Rene Descartes (French philosopher and mathematician, 1596-1650 ), once supposedly said the famous words:"I THINK, THEREFORE I AM ".
Do you guys agree with him?
I think, therefore I am....
-
Guest
I think, therefore I am....
Sounds to me like he put his cart in front of the horse, which makes it, at best, a backward proposition. Maybe Descartes was using his word ‘think’ in a higher sense, more synonymous with divine Mind, but then he'd have to be using his ‘I am’ in a moral or human sense. That’s the only way this proposition even halfway works, something along the lines of, "Mind is, therefore is my existence", or "I am, therefore I think". Even so the persistent duality makes it rather redundant if not illogical. Whereas Being ItSelf is unqualified, complete, and produces no therefore’s, no conclusions apart from Its own Self-declared Presence.
-
Guest
Hmmmmmmm, let me think about this! 
I suppose you would have to be in Descartes head to know what he meant. Did he mean because he thought thoughts, that he was therefore existent? Or, did he mean because he had a mind which was conscious, that he therefore existed. In other words, because he knew he existed, he WAS therefore? I don't know what he meant by think - but by think, I take it to mean a string of thoughts, and if that was what he meant, then I perhaps I don't agree, because thinking a string of thoughts is simply consciousness blabbering, as it does all the time, and doesn't necessarily make a statement about "I Am", but simply blabbers, and as we well know, you don't have to "be there" to blabber away. On the other hand, "I am" implies consciousness of being, and in order to be conscious of being, you need to have some kind of mind consciousness to be aware or conscious of being, no? In that case, I agree that THAT kind of thought, if it is actually even thought (don't think it is, actually), would prove, to me at least, that who is thinking the thought that "I Am" is actually existent, in order to think the thought, no? Hmmmm, let me think about that.
I suppose you would have to be in Descartes head to know what he meant. Did he mean because he thought thoughts, that he was therefore existent? Or, did he mean because he had a mind which was conscious, that he therefore existed. In other words, because he knew he existed, he WAS therefore? I don't know what he meant by think - but by think, I take it to mean a string of thoughts, and if that was what he meant, then I perhaps I don't agree, because thinking a string of thoughts is simply consciousness blabbering, as it does all the time, and doesn't necessarily make a statement about "I Am", but simply blabbers, and as we well know, you don't have to "be there" to blabber away. On the other hand, "I am" implies consciousness of being, and in order to be conscious of being, you need to have some kind of mind consciousness to be aware or conscious of being, no? In that case, I agree that THAT kind of thought, if it is actually even thought (don't think it is, actually), would prove, to me at least, that who is thinking the thought that "I Am" is actually existent, in order to think the thought, no? Hmmmm, let me think about that.
-
Guest
Perhaps knowing the simple fact that "I Am" is enough. Perhaps that is the whole purpose to life on earth - to know that I am, that I exist, that I am being, whatever it is that I am being at any moment. Perhaps that is the soft voice behind the statement "be still and know that I am". and all the rest of thinking, Descartes, or otherwise, is frosting on the cake, the pleasure of stream of consciousness, but with no significance whatsoever?
Re: I think, therefore I am....
Yea, but........What is Being? Is it a sense of I Am, or is it simply just being, without consciousness of being?Anonymous wrote: Whereas Being ItSelf is unqualified, complete, and produces no therefore’s, no conclusions apart from Its own Self-declared Presence.
There is always this problem with Being as such - why would anyone want to Be without Knowing that they were Being? What would the point be to life, then? Just to exist, unaware of being, sounds to me like a kind of non-being, you know?
Descartes says, “I think, therefore I am” (Cogito ergo sum).
Does Descartes mean for us to understand that he is a being separate and distinct from his thoughts? That his thoughts are something he has? Is he saying, “I have these thoughts, and they prove that I am”?
Or does he mean that “Descartes” and “Descartes’ thoughts” are one and the same thing? That is, it isn’t that his thinking proves his being, but rather that his thinking is his being. “When I think, then I am.”
Is there such a thing as “Descartes” who is independent of “Descartes’ thoughts”?
Would Descartes have been able to say “I am” if he were not thinking?
I suggest that, whether or not he knew it, what Descartes’ formula means is: Descartes is, only when Descartes is thinking. It is the thought process that proves to Descartes that he is Descartes. When the infant child that became Descartes was born, it had no idea that it was Descartes. It was not until the child began thinking that it became aware that he was Descartes. Where did those thoughts come from? From parents, siblings, priests, friends, colleagues, etc. “I’m mama” “I’m papa” “You’re Rene” (presumably his parents called him by his first name?) "You're a he" "We're French" And so on, until his mental basket overflowed with stuff.
(Is it just a coincidence that we sometimes refer to a newborn child as it? “How much does it weigh?” “Is it healthy?”)
So, what happens if Descartes stops thinking? Can Descartes not think? Can Descartes really have a “silent” mind, and still be Descartes?
I suggest that Descartes cannot stop thinking because it is the thought process itself (beliefs, values, prejudices, ideas, opinions, desires, expectations, etc. that are constantly in motion in our brains) which defines “Descartes”, which makes Descartes visible, tangible, recognizable, which informs Descartes "I am Descartes, and you're not".
If the thought process were to truly cease, the personality would disappear.
That’s what the spiritual process is all about.
Eventually, at Self-Realization or Christ Consciousness (or whatever label), the thought process is fully mastered, fully transcended, and that changes everything. “Descartes” dies; what remains, what is re-born, is not “of this world”, is not of thought, and is subject to none of the rules of thought (birth, death, time, space, personal/separative identity).
At that non-place, the words “I AM” assume a completely different meaning, describe a completely different, uh, place, being, what? There, “I AM” is entirely different from Descartes’ “I am”.
Descartes' "I am" is "one among many". I AM is simply One, simply is. Now, that last sentence is easy enough to say, but, let's face it, we can't know what it means really. The concept itself is too far beyond thought for us to create a mental image; we cannot grasp the Infinite; it exceeds the capacity of our brain.
Or so it seems to me.
Does Descartes mean for us to understand that he is a being separate and distinct from his thoughts? That his thoughts are something he has? Is he saying, “I have these thoughts, and they prove that I am”?
Or does he mean that “Descartes” and “Descartes’ thoughts” are one and the same thing? That is, it isn’t that his thinking proves his being, but rather that his thinking is his being. “When I think, then I am.”
Is there such a thing as “Descartes” who is independent of “Descartes’ thoughts”?
Would Descartes have been able to say “I am” if he were not thinking?
I suggest that, whether or not he knew it, what Descartes’ formula means is: Descartes is, only when Descartes is thinking. It is the thought process that proves to Descartes that he is Descartes. When the infant child that became Descartes was born, it had no idea that it was Descartes. It was not until the child began thinking that it became aware that he was Descartes. Where did those thoughts come from? From parents, siblings, priests, friends, colleagues, etc. “I’m mama” “I’m papa” “You’re Rene” (presumably his parents called him by his first name?) "You're a he" "We're French" And so on, until his mental basket overflowed with stuff.
(Is it just a coincidence that we sometimes refer to a newborn child as it? “How much does it weigh?” “Is it healthy?”)
So, what happens if Descartes stops thinking? Can Descartes not think? Can Descartes really have a “silent” mind, and still be Descartes?
I suggest that Descartes cannot stop thinking because it is the thought process itself (beliefs, values, prejudices, ideas, opinions, desires, expectations, etc. that are constantly in motion in our brains) which defines “Descartes”, which makes Descartes visible, tangible, recognizable, which informs Descartes "I am Descartes, and you're not".
If the thought process were to truly cease, the personality would disappear.
That’s what the spiritual process is all about.
Eventually, at Self-Realization or Christ Consciousness (or whatever label), the thought process is fully mastered, fully transcended, and that changes everything. “Descartes” dies; what remains, what is re-born, is not “of this world”, is not of thought, and is subject to none of the rules of thought (birth, death, time, space, personal/separative identity).
At that non-place, the words “I AM” assume a completely different meaning, describe a completely different, uh, place, being, what? There, “I AM” is entirely different from Descartes’ “I am”.
Descartes' "I am" is "one among many". I AM is simply One, simply is. Now, that last sentence is easy enough to say, but, let's face it, we can't know what it means really. The concept itself is too far beyond thought for us to create a mental image; we cannot grasp the Infinite; it exceeds the capacity of our brain.
Or so it seems to me.
I think therefore I am
Thanks for your points of view on this matter. I (also) don't agree with Descartes' statement. In my opinion the "Being-ness" comes before all else!
That "being-ness" I see like a sort of "love to be". From "nothing-ness"to "being-ness", "knowing-ness".
That "being-ness" I see like a sort of "love to be". From "nothing-ness"to "being-ness", "knowing-ness".
I think therefore I am
I know what you mean, Anna. One can call It whatever one wants to.....then it is just a concept...............We love concepts , and sometimes we need concepts too to get rid of yet other concepts............But at the end we have to throw away all concepts. Who was it who said that we have to use concepts like we use a thorn to get rid of another thorn and then we throw both thorns away?
For me the most crucial thing is to stay in that "I am-ness" , untill we disclose it and understand that the real I is beyond that "I am-ness".
For me the most crucial thing is to stay in that "I am-ness" , untill we disclose it and understand that the real I is beyond that "I am-ness".
Who do I think I am?
Just for fun, before putting him to rest let’s take our nice French charge for a stroll down the Champs-Elysees, and see what of interest we encounter.
It occurs to me that in the fascination of the egoic body/mind (“I am me, and you aren’t me”) with thought, we may have got caught like a deer in headlights by the word cogito (Latin for “I think”) in Rene Descartes’ formula cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am).
What if, instead of think, the operative word were the first I? And what if, instead of that I referring to our friend Rene, it were to refer to the Divine, to God?
Then, might the meaning be something like: “God thinks, therefore Descartes is”?
Or, because the thought process is pretty much the cherished province of the egoic mind, let’s make that “God imagines, therefore Descartes is”.
Albert Einstein wrote, I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon. I want to know His thoughts. The rest are details.
You (whoever) and I are apparently different manifestations of the same Thing (the One, God). That is, I am God perceived as being me, you are God perceived as being you.
The question is, perceived by whom?
Virtually all of the Teachers seem to agree that the observer is the observed, that we observe only ourselves, or all of what we observe is ourselves.
If so, and if that applies to God, too, then the perceiver is God … perceiving Himself.
That makes me God perceiving Himself as being me, and you God perceiving Himself as being you.
Thus, we are both the same or identical: thoughts, or fantasies, or mental images of God. We are, in effect, “God thinking”, or God imaging, or God imagining. (No verb really works for God, but we’ve got to use the tools we have.)
If any of the preceding makes sense -- which it may very well not but enjoying our stroll along Paris' Champs-Elysees who cares? -- then perhaps it follows that the spiritual process is about this choice: Either to identify with (see ourselves the same as) “God’s thoughts” -- that is, separatively: I perceive myself as me, you perceive yourself as you; each of us perceives every one and every thing else as something other than “myself”; this is what we call "the world"; OR to identify with the Thinker (God): I Am That.
Both choices are, of course, one and the same (just as each of us and our thoughts are one and the same), but it is a difference of perspective.
Is this just metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, or if we can bring ourselves to distill out all our prejudices, our preconceptions, and our inherited and adopted biases, is it less than that?
Maybe here we can take a hint from Chesterton, “Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly”.
Merci et bonjour, cher Rene.
It occurs to me that in the fascination of the egoic body/mind (“I am me, and you aren’t me”) with thought, we may have got caught like a deer in headlights by the word cogito (Latin for “I think”) in Rene Descartes’ formula cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am).
What if, instead of think, the operative word were the first I? And what if, instead of that I referring to our friend Rene, it were to refer to the Divine, to God?
Then, might the meaning be something like: “God thinks, therefore Descartes is”?
Or, because the thought process is pretty much the cherished province of the egoic mind, let’s make that “God imagines, therefore Descartes is”.
Albert Einstein wrote, I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon. I want to know His thoughts. The rest are details.
You (whoever) and I are apparently different manifestations of the same Thing (the One, God). That is, I am God perceived as being me, you are God perceived as being you.
The question is, perceived by whom?
Virtually all of the Teachers seem to agree that the observer is the observed, that we observe only ourselves, or all of what we observe is ourselves.
If so, and if that applies to God, too, then the perceiver is God … perceiving Himself.
That makes me God perceiving Himself as being me, and you God perceiving Himself as being you.
Thus, we are both the same or identical: thoughts, or fantasies, or mental images of God. We are, in effect, “God thinking”, or God imaging, or God imagining. (No verb really works for God, but we’ve got to use the tools we have.)
If any of the preceding makes sense -- which it may very well not but enjoying our stroll along Paris' Champs-Elysees who cares? -- then perhaps it follows that the spiritual process is about this choice: Either to identify with (see ourselves the same as) “God’s thoughts” -- that is, separatively: I perceive myself as me, you perceive yourself as you; each of us perceives every one and every thing else as something other than “myself”; this is what we call "the world"; OR to identify with the Thinker (God): I Am That.
Both choices are, of course, one and the same (just as each of us and our thoughts are one and the same), but it is a difference of perspective.
Is this just metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, or if we can bring ourselves to distill out all our prejudices, our preconceptions, and our inherited and adopted biases, is it less than that?
Maybe here we can take a hint from Chesterton, “Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly”.
Merci et bonjour, cher Rene.