Question by heeltap: Isn’t the statement “I think therefore I am.” by Rene Descartes fundamentally flawed ?
Isn’t the statement “I think therefore I am.” by Rene Descartes fundamentally flawed because, either a),it is incomplete as it jumps from *thinking* to *being (or existing)* without specifying the metaphysical nature of either, or b), it makes a metaphysical “category mistake” deducing or inducing from something mental, thinking, to something physical, existing . How can a specific thought, which has as of yet, an unexplained nature, become sufficient evidence for asserting the physical existence of a human being?
This is a follow-on question to the Question “Can thoughts exist without the awareness that something is thinking that it is thinking?”
Added details explain how Descartes statement is flawed. If you disagree and think the opposite you must explain how or why it is not flawed. Posting without doing so is a cop out and it ends the Q and A effort.
Best answer:
Answer by sheeple_rancher
I am, therefore I think. It can be no other way.
Did you read “Descartes Error” by Antonio Damasio? He is a scientist/neurologist who goes into the whole question in great depth.
Add your own answer in the comments!
wat?
you added to the same flaw, specifically, with the follow-up, QtoQ. This, will no be so, and in the essences, and perfectly out way from any matter’,- As in Descartes mind.-
Although Descartes, was confucing the substances in fact,(to his knowledge), making sure to confuce the substances him-self, wich of course (him Descartes), will not be able to think, in the process. Nor, he will be able to extract such a though from the substance he perceived. Been unable to promote its own though or thinking, that in this case, descartes will perceived, as his own thinking, (though) he could see, that from the substances, and from his own substances. So, to be able to in this way think and promote the though to become, materialise from him-self, and throughout him, to become, as he will and continue searching for his-true-self. though in the substances he will be the only one able to prouved it, he will not because he was really searching for his own essences, trying harder and harder to stay out way from substances, after his initial task, to stay out way from matter’s which at the time were off his concern. so, because he knew matter, nor the substances can think, nor there is intelligence within then, he made sure, that, !
> and here its “thereforth”, will become fix, but will not just fit, perfectly between the words “I am” and ” I think”,< This maxima, of Descartes, Which I give to you backwards, so there the essences nor the substances will show, of the minnings descartes was thinking ( "but you and I can see")and he have already achieved before, see, and perceived. thereforth, able to see and perceived his practical way, because he though of him self as practical person, mostly an individual, (and he didn't like to be practical) he will never show, any sings of having an ecentrical mind, though only and "essencially a Literal individual which will not botter anyone" Fur from the thoughs, but protectived of Blaise Pascal, in my oppinion. Montigned will fit you best (sorry my spellcheck isn't working),
You have given me a headache.
the best answer to that question is another quote. it should be “i’m pink there fore i’m spam”!
spleen