The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

i think, therefore, i am

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 763 times Debate No: 56549
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




that is how i prove my existence to myself.

how is it a faulty basis?


It is flawed for different reasons.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


my thoughts are self referential. if i have a thought, it means somewhere somehow i must be thinking it. it might be a dream or somewhat illusory, but it is still a thought that is occurring. it might be an illusion flat out, but it's still an illusion meaning there is something there to delude.

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.
Debate Round No. 2




Apologies for forfeiting the previous round. Unfortunately, time escaped me.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 7 years ago
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: Entire debate is meaningless without defining existence in Round1.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.