Descartes had it backwards

My mental construct of you

Mental construct of who?
Whose mental construct of whom?
If we are to criticize Réné, it might as well be based upon his use of pronouns. "I" think, therefor "I" am. We could elaborate and say there is a response to the universe on the part of this center of nervous activity called 'self'; therefore, there is 100% probability that this 'self' represents something that exists. Moreover, this 'self' possesses language that, by its very use, obliges 'self' to think and interact in ways that re-enforce this concept of 'self'.
To say that what one experiences doesn't exist is, after all, meaningless.
The oft quoted Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am is all wrong.

I am therefore I think is far more appropriate as a description of the human condition.

The former has led to people actually believing they are their thoughts.


I would say they are spirit, body and history.

This backwards interpretation of the human condition is one of the main reasons the world is a mess.


If the world is a reflection of the beliefs people hold about themselves it is because people believe they are what they think they are.

So if this is wrong do you think people are what you think?

People are not their thoughts. People are not the words they use to describe themselves.

This egocentric self is a fiction.

So you seem to think people are not their toughts. But you are a part of the entity "the people". So who thinks this thought is not your thought if not you?
But that's not what Descartes was saying. He was denying everything but then had to recognize his own existence by necessity as the one denying everything. So he was saying "I am the one think therefore I can only be certain that the I exists"

For the thoughts only the thinker is real - anything else could be an illusion or delusion. But what about a stone? To fall over a stone is very real, isn't it? ... Hmm ... If the body is real and not only the delusion of a brain in a bottle in spaceship Andromeda. ....
Once one has had one of those special dreams that are every bit as real as other seeming perceptions, one has to doubt the genuine objectivity of all perception. So, falling over the stone may, indeed, not be "real" in the sense we would like to take that term. Additionally, it is clear that what humans believe to be true is effectively true and there is no point of view exterior that can be referred to as arbitrator. Even Jesus affirmed this (his discourse about the mountain throwing itself into the sea).
Nevertheless, Pascal's philosophical reflection holds true and is valuable in that regard.

Forum List