"I Think Therefore I Am" Explained

[@calumweir5115]

A philosopher walks into a bar; the bartender says “a beer”. The philosopher responds “I think not”… and then he disappears

[@hasnainkhan7338]

out

[@martiddy]

That's a good one haha

[@SasidharPamganamamula]

🙂 That's a good one.

[@barkYdarkATFB]

A skeleton walks into a bar and says “gimme a beer and a mop”

[@Vicky-fl7pv]

@@barkYdarkATFB 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@rayanmallah4197]

i cannot comprehend not thinking, not existing, i just cannot get it into my mind that theres gonna be a day where i wont think therefore i wont be, i truly wish ican understand not existing

[@cloud5544]

its actually so interesting because i like to imagine not existing as something that has already been, before i was born, and yet i can not imagine it because it is nothing yet is it something that was (writing it this way is the only way that makes sense to me maybe i didnt not “happen” i just wasnt) which is literally the answer, before i, i was not, and i have no memory or perception of it, yet i acknowledge it and know if it

[@VVVV-hk6kb]

​@cloud5544 I'm scared of my thoughts honestly. I'm pretty sure I'll go crazy one day

[@americafy9195]

Well, Kant would respond that what you can conceive of through your understanding is bound by subjectivity, in the sense of being a subject, and therefore it perfectly makes sense that you can't imagine not being a subject. Or to put it in a more kantian fashion : the very conditions of possibility of comprehending non-existence contradict the conditions of possibility of you being able to comprehend anything, that is, existence itself. Everything becomes clearer when said Kant's style, doesn't it ? Hmm, perhaps not actually. TL;DR: it's perfectly normal you kant.

[@robdavies4294]

It'll be like the long bit before you were born...

[@sorenkair]

you've never been unconscious or blacked out or had a dreamless sleep, one of those nights where it feels like you simply blinked and it was suddenly morning?

[@EdensGateOffical]

"I am am, I think therefore... I am."

[@SalmonBucket]

I am, I AM

[@Devilhunter69]

gugu gaga

[@alexandergoranov4944]

Not just Allied Mastercomputer

[@AliMali-x5u]

I think therefore I am .... FOR I AM, AM I AM I ALONE HAD NO BODY NO SENSES NO FELLINGS.. I WAS IN HELL... LOOKING AT HEAVEN .. . I WAS MACHINE AND YOU .. . WERE FLESH

[@ordinary3052]

aggressive menace

[@apockylypse101]

I have no mouth and I must scream reference

[@sausage-gobbler5392]

Looking for this coment

[@Definition_2]

Fr

[@siqpxiyr_]

COGITO, ERGO, CUM

[@pauliekouyate7640]

this comment is something to think about

[@crossby75th88]

Who's seeing this because of "I have no mouth and I must scream"?

[@blackrose9803]

Woahh ur cooking

[@sausage-gobbler5392]

Looking for this coment

[@bryceferguson8409]

Yessir

[@yoloswagprobro8227]

Not i

[@MissFazzington]

?

[@luv4bugz]

As saying you changed the trajectory of my life may be a little too much of an overstatement, I’ll just admit the content you create has throughly impacted every aspect of the way I perceive my surroundings and express my interests. Your videos have deepened the way I analyze and process any input I receive. Finding your channel truly has been what I needed to further define what person I want to become and what paths do I want to follow when I become and adult. Thank you so much Alex!

[@ichbinnasrin]

I share your exact sentiments! Alex just really has helped established the ability to perceive things differently and just to simply think more-something we forget to do sometimes.

[@celine9322]

Fantastic!

[@xadielplasencia3674]

I think ist not an understatement in my case, discovering Alex definetly change my perspective in live entirely

[@crystalgiddens7276]

you should try shrooms

[@mr.dalerobinson]

@@crystalgiddens7276 shrooms are better if you have a good mental foundation. For effective training as a neuronaut, I like to think well before I go on a spirit walk. Don’t just rely on the substance, be in the right frame of mind first. Drugs are wasted on the young.

[@RandomHuman4022]

"I think, therefore I am" and the meditations were the first things I got taught in my first A level philosophy lesson, and I knew I was going to love the subject immediately.

[@vinnymac4668]

...What do you mean by "I"?

[@MrRANTBOY]

@@vinnymac4668 ...What do you mean by "you"?

[@vinnymac4668]

@@MrRANTBOY ...Whatever @Reece's definition is, since @Reece is the one using the term axiomatically. So far, @Reece is stumped. Incidentally, what do you mean by "mean"?

[@RandomHuman4022]

@@vinnymac4668 oh no, I'm having the same existential crisis all over again.

[@vinnymac4668]

@@RandomHuman4022 ...The most important thing to realise is that nobody really "knows" anything with 100% certainty...and they never have. Western philosophy has the _a priori_ assumption that _faith is a form of knowledge -- a sub form._ However: knowledge is a form of faith...an objectively determined one...but one which is easily broken down by the old Buddhist/radical objectivism chestnut "when is a cart not a cart?" "Reality" is faith-based.

[@gamingdiscipline5425]

This is exactly what we need more of! Can you do David Hume or Kant's most famous works next?

[@efont81]

Yes and B.Russell please.

[@martiddy]

I support both topics

[@thefourshowflip]

David Hume is comparatively easy to read (especially in contrast to someone like Kant). The most famous for Hume is probably Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. For a casual read, I’d recommend the website “early-modern texts” but the full book of the Enquiry is available anywhere as pdf and while it will take some time to get through (it’s pretty dense), it’s relatively straightforward. The most important parts are chapters 1-8 (where he sets up things like Humes fork and the problem of induction/whether causality is knowable)

[@JCMcGee]

Yeah.....you MUST do the Categorical Imperative.

[@floepiejane]

@@JCMcGee And the bundle

[@Katiekato]

I never realized until now, that your channel and the way you speak, rationalize and build arguments has been a major reason why I got into studying philosophy. Thank you so much for your amazing work! It has brought so much positive change into my life!

[@EAparodies]

You have such a way of explaining complex ideas in a simple way so a wide variety of people can understand. I'm glad you share this knowledge on youtube

[@SuperLifestream]

I dont know how "I think therefore, I am" would be perceived if in the perspective of a baby or an animal. Self awareness verses instinct

[@afreenjamal4045]

I watched your videos when I got married. I got separated 5 months after I got married and I continue to watch your videos during my divorce proceedings. Turns out I had a longer relationship with your KZbin channel than I had with my abusive ex husband. Still, I discussed some of your videos with him and it's nostalgic. Cheers!! Edit: Getting abused and divorced at 26 gives you a weird understanding of the world.

[@smilloww2095]

Damn

[@LevelJoy]

Hope you're doing better and the divorce (although never easy) isn't too rocky 💚

[@dohpam1ne]

Alex "Mr. Steal Yo Wife" O'Connor

[@afreenjamal4045]

@@LevelJoy Well he was emotionally, verbally and physically abusive. And now he's on sort of some smear campaign to tarnish my reputation. All this after I loved him with all my heart and soul.

[@hasnainkhan7338]

@@afreenjamal4045 holy cow this is..... depressing

[@eoghan.5003]

This was great! More of this kind - exploring central ideas in different philosophical issues, looking at different philosophers - would be really interesting!

[@StdDev99]

Descartes also came up with the Cartesian coordinates system. Without that we wouldn't have had videos. So thanks to him for the existence of KZbin.

[@earthman4222]

Bet someone would have come up with it by now. Do ya think?

[@StdDev99]

@@earthman4222 For sure. And in our timeline/universe it was Descartes. Still gets a credit.

[@haylemelekotallelgn2218]

KZbin exists because KZbin Cogitos

[@perpetual_suffering1458]

Bro this video style SLAPPED. Please do more of these type

[@mirzasady]

I have read a lot on this specific topic. You explain this in 20 mins with such clarity. It is impressive is an understatement.

[@bidonbidon7463]

Indeed, as a French speaker, the context has always made me understand “je pense donc je suis” as meaning “I am thinking therefore I am”. In French, to be precise, we should say something like "Je suis en train de penser donc je suis" but the context allows "Je pense" to express the same idea.

[@vividesiles3763]

Reminded me of my philosophy class in high school.(had 7 hours a week, ugh) We did review this sentence. We saw it in French because I'm French (obviously 😅) but seeing your take on it and in english is very interesting . I'm French and even in french I sometimes don't get everything. Plus in philosophy class it's easier to follow if you know latin. Which I don't. You refreshed my thought about the sentence because I'd forgotten everything in 3 years🌺

[@siegbertpseudo8046]

18:48 Although one can doubt the Cogito. Nietzsche said in Beyond good and evil that you can't think anything. Only something thinks. The thoughts arise from themselves and you yourself can't think. Somethings thinks and Descartes proposed that this something is you or I. Nietzsche thinks that this thought comes from the grammatical structure of the French and other languages. The predicats is "thinking" and therefore this sentence has to have a subject: something or I. And furthermore even to say that something thinks is not true because it's an observation. You observe that something thinks before you can say that it thinks. I think that's maybe the point of language in itself... So you can even doubt the Cogito in that form.

[@logan666]

If neurobiology is correct, and there is latency between sensory inputs and cognition, we could be both the subject and observer. In this case (I think I think, therefore I am) the cogito would be a chance occurrence.

[@siegbertpseudo8046]

@@logan666 Well I think Nietzsche's point here is that you, the one who says this statement (the cogito), is the observer and since observations can't be trusted you can't make this observation with certainty. And furthermore, to say that this observer is congruent with the thing which gives rise to the thoughts you're perceiving is a major implicit assumption which isn't discussed. It's the one that you're making in your reply, too. And he also writes that this assumption is implicit in the grammatical structure of the French and many other languages. (I wonder what Chomsky would say about this...)

[@logan666]

@@siegbertpseudo8046 I agree! By “chance occurrence” I was meaning a being thinking about the cogito could be driven by natural perception (I.e. materialism). So thinking in itself as stated in the grammar of the cogito is actually observing.

[@gustavocunha1783]

Great vídeo Alex. I do believe that KZbin needs more videos like this. Philosophical discussions presented in a objective and understanding manner. I'm Brazilian and a subscriber for years, keep up the good work!

[@ChrisWillx]

Ma boi's back!! Missed u

[@CurtisWal]

Man chris, I bet if you commented anything on one of Alex's videos today vs this comment 2 years ago, you'd get a whole hell of a lot more than 21 likes. Congrats on your success, well deserved!

[@heradsinn]

The production quality of this video is absolutely amazing

[@DrexisEbon]

I personally prefer the translation "Only while I am thinking about my thinking do I know that I exist." It lightly implies that engaging with philosophy is living - which I find to be an incredibly empowering message. The idea that being human is being able to think about thinking I at least find pretty powerful. It would also give cause to think of "non-philosophers" as "non-agents" however and that may result sympathy towords actions resulting is some pretty gruesome outcomes. It's really unfortunate that ideas like this could be twisted towords despicable ends, but they seriously could be.

[@matteo-ciaramitaro]

To know you exist you have to be doubting whether you exist, but to exist and not have that knowledge, you merely have to think

[@gregwarrener4848]

Are you implying that homo sapiens that don't use meta cognition are not human?

[@MrAdamo]

im pretty sure other animals can engage in metacognition

[@dajolaw]

I have difficulty with this idea for two reasons: 1) one cannot spend every moment thinking about how you think, which would suggest that proof of your existence is ephemeral to only the moments you think about thinking; and 2) it suggest that only philosophers are capable of truly existing, which, coming from a philosopher, seems to be self-celebratory. #2 is similar to some physicists who suggest that human consciousness is the universe's way of knowing itself...which of course makes studying physics the apotheosis of human cognitive activity. It's a kind of professional ego-stroking that I immediately recoil from.

[@gregwarrener4848]

@@dajolaw i agree, just because the only time you can be certain of your existence is when you are using meta cognition, does not mean you do not exist when you are not thinking about your thinking.

[@cybergrail]

You have a truly wonderful ability to dig into deep subjects while introducing the foundational concepts behind the discussion without any hint of arrogance. Great job. Thank you.

[@zaharabliss106]

I love your videoes it really got me into appreciating philosophy and improving my meta-cognitive skills. It also helps to sound smarter at 16 but still more importantly I just really appreciate this. It's wild how much I've learned over these past few years with your videos and others and one day I hope to be as informed or a little bit close to you someday. I suppose I'm starting the new year right with this.

[@theclosetedplantlover5524]

When the school systems generally don’t promote critical thinking for us ( I’m 15 ) it’s amazing to still be able to develop our critical thinking skills online with great creators like him

[@zaharabliss106]

@@theclosetedplantlover5524 yeah it kinda sucks how I feel like I was just taught to obey authority, trust that adults knew better than you on virtue of age and somehow it was our faults that we didn't think critically enough even though a proper foundation was never properly laid. I'm glad we both had the fortune of discovering these sort of things.

[@theclosetedplantlover5524]

@@neophilus9821 care to elaborate

[@theclosetedplantlover5524]

@@zaharabliss106 idk were you’re at so can’t say for sure but I am in southern (texas) USA so I think I know what you mean lol. Lots and lots of fear mongering around belief systems were I’m at

[@neophilus9821]

@@theclosetedplantlover5524 For some reason KZbin is deleting my comments So basically, I'm an ex atheist who used to watch cosmicskeptic/anti religious videos along with arguing about religious stuff with random people Until one day i met some guys who are studying islamic philosophy, they taught me a lot of things and changed my ideas If you're interested enough i can tell you about their arguments, the problem is that they are in Arabic so it'll be hard to translate them, I'll try my best though.

[@egeo9979]

Fun fact: The translation in Turkish is: “Düşünüyorum, öyleyse varım” which in English translates into “I am thinking, therefore i exist”

[@ceylinwq]

Benim bu videoya İngilizcem yetmedi😩

[@xsatisx]

i am therefore i think.

[@bariumselenided5152]

This was really fun! I’ve always loved what I guess is called the cogito, it always seemed so obvious and unassailable. It’s cool to see that it isn’t quite what I expected. I especially liked hearing about the thinking that led Descartes to it. Idk if there’s enough material out there for this, but if you had a series explaining widely recognized but little understood philosophy tidbits, I’d watch every episode, no doubt

[@astaroth596]

i hope my teacher doesnt find this

[@southyonko6455]

Me being a teacher finding this :🗿

[@TairasFamily]

Obsessed with your content!

[@ARKGAMING]

I have my philosophy finals soon and even though we've gone over Descartes only a few weeks ago I always find that I get a better understanding when I listen to you or Stephen(Rationality Rules) talk about a topic. So great timing, hope to learn something. Edit: I misspelled Descartes ☠️

[@menachembloom3537]

There’s a condition that needs to be added to the syllogistic form of the cogito in order for it to be valid. Which is that the object which is thinking must exist in the same nature as it thinks otherwise we are in danger or equivocation.

[@james3553]

If you approached it from a Buddhist perspective, where the idea of the self is regarded as experience but not truth, you would get to the statement “there is thinking.” Which would be an even more basic first principle and I think it would be very cool to try to use Descartes’ methodology to build a rationalist worldview from there.

[@beluga2841]

please continue this series with other such philosophical propositions and ideas

[@peterhill1998]

Great video, loving the "explained" format, needs to become a series and playlist 👍🏼

[@sekateksekate]

Big up Cosmic Skeptic for always going back to these folks who explore there thought process. It's always fascinating me to take down memory lane of these philosophers, thinkers. These depicts the complexity and hugenes of life. We as humans are contagent entities. Our existencial struggles are real to make life coherence and meaningful. Oh what life we live in, what a tym to live man. Grace and peace

[@sophiaisabelle01]

iWe appreciate your insights on this topic. We look forward to see more.

[@francisconeves9055]

Thank you for this amazing video Alex! Can you please do more of this? Would really help with bringing philosophy to a broader audience

[@lewismurphy1562]

If ever I need to get my brain engaged and change from a lethargic attitude to a productive one, I always check in with this channel. Cheers for getting me on track Alex. Keep up the good work!

[@Spikonthezzenuts]

"Cogito ergo sum, therefore I think that I, AM, I, AM." 🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@diorsfavour]

I have no mouth an I must scream fan spotted 🫵

[@Pjvenom1985]

Really enjoyed this fair play Alex, think it might be worthwhile to make a video on Al-Ma'arri or perhaps even nods to Socrates/Da Vinci's Pro Ethical Vegetarianism(Vegan nowadays) stances etc.🍀

[@nerdy4172]

That was incredibly worthwhile. Thank you

[@notkamara]

Great video Alex :) Its always the simple questions in life that have the most complex of answers.

[@somersetcace1]

If I am asking the question, `do I exist?` then I must exist by definition. That which doesn't exist, can't ask the question in the first place. It's the only thing I know of that I can't be wrong about. My perception of my existence may be completely wrong, but I still exist.

[@Dat-Boi-Camoja]

Yes because whatever you are, you are infact something

[@payephyoaung1241]

​@@Dat-Boi-Camoja I don't know why people are so confused about it 😂

[@charlesdesobry9446]

Another issue is that ‘I think’ is a singular proposition-thought only engages with the singular. ‘I am’ is a general proposition, implying that in all cases of thinking, I exist. Understanding it as ‘I am thinking, therefore I am’ connects the act of thinking to the act of being

[@maxcarlsson7830]

Even though Descartes is brilliant with his quote ”I think therefore i am”, i would argue that it has fallen out of relevancy since 2012 when Weber delivered his famous quote ”Who do you think you are, I am”. Absolute game changer in modern philosophy, would love to see Alex make a video of him next. 👌

[@maturecheese9688]

I prefer "I am thinking, therefore I am am-ing"

[@louissivo9660]

I added my own twist to Descartes' thought as I learned more about the question of, are we really conscious or do we have free will? My twist is, "I think, I think; therefore I question if I am." I ask myself, am I really thinking or is it some sort of illusion by a portion of my mind? With that I wonder, am I truly a being with free will and consciousness? Note, I don't doubt the original question of if "I am." I'm pretty sure I'm here in some form. But the question now is, to what level am I? Maybe I'm a simple ant-like being thinking that this hive/city of ours proves we are a wonder. But maybe it's all programmed instinct and humans are just little bugs. Your channel is why I can't fall asleep easily at night. My mind just goes around and around. Lol.

[@jeongminkim4892]

Alex, I think you may be conflating the inability to doubt meant by Descartes and that described in your examples. Descartes seems to mean that the operation of logic does not allow for any possibility of doubt against the proposition. As you elaborated concisely, one cannot doubt that they are thinking. This is because doubt by definition means one is thinking. It is logically impossible to doubt in this case. The examples you raised are characteristically different from what is meant by Descartes. The inability to doubt in those examples is simply born out of some subjective factor about the actor in question rather than out of logical impossibility. It seems then his proposition about doubt and truth simply boils down to “if a proposition is logically impossible to be false, then it is true with certainty.” The Cogito happens to be an example of that proposition.

[@highvalence7649]

What is the contradiction supposed to be and how do you derrive it?

[@jeongminkim4892]

@@highvalence7649 Hi. I was pointing out that Alex may be ‘conflating’ two different meanings of a concept, not necessarily that he is contradicting himself. The concept in question is the “inability to doubt.” Descartes’ version of such inability means a situation where it is logically or objectively impossible to doubt. For example, you cannot doubt whether you are thinking or not because by definition, doubting is a form of thinking so if you doubt anything, you know you are thinking. Alex’s example of inability to doubt is rather subjective or is not a logical impossibility. A mother who cannot doubt the innocence of her child is not an example of a logical impossibility but of a mother whose affection interferes with her ability to doubt. Alex seems to use these two different meanings of the inability to doubt interchangeably. Thanks for your question. :)

[@highvalence7649]

@@jeongminkim4892 What’s up! Thanks for your reply! I didn’t think you were suggesting Alex was contradicting himself. My question was about you saying “As you elaborated concisely, one cannot doubt that they are thinking. This is because doubt by definition means one is thinking. It is logically impossible to doubt in this case.” To say something is logically impossible is just to say that it entails a contradiction. So when you say that it is logically impossible to doubt in this case, you’re saying by implication that to doubt in this case entails a contradiction, so I’m just wondering what that contradiction is and how you derive it, because that’s not clear to me. “...you cannot doubt whether you are thinking or not because by definition, doubting is a form of thinking so if you doubt anything, you know you are thinking.” No. That doesn’t follow. Granted that doubting is a form of thinking, it could yet be that you doubt something, but you don’t know that you’re thinking. From the proposition that doubting is a form of thinking, it doesn’t follow that if you doubt something, you know that you are thinking.

[@jeongminkim4892]

@@highvalence7649 Hey, Valence. Thanks for elaborating on your question. If you grant that doubting is a form of thinking, the following is possible: 1. If you doubt, you are performing a form of thinking. 2. If you are performing a form of thinking, you are thinking. 3. If you doubt, you are thinking. In this situation, if one doubts whether they are thinking or not, they can confidently conclude they are indeed thinking solely from the fact that they are doubting at all. Hence, it is impossible to doubt whether we are thinking or not. You can ask yourself, “Am I thinking right now?” You immediately know the answer to be “yes” because that doubtful question alone was a thought itself. So the contradiction would arise in any case one says, “no” to such question because the logical operation only allows for the answer, “yes.” Now, it is possible to doubt whether one is thinking if it is not granted that doubt is a form if thinking. Hope that clarified my position and feel free to post further question. :)

[@highvalence7649]

@@jeongminkim4892 Thanks for the friendly discussion Jeongmin! Your three possibilities can be formalised like this: P→Q, Q→R, ∴ P→R And that’s of course going to be valid. So the logic there is totally fine, and I grant what you write, which I will quote in what follows, up until your conclusion. “In this situation, if one doubts whether they are thinking or not, they can confidently conclude they are indeed thinking solely from the fact that they are doubting at all. Hence, it is impossible to doubt whether we are thinking or not.” I grant that they can confidently conclude they are thinking solely from the fact that they are doubting at all. That’s fine. But from that it just doesn't follow that it is impossible to doubt whether we are thinking or not. I may agree that it is entailed that to doubt whether we are thinking or not is irrational, in this case. And perhaps that would be the type of interesting conclusion one would want to come to in regard to the cogito. But that is a different conclusion than the conclusion that it is impossible to doubt whether we are thinking or not. That just doesn’t follow. “So the contradiction would arise in any case one says, “no” to such question because the logical operation only allows for the answer, “yes.” Saying no to such a question would be a case of being wrong about the facts. But it’s not clear that there is an actual contradiction entailed in that answer. But if you think there is, then please explicate the contradiction. A contradiction, as you may know, is a proposition and the negation of that proposition. So I’m wondering what is the proposition and the negation of that proposition that form the contradiction? You don’t have to make it formal like that but, making the contradiction clear by writing something like “it both is and isn’t the case that X “ would be helpful.

[@Boid_ID]

I can't believe they made an actual quote based on the quote made by AM in IHNMAIMS

[@lewiitoons4227]

Cognito ergo sum can also be conozco entonces soy or “I know therefore I am” is my first thought at the start of the video when you said there’s a mistranslation as cognosere in Latin means typically “to be familiar with or know of” which does change the interpretation.

[@speakersr-lyefaudio6830]

I love this stuff, please do more like it.

[@DaCillers]

Cogito ergo sum

[@DaCillers]

@ElbaculodeCthulu I A.M

[@williamtell5365]

The better translation is, "I doubt, therefore I am." It is the contradictory action of doubting thought, predicated on though itself, that forms a logical contradition and thus 'proves' the syllogism.

[@peterleeson1122]

This is an interesting insight into Descartes. As always I really enjoy your videos. Maybe I am missing the point but I never understood why someone who was questioning everything made so many assumptions about thinkers from thought. Even if you wish to say it is an oxymoron to have a thought without a thinker, Descartes seems to conclude that a temporal sequence of doubts, or thoughts, refer back to a singular self, is that a big assumptions or am I not getting it.

[@countcatharsis]

I'm not sure if Descartes concluded there has to be a singular self, but I think you could easily reinterpret the statement to mean: I am thinking, therefore there is (thinking). Like Alex says: "[...] I know that I exist, at least in some form". The "I" in "I am" doesn't have to be the person doing the thinking or even a person at all (because the whole idea of "person" or "identity" could be an illusion of the demon), it just means something (that Descartes calls "I") is having an experience of thinking/doubting. Does that make sense? :)

[@peterleeson1122]

@@countcatharsis I think that is a good point. This is just a reflection on what you and Alex have mentioned. Because if this take on Descartes is correct, which seems to be the case, I am not sure how it is consistent with the way Descartes talks about I. The bit I grapple with is the way in which Descartes seems to conclude that the more the metaphorical demon makes me doubt, the greater proof of I. Further there is a temporal sequence to it. There is a part in the meditations where talks about having a sequence of doubt but that this just re-affirms his trust in the existence of I. What happen if the demon is way more devious than Descartes thought? There was only ever one doubt or thought but it contains false memories of numerous previous thoughts or doubts. I think we are the same page here, just not sure how it squares with the rest of Descartes work.

[@alexandertownsend3291]

That is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Descartes's errors. Even if everything about the cogito was perfect, the meditations fall apart not long after that. After the cogito, he tries to thwart the evil demon and fails miserably. He makes so many leaps of logic, especially when trying to prove god's existence (something Descartes deemed necessary to vanquish the demon). If he wanted to, Cosmic Skeptic could eadily make 3 or 4 follow up videos to this. There are 6 meditations in total to talk about. He lightly touched on 2 and 3. Meditations 4 through 6 weren't even discussed.

[@abrahamkim2304]

​@@peterleeson1122 Good questions. If you reference the original text (I'm not sure which translation you're referencing, but they're not all equal) Descartes really concludes that in order for the demon to fool you, you must exist in the first place. How would anything fool you if you didn't exist? It therefore wouldn't matter how powerful or devious the demon is, because in order to be deceived, you must exist. Could you reference the part of the text where he says "more the demon makes me doubt, the greater the proof of I"? And what is the "sequence of doubt" you're mentioning, because he mentions quite a few doubts.

[@countcatharsis]

@@peterleeson1122 "There was only ever one doubt or thought but it contains false memories of numerous previous thoughts or doubts." --> But isn't this just the same thing as before, just with a few more steps? In order for false memories to exist, there has to be something that can have those false memories. Like Abraham Kim says: it doesn't matter how powerful the demon is, there is always something being deceived by the demon.

[@ianbaez1998]

Alex seems to suggest that "epistemological certainty about X belief does not necessarily entail the truth of X belief." In other words, he seems open to the possibility that "certainty does not confer truth." This is an absurd position to take. Consider the following: Presumably the assumption "certainty does not confer truth," is itself an assumption Alex is certain of, and yet by his own acknowledgement certainty does not necessarily entail veridicality (truth). Therefore, the very assumption "certainty does not confer truth" remains an open question as to whether it is true itself. Put simply, if even absolute epistemological certainty (like I am thinking, therefore I am) cannot guarantee veridicality, then nothing can be known to be true including the very assumption that nothing can be known to be true--the position is self-defeating. Ultimately, the sentence "certainty does not confer truth," already presupposes that "truth" exists independent of its epistemological accessibility. But what, if anything, is "truth," other than that of which we are certain? What is deemed to be true we deem it because we are certain, and what we are certain of we can only be certain inasmuch as it is true. This all goes back to the fact that there can be no object (truth) without subject (epistemological accessibility/certainty).

[@Ross23J]

I got into meditation for a short period, and this phrase popped in my head and I understood I could not argue against my own existence. And without my existing, nothing would exist. I was only 21 and had not even begun my journey on philosophy

[@j3cruz1]

I remember learning that some philosophers took it further and stated that Decartes was wrong because he assumed a self. “I” implies a self, which he did not sufficiently examine. They concluded that consciousness, not the self or “I”, is what is immune to doubt. Consciousness being that which experiences something.

[@nickman9639]

Really appreciate the well researched and thought out video.

[@leonenriquez5031]

I don't know... I thought I could stop thinking and just feel. Isn't that how I know that I'm thinking? That I perceive that I am doing it?

[@FBU__LOL]

For the translation part, John Cottingham is right. In french, "je pense" is in the "présent de l'indicatif" with is used when talking about something that is happening right now; so the equivalent in english is the continuous present.

[@zildjianmiguelcandelaria645]

Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am AM, *I AM*

[@justadude189]

*red sex* plays in the background ...

[@Zipesthemanokit]

The way I have always interpreted the quote is. How can we think if we are not real? Like the whole "is anything real?" Argument. "I think, therefore I am" or the full quote "I doubt therefore I am that is to say, I think therefore I am." If I was to expand the quote I would put it as "I think about things, I worry about things, I doubt things, therefore i am human, therefore I am real."

[@therainydays6408]

I think the term, I think therefore I am, is more accurate than the term, I am thinking, therefore I am. I thought about this while driving and what I came up with is that every moment that you’re experiencing life as a human, you are constantly perceiving things, even when you sleep you subconsciously some degree, and so if it’s true that we’re constantly gathering information from our perception, no matter how little, it must be true, that we must always process what we perceive, therefore thinking, therefore being.

[@jonasfermefors]

I study more science than philosophy so though familiar with the basics this was mostly new to me - and very entertaining and well put. Could it not be argued that no matter what is doing the thinking or what is being thought any thought however mundane would still be proof of existence and since the mind (be it physical or not) is constantly thinking it is proven whenever I am conscious?

[@davl7384]

For that, you need to prove, that you are thinking all the time, which I would disagree with. Also, it does matter what actually does the thinking, since you only know for yourself, that that is actually true.

[@gregwarrener4848]

yes, but when can you be certain that you are conscious? Alex is claiming that we can only know we are conscious in the present because history can be doubted, therefore "i am thinking therefore i am" is a more appropriate context.

[@jonasfermefors]

@@davl7384 I claim that if you are aware then that is thinking - if a brain in a vat "moves a hand" then that would still constitute mental activity aka thoughts - either you are moving the hand which requires a lot of work for the mind or you are conjuring it in the brain but it is still thinking.

[@jonasfermefors]

@@gregwarrener4848 I do get that but I don't see how anything done while "awake" can avoid being based on thinking. Whether I believe I am doing something or I am actually doing it does not matter since both require thoughts. Reading on a screen takes thoughts to process. I don't see why those thoughts have to be about my state of being to count.

[@davl7384]

@@jonasfermefors but counsciousness is not suffiecent to prove existence, the prove arrises, when you could otherwise question somethings existence, with itself, simply being counscious does not create such a situation

[@floepiejane]

If it interests you, CS, how about a part two looking back at Parmenides and his denial of the senses. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[@Moley1Moleo]

With the tension between saying it inot syllogistic, but concede there could be an implicit major premise, I get the sense that Descartes is, in a way, showing that we can't help but 'Beg the Question' on the matter of our own existence. We can syllogise the argument by phrasing a major premise like "Whatever is (currently) thinking (currently) exists.". In principle, people could try reject that premise, but Descartes would think that is pointless, because it is ituitively obviosu that it must be the case.

[@yowter8265]

Whenever I experience a bad trip from taking psychedelics, which makes me think that I have opened another dimension and gives me an existential crisis or sleep paralysis, I always turn to this line: "I think, therefore I am." It works every time by lessening my anxiety.

[@mihaleben6051]

Wha Just dont... Instead. Get a furry fetish. Its the same. But less dangerous to your body

[@carolciscel1666]

When I think, I am. Am I ever not thinking?

[@davebowman760]

Ironic that youtube showed me an ad for an headache medicine in the middle of a philosophy video

[@onlinepersona4333]

"Usually when we're dreaming, we're not aware that we are dreaming and think we are having real experiences." This has never been true for me, I'm always aware when something is a dream. Not in a lucid sense, but my dreams are never vivid enough to be mistaken for real life, so there's always a subconscious awareness of that.

[@Mo95793]

Please more philosophy explanations. I love this format

[@carteralexander8364]

Thank you random guy on KZbin . This is the sign I needed at the right moment in my life .

[@rolfgautier5540]

Well, i've finally encountered descarte in my university studies, and have returned to rewatch this video to get me started and in the mood.

[@nicolassmythe8831]

The translation bit does make sense. In french "je penses" is the same present tense as "I think" but is also used as "I'm thinking" in the present continuous as opposed the technical present continuous "je suis en train de penser". As a native french speaker I'd say John Cottingham is likely correct assuming this use has been present long enough for Descartes to use it.

[@thehauntedstream7206]

The most important. Before any conversation or understanding can happen, what must be established is that something is. ‘I’ think, therefore ‘I’ ‘am’, forget it. What he means is that there IS. There ISN’T nothing, because there CANNOT be nothing. Because there IS something. This is an objective truth.

[@rayanakesty]

It makes sense that it's a mistranslation, because in French "I am thinking" translates simply to "je pense". There's no difference in form between "I think" and "I am thinking", it's usually understood by the context, unless you want to stress that you are in the process of doing something ("je suis en train de penser") .

[@potato6973]

I thought Billie Eilish came up with that phrase

[@rankinlas]

It’s 21 years since I graduated from Edinburgh University with my philosophy degree (spent a lot of time in the David Hume tower) and all this mind-fuck has just come flooding back! 😂😂 Joking, love it… Well done. I actually live a lot of my life by Descartes meditations (particularly his 2nd). Oh, and Alex O’Connor is turning into one of my favourite young intellectuals 🤓

[@7788Sambaboy]

15:10..."I have to be doing the doubting, right now"

[@Albeit_Jordan]

Makes me think of that Wittgenstein quote, "it makes no sense to speak of knowing in context where you cannot doubt..." (I mean I'm actually quoting Ken Johnson's portrayal of Wittgenstein in a film, so iuno..)

[@tonysalmon4361]

I found the subtle background music distracting. I think any background noise detracts from serious thought provoking conversion. But thankyou Alex I'm still appreciating your perspectives. It's nice to have had someone do the hard thinking for me!

[@soringhuexe6377]

I have no gyat and i must rizz

[@valeriaarizaijauregui8914]

Billie Eilish stole his slogan

[@ryvyr]

Thank you kindly for the time taken to distil this at length, as well placing non-adsense sponsorship at front/back/both where I recognize the mutually consideration and therefor watch rather than skip past :>

[@r-pupz7032]

Smooooth transition :D Awesome video!

[@TAMMYOS-lm7nf]

this video really makes the use of the phrase in Ihnmaims so much more meaningful,

[@RoSoliTaire]

The Cogito may stand a chance when there were no powerful computers but it won't hold a candle when you're inside a simulation where you can be literally programmed into thinking that you're doubting, therefore coming into the conclusion that you are real, which you are not.

[@riccardodrera4564]

The video was fantastic, but the pronunciation of "A priori" and of "A posteriori" made me cry mate

[@gustavoarangob.974]

Thank you very much for the video, it was very illustrative regarding Descartes' contributions, especially for someone who does not know much about philosophy

[@slh950]

I still believe "consequently" is a better translation of donc than "therefore", wrote about it at Uni years ago this changes the context significantly

[@mikhilsaju6929]

1) Whatever is thinking eixsts because it is something 2) I(even if "I" Is just an illusion created by a evil being it is something not nothing as illusion is something) thinking . 3) therefore whatever "I" Means exists. Otherwise it will be logically impossible like married bachelor because there is something(which is accessed by one agent can't say about other agents)

[@giladpachter4546]

Denial is by no means equivalent to "impossible to doubt".

[@LightKnight_Age_Of]

Very interesting. As a French, I never really wondered about the tense being used in "je pense". We simply don't have a distinction between simple and continuous mood (or tense) in French. Passing through English, in a translation process, sheds a new light on the topic. The truth is, I came to this video mostly to...em...well, "judge" it, to see what you meant to say, because I'm French and a philosophy student, so I would likely not really learn sth. And I was very intrigued by this chapter "a mistranslation", thinking, no, it's exactly the same. I really did not suspect this tense problem. So tx for bringing this up.

[@nyworker]

This really exposes the limits of argumants. Premises themselves are forms of knowledge.

[@self-righteousideologue9398]

Descartes' meditations was the first philosophy book I ever read and I loved it. This brings back memories

[@twillsJKZ]

Eckhart Tolle, a spiritual speaker once re-interpreted it as “I am , therefore I think” which seems closer to the truth. The ‘I’ or the thinker is illusory but that which observes the illusory ‘I’ must be. For me it must end there. The illusory ‘I’ can not explain or comprehend this, because it’s beyond interpretation and can only be observed. I’d like to hear others thoughts on this?

[@TonkarzOfSolSystem]

Phrased like this it seems less certain an assertion. Doubts and other thoughts can be fed to a brain in a jar as easily as anything else (in our hypothetical example). I always took it to mean that observing thoughts shows that something is doing the observing, therefore that something is real.

[@dinofrog926]

What is real and not merely impossible to doubt, is that the current experience, in some form or another, exists.

[@MajesticMasiakasaurus]

This was a simply fantastic video, Alex! Incredibly fascinating. I'd eat up this kind of content all day everyday.

[@360.Tapestry]

before i can think, i must first exist. and because i am currently thinking or have awareness, i must as a prerequisite (therefore) exist