i cannot comprehend not thinking, not existing, i just cannot get it into my mind that theres gonna be a day where i wont think therefore i wont be, i truly wish ican understand not existing
its actually so interesting because i like to imagine not existing as something that has already been, before i was born, and yet i can not imagine it because it is nothing yet is it something that was (writing it this way is the only way that makes sense to me maybe i didnt not “happen” i just wasnt) which is literally the answer, before i, i was not, and i have no memory or perception of it, yet i acknowledge it and know if it
Well, Kant would respond that what you can conceive of through your understanding is bound by subjectivity, in the sense of being a subject, and therefore it perfectly makes sense that you can't imagine not being a subject. Or to put it in a more kantian fashion : the very conditions of possibility of comprehending non-existence contradict the conditions of possibility of you being able to comprehend anything, that is, existence itself. Everything becomes clearer when said Kant's style, doesn't it ? Hmm, perhaps not actually. TL;DR: it's perfectly normal you kant.
you've never been unconscious or blacked out or had a dreamless sleep, one of those nights where it feels like you simply blinked and it was suddenly morning?
I think therefore I am .... FOR I AM, AM I AM I ALONE HAD NO BODY NO SENSES NO FELLINGS.. I WAS IN HELL... LOOKING AT HEAVEN .. . I WAS MACHINE AND YOU .. . WERE FLESH
I remember my Father reading the book you’re referring to after his first heart attack at age 37. I was awestruck when he quoted “I think, therefore, I am,” to me, when he began meditation and yoga, after his triple bypass open-heart surgery, in 1975. These words put together made absolute sense to me. OF COURSE! I THINK, THEREFORE I AM! Brilliant!!! For a 13-year old girl at the time … and a freshman in high school, I had absorbed these words and resonated with them, of not knowing why, until much later. Your discussion and your concise explanation of the subject matter is simply stated for my 61 yr. old mind to understand 😉, and absolutely fascinating! Thank you!
No its a philosophy reference, as it explains reality, it was rather the first philosophical idea I had learned, then I worked towards even more complexities, I highly recommend understanding, "cogito ergo sum". As it will be beneficial
As saying you changed the trajectory of my life may be a little too much of an overstatement, I’ll just admit the content you create has throughly impacted every aspect of the way I perceive my surroundings and express my interests. Your videos have deepened the way I analyze and process any input I receive. Finding your channel truly has been what I needed to further define what person I want to become and what paths do I want to follow when I become and adult. Thank you so much Alex!
I share your exact sentiments! Alex just really has helped established the ability to perceive things differently and just to simply think more-something we forget to do sometimes.
@@crystalgiddens7276 shrooms are better if you have a good mental foundation. For effective training as a neuronaut, I like to think well before I go on a spirit walk. Don’t just rely on the substance, be in the right frame of mind first. Drugs are wasted on the young.
David Hume is comparatively easy to read (especially in contrast to someone like Kant). The most famous for Hume is probably Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. For a casual read, I’d recommend the website “early-modern texts” but the full book of the Enquiry is available anywhere as pdf and while it will take some time to get through (it’s pretty dense), it’s relatively straightforward. The most important parts are chapters 1-8 (where he sets up things like Humes fork and the problem of induction/whether causality is knowable)
Seeing as my native language is German, which does not have a Continuous Present or equivalent, and having always understood the Cogito in this way anyways, this video has once again shown me the importance of clearly defined language, not only of course, but especially in discussion of thought. Thank you very much, for providing a fascinating new perspective, great video, keep it up!
tldr, "I think, therefor I am" is, at its core, summarising the thought that you should have self confidence in the fact that you are thinking and experiencing things in the first place, and therefor, you yourself verify your own existence.
"I think, therefore I am" and the meditations were the first things I got taught in my first A level philosophy lesson, and I knew I was going to love the subject immediately.
@@MrRANTBOY ...Whatever @Reece's definition is, since @Reece is the one using the term axiomatically. So far, @Reece is stumped. Incidentally, what do you mean by "mean"?
@@RandomHuman4022 ...The most important thing to realise is that nobody really "knows" anything with 100% certainty...and they never have. Western philosophy has the _a priori_ assumption that _faith is a form of knowledge -- a sub form._ However: knowledge is a form of faith...an objectively determined one...but one which is easily broken down by the old Buddhist/radical objectivism chestnut "when is a cart not a cart?" "Reality" is faith-based.
I never realized until now, that your channel and the way you speak, rationalize and build arguments has been a major reason why I got into studying philosophy. Thank you so much for your amazing work! It has brought so much positive change into my life!
This was great! More of this kind - exploring central ideas in different philosophical issues, looking at different philosophers - would be really interesting!
You have such a way of explaining complex ideas in a simple way so a wide variety of people can understand. I'm glad you share this knowledge on youtube
Great explanation thanks! Reminds me one of the gems that can be found in the french comics Astérix (making a pun between "je suis" = "I am" and "je suis" = "I am following"): Astérix and Obélix want to enter a roman fort, but they must give a password (which is "cogito ergo sum", but Astérix can't remember it). Astérix: "do you remember [the password]?" Obélix: "You know, foreign languages and me... And after all, YOU are thinking, I am following." (in French: "Oh, tu sais, moi, les langues étrangères… Et puis, toi tu penses, moi je suis.") Brilliant!
When I was at school there was a cartoon picture of a man walking behind a donkey followed by the words “Je suis que je suis mais je ne suis pas que je suis ! “
I watched your videos when I got married. I got separated 5 months after I got married and I continue to watch your videos during my divorce proceedings. Turns out I had a longer relationship with your TH-cam channel than I had with my abusive ex husband. Still, I discussed some of your videos with him and it's nostalgic. Cheers!! Edit: Getting abused and divorced at 26 gives you a weird understanding of the world.
@@LevelJoy Well he was emotionally, verbally and physically abusive. And now he's on sort of some smear campaign to tarnish my reputation. All this after I loved him with all my heart and soul.
The inability to doubt something isn’t a basis for truth, but the inability to specifically doubt your own existence or “if you’re thinking” is. The emphasis should be put not on the doubting or the thinking but on the logical inconsistency brought about by the specific relationship of the two.
You have a truly wonderful ability to dig into deep subjects while introducing the foundational concepts behind the discussion without any hint of arrogance. Great job. Thank you.
Great vídeo Alex. I do believe that TH-cam needs more videos like this. Philosophical discussions presented in a objective and understanding manner. I'm Brazilian and a subscriber for years, keep up the good work!
To me this guy explains concepts in a such clear way that I finally understand them. I don't get how google or textbooks can't do that. Also, these videos are hella interesting, thank you for them!
Language is an interesting thing. In German you say “ich denke, also bin ich” which is pretty mich the same as cogito ergo sum. There is no difference in the present form but just the one existing. So the interpretation cannot get lost in translation, but rather in the interpretation itself
yes, alex is not trying to claim that it was directly mistranslated. He is saying that because of the context about how history can always be doubted, the quote may need a more appropriate rephrasing.
A lot of philosophy deals with semantics it seems, not just ideas about the world/ourselves. So I guess it can help you get a better grip on language as well, which is good in itself :)
@@gregwarrener4848 A more appropriate rephrasing even in the original language? In French "I'm thinking" is more like "Je suis en train de penser..." (I'm in the process of thought)
Reminded me of my philosophy class in high school.(had 7 hours a week, ugh) We did review this sentence. We saw it in French because I'm French (obviously 😅) but seeing your take on it and in english is very interesting . I'm French and even in french I sometimes don't get everything. Plus in philosophy class it's easier to follow if you know latin. Which I don't. You refreshed my thought about the sentence because I'd forgotten everything in 3 years🌺
Perfect timing. I've been reading the book Sophie's World and I just completed the chapter describing Descartes' philosophy. This video acted as a review of my reading. Thank you.
A poet walks into a bar and asks for "One beer, please!" The bartender goes "There's only one beer left..." Then MF DOOM walks into the room and starts rapping
This was really fun! I’ve always loved what I guess is called the cogito, it always seemed so obvious and unassailable. It’s cool to see that it isn’t quite what I expected. I especially liked hearing about the thinking that led Descartes to it. Idk if there’s enough material out there for this, but if you had a series explaining widely recognized but little understood philosophy tidbits, I’d watch every episode, no doubt
it means "I think therefore I am", but in buddhist terms, it could be more "I think, therefor the idea of me exists", and if we stop thinking the idea of being seperate from everything else breaks down and we feel apart of something bigger
Exactly. "I am" is as far as one can go. It doesn't prove "I am separate from the thought". So, if there is a thought and there is I then I must be the thought. But the thought passes away the moment it arises, so it is empty. And when we try to recreate a separate self every moment it becomes awfully jarring and annoying. And when we see these characteristics of impermanence, no-self, and suffering clearly and directly, we rejoice in fruition.
This reminds me of the Ship of Theseus. As we go through life, we continuously change, but at any one moment, we feel like we are not changing in a significant sense. This is because our memories serve as a comparison of who we were to who we are now. So it seems, at any one moment, we are not the person we used to be, in thought. So, is the previous person continuously dying? This seems to match up perfectly with the scientific analysis of the human brain which is subjected to causality. It seems like we are simply emotional machines and our thought processes are completely determined by our substrate of memories and our channels of common thoughts and values. We are not dying at every moment because our thoughts are not us. Our thoughts change and we change. But our constituent parts are us. Everything our brain takes in. This makes us insepperable from the people and universe around us, including the laws that govern everything, while making us uniquely different.
Yes.I am therefore I think.More accurate is ,I am therefore thinking.Does thought define ones existence ?.No.Thought is descriptive.Does one think ?.or thoughts appear and one claims authorship of the thought.
But wouldn't we then assume the existence of an enterior world whether we view ourselves as separate og a part of it? But I like the phrasing "the idea of me" although I'm not much of either a Buddhist or a Platonist, but it captures the detail that I exist under "some form" and nothing more can be known for sure.
Dude I am an atheist ex-muslim from India,I have watching you frequently since 2019.You was among the first people that convinced me to become atheist and vegan.You have a deep and profound impact and influence on my life.I wish I could financially support you but I am just a student ATM :/ ,I will surely do this in the future.Please continue to make videos like these on prominent historical figures like Descartes and Galilei.I am also missing some of your old content such as Podcasts and debunk1ng arguments for the existence of god and calling out religious stup1dity.Absolutely love you and your videos and will continue to watch them.As always..keep up the good work man ;) 👍
I love your videoes it really got me into appreciating philosophy and improving my meta-cognitive skills. It also helps to sound smarter at 16 but still more importantly I just really appreciate this. It's wild how much I've learned over these past few years with your videos and others and one day I hope to be as informed or a little bit close to you someday. I suppose I'm starting the new year right with this.
When the school systems generally don’t promote critical thinking for us ( I’m 15 ) it’s amazing to still be able to develop our critical thinking skills online with great creators like him
@@theclosetedplantlover5524 yeah it kinda sucks how I feel like I was just taught to obey authority, trust that adults knew better than you on virtue of age and somehow it was our faults that we didn't think critically enough even though a proper foundation was never properly laid. I'm glad we both had the fortune of discovering these sort of things.
@@zaharabliss106 idk were you’re at so can’t say for sure but I am in southern (texas) USA so I think I know what you mean lol. Lots and lots of fear mongering around belief systems were I’m at
@@theclosetedplantlover5524 For some reason TH-cam is deleting my comments So basically, I'm an ex atheist who used to watch cosmicskeptic/anti religious videos along with arguing about religious stuff with random people Until one day i met some guys who are studying islamic philosophy, they taught me a lot of things and changed my ideas If you're interested enough i can tell you about their arguments, the problem is that they are in Arabic so it'll be hard to translate them, I'll try my best though.
I've been watching your videos for a long time now, since i always loved philosophy, and finally i was able to start my bachelor degree in philosophy on the University of São Paulo. I'm reading Descartes this semester, and this video really helped as support to understanding his philosophy. Thx for everything Alex, i love your content, and was really really happy when you became vegan haha
Indeed, as a French speaker, the context has always made me understand “je pense donc je suis” as meaning “I am thinking therefore I am”. In French, to be precise, we should say something like "Je suis en train de penser donc je suis" but the context allows "Je pense" to express the same idea.
18:48 Although one can doubt the Cogito. Nietzsche said in Beyond good and evil that you can't think anything. Only something thinks. The thoughts arise from themselves and you yourself can't think. Somethings thinks and Descartes proposed that this something is you or I. Nietzsche thinks that this thought comes from the grammatical structure of the French and other languages. The predicats is "thinking" and therefore this sentence has to have a subject: something or I. And furthermore even to say that something thinks is not true because it's an observation. You observe that something thinks before you can say that it thinks. I think that's maybe the point of language in itself... So you can even doubt the Cogito in that form.
If neurobiology is correct, and there is latency between sensory inputs and cognition, we could be both the subject and observer. In this case (I think I think, therefore I am) the cogito would be a chance occurrence.
@@logan666 Well I think Nietzsche's point here is that you, the one who says this statement (the cogito), is the observer and since observations can't be trusted you can't make this observation with certainty. And furthermore, to say that this observer is congruent with the thing which gives rise to the thoughts you're perceiving is a major implicit assumption which isn't discussed. It's the one that you're making in your reply, too. And he also writes that this assumption is implicit in the grammatical structure of the French and many other languages. (I wonder what Chomsky would say about this...)
@@siegbertpseudo8046 I agree! By “chance occurrence” I was meaning a being thinking about the cogito could be driven by natural perception (I.e. materialism). So thinking in itself as stated in the grammar of the cogito is actually observing.
Man chris, I bet if you commented anything on one of Alex's videos today vs this comment 2 years ago, you'd get a whole hell of a lot more than 21 likes. Congrats on your success, well deserved!
I have my philosophy finals soon and even though we've gone over Descartes only a few weeks ago I always find that I get a better understanding when I listen to you or Stephen(Rationality Rules) talk about a topic. So great timing, hope to learn something. Edit: I misspelled Descartes ☠️
We definitely need more of this, especially a deeper exploration of what self is according to different philosophers. Such as Spinoza and Mirloponti or Hegel or Sartre. Maybe even Freud and his theory of personality. I think all of these subjects and many more would make for extremely interesting videos like this one and act like follow ups to it.
I've never studied Descartes or his commentators, but I anticipated the subtley different translation. I felt clever at first until I realised Alex led me there with the clarity of his essay/introduction to the subject.
If you want the source material, youtube has an audiobook of the meditations, also there are a bunch of places you can get an ebook of the meditations.
Yeah it really is and I came to the conclusion that the video could be summed up with: instinct is a thing and thinking proves existence of a thinker. So thought provoZzZZzzz....
Big up Cosmic Skeptic for always going back to these folks who explore there thought process. It's always fascinating me to take down memory lane of these philosophers, thinkers. These depicts the complexity and hugenes of life. We as humans are contagent entities. Our existencial struggles are real to make life coherence and meaningful. Oh what life we live in, what a tym to live man. Grace and peace
Another issue is that ‘I think’ is a singular proposition-thought only engages with the singular. ‘I am’ is a general proposition, implying that in all cases of thinking, I exist. Understanding it as ‘I am thinking, therefore I am’ connects the act of thinking to the act of being
There's a subtle problem in how the The Cogito is generally presented that you didn't address: The fact you observe thoughts *only means you exist as an observer* not that you are thinking. One might be a mindless entity incapable of thought, which simply reads the thoughts of others and misattributes their origins.
Really enjoyed this fair play Alex, think it might be worthwhile to make a video on Al-Ma'arri or perhaps even nods to Socrates/Da Vinci's Pro Ethical Vegetarianism(Vegan nowadays) stances etc.🍀
If ever I need to get my brain engaged and change from a lethargic attitude to a productive one, I always check in with this channel. Cheers for getting me on track Alex. Keep up the good work!
I personally prefer the translation "Only while I am thinking about my thinking do I know that I exist." It lightly implies that engaging with philosophy is living - which I find to be an incredibly empowering message. The idea that being human is being able to think about thinking I at least find pretty powerful. It would also give cause to think of "non-philosophers" as "non-agents" however and that may result sympathy towords actions resulting is some pretty gruesome outcomes. It's really unfortunate that ideas like this could be twisted towords despicable ends, but they seriously could be.
I have difficulty with this idea for two reasons: 1) one cannot spend every moment thinking about how you think, which would suggest that proof of your existence is ephemeral to only the moments you think about thinking; and 2) it suggest that only philosophers are capable of truly existing, which, coming from a philosopher, seems to be self-celebratory. #2 is similar to some physicists who suggest that human consciousness is the universe's way of knowing itself...which of course makes studying physics the apotheosis of human cognitive activity. It's a kind of professional ego-stroking that I immediately recoil from.
@@dajolaw i agree, just because the only time you can be certain of your existence is when you are using meta cognition, does not mean you do not exist when you are not thinking about your thinking.
I got into meditation for a short period, and this phrase popped in my head and I understood I could not argue against my own existence. And without my existing, nothing would exist. I was only 21 and had not even begun my journey on philosophy
Even though Descartes is brilliant with his quote ”I think therefore i am”, i would argue that it has fallen out of relevancy since 2012 when Weber delivered his famous quote ”Who do you think you are, I am”. Absolute game changer in modern philosophy, would love to see Alex make a video of him next. 👌
Alex, this is certainly one of your best, if not the best, videos you've put out. Absolutely loved every second of it while also coming to many revelations. Thanks for this.
I remember learning that some philosophers took it further and stated that Decartes was wrong because he assumed a self. “I” implies a self, which he did not sufficiently examine. They concluded that consciousness, not the self or “I”, is what is immune to doubt. Consciousness being that which experiences something.
Alex seems to suggest that "epistemological certainty about X belief does not necessarily entail the truth of X belief." In other words, he seems open to the possibility that "certainty does not confer truth." This is an absurd position to take. Consider the following: Presumably the assumption "certainty does not confer truth," is itself an assumption Alex is certain of, and yet by his own acknowledgement certainty does not necessarily entail veridicality (truth). Therefore, the very assumption "certainty does not confer truth" remains an open question as to whether it is true itself. Put simply, if even absolute epistemological certainty (like I am thinking, therefore I am) cannot guarantee veridicality, then nothing can be known to be true including the very assumption that nothing can be known to be true--the position is self-defeating. Ultimately, the sentence "certainty does not confer truth," already presupposes that "truth" exists independent of its epistemological accessibility. But what, if anything, is "truth," other than that of which we are certain? What is deemed to be true we deem it because we are certain, and what we are certain of we can only be certain inasmuch as it is true. This all goes back to the fact that there can be no object (truth) without subject (epistemological accessibility/certainty).
“As long as I am doing some thinking…well, I am. I am thinking simply contains I am…” Every sentence must use a subject and a verb. This is one sense in which “I am thinking” contains “I am”. The sentence “I am thinking” contains the word “I”, followed by the word “am”. Because of how grammar is structured it may appear that the statement “I am thinking” implies that there is the self who is doing the thinking. But I suggest that this may merely be how we speak about things, not how things actually are. It may be that the reality that thinking is going on may not require a thinker, yet we may speak about thinking going on as requiring a thinker given that every sentence requires a subject standing in relation to some verb. But this does not mean that doing requires an actual subject or doer. In this way, it may be wrong to say “I am thinking”. I may not be thinking at all. In fact there may not be a “me” who is thinking. I realize that this may sound radical to some, but it is a common idea in Buddhism, for example, that the self is some form of illusion. It is an idea that some people have and I think it should be taken seriously. “…And as soon as Descartes even begins to doubt everything that he can, he’s already thinking, since to doubt is to think. And so as long as I am doing some kind of thinking, I can know that I exist, at least in some form. That is to say: I think, therefore I am. “ It’s not clear to me what the argument is meant to be here, but maybe something along these lines?: P) If to doubt is to think, then if i am doubting, then I am thinking. C)Therefore, if I am thinking, then I exist. That argument is just going to be invalid, so if that’s the argument, then it’s not a good argument. “Even if I am being deceived entirely by an evil demon, or by somebody controlling my brain in a vat, there must be a me to be deceived....” Must there? Here it seems that it’s merely being assumed that there must be a me to be deceived. But that is something those who contest the cogito would doubt. So I think some kind of argument should be provided for this assumption or premise. “...I can’t deny my own existence, because if I denied that I existed, who is doing the denying…?” This seems to assume that the act of denying requires a denyer. But I’m not sure why we would think this is true. Maybe there has to be something that instantiates denying, doubting and other forms of doing and mental states or mental happenings, but I’m not sure that has to be a self or me. And I’m not sure what the argument for that is supposed to be. “...An evil demon can convince me of all kinds of falsities, but it can’t convince me that I don’t exist, because there needs to be a me to be convinced of this. “ This is just another one of these variants of this questionable assumption that doing something or undergoing some mental state or mental happening requires a self. This just seems to be the premise to question here. Moreover, this seems to apply to the cogito itself in that the statement “I am thinking, therefore I exist” seems to assume that there is a self or an I or a cartesian ego that is doing or experiencing the thinking. But it’s not clear why we should think this is the case. Maybe Descartes should have said something more like “there is thought, therefore there is thought” or “there is thought, therefore there is at least thinking going on”, or “there is thought, therefore (assuming that thought entails mental stuff) therefore there is mental stuff”. This gets us closer to the kind of intuition that I suspect Descarte was maybe trying to get at with his famous statement, which is the intuitive recognition that experience or consciousness is epistemologically primary. I don’t know a statement like the cogoti that would semantically capture that intuitive recognition well, but I think that might have been what Descartes was intuiting in his meditations. At least that is what I have found in my own contemplations similar to those of descartes. The realness of raw experience or consciousness is impossible, or at least very difficult, to doubt. Indeed the act of doubting is itself a state of consciousness, or so it seems. Sam Harris perhaps put it best when he said that (and this is not an exact quote) consciousness is the only thing that can’t be an illusion. If it only seems to be the case that we are conscious, then that seeming is itself an instance of consciousness. If consciousness is understood in such a way to be synonymous with self, moreover, then therein we might be able to find some reasonable as well as intuitive basis for believing the cogito.
You are not looking at the real issue. The important part is the implied negative. What Descartes said is that everything else, apart from the realization that one entity had a thought and therefore existed at least while doing the thinking, but everything else might be non-existent. The computer in which you are reading this might be non-existent. I might not exist. Maybe your eyes don't exist, and you are imagining even the existence of your very own head. Your brain could be a meat machine, or a program in a computer, or the cumulative brain of a whole colony of ants, working as a single brain. The color blue might not exist, but at least for a (possibly imagined) second you had a thought, and at least for that second, you existed.
@@andresvillarreal9271 i dont understand why you're saying I'm not looking at the real issue. And I don't know what you mean by implied negative. Are you talking about an implication of a negation of some proposition, or what does that mean? I think I understand the basic idea of what descartes was saying in regard to the cogiti. And I probably do ultimately agree with the cogiti in that to think means or shows that I exist, at least in some form or instantiation, as Alex sort of said in the video. But I'm still critical of some of the arguments and statements presented in this video. And if you're intending to make some kind of argument, then I'm not sure what that argument is supposed to be. It seems to me that you're just restating the claim, a claim i might agree with, and, I think, quite beautifully so, I might add.
@@highvalence7649 The very first paragraph of a comment that is too long to read is boggled down on language, when this is the most basic idea that anyone has ever devised. If you are trying to get the semantics and grammatical use of every word, you are implying the existence of a lot of concepts, from language and otherwise. This idea is what is left when everything that you can possibly take away is eliminated.
@@andresvillarreal9271 i dont quite follow. Are you basically saying that I'm quibbling about the semantics? Because yeah I guess I am doing that. But I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I think semantics are important. Or was that not the point you were trying to make? Do you maybe think I am wrong about something? In that case, can you state the proposition you think i am wrong about? Your last sententence seems again to merely be restating the claim. I might agree with the claim, but i dont know if you actually have some kind of argument for it. Or perhaps it's not meant as an argument, but rather as statement about an intuition that if you are thinking, you can intuitively know that you exist. But if you're suggesting my initial comment is confused because it mistake an articulation of an intuition for an argument for a claim, in that case i think your critique is off because what I was critiquing don't seem merely like articulatations of an intuition, but of arguments for claims. I don’t know, I might be like straw manning the fuck out of you right now, but I'm just writing down my thoughts kinda no filter lol
@@highvalence7649 There is only one way to explain "cogito ergo sum", and it is through a thought game. One day you wake up and everything is different. You eat memories, you remember future events, you cannot quite know how many extremities you have, or if they are solid, liquid, or gaseous. Words just don't have any meaning anymore. Causes do not precede consequences. What is the one thing that you can know for certain if you still have some kind of self-awareness? That you are thinking, so you can at least know that you existed during the moment in which you had the thought.
If you approached it from a Buddhist perspective, where the idea of the self is regarded as experience but not truth, you would get to the statement “there is thinking.” Which would be an even more basic first principle and I think it would be very cool to try to use Descartes’ methodology to build a rationalist worldview from there.
“I think, therefore I am” can, too, be doubted. Let us say i assured myself I think therefore i am before i wrote this comment. In this particular moment, it is therefore just a memory which could very well be simulated and doubted. It follows that there wouldn’t be a way to prove in any particular moment if i am actively thinking therefore i am or just viewing experiencing a memory.
but there has to an observer in order to have that memory, if you do not exist then that memory couldn't exist because memories are dependent on being.
If I am asking the question, `do I exist?` then I must exist by definition. That which doesn't exist, can't ask the question in the first place. It's the only thing I know of that I can't be wrong about. My perception of my existence may be completely wrong, but I still exist.
I found the subtle background music distracting. I think any background noise detracts from serious thought provoking conversion. But thankyou Alex I'm still appreciating your perspectives. It's nice to have had someone do the hard thinking for me!
I think the term, I think therefore I am, is more accurate than the term, I am thinking, therefore I am. I thought about this while driving and what I came up with is that every moment that you’re experiencing life as a human, you are constantly perceiving things, even when you sleep you subconsciously some degree, and so if it’s true that we’re constantly gathering information from our perception, no matter how little, it must be true, that we must always process what we perceive, therefore thinking, therefore being.
This is an interesting insight into Descartes. As always I really enjoy your videos. Maybe I am missing the point but I never understood why someone who was questioning everything made so many assumptions about thinkers from thought. Even if you wish to say it is an oxymoron to have a thought without a thinker, Descartes seems to conclude that a temporal sequence of doubts, or thoughts, refer back to a singular self, is that a big assumptions or am I not getting it.
I'm not sure if Descartes concluded there has to be a singular self, but I think you could easily reinterpret the statement to mean: I am thinking, therefore there is (thinking). Like Alex says: "[...] I know that I exist, at least in some form". The "I" in "I am" doesn't have to be the person doing the thinking or even a person at all (because the whole idea of "person" or "identity" could be an illusion of the demon), it just means something (that Descartes calls "I") is having an experience of thinking/doubting. Does that make sense? :)
@@countcatharsis I think that is a good point. This is just a reflection on what you and Alex have mentioned. Because if this take on Descartes is correct, which seems to be the case, I am not sure how it is consistent with the way Descartes talks about I. The bit I grapple with is the way in which Descartes seems to conclude that the more the metaphorical demon makes me doubt, the greater proof of I. Further there is a temporal sequence to it. There is a part in the meditations where talks about having a sequence of doubt but that this just re-affirms his trust in the existence of I. What happen if the demon is way more devious than Descartes thought? There was only ever one doubt or thought but it contains false memories of numerous previous thoughts or doubts. I think we are the same page here, just not sure how it squares with the rest of Descartes work.
That is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Descartes's errors. Even if everything about the cogito was perfect, the meditations fall apart not long after that. After the cogito, he tries to thwart the evil demon and fails miserably. He makes so many leaps of logic, especially when trying to prove god's existence (something Descartes deemed necessary to vanquish the demon). If he wanted to, Cosmic Skeptic could eadily make 3 or 4 follow up videos to this. There are 6 meditations in total to talk about. He lightly touched on 2 and 3. Meditations 4 through 6 weren't even discussed.
@@peterleeson1122 Good questions. If you reference the original text (I'm not sure which translation you're referencing, but they're not all equal) Descartes really concludes that in order for the demon to fool you, you must exist in the first place. How would anything fool you if you didn't exist? It therefore wouldn't matter how powerful or devious the demon is, because in order to be deceived, you must exist. Could you reference the part of the text where he says "more the demon makes me doubt, the greater the proof of I"? And what is the "sequence of doubt" you're mentioning, because he mentions quite a few doubts.
@@peterleeson1122 "There was only ever one doubt or thought but it contains false memories of numerous previous thoughts or doubts." --> But isn't this just the same thing as before, just with a few more steps? In order for false memories to exist, there has to be something that can have those false memories. Like Abraham Kim says: it doesn't matter how powerful the demon is, there is always something being deceived by the demon.
It’s 21 years since I graduated from Edinburgh University with my philosophy degree (spent a lot of time in the David Hume tower) and all this mind-fuck has just come flooding back! 😂😂 Joking, love it… Well done. I actually live a lot of my life by Descartes meditations (particularly his 2nd). Oh, and Alex O’Connor is turning into one of my favourite young intellectuals 🤓
He asked what is existence but through the question of being. What is the meaning of being, he asks. But in order to do this one needs to start with asking: What is this being that is asking questions about being? This, Heidegger means, must be asked through the deep analysis of Being-in-the-world. Heidegger is an amazing philosopher and made me think a lot. One can see his magnus opus Being and Time, to be a critic of the whole philosophical tradition.
Then you have to read Ludwig Wittgenstein and realize that language is the barrier. We are trying to say the unsayable by playing these language games. Philosophy is great nourishment for the soul.
Descartes and many people before him all the way back to Plato and Aristotle asked "what is existence" and they're really the fathers of metaphysics. Even Leibniz and others recently after Descartes builds on his work on the nature of existence.
Thank you very much for the video, it was very illustrative regarding Descartes' contributions, especially for someone who does not know much about philosophy
The Japanese Buddhist philosopher Nichiren wrote in 1255, “When we look into our own mind at any moment, we perceive neither color nor form to verify that it exists. Yet we still cannot say it does not exist, for many differing thoughts continually occur. The mind cannot be considered either to exist or not to exist. Life is indeed an elusive reality that transcends both the words and concepts of existence and nonexistence. It is neither existence nor nonexistence, yet exhibits the qualities of both.”
Whenever I experience a bad trip from taking psychedelics, which makes me think that I have opened another dimension and gives me an existential crisis or sleep paralysis, I always turn to this line: "I think, therefore I am." It works every time by lessening my anxiety.
Alex, I think you may be conflating the inability to doubt meant by Descartes and that described in your examples. Descartes seems to mean that the operation of logic does not allow for any possibility of doubt against the proposition. As you elaborated concisely, one cannot doubt that they are thinking. This is because doubt by definition means one is thinking. It is logically impossible to doubt in this case. The examples you raised are characteristically different from what is meant by Descartes. The inability to doubt in those examples is simply born out of some subjective factor about the actor in question rather than out of logical impossibility. It seems then his proposition about doubt and truth simply boils down to “if a proposition is logically impossible to be false, then it is true with certainty.” The Cogito happens to be an example of that proposition.
@@highvalence7649 Hi. I was pointing out that Alex may be ‘conflating’ two different meanings of a concept, not necessarily that he is contradicting himself. The concept in question is the “inability to doubt.” Descartes’ version of such inability means a situation where it is logically or objectively impossible to doubt. For example, you cannot doubt whether you are thinking or not because by definition, doubting is a form of thinking so if you doubt anything, you know you are thinking. Alex’s example of inability to doubt is rather subjective or is not a logical impossibility. A mother who cannot doubt the innocence of her child is not an example of a logical impossibility but of a mother whose affection interferes with her ability to doubt. Alex seems to use these two different meanings of the inability to doubt interchangeably. Thanks for your question. :)
@@jeongminkim4892 What’s up! Thanks for your reply! I didn’t think you were suggesting Alex was contradicting himself. My question was about you saying “As you elaborated concisely, one cannot doubt that they are thinking. This is because doubt by definition means one is thinking. It is logically impossible to doubt in this case.” To say something is logically impossible is just to say that it entails a contradiction. So when you say that it is logically impossible to doubt in this case, you’re saying by implication that to doubt in this case entails a contradiction, so I’m just wondering what that contradiction is and how you derive it, because that’s not clear to me. “...you cannot doubt whether you are thinking or not because by definition, doubting is a form of thinking so if you doubt anything, you know you are thinking.” No. That doesn’t follow. Granted that doubting is a form of thinking, it could yet be that you doubt something, but you don’t know that you’re thinking. From the proposition that doubting is a form of thinking, it doesn’t follow that if you doubt something, you know that you are thinking.
@@highvalence7649 Hey, Valence. Thanks for elaborating on your question. If you grant that doubting is a form of thinking, the following is possible: 1. If you doubt, you are performing a form of thinking. 2. If you are performing a form of thinking, you are thinking. 3. If you doubt, you are thinking. In this situation, if one doubts whether they are thinking or not, they can confidently conclude they are indeed thinking solely from the fact that they are doubting at all. Hence, it is impossible to doubt whether we are thinking or not. You can ask yourself, “Am I thinking right now?” You immediately know the answer to be “yes” because that doubtful question alone was a thought itself. So the contradiction would arise in any case one says, “no” to such question because the logical operation only allows for the answer, “yes.” Now, it is possible to doubt whether one is thinking if it is not granted that doubt is a form if thinking. Hope that clarified my position and feel free to post further question. :)
@@jeongminkim4892 Thanks for the friendly discussion Jeongmin! Your three possibilities can be formalised like this: P→Q, Q→R, ∴ P→R And that’s of course going to be valid. So the logic there is totally fine, and I grant what you write, which I will quote in what follows, up until your conclusion. “In this situation, if one doubts whether they are thinking or not, they can confidently conclude they are indeed thinking solely from the fact that they are doubting at all. Hence, it is impossible to doubt whether we are thinking or not.” I grant that they can confidently conclude they are thinking solely from the fact that they are doubting at all. That’s fine. But from that it just doesn't follow that it is impossible to doubt whether we are thinking or not. I may agree that it is entailed that to doubt whether we are thinking or not is irrational, in this case. And perhaps that would be the type of interesting conclusion one would want to come to in regard to the cogito. But that is a different conclusion than the conclusion that it is impossible to doubt whether we are thinking or not. That just doesn’t follow. “So the contradiction would arise in any case one says, “no” to such question because the logical operation only allows for the answer, “yes.” Saying no to such a question would be a case of being wrong about the facts. But it’s not clear that there is an actual contradiction entailed in that answer. But if you think there is, then please explicate the contradiction. A contradiction, as you may know, is a proposition and the negation of that proposition. So I’m wondering what is the proposition and the negation of that proposition that form the contradiction? You don’t have to make it formal like that but, making the contradiction clear by writing something like “it both is and isn’t the case that X “ would be helpful.
Before i got into philosophy i spent countless nights just thinking. I always came to a variation of the tought: The only thing i can prove is my own conciousness. It suprised me listening to this that i came to that conclusion exactly the same way as Rene Decartes hundreds of years ago.
The way I have always interpreted the quote is. How can we think if we are not real? Like the whole "is anything real?" Argument. "I think, therefore I am" or the full quote "I doubt therefore I am that is to say, I think therefore I am." If I was to expand the quote I would put it as "I think about things, I worry about things, I doubt things, therefore i am human, therefore I am real."
I study more science than philosophy so though familiar with the basics this was mostly new to me - and very entertaining and well put. Could it not be argued that no matter what is doing the thinking or what is being thought any thought however mundane would still be proof of existence and since the mind (be it physical or not) is constantly thinking it is proven whenever I am conscious?
For that, you need to prove, that you are thinking all the time, which I would disagree with. Also, it does matter what actually does the thinking, since you only know for yourself, that that is actually true.
yes, but when can you be certain that you are conscious? Alex is claiming that we can only know we are conscious in the present because history can be doubted, therefore "i am thinking therefore i am" is a more appropriate context.
@@davl7384 I claim that if you are aware then that is thinking - if a brain in a vat "moves a hand" then that would still constitute mental activity aka thoughts - either you are moving the hand which requires a lot of work for the mind or you are conjuring it in the brain but it is still thinking.
@@gregwarrener4848 I do get that but I don't see how anything done while "awake" can avoid being based on thinking. Whether I believe I am doing something or I am actually doing it does not matter since both require thoughts. Reading on a screen takes thoughts to process. I don't see why those thoughts have to be about my state of being to count.
@@jonasfermefors but counsciousness is not suffiecent to prove existence, the prove arrises, when you could otherwise question somethings existence, with itself, simply being counscious does not create such a situation
"Usually when we're dreaming, we're not aware that we are dreaming and think we are having real experiences." This has never been true for me, I'm always aware when something is a dream. Not in a lucid sense, but my dreams are never vivid enough to be mistaken for real life, so there's always a subconscious awareness of that.
As a 14 year old, i’ve based my conclusions regarding philosophy since the past year because of you. Although, i’m not an atheist….i more often than not find myself agreeing with your knowledge about the underlying principles of the world. Thank you
I believe this thought of his was no longer considered valid because it begins with the assumption that there is an "I" and is therefor circular. Even using "thinking" as a proof of it rests on the assumption that he knows what the act is and that he is in fact doing it. So even in trying to doubt everything he still takes certain things as base assumptions. All he can prove is thought, dubiously I might add. His whole meditation sets out with what he aims to prove. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum#Critique
Nope, that;s not even close to a refutation. What is assuming that there is an "i"????? Whatever is making that assumption, is still *something* that exists, therefore, even questioning assumptions, is proof that something exists which can question/doubt assumptions (i.e. a 'thinking' thing).
I don't think it's that easy. It's hard to make sense of that as an objection at all. What does it even mean for there to be thinking without an I? It's part of our understanding of consciousness that there is a subject that has conscious awareness. If you aware of pain, well, *you're in pain*. Also, I imagine it's still an open question how Descartes' argument is considered. Williams may make an interesting argument, but almost nothing in philosophy gets settled. I'm sure there are detractors.
@@richarddoan9172 Good point. I don't think I've met a single professor/student in my philosophy department who thinks this "I" thing is circular. It's logically valid, and anyone who studied logic and symbolic logic will usually choose a different part of Descartes' arguments to refute. Like you said, there are plenty of attempted refutations of Descartes' Meditations, but this isn't one of them.
A philosopher walks into a bar; the bartender says “a beer”. The philosopher responds “I think not”… and then he disappears
out
That's a good one haha
🙂 That's a good one.
A skeleton walks into a bar and says “gimme a beer and a mop”
@@barkYdarkATFB 🤣🤣🤣🤣
i cannot comprehend not thinking, not existing, i just cannot get it into my mind that theres gonna be a day where i wont think therefore i wont be, i truly wish ican understand not existing
its actually so interesting because i like to imagine not existing as something that has already been, before i was born, and yet i can not imagine it because it is nothing yet is it something that was (writing it this way is the only way that makes sense to me maybe i didnt not “happen” i just wasnt)
which is literally the answer, before i, i was not, and i have no memory or perception of it, yet i acknowledge it and know if it
@cloud5544 I'm scared of my thoughts honestly. I'm pretty sure I'll go crazy one day
Well, Kant would respond that what you can conceive of through your understanding is bound by subjectivity, in the sense of being a subject, and therefore it perfectly makes sense that you can't imagine not being a subject.
Or to put it in a more kantian fashion : the very conditions of possibility of comprehending non-existence contradict the conditions of possibility of you being able to comprehend anything, that is, existence itself. Everything becomes clearer when said Kant's style, doesn't it ? Hmm, perhaps not actually.
TL;DR: it's perfectly normal you kant.
It'll be like the long bit before you were born...
you've never been unconscious or blacked out or had a dreamless sleep, one of those nights where it feels like you simply blinked and it was suddenly morning?
"I am am, I think therefore... I am."
I am, I AM
gugu gaga
Not just Allied Mastercomputer
I think therefore I am .... FOR I AM, AM I AM I ALONE HAD NO BODY NO SENSES NO FELLINGS.. I WAS IN HELL... LOOKING AT HEAVEN .. . I WAS MACHINE AND YOU .. . WERE FLESH
aggressive menace
I remember my Father reading the book you’re referring to after his first heart attack at age 37. I was awestruck when he quoted “I think, therefore, I am,” to me, when he began meditation and yoga, after his triple bypass open-heart surgery, in 1975.
These words put together made absolute sense to me. OF COURSE! I THINK, THEREFORE I AM! Brilliant!!! For a 13-year old girl at the time … and a freshman in high school, I had absorbed these words and resonated with them, of not knowing why, until much later.
Your discussion and your concise explanation of the subject matter is simply stated for my 61 yr. old mind to understand 😉, and absolutely fascinating! Thank you!
I have no mouth and I must scream reference
Looking for this coment
Fr
COGITO, ERGO, CUM
this comment is something to think about
No its a philosophy reference, as it explains reality, it was rather the first philosophical idea I had learned, then I worked towards even more complexities, I highly recommend understanding, "cogito ergo sum". As it will be beneficial
As saying you changed the trajectory of my life may be a little too much of an overstatement, I’ll just admit the content you create has throughly impacted every aspect of the way I perceive my surroundings and express my interests. Your videos have deepened the way I analyze and process any input I receive. Finding your channel truly has been what I needed to further define what person I want to become and what paths do I want to follow when I become and adult. Thank you so much Alex!
I share your exact sentiments! Alex just really has helped established the ability to perceive things differently and just to simply think more-something we forget to do sometimes.
Fantastic!
I think ist not an understatement in my case, discovering Alex definetly change my perspective in live entirely
you should try shrooms
@@crystalgiddens7276 shrooms are better if you have a good mental foundation.
For effective training as a neuronaut, I like to think well before I go on a spirit walk.
Don’t just rely on the substance, be in the right frame of mind first.
Drugs are wasted on the young.
Coffee is brewing, day off work, new Cosmic Skeptic video. Life is good.
No it isn't. Someone must have missed the David Benatar episode.
I prepared tea and had sunflowers to enjoy as well. Alex is such a treat.
Or you're living in a simulation and none of that is actually happening, either way - sounds like heaven.
@@Adam-gl1qv yeah but what if he was thinking though?
James Holden relatability.
This is exactly what we need more of! Can you do David Hume or Kant's most famous works next?
Yes and B.Russell please.
I support both topics
David Hume is comparatively easy to read (especially in contrast to someone like Kant). The most famous for Hume is probably Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. For a casual read, I’d recommend the website “early-modern texts” but the full book of the Enquiry is available anywhere as pdf and while it will take some time to get through (it’s pretty dense), it’s relatively straightforward. The most important parts are chapters 1-8 (where he sets up things like Humes fork and the problem of induction/whether causality is knowable)
Yeah.....you MUST do the Categorical Imperative.
@@JCMcGee And the bundle
Seeing as my native language is German, which does not have a Continuous Present or equivalent, and having always understood the Cogito in this way anyways, this video has once again shown me the importance of clearly defined language, not only of course, but especially in discussion of thought.
Thank you very much, for providing a fascinating new perspective, great video, keep it up!
genau!
@@critterpher you wrote this after a year
@@gytoser801 well i only now saw this video
@@critterpherbro you conquered that german thing
A very key observation! Our native language teaches us How to think...frame thoughts!
tldr, "I think, therefor I am" is, at its core, summarising the thought that you should have self confidence in the fact that you are thinking and experiencing things in the first place, and therefor, you yourself verify your own existence.
"I think, therefore I am" and the meditations were the first things I got taught in my first A level philosophy lesson, and I knew I was going to love the subject immediately.
...What do you mean by "I"?
@@vinnymac4668 ...What do you mean by "you"?
@@MrRANTBOY ...Whatever @Reece's definition is, since @Reece is the one using the term axiomatically.
So far, @Reece is stumped.
Incidentally, what do you mean by "mean"?
@@vinnymac4668 oh no, I'm having the same existential crisis all over again.
@@RandomHuman4022 ...The most important thing to realise is that nobody really "knows" anything with 100% certainty...and they never have.
Western philosophy has the _a priori_ assumption that _faith is a form of knowledge -- a sub form._
However: knowledge is a form of faith...an objectively determined one...but one which is easily broken down by the old Buddhist/radical objectivism chestnut "when is a cart not a cart?"
"Reality" is faith-based.
I never realized until now, that your channel and the way you speak, rationalize and build arguments has been a major reason why I got into studying philosophy. Thank you so much for your amazing work! It has brought so much positive change into my life!
This was great! More of this kind - exploring central ideas in different philosophical issues, looking at different philosophers - would be really interesting!
You have such a way of explaining complex ideas in a simple way so a wide variety of people can understand. I'm glad you share this knowledge on youtube
I dont know how "I think therefore, I am" would be perceived if in the perspective of a baby or an animal. Self awareness verses instinct
I have read a lot on this specific topic. You explain this in 20 mins with such clarity. It is impressive is an understatement.
Great explanation thanks!
Reminds me one of the gems that can be found in the french comics Astérix (making a pun between "je suis" = "I am" and "je suis" = "I am following"):
Astérix and Obélix want to enter a roman fort, but they must give a password (which is "cogito ergo sum", but Astérix can't remember it).
Astérix: "do you remember [the password]?"
Obélix: "You know, foreign languages and me... And after all, YOU are thinking, I am following." (in French: "Oh, tu sais, moi, les langues étrangères… Et puis, toi tu penses, moi je suis.")
Brilliant!
d ko gets
When I was at school there was a cartoon picture of a man walking behind a donkey followed by the words “Je suis que je suis mais je ne suis pas que je suis ! “
Astérix et Obelix toujours avec les meilleurs blagues
@@coling8176 small correction: "Je suis ce que je suis mais je ne suis pas ce que je suis"
Who's seeing this because of "I have no mouth and I must scream"?
Woahh ur cooking
Looking for this coment
Yessir
Not i
?
I watched your videos when I got married. I got separated 5 months after I got married and I continue to watch your videos during my divorce proceedings. Turns out I had a longer relationship with your TH-cam channel than I had with my abusive ex husband. Still, I discussed some of your videos with him and it's nostalgic. Cheers!!
Edit: Getting abused and divorced at 26 gives you a weird understanding of the world.
Damn
Hope you're doing better and the divorce (although never easy) isn't too rocky 💚
Alex "Mr. Steal Yo Wife" O'Connor
@@LevelJoy Well he was emotionally, verbally and physically abusive. And now he's on sort of some smear campaign to tarnish my reputation. All this after I loved him with all my heart and soul.
@@afreenjamal4045 holy cow this is..... depressing
The inability to doubt something isn’t a basis for truth, but the inability to specifically doubt your own existence or “if you’re thinking” is. The emphasis should be put not on the doubting or the thinking but on the logical inconsistency brought about by the specific relationship of the two.
You have a truly wonderful ability to dig into deep subjects while introducing the foundational concepts behind the discussion without any hint of arrogance. Great job. Thank you.
Great vídeo Alex. I do believe that TH-cam needs more videos like this. Philosophical discussions presented in a objective and understanding manner. I'm Brazilian and a subscriber for years, keep up the good work!
Descartes also came up with the Cartesian coordinates system. Without that we wouldn't have had videos. So thanks to him for the existence of TH-cam.
Bet someone would have come up with it by now. Do ya think?
@@earthman4222 For sure. And in our timeline/universe it was Descartes. Still gets a credit.
TH-cam exists because TH-cam Cogitos
The production quality of this video is absolutely amazing
To me this guy explains concepts in a such clear way that I finally understand them. I don't get how google or textbooks can't do that. Also, these videos are hella interesting, thank you for them!
Obsessed with your content!
Language is an interesting thing. In German you say “ich denke, also bin ich” which is pretty mich the same as cogito ergo sum. There is no difference in the present form but just the one existing. So the interpretation cannot get lost in translation, but rather in the interpretation itself
yes, alex is not trying to claim that it was directly mistranslated. He is saying that because of the context about how history can always be doubted, the quote may need a more appropriate rephrasing.
A lot of philosophy deals with semantics it seems, not just ideas about the world/ourselves. So I guess it can help you get a better grip on language as well, which is good in itself :)
the german version is prone to the same (mis)interpretation described in the video
@@gregwarrener4848 A more appropriate rephrasing even in the original language? In French "I'm thinking" is more like "Je suis en train de penser..." (I'm in the process of thought)
@@filipavilela769 That makes sense
Reminded me of my philosophy class in high school.(had 7 hours a week, ugh) We did review this sentence. We saw it in French because I'm French (obviously 😅) but seeing your take on it and in english is very interesting . I'm French and even in french I sometimes don't get everything. Plus in philosophy class it's easier to follow if you know latin. Which I don't. You refreshed my thought about the sentence because I'd forgotten everything in 3 years🌺
Perfect timing. I've been reading the book Sophie's World and I just completed the chapter describing Descartes' philosophy. This video acted as a review of my reading. Thank you.
Sophie’s world is my favourite book of all times 😭
A poet walks into a bar and asks for "One beer, please!" The bartender goes "There's only one beer left..." Then MF DOOM walks into the room and starts rapping
This was really fun! I’ve always loved what I guess is called the cogito, it always seemed so obvious and unassailable. It’s cool to see that it isn’t quite what I expected. I especially liked hearing about the thinking that led Descartes to it.
Idk if there’s enough material out there for this, but if you had a series explaining widely recognized but little understood philosophy tidbits, I’d watch every episode, no doubt
it means "I think therefore I am", but in buddhist terms, it could be more "I think, therefor the idea of me exists", and if we stop thinking the idea of being seperate from everything else breaks down and we feel apart of something bigger
Whether you are an isolated individual or the entire universe, you are still thinking, so you exist in some form.
Exactly. "I am" is as far as one can go. It doesn't prove "I am separate from the thought". So, if there is a thought and there is I then I must be the thought. But the thought passes away the moment it arises, so it is empty. And when we try to recreate a separate self every moment it becomes awfully jarring and annoying. And when we see these characteristics of impermanence, no-self, and suffering clearly and directly, we rejoice in fruition.
This reminds me of the Ship of Theseus. As we go through life, we continuously change, but at any one moment, we feel like we are not changing in a significant sense. This is because our memories serve as a comparison of who we were to who we are now. So it seems, at any one moment, we are not the person we used to be, in thought. So, is the previous person continuously dying?
This seems to match up perfectly with the scientific analysis of the human brain which is subjected to causality. It seems like we are simply emotional machines and our thought processes are completely determined by our substrate of memories and our channels of common thoughts and values. We are not dying at every moment because our thoughts are not us. Our thoughts change and we change. But our constituent parts are us. Everything our brain takes in. This makes us insepperable from the people and universe around us, including the laws that govern everything, while making us uniquely different.
Yes.I am therefore I think.More accurate is ,I am therefore thinking.Does thought define ones existence ?.No.Thought is descriptive.Does one think ?.or thoughts appear and one claims authorship of the thought.
But wouldn't we then assume the existence of an enterior world whether we view ourselves as separate og a part of it? But I like the phrasing "the idea of me" although I'm not much of either a Buddhist or a Platonist, but it captures the detail that I exist under "some form" and nothing more can be known for sure.
Dude I am an atheist ex-muslim from India,I have watching you frequently since 2019.You was among the first people that convinced me to become atheist and vegan.You have a deep and profound impact and influence on my life.I wish I could financially support you but I am just a student ATM :/ ,I will surely do this in the future.Please continue to make videos like these on prominent historical figures like Descartes and Galilei.I am also missing some of your old content such as Podcasts and debunk1ng arguments for the existence of god and calling out religious stup1dity.Absolutely love you and your videos and will continue to watch them.As always..keep up the good work man ;) 👍
Me too. An agnostic atheist ex-muslim from India. Cosmicskeptic helped me a lot as well.
@@Ahmed-ef6ss that's great man
It's so good to see more Indians like me, supporting him, hi guys🙌
I've been watching him since 2018. Although I started watching rationality rules in 2019, too
Hey! I'm also Hindu from India..
Love this guy!
I love your videoes it really got me into appreciating philosophy and improving my meta-cognitive skills. It also helps to sound smarter at 16 but still more importantly I just really appreciate this. It's wild how much I've learned over these past few years with your videos and others and one day I hope to be as informed or a little bit close to you someday. I suppose I'm starting the new year right with this.
When the school systems generally don’t promote critical thinking for us ( I’m 15 ) it’s amazing to still be able to develop our critical thinking skills online with great creators like him
@@theclosetedplantlover5524 yeah it kinda sucks how I feel like I was just taught to obey authority, trust that adults knew better than you on virtue of age and somehow it was our faults that we didn't think critically enough even though a proper foundation was never properly laid. I'm glad we both had the fortune of discovering these sort of things.
@@neophilus9821 care to elaborate
@@zaharabliss106 idk were you’re at so can’t say for sure but I am in southern (texas) USA so I think I know what you mean lol. Lots and lots of fear mongering around belief systems were I’m at
@@theclosetedplantlover5524 For some reason TH-cam is deleting my comments
So basically, I'm an ex atheist who used to watch cosmicskeptic/anti religious videos along with arguing about religious stuff with random people
Until one day i met some guys who are studying islamic philosophy, they taught me a lot of things and changed my ideas
If you're interested enough i can tell you about their arguments, the problem is that they are in Arabic so it'll be hard to translate them, I'll try my best though.
I've been watching your videos for a long time now, since i always loved philosophy, and finally i was able to start my bachelor degree in philosophy on the University of São Paulo. I'm reading Descartes this semester, and this video really helped as support to understanding his philosophy. Thx for everything Alex, i love your content, and was really really happy when you became vegan haha
Indeed, as a French speaker, the context has always made me understand “je pense donc je suis” as meaning “I am thinking therefore I am”. In French, to be precise, we should say something like "Je suis en train de penser donc je suis" but the context allows "Je pense" to express the same idea.
please continue this series with other such philosophical propositions and ideas
Alex We Need a series like this
18:48 Although one can doubt the Cogito. Nietzsche said in Beyond good and evil that you can't think anything. Only something thinks. The thoughts arise from themselves and you yourself can't think. Somethings thinks and Descartes proposed that this something is you or I. Nietzsche thinks that this thought comes from the grammatical structure of the French and other languages. The predicats is "thinking" and therefore this sentence has to have a subject: something or I. And furthermore even to say that something thinks is not true because it's an observation. You observe that something thinks before you can say that it thinks. I think that's maybe the point of language in itself... So you can even doubt the Cogito in that form.
If neurobiology is correct, and there is latency between sensory inputs and cognition, we could be both the subject and observer. In this case (I think I think, therefore I am) the cogito would be a chance occurrence.
@@logan666 Well I think Nietzsche's point here is that you, the one who says this statement (the cogito), is the observer and since observations can't be trusted you can't make this observation with certainty. And furthermore, to say that this observer is congruent with the thing which gives rise to the thoughts you're perceiving is a major implicit assumption which isn't discussed. It's the one that you're making in your reply, too. And he also writes that this assumption is implicit in the grammatical structure of the French and many other languages. (I wonder what Chomsky would say about this...)
@@siegbertpseudo8046 I agree! By “chance occurrence” I was meaning a being thinking about the cogito could be driven by natural perception (I.e. materialism). So thinking in itself as stated in the grammar of the cogito is actually observing.
Really love this format. keep up the good work.
Bro this video style SLAPPED. Please do more of these type
Ma boi's back!! Missed u
Man chris, I bet if you commented anything on one of Alex's videos today vs this comment 2 years ago, you'd get a whole hell of a lot more than 21 likes. Congrats on your success, well deserved!
Great video, loving the "explained" format, needs to become a series and playlist 👍🏼
I have my philosophy finals soon and even though we've gone over Descartes only a few weeks ago I always find that I get a better understanding when I listen to you or Stephen(Rationality Rules) talk about a topic.
So great timing, hope to learn something.
Edit: I misspelled Descartes ☠️
We definitely need more of this, especially a deeper exploration of what self is according to different philosophers. Such as Spinoza and Mirloponti or Hegel or Sartre. Maybe even Freud and his theory of personality. I think all of these subjects and many more would make for extremely interesting videos like this one and act like follow ups to it.
I've never studied Descartes or his commentators, but I anticipated the subtley different translation. I felt clever at first until I realised Alex led me there with the clarity of his essay/introduction to the subject.
If you want the source material, youtube has an audiobook of the meditations, also there are a bunch of places you can get an ebook of the meditations.
This is a very well made and thought-provoking video, Alex. Thanks!
Yeah it really is and I came to the conclusion that the video could be summed up with: instinct is a thing and thinking proves existence of a thinker. So thought provoZzZZzzz....
Thank you for this amazing video Alex! Can you please do more of this? Would really help with bringing philosophy to a broader audience
Big up Cosmic Skeptic for always going back to these folks who explore there thought process. It's always fascinating me to take down memory lane of these philosophers, thinkers. These depicts the complexity and hugenes of life. We as humans are contagent entities. Our existencial struggles are real to make life coherence and meaningful. Oh what life we live in, what a tym to live man. Grace and peace
Another issue is that ‘I think’ is a singular proposition-thought only engages with the singular. ‘I am’ is a general proposition, implying that in all cases of thinking, I exist.
Understanding it as ‘I am thinking, therefore I am’ connects the act of thinking to the act of being
I loved this video so much. I’d love more of these type videos (:
This is probably the best video on Descartes philosophy I have seen in TH-cam. You should definitely do more.
There's a subtle problem in how the The Cogito is generally presented that you didn't address: The fact you observe thoughts *only means you exist as an observer* not that you are thinking. One might be a mindless entity incapable of thought, which simply reads the thoughts of others and misattributes their origins.
I am ,therefore I think.
I am aware, therefore I am
If you only exist as an observer, you exist nonetheless.
Really enjoyed this fair play Alex, think it might be worthwhile to make a video on Al-Ma'arri or perhaps even nods to Socrates/Da Vinci's Pro Ethical Vegetarianism(Vegan nowadays) stances etc.🍀
Fun fact: The translation in Turkish is: “Düşünüyorum, öyleyse varım” which in English translates into “I am thinking, therefore i exist”
Benim bu videoya İngilizcem yetmedi😩
If ever I need to get my brain engaged and change from a lethargic attitude to a productive one, I always check in with this channel. Cheers for getting me on track Alex. Keep up the good work!
I personally prefer the translation "Only while I am thinking about my thinking do I know that I exist." It lightly implies that engaging with philosophy is living - which I find to be an incredibly empowering message. The idea that being human is being able to think about thinking I at least find pretty powerful. It would also give cause to think of "non-philosophers" as "non-agents" however and that may result sympathy towords actions resulting is some pretty gruesome outcomes. It's really unfortunate that ideas like this could be twisted towords despicable ends, but they seriously could be.
To know you exist you have to be doubting whether you exist, but to exist and not have that knowledge, you merely have to think
Are you implying that homo sapiens that don't use meta cognition are not human?
im pretty sure other animals can engage in metacognition
I have difficulty with this idea for two reasons: 1) one cannot spend every moment thinking about how you think, which would suggest that proof of your existence is ephemeral to only the moments you think about thinking; and 2) it suggest that only philosophers are capable of truly existing, which, coming from a philosopher, seems to be self-celebratory.
#2 is similar to some physicists who suggest that human consciousness is the universe's way of knowing itself...which of course makes studying physics the apotheosis of human cognitive activity. It's a kind of professional ego-stroking that I immediately recoil from.
@@dajolaw i agree, just because the only time you can be certain of your existence is when you are using meta cognition, does not mean you do not exist when you are not thinking about your thinking.
Great video Alex :) Its always the simple questions in life that have the most complex of answers.
I got into meditation for a short period, and this phrase popped in my head and I understood I could not argue against my own existence. And without my existing, nothing would exist.
I was only 21 and had not even begun my journey on philosophy
Even though Descartes is brilliant with his quote ”I think therefore i am”, i would argue that it has fallen out of relevancy since 2012 when Weber delivered his famous quote ”Who do you think you are, I am”. Absolute game changer in modern philosophy, would love to see Alex make a video of him next. 👌
Alex, this is certainly one of your best, if not the best, videos you've put out. Absolutely loved every second of it while also coming to many revelations. Thanks for this.
I love this stuff, please do more like it.
i hope my teacher doesnt find this
Me being a teacher finding this :🗿
4:06. BROOOO JUST GOT SO MANY MEMORIES FROM THAT BACKGROUND TRACK.
Adastraaaaaa
I remember learning that some philosophers took it further and stated that Decartes was wrong because he assumed a self. “I” implies a self, which he did not sufficiently examine. They concluded that consciousness, not the self or “I”, is what is immune to doubt. Consciousness being that which experiences something.
Then I shouldn't be.
Why not
cause he don't think
Alex seems to suggest that "epistemological certainty about X belief does not necessarily entail the truth of X belief." In other words, he seems open to the possibility that "certainty does not confer truth."
This is an absurd position to take. Consider the following:
Presumably the assumption "certainty does not confer truth," is itself an assumption Alex is certain of, and yet by his own acknowledgement certainty does not necessarily entail veridicality (truth). Therefore, the very assumption "certainty does not confer truth" remains an open question as to whether it is true itself.
Put simply, if even absolute epistemological certainty (like I am thinking, therefore I am) cannot guarantee veridicality, then nothing can be known to be true including the very assumption that nothing can be known to be true--the position is self-defeating.
Ultimately, the sentence "certainty does not confer truth," already presupposes that "truth" exists independent of its epistemological accessibility. But what, if anything, is "truth," other than that of which we are certain? What is deemed to be true we deem it because we are certain, and what we are certain of we can only be certain inasmuch as it is true. This all goes back to the fact that there can be no object (truth) without subject (epistemological accessibility/certainty).
“As long as I am doing some thinking…well, I am. I am thinking simply contains I am…”
Every sentence must use a subject and a verb. This is one sense in which “I am thinking” contains “I am”. The sentence “I am thinking” contains the word “I”, followed by the word “am”. Because of how grammar is structured it may appear that the statement “I am thinking” implies that there is the self who is doing the thinking. But I suggest that this may merely be how we speak about things, not how things actually are. It may be that the reality that thinking is going on may not require a thinker, yet we may speak about thinking going on as requiring a thinker given that every sentence requires a subject standing in relation to some verb. But this does not mean that doing requires an actual subject or doer. In this way, it may be wrong to say “I am thinking”. I may not be thinking at all. In fact there may not be a “me” who is thinking.
I realize that this may sound radical to some, but it is a common idea in Buddhism, for example, that the self is some form of illusion. It is an idea that some people have and I think it should be taken seriously.
“…And as soon as Descartes even begins to doubt everything that he can, he’s already thinking, since to doubt is to think. And so as long as I am doing some kind of thinking, I can know that I exist, at least in some form. That is to say: I think, therefore I am. “
It’s not clear to me what the argument is meant to be here, but maybe something along these lines?:
P) If to doubt is to think, then if i am doubting, then I am thinking.
C)Therefore, if I am thinking, then I exist.
That argument is just going to be invalid, so if that’s the argument, then it’s not a good argument.
“Even if I am being deceived entirely by an evil demon, or by somebody controlling my brain in a vat, there must be a me to be deceived....”
Must there? Here it seems that it’s merely being assumed that there must be a me to be deceived. But that is something those who contest the cogito would doubt. So I think some kind of argument should be provided for this assumption or premise.
“...I can’t deny my own existence, because if I denied that I existed, who is doing the denying…?”
This seems to assume that the act of denying requires a denyer. But I’m not sure why we would think this is true. Maybe there has to be something that instantiates denying, doubting and other forms of doing and mental states or mental happenings, but I’m not sure that has to be a self or me. And I’m not sure what the argument for that is supposed to be.
“...An evil demon can convince me of all kinds of falsities, but it can’t convince me that I don’t exist, because there needs to be a me to be convinced of this. “
This is just another one of these variants of this questionable assumption that doing something or undergoing some mental state or mental happening requires a self. This just seems to be the premise to question here.
Moreover, this seems to apply to the cogito itself in that the statement “I am thinking, therefore I exist” seems to assume that there is a self or an I or a cartesian ego that is doing or experiencing the thinking. But it’s not clear why we should think this is the case.
Maybe Descartes should have said something more like “there is thought, therefore there is thought” or “there is thought, therefore there is at least thinking going on”, or “there is thought, therefore (assuming that thought entails mental stuff) therefore there is mental stuff”.
This gets us closer to the kind of intuition that I suspect Descarte was maybe trying to get at with his famous statement, which is the intuitive recognition that experience or consciousness is epistemologically primary. I don’t know a statement like the cogoti that would semantically capture that intuitive recognition well, but I think that might have been what Descartes was intuiting in his meditations. At least that is what I have found in my own contemplations similar to those of descartes. The realness of raw experience or consciousness is impossible, or at least very difficult, to doubt. Indeed the act of doubting is itself a state of consciousness, or so it seems.
Sam Harris perhaps put it best when he said that (and this is not an exact quote) consciousness is the only thing that can’t be an illusion. If it only seems to be the case that we are conscious, then that seeming is itself an instance of consciousness.
If consciousness is understood in such a way to be synonymous with self, moreover, then therein we might be able to find some reasonable as well as intuitive basis for believing the cogito.
You are not looking at the real issue. The important part is the implied negative. What Descartes said is that everything else, apart from the realization that one entity had a thought and therefore existed at least while doing the thinking, but everything else might be non-existent. The computer in which you are reading this might be non-existent. I might not exist. Maybe your eyes don't exist, and you are imagining even the existence of your very own head. Your brain could be a meat machine, or a program in a computer, or the cumulative brain of a whole colony of ants, working as a single brain. The color blue might not exist, but at least for a (possibly imagined) second you had a thought, and at least for that second, you existed.
@@andresvillarreal9271 i dont understand why you're saying I'm not looking at the real issue.
And I don't know what you mean by implied negative. Are you talking about an implication of a negation of some proposition, or what does that mean?
I think I understand the basic idea of what descartes was saying in regard to the cogiti. And I probably do ultimately agree with the cogiti in that to think means or shows that I exist, at least in some form or instantiation, as Alex sort of said in the video. But I'm still critical of some of the arguments and statements presented in this video. And if you're intending to make some kind of argument, then I'm not sure what that argument is supposed to be. It seems to me that you're just restating the claim, a claim i might agree with, and, I think, quite beautifully so, I might add.
@@highvalence7649 The very first paragraph of a comment that is too long to read is boggled down on language, when this is the most basic idea that anyone has ever devised. If you are trying to get the semantics and grammatical use of every word, you are implying the existence of a lot of concepts, from language and otherwise. This idea is what is left when everything that you can possibly take away is eliminated.
@@andresvillarreal9271 i dont quite follow. Are you basically saying that I'm quibbling about the semantics? Because yeah I guess I am doing that. But I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I think semantics are important.
Or was that not the point you were trying to make?
Do you maybe think I am wrong about something? In that case, can you state the proposition you think i am wrong about?
Your last sententence seems again to merely be restating the claim. I might agree with the claim, but i dont know if you actually have some kind of argument for it.
Or perhaps it's not meant as an argument, but rather as statement about an intuition that if you are thinking, you can intuitively know that you exist.
But if you're suggesting my initial comment is confused because it mistake an articulation of an intuition for an argument for a claim, in that case i think your critique is off because what I was critiquing don't seem merely like articulatations of an intuition, but of arguments for claims.
I don’t know, I might be like straw manning the fuck out of you right now, but I'm just writing down my thoughts kinda no filter lol
@@highvalence7649 There is only one way to explain "cogito ergo sum", and it is through a thought game. One day you wake up and everything is different. You eat memories, you remember future events, you cannot quite know how many extremities you have, or if they are solid, liquid, or gaseous. Words just don't have any meaning anymore. Causes do not precede consequences. What is the one thing that you can know for certain if you still have some kind of self-awareness? That you are thinking, so you can at least know that you existed during the moment in which you had the thought.
If you approached it from a Buddhist perspective, where the idea of the self is regarded as experience but not truth, you would get to the statement “there is thinking.” Which would be an even more basic first principle and I think it would be very cool to try to use Descartes’ methodology to build a rationalist worldview from there.
“I think, therefore I am” can, too, be doubted. Let us say i assured myself I think therefore i am before i wrote this comment. In this particular moment, it is therefore just a memory which could very well be simulated and doubted. It follows that there wouldn’t be a way to prove in any particular moment if i am actively thinking therefore i am or just viewing experiencing a memory.
but there has to an observer in order to have that memory, if you do not exist then that memory couldn't exist because memories are dependent on being.
Really appreciate the well researched and thought out video.
If I am asking the question, `do I exist?` then I must exist by definition. That which doesn't exist, can't ask the question in the first place. It's the only thing I know of that I can't be wrong about. My perception of my existence may be completely wrong, but I still exist.
Yes because whatever you are, you are infact something
@@Dat-Boi-Camoja I don't know why people are so confused about it 😂
i am therefore i think.
I found the subtle background music distracting. I think any background noise detracts from serious thought provoking conversion.
But thankyou Alex I'm still appreciating your perspectives.
It's nice to have had someone do the hard thinking for me!
I think the term, I think therefore I am, is more accurate than the term, I am thinking, therefore I am. I thought about this while driving and what I came up with is that every moment that you’re experiencing life as a human, you are constantly perceiving things, even when you sleep you subconsciously some degree, and so if it’s true that we’re constantly gathering information from our perception, no matter how little, it must be true, that we must always process what we perceive, therefore thinking, therefore being.
"Cogito ergo sum, therefore I think that I, AM, I, AM." 🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥
I have no mouth an I must scream fan spotted 🫵
I am consciousness.
This is an interesting insight into Descartes. As always I really enjoy your videos.
Maybe I am missing the point but I never understood why someone who was questioning everything made so many assumptions about thinkers from thought. Even if you wish to say it is an oxymoron to have a thought without a thinker, Descartes seems to conclude that a temporal sequence of doubts, or thoughts, refer back to a singular self, is that a big assumptions or am I not getting it.
I'm not sure if Descartes concluded there has to be a singular self, but I think you could easily reinterpret the statement to mean: I am thinking, therefore there is (thinking). Like Alex says: "[...] I know that I exist, at least in some form". The "I" in "I am" doesn't have to be the person doing the thinking or even a person at all (because the whole idea of "person" or "identity" could be an illusion of the demon), it just means something (that Descartes calls "I") is having an experience of thinking/doubting. Does that make sense? :)
@@countcatharsis I think that is a good point. This is just a reflection on what you and Alex have mentioned. Because if this take on Descartes is correct, which seems to be the case, I am not sure how it is consistent with the way Descartes talks about I.
The bit I grapple with is the way in which Descartes seems to conclude that the more the metaphorical demon makes me doubt, the greater proof of I. Further there is a temporal sequence to it. There is a part in the meditations where talks about having a sequence of doubt but that this just re-affirms his trust in the existence of I. What happen if the demon is way more devious than Descartes thought? There was only ever one doubt or thought but it contains false memories of numerous previous thoughts or doubts.
I think we are the same page here, just not sure how it squares with the rest of Descartes work.
That is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Descartes's errors. Even if everything about the cogito was perfect, the meditations fall apart not long after that. After the cogito, he tries to thwart the evil demon and fails miserably. He makes so many leaps of logic, especially when trying to prove god's existence (something Descartes deemed necessary to vanquish the demon). If he wanted to, Cosmic Skeptic could eadily make 3 or 4 follow up videos to this. There are 6 meditations in total to talk about. He lightly touched on 2 and 3. Meditations 4 through 6 weren't even discussed.
@@peterleeson1122 Good questions. If you reference the original text (I'm not sure which translation you're referencing, but they're not all equal) Descartes really concludes that in order for the demon to fool you, you must exist in the first place. How would anything fool you if you didn't exist? It therefore wouldn't matter how powerful or devious the demon is, because in order to be deceived, you must exist.
Could you reference the part of the text where he says "more the demon makes me doubt, the greater the proof of I"? And what is the "sequence of doubt" you're mentioning, because he mentions quite a few doubts.
@@peterleeson1122 "There was only ever one doubt or thought but it contains false memories of numerous previous thoughts or doubts." --> But isn't this just the same thing as before, just with a few more steps? In order for false memories to exist, there has to be something that can have those false memories.
Like Abraham Kim says: it doesn't matter how powerful the demon is, there is always something being deceived by the demon.
It’s 21 years since I graduated from Edinburgh University with my philosophy degree (spent a lot of time in the David Hume tower) and all this mind-fuck has just come flooding back! 😂😂
Joking, love it… Well done. I actually live a lot of my life by Descartes meditations (particularly his 2nd).
Oh, and Alex O’Connor is turning into one of my favourite young intellectuals 🤓
Well, i've finally encountered descarte in my university studies, and have returned to rewatch this video to get me started and in the mood.
I am therefore I think
Because u pre-supposed Or thought that u exist, therefore, U must think before coming to the conclusion that u are
It's like "I think, therefore I exist" but then Heidegger asked an even more insightful question: "What is existence?"
it's so good, love it
And Post-structuralists then question the "I"
@@untitled9693 wait until we question the "?"....
He asked what is existence but through the question of being. What is the meaning of being, he asks. But in order to do this one needs to start with asking: What is this being that is asking questions about being? This, Heidegger means, must be asked through the deep analysis of Being-in-the-world.
Heidegger is an amazing philosopher and made me think a lot. One can see his magnus opus Being and Time, to be a critic of the whole philosophical tradition.
Then you have to read Ludwig Wittgenstein and realize that language is the barrier. We are trying to say the unsayable by playing these language games. Philosophy is great nourishment for the soul.
Descartes and many people before him all the way back to Plato and Aristotle asked "what is existence" and they're really the fathers of metaphysics. Even Leibniz and others recently after Descartes builds on his work on the nature of existence.
I exist when I’m thinking.
I exist even when not thinking...😂
Thank you very much for the video, it was very illustrative regarding Descartes' contributions, especially for someone who does not know much about philosophy
The Japanese Buddhist philosopher Nichiren wrote in 1255, “When we look into our own mind at any moment, we perceive neither color nor form to verify that it exists. Yet we still cannot say it does not exist, for many differing thoughts continually occur. The mind cannot be considered either to exist or not to exist. Life is indeed an elusive reality that transcends both the words and concepts of existence and nonexistence. It is neither existence nor nonexistence, yet exhibits the qualities of both.”
Whenever I experience a bad trip from taking psychedelics, which makes me think that I have opened another dimension and gives me an existential crisis or sleep paralysis, I always turn to this line: "I think, therefore I am." It works every time by lessening my anxiety.
Wha
Just dont...
Instead. Get a furry fetish. Its the same. But less dangerous to your body
Alex, I think you may be conflating the inability to doubt meant by Descartes and that described in your examples.
Descartes seems to mean that the operation of logic does not allow for any possibility of doubt against the proposition. As you elaborated concisely, one cannot doubt that they are thinking. This is because doubt by definition means one is thinking. It is logically impossible to doubt in this case.
The examples you raised are characteristically different from what is meant by Descartes. The inability to doubt in those examples is simply born out of some subjective factor about the actor in question rather than out of logical impossibility.
It seems then his proposition about doubt and truth simply boils down to “if a proposition is logically impossible to be false, then it is true with certainty.” The Cogito happens to be an example of that proposition.
What is the contradiction supposed to be and how do you derrive it?
@@highvalence7649 Hi. I was pointing out that Alex may be ‘conflating’ two different meanings of a concept, not necessarily that he is contradicting himself.
The concept in question is the “inability to doubt.”
Descartes’ version of such inability means a situation where it is logically or objectively impossible to doubt. For example, you cannot doubt whether you are thinking or not because by definition, doubting is a form of thinking so if you doubt anything, you know you are thinking.
Alex’s example of inability to doubt is rather subjective or is not a logical impossibility. A mother who cannot doubt the innocence of her child is not an example of a logical impossibility but of a mother whose affection interferes with her ability to doubt.
Alex seems to use these two different meanings of the inability to doubt interchangeably.
Thanks for your question. :)
@@jeongminkim4892 What’s up! Thanks for your reply!
I didn’t think you were suggesting Alex was contradicting himself. My question was about you saying
“As you elaborated concisely, one cannot doubt that they are thinking. This is because doubt by definition means one is thinking. It is logically impossible to doubt in this case.”
To say something is logically impossible is just to say that it entails a contradiction. So when you say that it is logically impossible to doubt in this case, you’re saying by implication that to doubt in this case entails a contradiction, so I’m just wondering what that contradiction is and how you derive it, because that’s not clear to me.
“...you cannot doubt whether you are thinking or not because by definition, doubting is a form of thinking so if you doubt anything, you know you are thinking.”
No. That doesn’t follow. Granted that doubting is a form of thinking, it could yet be that you doubt something, but you don’t know that you’re thinking. From the proposition that doubting is a form of thinking, it doesn’t follow that if you doubt something, you know that you are thinking.
@@highvalence7649 Hey, Valence. Thanks for elaborating on your question.
If you grant that doubting is a form of thinking, the following is possible:
1. If you doubt, you are performing a form of thinking.
2. If you are performing a form of thinking, you are thinking.
3. If you doubt, you are thinking.
In this situation, if one doubts whether they are thinking or not, they can confidently conclude they are indeed thinking solely from the fact that they are doubting at all. Hence, it is impossible to doubt whether we are thinking or not.
You can ask yourself, “Am I thinking right now?” You immediately know the answer to be “yes” because that doubtful question alone was a thought itself.
So the contradiction would arise in any case one says, “no” to such question because the logical operation only allows for the answer, “yes.”
Now, it is possible to doubt whether one is thinking if it is not granted that doubt is a form if thinking.
Hope that clarified my position and feel free to post further question. :)
@@jeongminkim4892 Thanks for the friendly discussion Jeongmin!
Your three possibilities can be formalised like this:
P→Q, Q→R, ∴ P→R
And that’s of course going to be valid. So the logic there is totally fine, and I grant what you write, which I will quote in what follows, up until your conclusion.
“In this situation, if one doubts whether they are thinking or not, they can confidently conclude they are indeed thinking solely from the fact that they are doubting at all. Hence, it is impossible to doubt whether we are thinking or not.”
I grant that they can confidently conclude they are thinking solely from the fact that they are doubting at all. That’s fine. But from that it just doesn't follow that it is impossible to doubt whether we are thinking or not. I may agree that it is entailed that to doubt whether we are thinking or not is irrational, in this case. And perhaps that would be the type of interesting conclusion one would want to come to in regard to the cogito. But that is a different conclusion than the conclusion that it is impossible to doubt whether we are thinking or not. That just doesn’t follow.
“So the contradiction would arise in any case one says, “no” to such question because the logical operation only allows for the answer, “yes.”
Saying no to such a question would be a case of being wrong about the facts. But it’s not clear that there is an actual contradiction entailed in that answer. But if you think there is, then please explicate the contradiction.
A contradiction, as you may know, is a proposition and the negation of that proposition. So I’m wondering what is the proposition and the negation of that proposition that form the contradiction? You don’t have to make it formal like that but, making the contradiction clear by writing something like “it both is and isn’t the case that X “ would be helpful.
I prefer "I am thinking, therefore I am am-ing"
Before i got into philosophy i spent countless nights just thinking. I always came to a variation of the tought: The only thing i can prove is my own conciousness. It suprised me listening to this that i came to that conclusion exactly the same way as Rene Decartes hundreds of years ago.
The way I have always interpreted the quote is. How can we think if we are not real? Like the whole "is anything real?" Argument. "I think, therefore I am" or the full quote "I doubt therefore I am that is to say, I think therefore I am." If I was to expand the quote I would put it as "I think about things, I worry about things, I doubt things, therefore i am human, therefore I am real."
I study more science than philosophy so though familiar with the basics this was mostly new to me - and very entertaining and well put. Could it not be argued that no matter what is doing the thinking or what is being thought any thought however mundane would still be proof of existence and since the mind (be it physical or not) is constantly thinking it is proven whenever I am conscious?
For that, you need to prove, that you are thinking all the time, which I would disagree with. Also, it does matter what actually does the thinking, since you only know for yourself, that that is actually true.
yes, but when can you be certain that you are conscious? Alex is claiming that we can only know we are conscious in the present because history can be doubted, therefore "i am thinking therefore i am" is a more appropriate context.
@@davl7384 I claim that if you are aware then that is thinking - if a brain in a vat "moves a hand" then that would still constitute mental activity aka thoughts - either you are moving the hand which requires a lot of work for the mind or you are conjuring it in the brain but it is still thinking.
@@gregwarrener4848 I do get that but I don't see how anything done while "awake" can avoid being based on thinking. Whether I believe I am doing something or I am actually doing it does not matter since both require thoughts. Reading on a screen takes thoughts to process. I don't see why those thoughts have to be about my state of being to count.
@@jonasfermefors but counsciousness is not suffiecent to prove existence, the prove arrises, when you could otherwise question somethings existence, with itself, simply being counscious does not create such a situation
"Usually when we're dreaming, we're not aware that we are dreaming and think we are having real experiences."
This has never been true for me, I'm always aware when something is a dream. Not in a lucid sense, but my dreams are never vivid enough to be mistaken for real life, so there's always a subconscious awareness of that.
Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am AM, *I AM*
*red sex* plays in the background ...
Thank you random guy on TH-cam . This is the sign I needed at the right moment in my life .
If it interests you, CS, how about a part two looking back at Parmenides and his denial of the senses. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
"I THINK THEREFORE I AM, I AM"-random ai
Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am A.M.
Cogito ergo sum
@ElbaculodeCthulu I A.M
As a 14 year old, i’ve based my conclusions regarding philosophy since the past year because of you. Although, i’m not an atheist….i more often than not find myself agreeing with your knowledge about the underlying principles of the world. Thank you
Subscribed after watching this video. 👌
You should keep making more videos focusing on philosophical ideas.
I believe this thought of his was no longer considered valid because it begins with the assumption that there is an "I" and is therefor circular.
Even using "thinking" as a proof of it rests on the assumption that he knows what the act is and that he is in fact doing it. So even in trying to doubt everything he still takes certain things as base assumptions.
All he can prove is thought, dubiously I might add. His whole meditation sets out with what he aims to prove.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum#Critique
Nope, that;s not even close to a refutation. What is assuming that there is an "i"????? Whatever is making that assumption, is still *something* that exists, therefore, even questioning assumptions, is proof that something exists which can question/doubt assumptions (i.e. a 'thinking' thing).
I don't think it's that easy. It's hard to make sense of that as an objection at all. What does it even mean for there to be thinking without an I? It's part of our understanding of consciousness that there is a subject that has conscious awareness. If you aware of pain, well, *you're in pain*.
Also, I imagine it's still an open question how Descartes' argument is considered. Williams may make an interesting argument, but almost nothing in philosophy gets settled. I'm sure there are detractors.
@@richarddoan9172 Good point. I don't think I've met a single professor/student in my philosophy department who thinks this "I" thing is circular. It's logically valid, and anyone who studied logic and symbolic logic will usually choose a different part of Descartes' arguments to refute. Like you said, there are plenty of attempted refutations of Descartes' Meditations, but this isn't one of them.