From : Holly Krause
Sent : Friday, June 10, 2005 2:41 PM
To :
Subject : RE:
oh, sophie dophie... about the descartes thing, he's just saying that "i think therefore i am" is a given and doesn't need to be arrived at syllogistically, because there necessarily needs to be a thinker in order for there to be thoughts...interesting that he notices that.....this guy's an atheist, right?....doesn't he see that creation is analogous like that? (creation exists, therefore there must be a creator).....that's still a syllogistic sentence though...oh, but with the descartes thing...how does he know thoughts exist and aren't doxa, if he cant trust anything else his senses tell him to be true...it seems thoughts would be just from another sense....plus, they could be coming from somewhere other than your own head, it seems....so i dont think "i think therefore i am" really is an axiom...
Sent : Friday, June 10, 2005 2:41 PM
To :
Subject : RE:
oh, sophie dophie... about the descartes thing, he's just saying that "i think therefore i am" is a given and doesn't need to be arrived at syllogistically, because there necessarily needs to be a thinker in order for there to be thoughts...interesting that he notices that.....this guy's an atheist, right?....doesn't he see that creation is analogous like that? (creation exists, therefore there must be a creator).....that's still a syllogistic sentence though...oh, but with the descartes thing...how does he know thoughts exist and aren't doxa, if he cant trust anything else his senses tell him to be true...it seems thoughts would be just from another sense....plus, they could be coming from somewhere other than your own head, it seems....so i dont think "i think therefore i am" really is an axiom...
posted by Velvet at 12:30 PM
1 Comments:
well this conclusion makes sense to me...BUT- why assume u don't know that thoughts exist- don't u know they do? i know i thought something...why question that i have thoughts?
Post a Comment
<< Home