The Cogito is absolutly Certain
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 The Resolution.
Bop is on me
Terms of acceptance
1. Appeal to authority or references are NOT replacement 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 likely meaning of the Speaker.
-giving the best representation of opponent arguments.
-Assume your opponent to be rational and intelligent.
-Vague language is to be avoided.
-no semantic Games.
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.
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.
A cogito argument is not to be read as we do most argument and or debates. It is not the kind where other sources can be referred to, nor the kind by which we can natural scientific experiment. Because the nature of this argument is justification by which all other knowledge is dependent upon. In fact in is the most important argument of all.
That is, if you never study philosophy, or have read only a little and or took a few courses this is the one you want in your intellectual arsenal, something that if you get, you can keep forever, and forever it be your save keeping.
The original version of this argument was written by Rene Descartes in the Meditations. But it’s most popularly known as the slogan "I think therefore I am" in English. This quote is a translation of the Latin expression Cogito Ergo Sum, Which is a quick summary Descartes postulates in reference to the argument in the Meditations.
It is by this virtue of mediation which makes this work special, were it is not something that can be learned in any other form but self-contemplation. It is a landmark in philosophical history, as it was the first time that anyone had written in direct personal form: The "I".
These concepts are key to understanding the argument. Where the writer is not arguing against anyone, nor putting up a challenge, but is simply inviting you to self-contemplate with them, where they are posing questions and differences which can only be recognized in the framework of your own immediate intuitions and or experiences.
So it could never be learned through others, It is not something to be Believed, or not believed, accepted or denied, nor can it be sensed1, felt, imagined2 or dreamed, or any form of illusion3. For the "I" is that which is necessitated, by every conscious moment, and that which necessitates the continuity, in consciousness2. It is the Unity of experiences; The Center of them which is always in the NOW. The Right Now by which each word read is being experienced. For the Cogito doesn't refer to the future nor does it the past.
But is the fact of consciousness now.
That is, Insofar as there is immediate consciousness Now, it follows that "I" exist. Why immediate? Because consciousness is always immediate to its center. And the immediate consciousness is mine. And thus it follows from this that I should expect a different set which is Immediate to "others". But only THEY can verify That.
Sincerely, The Fool.
1 sense as in information from the 5 common senses.
2 imagined as in internal imagery and or pictures.
3 To have an illusion you must be conscious.
Unfortunately I have mismanaged my time this week, and have just a few hours to post a round though I am about to leave for Sunday dinner with my family. I'm going to make this round short and sweet, and provide the details of my argument in the next round. For now, I'll provide an outline of my case, which will give my opponent not only the opportunity to respond - but the advantage of making a detailed, pro-active case against my arguments before I am able to explain them further in depth.
The first thing I will be arguing in this debate is that we as human beings cannot know if ANYTHING is absolutely certain, let alone the cogito. Of course, many people (including my opponent, presumably) suggest that the cogito may be [one of] the only things we CAN know for certain. I will argue why we cannot know anything for certain, including the cogito.
Descartes reached his faulty conclusion first by becoming skeptical of all his beliefs. Eventually, he became skeptical of his own existence. He then postulated that his self-doubt was evidence for his own existence. Because he doubts, he must exist. However, Descartes failed to prove that whatever has the property of thinking must exist. Just because thought is happening does not mean that the thought occurring is the result of an entity existing. The "I" as the thinking being in his conclusion is problematic. The affirmation of "I" comes from an invalid epistemological argument called the Prior Certainty of Consciousness. More about this in the next round...
The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Extend my arguments.
The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.