to not control them or be controlled by them.. Just let them be, observe them, without getting carried away (i.e. controlled) by them.

 

[BrainEater]

i agree man...
i also think that letting the thoughts be, is a interesting point. because as i understood it, you can only change things,
when you accepted them. so if you can't accept your thoughts, it could mean that "in some way or so", you can't accept yourself.
and also a important point is letting something be... to me it means to love it as it is and not wanting to condition it or so...
you know??? because often it seemed to me, that some people can't let others be like they are.... and i mostly don't like
such people at all... they are just ignorant and it tells something about themselves, as well... :x :?
hmm i just got the idea that maybe people need their mental prisons, too... so they can feel safe... know what i mean??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
victims of society...



peace

 

[Mescaline]

absolutely!

Accepting yourself, your thoughts, is the key to happiness if you ask me. If you love yourself all is perfect
This also reminds me of that "all you need is love". As to accept something as it is, is in a way to love it. So to actually accept everything as is it (yourself, other people, and inanimate objects etc), all you need to do is love. Then, to actually see and accept/realize the world for what it is, is to see and be love everywhere.

because often it seemed to me, that some people can't let others be like they are.... and i mostly don't like
such people at all... they are just ignorant and it tells something about themselves, as well... :x :?
hmm i just got the idea that maybe people need their mental prisons, too... so they can feel safe... know what i mean??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
victims of society...

Ye i know what you mean, this world is certainly lacking in love... But about people needing their mental prisons.. I guess they think they need it, victims of society like you say. Building houses of fear around themselves, to ward of a non-existent enemy. Kind of like trying to protect yourself from danger/fear by building walls of fear; creating the fear that you are trying to protect yourself from.. pretty counterproductive haha :lol:

 

[mosaicmouse]

A demon can make me think i'm sitting in this room while I'm not.
A demon can make me think i'm writing this while I am not.

But a demon can never make me think I'm thinking something while I'm not.

 

[Mescaline]

But a demon could create the illusion that "I" is thinking while there is no "I" at all, but only thoughts, some of which include a concept of "I"

"cogitatus, (ergo) entitas est"