Comments on: Descartes and Language: What is the Cogito?

By: Hollowell

Hollowell — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:54:19 +0000

barkod dedi?imizde bundan birka? y?l ?nce akl?m?za sadece ?izgiler ve bo?lukar gelirdi. Zaten t?rk?eye de ?izgi kod olarak uyarland?. Ama ?uanda teknolojinin geli?mesine paralel olarak, bir?ok barkod g?rseli varyasyonu ?retildi.

By: Robert Shumake

Robert Shumake — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:28:18 +0000

Your blog is so informative … ..I just bookmarked you….keep up the good work!!!!

Hey, I found your blog in a new directory of blogs. I dont know how your blog came up, must have been a typo, anyway cool blog, I bookmarked you. :)

-Robert Shumake Paul Nicoletti

By: Katelyn Brady

Katelyn Brady — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:02:35 +0000

I apologize for not having finished reading the comments, but I have always interpreted Descartes as meaning that one can verify their existence by having the ability to think. Logically, something which does not exist cannot think. In this way, Descartes creates a nice little circular argument for the existence of self. Contrary to the above conclusions that Descartes has completely ruined his argument by not defining the self, I believe that Descartes is defining the self as thought/cognition. It wasn’t really a new concept at the time, and it is worth noting that philosophers even before St. Augustine have tackled the problem. It’s kind of a chicken and egg scenario.

Personally, I’ve read up on vibrations and the like, and I am relatively well versed in many things ‘occult.’ I would like to point out that while everything creates measurable vibrations, there is no reason to believe that these vibrations do anything to attract. In fact, it is only the occult world that believes like attracts like. In most science, it is opposites that attract. Like repels. Certainly, one can find examples of like attracting like. I hardly think there has been enough research on the topic to develop a philosophy around it.

By: gavin

gavin — Sat, 05 May 2007 19:53:48 +0000

This page also referenced here, though in a much more prosaic and beautiful way.

By: Je pense, donc je suis « The journey of one girl, one brain tumo(u)r and perhaps a bit more

Sat, 05 May 2007 07:40:32 +0000

[...] Me? I had completely forgot about my TOK classes, but had Ulf talked about the above and not mentioned Cogito, ergo sum or Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum, which (the latter is Latin for ”I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am”), I would probably have payed more attention. If you really want to dig into this, you can supposedly read Principles of Philosophy, Part 1, article 7: “Ac proinde hæc cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima & certissima, quæ cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat” or like me click here. [...]

By: Tove Riisager

Tove Riisager — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:17:44 +0000

Dear Karl, I do know, that ergo means therefore, that is why I commented the ending in the word “cogit-O”, the -o – ending beeing used both in spanish(first derived language from latin, then in italian, italian beeing the second derived language from latin, amongst those two languages) as first person, i.e. “I”, in the article it could appear as if one does not quite understand that first, simple grammar. My comment does not at all go into the fact about – or discussion, I would rather call it – wether to doubt or not, or if the doubt is in the sentence at all. Since Descartes – as far as I know, and I do not know much about THAT theme, first of all wrote in french, he expressed the sentence with thinking, i.e.: “Je pense, donc, je suis”, that is: “I think, therefore, I am”, I couldnot possibly find any ¤doubt” in that sentence, could you? Kindly from Tove(-: