The Instigator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

The Cogito is absolutly Certain

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,519 times Debate No: 25684
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

Cogito Ergo Sum
This is often phrased in English as "I think therefore I am"
This debate will be about the certainty of self-existence
I will be arguing for its Absolute certainty. Con will be arguing against it.

Bop is on me

Terms of acceptance
1. Appeal to authorty or references are NOT replacements for Arguments.
2. Principle of Charity=Conduct

4. The Most informative, precise, reasonable definitions are to be taken over others.

Principle of Charity
-respecting the most likly meaning of the debator.
-giving the best representation of opponest arguments.
-Assume your opponent to be rational and intellegent.
-Vague language is to be avoided.

-no semantic Games.
-or playing to the definition(playing to the a particular definition of a word and not the subjected of detain

Important definitions:
Rational/reasonable: To think incoherence with logic. First round is acceptance. Opponent can start first round but then they cannot give an argument in the last round. Choice is theirs.
Danielle

Con

Thank you, Fool.

I'm intrigued and excited to engage in a philosophical debate - my first in a very long time.

I accept the proposed terms and definitions of this debate. I look forward to Pro's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

I'll send the debate back over to my opponent so that he can post an opening round.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro


A Fool in itself.


The Fool: Most of my life the only things I had thought to be true and exist where that which I derived from my senses, and or through my senses. However it is my very Idea invested in the meaning of that sentence which is the proof that there is much more than that. And further more for anyone else who could recognize, any meaning in my words.

For if sense information was all that IS, then there would be nothing else from whence they be sensed. Let alone called sense, which is simply a prefix of sensation, where the second half the derived from action. And so it is best expressed as sense in action. Sensing in the moment, and it is by this action, that the notion of actuality is derived.

But there are sensations which are not in any of the five senses. For we never see nor hear, nor smell nor touch, nor taste, emotions. But by the very fact that we sense emotion, they are valid and if not more valid sensations then all of the other five. The five being meaning less without it. Whether we are feeling them or recognizing them in others, they could never recognized nor derived from any of the Five common senses Alone. Nor could any meanings of any word related to emotions be recognized, to even know how to use them in a sentence. Let alone attempt their refutation. FOR THEY ARE NEVER COGNIZED DIRECTLY in ANY SPATIAL SENSE. Therefore it Could NEVER BE TRUE that Spatial entities is all that is. And that which could NEVER be TRUE is by necessity FALSE.(refuation of physicalism)
<(8J)
(Thats ones on the HIll!)

For Emotions are true and existing by the very Cognition of them @ ALL. And so on and so forth for all immediate and direct intuitions or sensations alike. For a Recognition is a Recognition, as true as a thing is itself, it is by there own identity in which they are absolutely certain, by necessity. For certainty is simply 1 or 1x. Where x is anything. And are perception is how we know anything. That is although we can error in a composite and indirect sense could never be false that we having such sensations. For that which could never be false is by necessity TRUE. That is they are 100% certain and that is only certain because 100/100 equal 1. For what is IS, and what is Not does not exist. Nor can it be spoken about, nor thought nor perceived and is always a false claim. And thus many may realize that everything I have said since what IS. Is non-sense. In that there no sense in which I speak of.


I use the term "Consciousness" to refer to the total set of all intuitions and or all sensations. (therefore experience and so forth.)

And I use the word "I" to refer the CENTER of immediate intuition within a framework of consciousness.


And similarly but not Identical to “I”, I use the Term "Other" in the Conscious Set to refer to a Particular "center" of a set of perceptions and or experiences, where any of those particular perceptions can overlap synonymous with mine. But if that entire set is absolutely identical to mine. Then we are one and the same.


For it is this very center Like an AXIS of an Eye ball, in which it looks around, and always out, By which any sense of Inner is necessitated and or demarcated. And thus by the very same notion the mind is always whole. And so the “I” that is, is never in any particular space it-self. For it derives all physical objects FROM and THROUGH the 5 physical senses, while Emotions, and Pure Reason (including math/Logic) are not In any of those senses. But definitely exist in a sense.

For the recognition of anything particular is the demarcation of their Differences. For if there were was no difference between them they would be one and the same. Let alone even to allow for the possiblity to able be to be recognize them in their own rights.

Therefore insofor as there is Immediate or direct Cognition of anything, which is established first and before any novel perception is possible and before any indirect or composite knowledge can be true.

This immediate intuition which of course is under the domain of consciousness (AKA in the set of all intuitions). And by its immediacy it is Indubitably MY consciousness for there is nothing that can be more immediate to something then the very center of it. And that is EXACTLY WHAT “I “AM!!!

“Thus, after everything has been most carefully weighed, It must finally be establish that this pronouncement “I am, I exist” Is necessarily true every time I utter it or even [JUST] CONCEIVE IT in my mind.” Rene Descartes The Meditations.

AKA I THINK THEREFORE I AM!!

Cogito ergo sum


With Love and sincerity, Yours Truly The Fool.
<(8J)



Danielle

Con

With only 30 minutes left to post my round, I'm going to have to (unfortunately) forfeit this round of the debate.

I don't want to be penalized conduct points, considering my opponent has also forfeited a round... but given that I post last, this will seemingly turn into a one-round debate. Many apologies to both my opponent and the audience. I bit off a bit more than I could chew participating in 5 debates at once, and moreover, we only had 24 hours to post our rounds in this debate (which is a little silly).

Again, many apologies and I look forward to reading Pro's case and writing my final round tomorrow.
Debate Round No. 3
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Danielle 3 years ago
Danielle
Agree. Re-challenge me to a debate where we can post our round in 3 days. It usually doesn't take me that long to post one anyway.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 3 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: one rounder is a waste of time. There is no way to correct, for fallacies against my argument. you can keep those kind of points. I wanted someone how was serious about such matters.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 3 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: I probably deleted it. Some time. I haven;t debated in a long while is was just
and only template that I briefly edited.
Posted by tBoonePickens 3 years ago
tBoonePickens
Terms of acceptance
1. Appeal to authorty or references are NOT replacements for Arguments.
2. Principle of Charity=Conduct

4. The Most informative, precise, reasonable definitions are to be taken over others.

Huh, where's 3?
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Where is Friedrich Nietzsche when you need him.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: To think incoherence with logic. Why did you change the letters?
Posted by Jacob_Apologist 4 years ago
Jacob_Apologist
to think incoherent with logic is reasonable?

I think pple will even try debate challenges soon on defending 2+2=4 ,the absolute nature of logic; that I have really done in debates online :)
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: you are pretty much asking for the argument
Posted by Kali 4 years ago
Kali
Does 'I' refer to 'you as a self' or 'you as an evident construct in the universe'? Basically, is this about establishing the existence of 'a person' or about establishing existence of 'a particular person'?
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
I am defending the actual argument. That is the support for That proposition. I made it clear that the that is not the actual argument.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 3 years ago
tmar19652
The_Fool_on_the_hillDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made the only arguments, but con gets conduct for forfeiting less rounds. Also, no one used any sources.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 3 years ago
Greyparrot
The_Fool_on_the_hillDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: aww close debate