why "I think therefore I am" not "I think therefore I am thinking"?

1

why "thinking" jumped into the conclusion of "existence" as things can exist without thinking too. and what are all the other method except this that could prove our existence?

RaGa__M

Posted 2019-07-19T07:47:22.657

Reputation: 297

Question was closed 2019-07-19T20:35:17.353

Thinking when with reflection on the process of thinking (what cogito is) immediately (this is not a logical inference at all and needs not to be) opens that there is somebody or something monitoring the process intimately. Here is then the existence. "To know is to know that I know". We don't have to prove our existence. – ttnphns – 2019-07-19T08:22:34.953

No, To know is to "think and come to know" that you know. "I know" is a result that thinking produces it. – RaGa__M – 2019-07-19T08:29:01.890

You are speaking now of the focusing on the final judgement when the object of the thought is "whether I know or not". I was speaking about a reflection accompanying a thought about, say a "this tree". When I think about the tree and reflect, while still thinking tree, at that thinking, I automatically bring about the existence of a subject besides the object. Reflection is the splitting of the thought process, not changing the object. – ttnphns – 2019-07-19T08:38:09.873

Things can exist without thinking, but can they think without existing? More to the point, how does "I" come out of "thinking"? Like other "methods", this one is flawed at "proving" something if one is determined enough to doubt it. – Conifold – 2019-07-19T09:17:33.523

@Conifold which existence do that "they" need for thinking? and "I" is just what has been presupposed already "I think": we presuppose even before we are proving our existence? – RaGa__M – 2019-07-19T09:31:39.080

I am not saying it is false. – RaGa__M – 2019-07-19T09:32:10.413

Even if "thinking" is granted "I think" is a leap based on empirical association (to a "subject") that defeats the purpose of "proving". Once you have that, "I exist" is a trivial inference from definitions of the words. But then follow further existential leaps known as the Cartesian Circle. You should read the linked answers.

– Conifold – 2019-07-19T09:39:23.040

1

Also see: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/55469/33787

– christo183 – 2019-07-19T09:42:57.487

Actually in eastern philosophy – Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism, Zen... – its the other way round. Thinking is a disturbance and disorder imposed on being. The discussion in the other question linked by @christo183 has useful pointers. – Rusi-packing-up – 2019-07-19T10:51:51.917

Your reformulation to "I think therefore I am thinking" has the same dialectical force as the original. It still brings us to the "I am", and that was point. – transitionsynthesis – 2019-07-19T19:59:23.070

No answers