Questions about Descartes' "I am a thinking thing"?
970369
"I think therefore I am." Descarte was trying to start from what was indesputable, & procede to the less certain aspects of knowledge.\n\nThe ability to think was to Descarte proof that we actually existed. Descarte was deeply confused. Thinking is one of many things we DO, as well as breath, act, sense, emote, remember, imagine, or meditate. If we stop thinking, what happens? Nothing except our mind grows quiet & somewhat more peaceful for a while. We still are, thinking or not at all. If we stop breathing, we die. Wikijo would have said " I breath, therefore I am." It would have made more sense.\n\nI hope this helps.\n\n;-)
623775
I am, therefore I think? Or even more philosophically, "I yam what I yam".\n\n\n**Descartes is sitting in a bar, holding an empty glass. The bartender asks "Will you have another?" Descartes says "I think not", and vanishes in a puff of logic.**
202383
I had this exact assignment for university three semesters ago.  I'll give you an idea of the tought process I followed to get to my philosophy.  First I started to think about how I think students learn, their different styles of learning; and my own teaching style.  I try to back all my points by examples, from books or from my own teaching experience, to prove what I believed in.  I think the most important part is to write about what you really believe in.  I'll e-mail you the first draft of my philosophy so you get a better idea of what I'm talking about.  Take into consideration that I'm an ESL teacher in Guatemala and that there are several experiences that deal with my own private teaching.
733235
So - I am going to go for the fact that you are saying that Descartes starts with an assumption that cannot be justified. He says "I think therefore I am". On this he bases his entire life's work making him a world renowned philosopher and frankly - as you pointed out - his foundations are built on sand.\n\nOr maybe I red one too many glasses on red wine...
262705
According to Berkeley, something only exists if it can be perceived (esse est percipi). Berkeley believed "minds" -- like yours or mine -- perceive things as well as God. He assumed that God exists. Therefore, Berkeley would say that since God perceived (heard) the sound, that it existed.
168257
"Descartes's chief contributions to mathematics were his analytical geometry and his theory of vortices, and it is on his researches in connection with the former of these subjects that his mathematical reputation rests. "\nhttp://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Descartes/RouseBall/RB_Descartes.html\n\n\n"The most notable contribution that Descartes made to mathematics was the systematization of analytic geometry (see Geometry: Analytic Geometry). He was the first mathematician to attempt to classify curves according to the types of equations that produce them. He also made contributions to the theory of equations. Descartes was the first to use the last letters of the alphabet to designate unknown quantities and the first letters to designate known ones. He also invented the method of indices (as in x2) to express the powers of numbers. In addition, he formulated the rule, which is known as Descartes's rule of signs, for finding the number of positive and negative roots for any algebraic equation."\nhttp://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555262/Rene_Descartes.html\n\n\nDescartes made a number of important contributions to mathematics and physics, among the most enduring of which was his foundation (with Galileo) of what is now known as analytic geometry. That is, broadly speaking, the use of geometrical analysis to solve complex algebraic problems, and vice versa. It is difficult to overestimate the importance for the history of mathematical physics of this bringing together of the sciences of geometry and algebra. \nhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm\n\n\n" 'This one thing [analytic geometry] is of the highest order of excellence, marked by the sensuous simplicity of the half dozen or so greatest contributions of all time to mathematics. Descartes remade geometry and made modern geometry possible. '(E. T. Bell) \n\nInventor of analytic and coordinate geometry. Cartesian coordinates. "\nhttp://scidiv.bcc.ctc.edu/Math/Descartes.html
1065337
It's Latin, and pronounced "Koh-jee-to air-go sum".\n\nIt's a phrase written originally by French philosopher Rene Descartes, and means "I think, therefor I am"
238903
thoughts, concepts, brainstorms, inspirations, inventions, memes.\n\nThe ancient Greeks believed that ideas came from one or another Muse; a group of demigoddesses who acted as patrons of the arts and were responsible for inspiration.\n\nThese days, the more prevalent belief is that ideas arise from the subconscious.  Your brain is constantly busy collating and cross-referencing information, looking for patterns and relationships.  Every now and then, a "hit" is made that's exciting enough to get the attention of your conscious mind.\n\nCreative people recommend that when you're trying to find a solution to a problem, gather all the pertinent information you can get, study it and think about it in as much detail as you can; then drop it for a while.  Let your mind roam free and play around.  You can even "sleep on it," and often when you wake up your mind will have found a solution to the problem.\n\nRichard Dawkins invented the word "meme" to describe how ideas often act just like living organisms; how they are born, reproduce, run their lifespan and/or mutate.\n\nA couple of good films on ideas, if you can find them:  "Why Man Creates" and "The Creative Spirit."  The latter was on PBS a few years ago, so it may be possible to find it on video.
1006147
Hope this helps.  :)\n\nPhilosophical Humanism in The Tenth Century: Miskawayh's Concep... \nThe paper concludes with the relevance of Miskawayh's critique of Aristotle's concept of justice, which has shaped modern conceptions of human rights. ...\n\nhttp://h05.cgpublisher.com/proposals/494/manage_workspace \nCliffsNotes::Aristotle's Ethics:Book Summary and Study Guide \nAristotle. Previous Page. Table of Contents, About the Author ... The Aristotelian concept of corrective justice is illustrated by the following diagram: ...\n\nhttp://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/id-21,pageNum-55.html \nAristotle@Everything2.com \nAristotle's description of revolutions and his concept of justice leads him to prescribe equality among the citizens as the ideal form of a state, ...\n\nhttp://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Aristotle
1001683
D and E. A bit of a contradiction, true. Cognito ergo sum. I think therefore I exist. Man thinks of God, therefore he exists. Which points to the fact that if the God is a product of man, then the supposed God of (A) does not exist. Therefore I motion that a god, or gods, do not exist at all. How can a god exist and de-exist, through the thought of man? Logic101. My weak point in college, but a great tool in regards to faith, religion, and gods.
978995
I AM NOT COGITO SUM, but you should let him know that is nick name makes no sense. The latin  correct way is COGITO ERGO SUM, I think therefore I AM, taken from the philosopher  DESCARTES.
576478
i just finished taking a class where we used Egan's book...i personally think he talk in riddles. unfortunately, i can't help you...because i don't think i ever figured that out either.
1176729
1) This was Socrates, and he made this statement at his trial.  (Read the "Apology" by Plato.  Or take my word for it.)  What he meant was something like, "If we just go through life never asking why, what's the point?"  He believed that to truly find "the good life" we need to be willing to ask hard questions and come to know the truth.\n\n2)  This is another statement that leads toward the same basic idea.  The speaker (I can't remember who said this one off the top of my head) is suggesting that we cannot be successful until we come to know who we really are--why we do what we do.  So examining one's self is the first step that we must take if we are to live successful lives.
455247
I've only been through "Insight" once, and read the "Verbum" articles years ago, so somebody might have a more detailed answer. \n\nLonergan does seem to have a Kantian agenda, though he doesn't directly engage Kant. The Kantian question is: by what right do we make metaphysical statements, such as "God exists." Lonergan argues by describing the process by which we makes true statements, though not in the same manner as Kant. His approach is more empirically oriented, looking at everyday experiencing and judging (whereas Kant was interested in the validity of those judgments necessary for Newtonian physics). From this basis, he argues that metaphysical judgments are possible; thus we can give an argument that God exists. \n\nIs this a faithful extension of Aquinas? Leaving aside whether or not Aquinas was interested in proving the existence of God in the modern sense, I would say yes. In fact, much of "Insight" sounds to me like a standard neo-scholastic epistemology manual. It's questionable whether his "turn to the subject" is a move Aquinas would have made, but I don't see that there's a contradiction between being a response to modern concerns and being a faithful extension of Aquinas.
894453
Dear Francis B:  It is not for me or anyone to press God and His Realm upon others who do not wish to know of it.  If you will bear with me, I would like to say a few things about this:\n\n1.   As one who pursued the Intellect of my human mind most of my life and looked at all things, and felt pride in my Intellect's comprehensive ability to learn and understand , I now present to you what I learned :  The Intellect is but an exercise of mind.   Scientific theories come and go each decade.  The Sciences get up close to God and then, sadly, have no ability to mathematically formulate His Reality and Truth. To prove Him.  I would offer:  Don't rely on just the Intellect to live by.\n\n2.    Later in life, I opened up to Spirit Mind.  Nothing denominational, nothing very traditional, no dogma , and  began receiving "experiences" of Spirit. \n\n "Temporal Lobes of the Brain" is a discussion of the illusionary-type reality we experience here in the physical world.  But, you know, we are much more than just physical.  Made of something much more powerful. . .and, sooner, or later, we all come to Know.  Our Creator is not dependent upon our "belief" in Him.  He exists  - whether we choose to deny Him or recognize Him.  He looks upon what He created and listens while it turns to other creations He created and yells, "There is no God." And, He MUST think to Himself. . .how strange that is; my creation is acting as if it doesn't know me !  Yet, I AM  - and certain of myself !  Even a human father might find it a bit disconcerting -  when a child of his denies him. Same thing, really.\n\nAnyhow, spiritual or religious experiences come not from the human Intellect - but, from the soul/spirit part of Mind.  That "thing" that certainly exists, but is not reflected by the physical matter of "brain."  In thinking upon ourselves, perhaps we need to consider ourselves more in terms of a totality - rather than just one part of us as "real" and that there is nothing MORE to us.  That may be something to contemplate. . .\n\nI would like to submit to you further these truths of spiritual experience (or religious experience), as I have learned of it:\n\n1.   Spiritual or religious experience "reverses physical laws."\n2.   These experiences are often experienced during prayer or study.\n3.   These experiences undo the past in the present and release the future.  They are outside the laws of the physical world.\n4.    Spiritual or religious experiences REFLECT, therefore, the laws of Eternity, not of time.\n5.    Through spiritual or religious experience you feel God's constant Forgiveness upon you and are impelled to extend it to others.\n6.    Spiritual experiences (or religious . . .let's now use the words interchangeably) are part of an interlocking chain of forgiveness and is at work in all the dimensions of Time.\n7.    Spiritual experiences are healing because they deny absolute body-identification and affirm spirit-identification.  This places spirit at the Center of Mind where it can communicate directly.\n8.    Spiritual experiences honor you.  They dispel illusions about yourself.  They help restore your sanity.  They restore the Mind to its fullness. . .. \n9.    Spirit's strength leaves no room for intrusions.  Nothing can take the experience and its effects away from you.\n10.  By perceiving the light IN the experience, darkness automatically disappears.\n11.    Whole-ness is the perceptual content of spiritual experience.  It corrects the faulty perceptions of lack, or being separated.\n\nBest regards, Lana
277015
Questioning life is part of living life...its called the study of philosophy :o)
1135752
Bertrand Russell  and G.E Moore posed a similar issue many years ago when one of them suggested something like the following: Suppose you were created 5 minutes ago, complete with memories.  How would you prove what was real?\nThis has, of course, given way to many explanations and many theories of epistemology.  How do we know anything at all? Is it handed out by a great and powerful God or did matter just gel together and create mankind?\nI cannot pretend to be able to answer the question but I will suggest food for thought; in any human endeavor, we believe in something first and discover its efficacy later.  That is, we think we see something before our eyes, say as a child, and then we figure out how to reach out and grab it.  In this way, babies discover that they can reach their rattles and blankets and Mommy, but they cannot reach the window, the sky or the ceiling fan.  As adults, we learn to use the keyboard by pressing buttons and testing the results.  However if you wish to suggest that there might not be any keyboards in existence, I would give you a funny look and ask what you meant.\nHence I am suggesting that your question is turned upside down:  we do, in fact, each of us, believe that matter exists and has existed for some time.  While some believe in God as the prime cause, others believe in some sort of eternal material goo which somehow, and somewhat embarrassingly, developed a spiritual nature that ended up as mankind.  In both cases, what gives us comfort in our lives often leads us to our conclusions about beginnings rather than the reverse.\nLastly, when we are angry with the actions of others, we usually take it out on ourselves.  As Montaigne suggested, more blood has been spilled in the name of God than by any other cause.  Frankly, I don't see how we could blame God for that any more than we can blame him for not giving us the answers we demand.  I think His purpose might have been to teach us how ridiculous we are when we act in an immoral way, but judging by the present state of things, perhaps that isn't working all that well.  The state of the world today is better explained by the primoridial goo theory and the spirit of human beings? Maybe it's just a terminal case of a bad design flaw.  Of course it could just be bad personal behavior and unending greed, but lots of people would have trouble with an absolute morality.  By this time, maybe God does too!\nThink of this, the next time you get the urge to wonder about something: an atheist is, by definition, someone who denies the existence of something which doesn't exist.