>I think therefore I am.
>"I" is the first word of the sentence
>"I" is already presupposed to exist
>it's literally begging the question
How is your first year at University treating you?
>>330154
>cogito Ergo sum
Not
>ego cogitar, Ergo ego sum
You need a better translation
>>330154
good anlytical philopoopy
>>330154
>"I" is already presupposed to exist
Nope. That's the beauty of the thing. I exist by the mere virtue of enunciating myself.
"I think therefore I am" is just the shitty short version that Descartes actually never even harped on that much and didn't even use in his original work.
Either way, any type of argument that something exists HAS to be circular because existence is presupposed to make the argument in the first place. The very moment I say A, I'm already acknowledging its existence in the premise.
That's not really what Descartes was on about though, he just wanted to point out that you can't falsify it, because when you try you are automatically proving it. He basically BTFO'd Hume despite coming before him.
Also, the "I perspective" is necessary because if you were to say "it thinks", or "there is thinking", as some critics have supposed, you would automatically be OBSERVING that fact as a third person - thereby you are actually making even MORE assumptions, such as there being some sort of "not-you" outside world that can be observed. Keeping Stirners creative singularity in mind, everything starts with the I.
Either you accept the first person premise as self-evident, or you go all the way and say "there is no thought, you're just imagining it!" and make yourself look like an idiot.
>>330280
desu you would to have completely out of your mind to assult any of those..
>>330280
You know, in a fair share of First World Countries, we dont assault people for disagreeing with them.
>>331829
It literally means I think therefore I am. Word by word.
>>331859
Really because the word for "i" which is "ego" is never used. Ergo doesn't even mean therefor, it means thus.
Loquo lqtine, et tu anon?
>>331864
>Really because the word for "i" which is "ego" is never used.
Because that's not how conjugation and verb construction works in Latin. The single word "cogito" means "I think."
>>331884
No its a present tense verb for first person thought. Not "I think" I think is ego cogitar.
>>331895
....what? So how would you translate "cogito ergo sum?"
>>331895
Found the germanic barbarian
>>331895
You are absolutely retarded, dude.
>>331974
>you are absolutely retarded, dude
I speak 4 languages, 3 of which are unrelated. I'm able to see a misquote like this and laugh my ass Off when you pleas fumble over it.
>proofs.chicken
>>331967
>"(I am) thinking thus I am"
So, exactly the same then
>>331992
And obviously none of those are Latin.
3½/9, you did make me reply. And a good evening to you, sir.
>>332003
No, if you start a sentence with "i" you are, if you being with a thought, youre just a spirit in the sky, and when they speak they have infinite powers :^)
But really they're not the same. It's setting up the basis for ai, logic = life
>>330166
This already answers it really.
>>330295
This just sounds like pretentious bullshit.
First of all, it was never meant to be taken as a tautology in any manner, but rather as an obvious statement. A meta-statement of a sort.
Kinda like "I cannot doubt that I am doubting", that is a fallacy, since it contradicts the very act of it; it could therefore either be seen as a performative fallacy or some sort of, in lack of better words, meta-fallacy of the discussion.
Even though "cogito ergo sum" is phrased in the way it is (and if we're going to ignore Descartes' actual writings), it could be argued that "cogito" is the first person form of "To think", which implies that we have the relationship of a thinker doing something, which assumes what we wanted to prove.
But this is also not a correct reading of it, since Descartes isn't doing a metaphysical statement (that 'I' exist necessarily) but rather an epistemological statement, that I cannot doubt my doubt.
If we bring in epistemology into this, we're dealing with modal logic, and when translating modal logic, it is very easy to phrase things as oxymorons. Examples:
"It is possibly impossible." or "It is impossibly possible."
That doesn't mean it is a fallacy, but rather that the logical structures of the sentences are hard to explicate.
"I think therefore I am", if we're going to be pedantic about this specific (maybe a bit rhetorical) phrase, we could argue as such:
'I think' is self-evident from the thought being thought. 'Therefore' is a simple remark that the previous statement makes a commitment to the existence of an entity thinking, and that is what we call 'I'.
Formalising it is hard, and therefore it isn't possible to analyse it as syllogistic.
https://marija.gforge.uni.lu/esslli2010stus_submission_17.pdf
>sperging out over language
This is why Wittgenstein decided to kill philosophy.
>>330295
>didn't even use in his original work
He did say cogito ergo sum in the meditations though
>>331895
ego cogitar is itself wrong. The verb is cogitare. Ego cogitare is just gibberish, it means I to think.
Cogito is the only way to conjugate cogitare in the first person singular, and means, literally, I think.
Plebeian here. What is the problem here? Why are you arguing about the letter I? I thought the argument was that "there's thinking, something is" and that was the end of it.
>>332485
>I thought the argument was that "there's thinking, something is" and that was the end of it.
Not even. What's the connection between thought and existence? Why does the act of thinking imply something exists? For Descartes, it's because God guarantees all knowledge and rationality. Without God, Descartes' system falls apart.
>>332511
>Why does the act of thinking imply something exists?
Because thinking is something.
Even if it's some kind of simulation, something has to simulate it.
What am I missing?
>>332511
Descartes didn't anticipate later skepticism towards rationality itself as it concerns the cogito, or I doubt it. He takes the cogito as self-evident, but is nevertheless incredulous that his lowly thoughts could be all there is, and hence God, and hence rationality. Obviously, his jump from the cogito to God is sketchy at best, but I think almost everyone acknowledges that.
>>332530
Not that guy, but it's been somewhat recently argued that the reasoning involved in thinking your thinking means something exists, could be interfered with by a variant of the Cartesian demon. So that could be what he means.
>>332511
>What's the connection between thought and existence?
Holy fuck you are stupid.
