The k2p blog

Cogito, ergo sum is a philosophical proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as “I think, therefore I am”.

In no philosophy is thinking a prerequisite for existence. Of course, Descartes’ formulation is just tautology since it presupposes the “I” and the “think” and the “am”. Thinking is taken here as proof of existence, but is nothing more than an assertion of existence.

But what could prove existence?

That question in itself requires what constitutes “proof” to be defined and requires criteria specifying “existence”. An that leads only to circular arguments.

• Existence refers to the ontological property of being.
• “To be” does not require the capability of being observed or an observer with a consciousness.
• “To exist” does not require proof of existence.
• However “proof” of existence requires an observer and therefore no “proof” can be anything other than subjective to the observer.
• Existence is not caused by an observers perception of proof.

I always end up with the case of the tree falling in the forest, creating a pressure wave and whether or not there is a brain to detect the pressure wave and perceive sound. A perception of existence is not the same as existence. The perception may be true or false. The perception requires an observer and a consciousness.

The real conundrum is the existence, not of a bunch of atoms which look like me but, of the “I” of me.

• The “I” exists as long as – and only when – I think I think.
• The existence of other things is not dependent upon my perception of proof of existence.

But I still cannot quite come to grips with what “thinking” is.

Tags: Existence

This entry was posted on April 16, 2019 at 8:22 am and is filed under Philosophy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.