(no subject)
Personally I believe what the philosopher Decartes said is true, "I think, therefore I am" but this put a nifty twist on things. I found it interesting anyway...
--
The most famous statement in the field of philosophy is probably: "I think, therefore I am."
Now consider the following: "I do not think, therefore I am not." (Simply add a negative to both sides of the argument).
This raises the question, "In that case, who is making the statement"
Following on from this, for "I do not think", replace "I am unthinking" - a valid substitution?
"I am unthinking, therefore I am not."
Going on from here, the general statement surely is that unthinking people do not exist. BUT - we all know that there are a great many unthinking people in the world, so we can now derive the following statement: "I am unthinking, therefore I am."
Once again, after adding a negative to both sides of the argument we get: "I THINK, THEREFORE I AM NOT", thus disproving Decartes' existence.
--
For the record, Decartes was never certian that anything other than his mind and the minds of others did actually exist.
--
The most famous statement in the field of philosophy is probably: "I think, therefore I am."
Now consider the following: "I do not think, therefore I am not." (Simply add a negative to both sides of the argument).
This raises the question, "In that case, who is making the statement"
Following on from this, for "I do not think", replace "I am unthinking" - a valid substitution?
"I am unthinking, therefore I am not."
Going on from here, the general statement surely is that unthinking people do not exist. BUT - we all know that there are a great many unthinking people in the world, so we can now derive the following statement: "I am unthinking, therefore I am."
Once again, after adding a negative to both sides of the argument we get: "I THINK, THEREFORE I AM NOT", thus disproving Decartes' existence.
--
For the record, Decartes was never certian that anything other than his mind and the minds of others did actually exist.