i think, therefore, i am
Debate Rounds (3)
how is it a faulty basis?
Firstly, it is incorrect to assume your existence is real purely because you are capable of thought. Why can't the thoughts be those of another entity, you could still be illusory and just receiving those thoughts, perhaps as a figment. An example would be when you are dreaming, at times you may be thinking as yourself even though you aren't yourself in the dream. The dream person is in no way real yet they still have thought. It does not make them real and therefore thought cannot make you any more real.
Secondly, "I think, therefore I am" does not prove that thought is real, only that a thought means you are real. If the thought you are perceiving is not real then how could it possibly prove your existence.
Therefore, the primary flaw in the statement is that if the thought is never proven to be anything more than illusory, how could it possibly prove the existence of self.
i think con conceded, basically: "Secondly, "I think, therefore I am" does not prove that thought is real, only that a thought means you are real"
he concedes it means i am real that i am thinking?
boredntwisty forfeited this round.
When I said: "Secondly, "I think, therefore I am" does not prove that thought is real, only that a thought means you are real" I don't think I explained fully as it made sense in my mind. I don't feel that the statement "I think, therefore, I am" is complete, it doesn't address the necessity for the proof of the thought. I feel that is crucial in proving the existence of being; if the thought isn't necessarily real there is absolutely nothing to say that you are.
I feel that the statement only claims that a thought would mean you are real. But without the thought also being proven real what is there to say that you are real. What makes a thought mean it is definitely coming from an actual being. Without the statement also claiming (explicitly rather than implicitly) that only actual beings can have a thought then I don't believe it means that you 'are'.
Without the proof that a thought is real, there can be no proof that you exist.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Entire debate is meaningless without defining existence in Round1.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.