Graph By: Don S.
-
-
Copy & paste this:
« Previous Number Of Tourists Eaten By Attraction | Publishing Next »
» 26 TPS Reports
Leave a Reply
-
Latest Comments
Kendra on What People Say When They Lear… Xydrealb on Replotted- Pol·i·ti·cian: A Pe… Dennish777 on So Many Countless Hours Spent … Breeze on Art of Trolling: Nothing, Noth… Fred on Han Shot First, Damn It! Mr Charizard on Faith Means Never Having to Ad… Sanee on Spank the Monkey mitchells2003 on Congressional Bling ... on So Many Countless Hours Spent … ... on Han Shot First, Damn It! willohfish on Art of Trolling: Nothing, Noth… biocake on If Only They Made Little Pouch… GermanGirl on So Many Countless Hours Spent … GermanGirl on So Many Countless Hours Spent … GermanGirl on So Many Countless Hours Spent … 
Cheezburger Company Blog
Rene Descartes was a drunken fart.
…who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger Heidegger was a boozy beggar~
Drunken farts alway seem to stink the most.
Posito Ergo Sum
I love how no one here understands what it means until half way down the page.
I won’t be surprised if some of you think “People only use 10% of their brain.”
Misquoting and distorting are so win, aren’t they?
Are you talking to me? I was quoting Monty Python, who should never be taken seriously ever. They are full of win, though.
I think therefore I am does not thereby lead to I do not think therefore I am not.
It does if “I think, therefore I am.” is the only definition.
But it’s not a definition. It’s a philosophical argument.
I agree with Joshua.
I am at a party, therefore I am having fun.
Does that statement exclude me from having fun if I am not at a party? No, and by the same reasoning, I think therefore I am does not mean that if I do not think, I am not. A rock does not think but does exists.
That is entirely true, but without an explicit definition for it, fun only exists at the party.
Try this test: http://www.think-logically.co.uk/lt.htm. It instilled a new appreciation in me for making sure the proper assumptions are defined and defensible.
Here is a definition form:
“If I think, then I am.”
So, Descartes was making an argument that he believes is true, which is then a definition as far as he is concerned.
Oh, and to brag a little bit, I scored 100% on that test
(I was pleasantly surprised that I could accurately detect logical solutions based on definitions.)
Anyways, as for the graph, I don’t think there is a simpler way to add another dynamic to it without adding too many words and too much explanation.
Through his medications, Descartes only claims the certainty of his own existence and never speaks to the existence of nonexistence of anyone else. He himself never proposed that if one does not think, then one is not. However, if one does not think, then there is a doubt, but not a certainty, of nonexistence.
I kept trying to figure out what joke you were making about Descartes’ medications… Then I realized it was a typo. Lol.
I like that Descartes can only argue that he exists. It makes me feel like I have a higher epistemological certainty than all other beings. Pfft. You could all be robots in the brain or a figment of my imagination. But I’m pretty certain I exist.
Given that our logical systems hold in an evil genius world, of course.
So, do you think you could do a better joke, here? Or could you make it more accurate and still be honest/funny?
No, as there is not a valid path to follow if “I think” leads to “no”.
i also scored 100%…it was actually quite interesting
an excellent time waster
Cogito ergo sum.
Hurray philosophy!
«Je pense donc je suis.»
I have to agree that the graph is wrong. Not thinking does not equal nonexistence. Clearly you can exist without thinking. I don’t think that takes much explanation.
You just can’t KNOW you exist without thinking.
Paris Hilton exists, right?
So is it logically impossible to think you don’t exist?
Because sometimes I’m pretty sure I don’t exist when I ask my children to do things even if I think they should do them.
Precisely. And that was the point of the whole “argument,” wasn’t it? That I could only assert the existence (or non existence) of that which I could actually know to exist or not to exist. Of course X could exist without my knowledge of it, but in the lack of the same I would not be able to affirm that X exists. Hence the “privileged” status of self-existence for a self-cognizer. Though often ridiculed for not proving what it never attempted to prove or for making assumptions which it freely and explicitly concedes, this remains an epochally important “discovery” — or, rather, clarification of a fundamental feature of self-consciousness, a feature that distinguishes it from every other form of consciousness. Is this a big deal? Only to those who concern themselves with such questions and are interested in making such distinctions. For those who do not, it can only seem like a pointless waste of time or a factual error or a case of fallacious reasoning. It is certainly neither of the latter. Whether it is the first is something one must decide for oneself.
I got 14/15 on that logic test (only missed that first poverty/crime question because I wasn’t paying attention). What do I win?
What Descartes actually said “Dubito eres sum” – he was wondering if there is some great deceiver that was screwing with his senses. What he concluded, the only axiom he could know for sure, was that he (as an entity himself) was doubting this possible other thing, therefore he knew that he was a thing which existed. Hence “I doubt, therefore I am.”
He certainly did not say anything “eres sum.” transcription fail.
What an all ’round amazingly written article