Is philosopher Rene Descartes correct in his proposition "I think therefore I am"?

[Anonymous]

as the one single indubitable truth one can't doubt..

Do you have any rebuttal to it..

[genericname85]

well in order to reference to yourself, there has got to be a self in the first place right? without you existing, you couldn't identify yourself. tho the thing that you typically refer to when you say "i" is merely a software or a pattern emeging from the cooperation between a lot of individual things. almost like the word "society" is not a tangible real thing but just a word we use to describe a collective of individual things.

there's an interesting philosphical mind game that really makes you wonder. imagine there's a sophisticated machine that could slowly take you appart atom by atom and copy you over piece by piece from point A to point B. at what exact point does whatever is left of you at point A stop being you and at what point does whatever is at point B start being you?

[strateguy632]

each bit is NOT you that was the message he was saying.

[genericname85]

@strateguy632 is English your native language? cause i really struggle understanding what you're trying to say.

[strateguy632]

oops needed a comma or period dot between "you, that etc."
your atom by atom is demonstrated in star trek transporter. during those seconds is the person the one in the ship? or the one on the planet?

[genericname85]

@strateguy632 yeah i know each bit is not you but it's part of you. so at what point does one collection of bits become "you"?

[EricSummer]

In Latin it is really the exact same, in three words. No challenge to the translator there. "Cogitate" is a bit wider than just "think" in meaning, but in such a short phrase we should go for the main meaning.

[EricSummer]

Sorry meant to answer to someone doubting the translation.

The translation is ok, but the meaning of the phrase is over-hyped.

Any personal action requires and therefore proves existence. It is equally true to say "I eat therefore I am" or "I have sex therefore I am".
So the saying is true, but nothing special.

[strateguy632]

still he meant something different that was "lost in translation " not doubting the accuracy of the translation.

[strateguy632]

the wording is bad and probably lost in translation.

in English two options: i am who is thinking.

or i must exist because i think.

but his phrase is hollow and dumb.

[genericname85]

when an individual considers a concept that goes way beyond it's capacity to understand, the individual tends to label that concept as stupid.

[strateguy632]

@genericname85 not about the "concept" as you wrongly wrote. read again. lol.

[strateguy632]

about rebuttal, i recall in book harry potter an imaginary rebuttal. the author imagined harry "existed but more than a thought" that added part is not supported by the thinking. see chapter 35 book deathly hallows.

[genericname85]

how do you know harry potter isn't real?

[OfMiceandMen]

Kind of a cliffhanger though, "I think, therefore I am..."

Am what, do we fill in the dots ourselves?

[strateguy632]

yes poor wording for his concept. as i wrote.

[Lara_Croft]

Yes. As a man thinketh is in Proverbs. As a man thinketh so is he

[sean1234]

No. For when one dies not with Jesus, they think not anymore after the 2nd death.

[AngryCarl2]

It's the one thing I'm certain about. Descartes is one of my heroes in philosophy.

[Anonymous]

Oh! THINK!! I thought it was, STINK!