"I think therefore I am" vs. Existentialism

[PierreGringoire]

On what grounds do you support either rationilism or existentialism concept? (the quote coming from descartes who is a rationalist)

[holograph]

hmm. i have never found truth in that quote. i m not sure why. i may think, yet may not be. i need tim to think about this.

[Gallantry]

My feelings supporting existentialism( for I think I would define myself as a theistic existentialist) are something along the lines of Pascal who said "The heart has its reasons which reason is not acquainted with."

[subterranean]

Suppose it is more approriate to say, "I think therefore there is a thought"

Just wondering....

[TEND]

Well actually, later on Descartes changed it to 'I am, I exist' as he too had a problem with the inital statement.

[jon1jt]

Well actually, later on Descartes changed it to 'I am, I exist' as he too had a problem with the inital statement.

Great point TEND. It's worth mentioning that the 20th Century Martin Heidegger had a problem with the Cartesian system and displaced Cogito with "Being There" (Dasein).

[mono]

On what grounds do you support either rationilism or existentialism concept? (the quote coming from descartes who is a rationalist)
Honestly, I take both sides, yet, in my own thinking, I tend to utilize more of an existentialist perspective.
Reading Meditations by Rene Descartes, I struggled on multiple parts, though I would never claim that Being And Nothingness by Jean-Paul Sartre read with more ease. :p Often, from what I see, both rationalism and existentialism can overlap; of course, rationalism seems more involved with empiricism, and existentialism more involved with an individual as an independent, self-determining being. Does this imply that existentialism never has elements of empiricism, or that rationalism never stresses the indepedent, self-determining individual? No, definitely not.
Cogito ergo sum (or 'I think, therefore I am') seems far more based on an individual rationalism among Descartes; I have met very few people who claim to have understood his Meditations, and I do not consider myself among them. A cognitive being attached to a material body (the mind-body dichotomy), I can understand by Descartes, but, not to critique his brilliance, I would require more discussion on the mind-body 'adherence' to entirely claim 'I think, therefore I am.'

[bhekti]

On what grounds do you support either rationilism or existentialism concept? (the quote coming from descartes who is a rationalist)

I believe it is a fact that the being of man is rational as well as existential. But I don't want to support either rationalism or existentialism. There's always a sort of one-sidedness when it comes to ' - isms', and I'm afraid it would do no justice to the multilevel complexity life.

Descartes once said "Cogito Ergo Sum" (I think, therefore I am, roughly). But, did that "I" truly and wholly refer to Descartes himself? I tend to think it did not.

Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil wrote,

There are always still the harmless observers of themselves who believe that there are "unmediated certainties," for example, "I think," or like Schopenhauer's superstition, "I will," just as if perception was able to seize upon its object pure and naked, as "the thing in itself," and as if there was no falsification either on the part of the subject or on the part of the object ....... What gives me the right to speak of an 'I,' and indeed of an 'I' as a cause, finally even of an 'I' as the cause of thinking? ...... a thought comes when "it" wants to and not when "I" want it, so that it's a falsification of the fact to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." It thinks: but that this "it" is precisely that old, celebrated "I" is, to put it mildly, only an assumption, an assertion, in no way an "immediate certainty." After all, we've already done too much with this "it thinks": this "it" already contains an interpretation of the event and is not part of the process itself.....

I think there's some truth in Nietzsche's words. It is like what Paul the Apostle said,

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.

Here Paul recognizes the double nature, or being, of "I". He controls over one, but not of the other one. The word "I" always represents two different, but connected, entities.

So, I think, we can't truthfully say "I think, therefore I am". We, in ourselves, simply have not the ground for the truth. ( In fact, I think, Descartes was trying to find out the ground or foundation for man's existence and consequently for (his) humanity. But, it ended with his inventing a citadel at the top of which Cogito is measuring all....) And, aren't we now post-modern?

[Maerlook]

First I think it would be hasty to equate rationalism and Cartesian concepts. While Descartes is definitely a rationalist he by and larges does not represent the rationalists. Descartes was catholic and was in the process of reconciling his religion with the thought of his day. (While trying not to be burned at the stake as well.) His heritage is why his construction is dualistic; he still has to hold on to the thought of a sinful man and a perfect God. He is not concerned with the definition of humanity, and because of his biases he does not give himself the chance to clearly and distinctly form his thoughts. The dualism is not a necessary component of rationalism.

Regarding existentialism and Rationalism proper, fundamentally existentialism is rationalism with out the controls. The person instead of his reason begins to define the universe but drawing the line between reason and thought becomes difficult. The Existentialist borrowed from and lent to the surrealist movement. (The writing and movies as well as the art) Rationalism had failed to adequately describe the universe at that time and some adjustment needed to be made. In addition there was a sense that the structure of rationalism was fundamentally created by social conditioning. Finally the concept objective morals and truth seemed at the time to be keeping people from claiming there life and all the responsibility that comes with it.

The best thing that existentialism has to offer is the concept that reality is a creation of the individual and that anything he/she experiences is in some way born of their own existence. This type of thought allows the individual an immense amount of power.

[Asa Adams]

Well actually, later on Descartes changed it to 'I am, I exist' as he too had a problem with the inital statement.


It wasnt a problem, but more of a final solution. After meditating greatly on it, he found that the original sample was a little too unrefined.
then he requoted with something that still remains slightly ill-refined anyhow, lol :lol:

[TEND]

It wasnt a problem, but more of a final solution. After meditating greatly on it, he found that the original sample was a little too unrefined.
then he requoted with something that still remains slightly ill-refined anyhow, lol :lol:

True Enough, as we're still trying to tweak it just right.

[PierreGringoire]

I believe they both are right for as much as we can understand. So therefore I believe that the pursuit of proving an existentialist thought and or a rationalistic thought is a chase after the wind in both cases. There is something in science called homeostasis. A complexity of absurd conformities work together to balance a living organism. Is there a median between existentialism and rationalism? What an absurd thought!! Does progress even exist? In no less than regress exists. Does an equation like this make sense to you? (8 - 4 + 7a(4a - 2) = ) Look!! It's laughing at us!!:)

[bhekti]

...Is there a median between existentialism and rationalism? ..

Our rationality is exitential ? (I'm thinking about Heidegger and hermeneutics)

[Verbatim]

without rationality, there are no concrete ideas of philosophy.

[PierreGringoire]

Verbatim- Now we are getting somewhere:) hahah good quote BTW...I want to hear some more from mono...Mono I'm your biggest fan:thumbs_up

[blurry blur]

i think, therefore i am...blurry

[subterranean]

.... from what I see, both rationalism and existentialism can overlap;

Perhaps this has something to do with to application of phenomenology, which was used by Sartre in discovering his ideas. Phenomenology here refers to the one developed by Husserl and Descartes' idea on methodological doubt was one of the main influences.

:idea:

[mono]

Verbatim- Now we are getting somewhere:) hahah good quote BTW...I want to hear some more from mono...Mono I'm your biggest fan:thumbs_up
:lol:
Oh my, I hardly know what else to say regarding the subject. :blush: But I often enjoy your posts as well, Pierre; I wish you would come around the forum more frequently.

First I think it would be hasty to equate rationalism and Cartesian concepts. While Descartes is definitely a rationalist he by and larges does not represent the rationalists. Descartes was catholic and was in the process of reconciling his religion with the thought of his day. (While trying not to be burned at the stake as well.)
I certainly see what you mean here, Maerlook, that Descartes may have 'sugar-coated' his philosophy a bit so as to both communicate his philosophy, but also not get discluded from his church. Perhaps, in terms of rationalism, Spinoza seems a better representative; or one could proceed to who I would consider the 'kings of rationalism' - Plato and Aristotle, both who thought any truth could get reached by use of reason.
The use of reason, of course, would never entirely contradict the philosophy of existentialism, however, but more combats empiricism, and declares itself a bit more of a skeptic's philosophy; while thinking of it, and not realizing it before, David Hume would likely fit the category (in some of his works) of existentialism.
Further mingling rationalism and existentialism seems the subject of decided fate and free will. Existentialism focuses greatly upon the freedom, uniquity, and separation of each human being with each other and the remains of the universe. While looking at The Republic by Plato, for example, every part of the tri-partite soul and tri-partite state includes every combined element of human values, abilities, and hierarchy; this, furthermore, does not entirely contradict the uniquity of each individual, yet more combines the uniquity of each individual to a successful state.

[cuppajoe_9]

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum. I think I think, therefore I think I am.

What's up bros? It's been a while.

[miss_07]

Cogito ergo sum[/I] (or 'I think, therefore I am') seems far more based on an individual rationalism among Descartes; I have met very few people who claim to have understood his Meditations, and I do not consider myself among them. A cognitive being attached to a material body (the mind-body dichotomy), I can understand by Descartes, but, not to critique his brilliance, I would require more discussion on the mind-body 'adherence' to entirely claim 'I think, therefore I am.'


" I think, therefore I am"

Descartes meant in his Meditations that he knew nothing as Socrate. The only thing he knew was that he existed , but how can he be sure that he existed since our senses ( opinions) can be wrong. For example, the idea that the earth was the center of the univers was believed for a long time because we saw that the sun was "moving" around the earth when actually it wasnt. That means that anything around us could be virtual and not actually exist.
He said that the only way to know was by our own thoughts. And since he knew that there was something that made him think, he knew he existed. " I think therefore I am" Nothing could make him think otherwise not even a "magician" as he says. He doesnt know about his body but since he thinks, then he knows he exists. ( thats his 1st truth)

But our thoughts are tooo big to understand them. Freud found out that Man have thoughts which are "pushed" away in the back of our heads that we try to avoid and that just come out in dreams. Like an Iceberg; We only show part of the ice but the rest which is a BIg part of the ice is under the water hiden. ( i think that here i am contradicting the cartesien( sp?) method by talking about Freud)


I think there's some truth in Nietzsche's words. It is like what Paul the Apostle said,

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.

Here Paul recognizes the double nature, or being, of "I". He controls over one, but not of the other one. The word "I" always represents two different, but connected, entities.


Then comes the second structure of his thoughts; " without a you there is no I" ( I tried to translate it from french lol) ..... ect ect

I I go into it ill never stop. I dont think i made sence but oh well LOL

[bhekti]

" without a you there is no I"

Agree!

I am because you are
How are you?
If you are well, I am happy :)

Without you there is no I
Without You there is no I

[miss_07]

I am reading Sartre right now and i dont really understand what he means by existentialism. ( about the essence and existence of a person...) Could someone explain it to me?:)

[Orionsbelt]

I just can't help it...

from the point of view of the existentialist....perhaps influence by phenominology anyway the issue becomes:

I be thinking!

[OZEED]

I think, therefore I am is the statement of an intellectual who underrates toothaches - Milan Kundera
*hides from philosophical stares* sorry people pray go on, I was rather enjoying this thread

[mohan kumar]

I think there for I am- It is an egostic statment

[Eagleheart]

Yesterday I discovered I have been an existentialist all my conscious life.../which conviction lasted to the fifth page of Sartre's essay/....Many philosophic currents may seem "impregnable" but their worst flow appears immediately after their so called construction...These currents are developed intentionally as "currents" with all the required foundations/ definitions, may even coin some new" smart words".../, but it is exactly this -the problem...they begin as an enterprise, manifacture of s.th supposedly new and only consider the human-centered issues subsequently...The beginning seems to be a desire to set up a new theory as an objective but not a means. There may be most acceptable views in philosophy in general, but while scholars shake a finger for the "disputable" themes in the field, such as "Do we really exist"...some people perish...And no respectful current ruminates on human issues to form a theory, but outlines a theory to address these issues...What is worst: "solid" theories are build on"unquestionableness" not on "answers"...Even if philosophers have something to offer/which I do not deny/...their approach devalues the ventures...Because no intellectual contest should shadow the hovering problems of humanity...And a large observation shows only intellectual contests...On this account I can only judge philosophical propositions as a patient evaluator...and if someone again questions our existence/I stick to the example because it is the most insolent/...while people perish ...I suggest we start shaking a finger too.

Not to mention some "no crossing of the definitions" of some of our luminaries
Moral: You never know if when Adopting a certain theory you are not joining a sect...

[Poetess]

"I think Therefore I am."
It is a quote that has to do with conscience and subconscience.
A conscious person thinks before he acts or be. Plus, Descarts said it for defending conscience.

Classical Psychology followed the method of Introspection which is the observation or examination of one`s own mental and emotional state/
self-examination.

That means, a person should examine and observe who/what he really is, to be aware of his/her own existence.

So, everything physiological isn`t actually conscious. And this is what "I Think therefore I am" means, thinking is not physical => thinking is 'conscience' => 'conscience' is 'existing'.

Yet this method also faced criticism (by some philisophers... including August Comte.)

Hope I made it clear 0.o or even said what`s right! lol

[dramasnot6]

Perhaps "I am" has another meaning. Maybe it signifies not just physical existence, but a specific connection and self-realization developed by thinking. That thinking makes you more familiar with your position in the world. You can doubt everything but that you are doubting. There is the material world which you can doubt, and there is the mental realm in which one is doubting.

[Poetess]

Physical existence isn`t a complete matter. I agree with you Drama.
Some people had lost the half of their physical organs, this doesn`t mean they are "I" without the "am"!

[dramasnot6]

Well said Poetess. And i would assume more to adopt that initial reaction to the quote, as "think" is directly related to the mind,unlike the body which acts only as a product of the thinking of the mind. The term "finding yourself" may be what the quote was actually getting at....thinking as in overcoming difficult circumstances(*cough*such as vengeance for your father on your uncle*cough*) in order to become closer to yourself and your beliefs.

[dramasnot6]

Just thought of a much better way of putting it:
We are testing our moral and mental boundaries to become more in touch with how we understand and work with our inner being.

[Poetess]

i think, therefore i am...blurry


^^ Hahah funny!! somewhat true in someways..


Btw, your location, is a personal quote of mine in a profile of mine :)

[Poetess]

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum. I think I think, therefore I think I am.

What's up bros? It's been a while.


Isn`t it "Cogito cogito, ergo cogito ergo sum"?
:blush: