Replies

His words were “Je pense donc je suis” (original in French not the Latino “Cogito ergo sum” often attributed). He may have MEANT “I think therefore I know that I am”, but his words were “I think therefore I am.” I think your phrasing makes more sense, however. Otherwise the point could be made in a number of other ways, such as “I hear, therefore I am” or “I eat, therefore I am.”

Frankly, I never thought that this statement was very deep, or even true. Much exists that has no knowledge of its existence. And it is not the conscienceness of one’s existence that makes one exist. A stone has no awareness of its existence, yet it exists. The “therefore” makes no sense.

“He may have MEANT ‘I think therefore I know that I am’, but his words were ‘I think therefore I am.’”

Yes, I was, as I said, trying to get at what he meant. Which, however catchy, can be misleading.

“Frankly, I never thought that this statement was very deep, or even true”

I think it’s true and shallower (or narrower, if you will) than people give it credit for. It does all come down, after all, to a single sudden, basic, emotional response. You must simply realize that you are thinking, and that’s the whole trick.

“Much exists that has no knowledge of its existence”

That’s not really the point, though. Descartes is very specifically inquiring into whether he, a thinking person, can be fooled into thinking he exists. The ruse of the “malicious demon” (or, as one commentator put it, the rather accomodating demon), who’s trying to trick you into believing you exist when you really don’t, wouldn’t work on things that can’t think.

“And it is not the conscienceness of one’s existence that makes one exist.”

No, but if you follow his logic, he realize that’s not what he’s saying. All it is is that consciousness leads one to realize that you cannot be fooled into thinking that you exist when you don’t. Because you must exist in order to think.

“The ‘therefore’ makes no sense.”

It does within the train of thought.