"I think, therefor I am" logically flawed?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Isherwood If you don't consider the source of the remark or its original context, any debate you're having is with a statement that can be taken a myriad of ways. If you like to debate the meaning of out-of-context quotes, how about:

Actually, I don't even need to know the guy's name to debate the validity of the statement. The statement is popular. People disagree on its validity. Thus we debate. PERIOD.

[ZNFYRH]

Lullaby

You're debating a translation.

You might as well go to Engrish.com and debate the logical flaws in some of those translations as well.

If you aren't going to seek the logic of the original statement, then any discussion about logical flaws is an excuse to bicker. It's not debate.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Lullaby You're debating a translation. You might as well go to Engrish.com and debate the logical flaws in some of those translations as well. If you aren't going to seek the logic of the original statement, then any discussion about logical flaws is an excuse to bicker. It's not debate.

For the last time, I'm not debating Descartes. I'm debating a statement that is used ALL OVER. In movies, tv, schools, classrooms, ALL OVER.

If you can't get that through your head, just leave and stop derailing my thread.

Thanks!

[Kamehameha34]

You think it's circular, because you think the conclusion affirms one of the premises. There are two problems with this:

1. The conclusion doesn't even reaffirm the premise.
2. Even if it did, a conclusion that reaffirms a premise doesn't inherently mean a circular syllogism.


1. If I think, then I am.
2. I think.
3. I am.

To elaborate on point #1, the conclusion in the above premise doesn't reaffirm either of the premises. Premise one states that if I think, then I am. This doesn't mean that the conclusion (I am) affirms premise #2 (I think). After all, it doesn't read "If I am, then I think".


Now for point #2. I'll conceptualize my point with another syllogism:

1. All round balls are blue.
2. All balls are round.
3. All balls are blue.

You can say that premise #1 is affirmed by the conclusion and premise #2, but that doesn't necessarily make it a circular syllogism. One can say, without relying on the syllogism, that all balls are inherently round.

Also, the first premise may not rely on the conclusion. There could be seperate evidence for it, be it empirical (which is what I suspect) or otherwise. You can't prove it's circular unless you prove that either of the premises is completely reliant on the conclusion, and not other evidence.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You think it's circular, because you think the conclusion affirms one of the premises. There are two problems with this:

No, because the premise affirms the conclusion. That's what circular logic is.

1. If I think, then I am. 2. I think. 3. I am.

You can't think unless you exist. To make premise 2, you're assuming the conclusion.

Also, the first premise may not rely on the conclusion. There could be seperate evidence for it, be it empirical (which is what I suspect) or otherwise.

Such as? Empirical requires existence.

[Kamehameha34]

No, because the premise affirms the conclusion. That's what circular logic is.

No. It reaffirms it. There's a difference.

You can't think unless you exist. To make premise 2, you're assuming the conclusion.

Prove that there's no other evidence in operation for premise #2. That's what you must prove to back up this claim that it is circular logic. The fact that a conclusion reaffirms a premise doesn't mean the syllogism is circular, something which you'd understand if you attempted to understand my post in its entirity.

Such as? Empirical requires existence.

I don't think you understand what "empirical" means.

It means evidence which we can gather with the senses.

You haven't even established your claim about how anything requires existence, so I don't understand why I'm entertaining this.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No. It reaffirms it. There's a difference.

So it comes down to you think existence is not necessary to think?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Prove that there's no other evidence in operation for premise #2. That's what you must prove to back up this claim that it is circular logic. The fact that a conclusion reaffirms a premise doesn't mean the syllogism is circular, something which you'd understand if you attempted to understand my post in its entirity.

No, you brought it up. You prove it. I've already shown you proof earlier, and that didn't go well. You go first this time.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I don't think you understand what "empirical" means. It means evidence which we can gather with the senses.

Right. I suppose you feel you can sense things while not actually existing.

[ZNFYRH]

Lullaby

You're not getting it.

"Circular" means that the premise and conclusion can be reversed.

You are saying that you can't think unless you exist, but it's not reversible.

Just because you exist doesn't mean you think.

I also find it amusing that you are repeating my point about it being an affirmation (an empirical concept) while still saying it is circular logic (a logic concept).

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Lullaby You're not getting it. "Circular" means that the premise and conclusion can be reversed. You are saying that you can't think unless you exist, but it's not reversible. Just because you exist doesn't mean you think. I also find it amusing that you are repeating my point about it being an affirmation (an empirical concept) while still saying it is circular logic (a logic concept).

No sir. It doesn't need to be reversible. The conclusion must be assumed in a premise. And it is.

And why are you here? You told us how you think this is just an excuse to bicker.

[ZNFYRH]

Because you don't seem to be getting it and normally you're pretty sharp about things.

You are arguing over a translation. The statement makes sense when translated and interpreted correctly. It is not in any way logically flawed.

You and Kam going around like this is just plain stupid. What you are arguing over are words that are not correct.

If you want to have your debate, argue the correct translation of the statement.

It's like trying to discern the meaning of the, "When in Rome..." expression but you replace "Rome" with "Cleveland." The correct translation is needed before you can facilitate a functional discussion.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Because you don't seem to be getting it and normally you're pretty sharp about things. You are arguing over a translation. The statement makes sense when translated and interpreted correctly. It is not in any way logically flawed. You and Kam going around like this is just plain stupid. What you are arguing over are words that are not correct.

I don't know what you're problem is, but for the last time, STOP. Do NOT derail this thread. This thread is NOT about checking translations. You are a TROLL. If you can't get it through your head that this statement is used ALL OVER THE WORLD.. then you need to LEAVE. We are debating whether a very popular statement is circular or not. STOP GOING OFF TOPIC. Stop ignoring me when I ask you to stop. Stop thinking you're too important to stay on topic. If you can't grow up enough to understand this, then you need to leave. Not another word from you. I never brought Desecrates into this, and I've requested numerous times that you don't. This is getting really sad, and very annoying.

[Kamehameha34]

So it comes down to you think existence is not necessary to think?

First of all, you've given no effort to even understanding the explanation I've provided.

The existence of something does not affirm that thing's conscious thought. Rocks exist, yet have no apparent thought.

No, you brought it up. You prove it. I've already shown you proof earlier, and that didn't go well. You go first this time.

Shifting burden of proof.

You will always go first as you're the one proposing claims. Prove your claim.

Right. I suppose you feel you can sense things while not actually existing.

Appeal to ridicule does not prove your point.

Make for me a syllogism, proving your point. It will be welcomed if accomplished in lieu of trolling.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 First of all, you've given no effort to even understanding the explanation I've provided. The existence of something does not affirm that thing's conscious thought. Rocks exist, yet have no apparent thought.

Yes, but to think you DO have to exist. That's my point. I've specifically said numerous times, in response to this, that I'm not claiming it goes the other way around. It doesn't.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You will always go first as you're the one proposing claims. Prove your claim.

If you don't exist, you lack all necessary parts to think. Until you explain what the hell these other possibilities are, I have no way of continuing this with you.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Appeal to ridicule does not prove your point.

Ignoring my point with an excuse doesn't prove yours. It was a question, but you don't have to answer if you don't know how.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Make for me a syllogism, proving your point. It will be welcomed if accomplished in lieu of trolling.

No, address my points. I'm not here to debate how you want me to.

[ZNFYRH]

Lullaby

Here's your OP:

Is the classic statement "I think, therefor I am" logically flawed? I think it's circular. To think, you must exist. The premise assumes to conclusion to prove the conclusion.

The part you continue to fail to understand is that "I think, therefore I am" is not the classic statement. It's the classic mistranslation.

You want a logic-based answer to your question but to go that far is unnecessary. The answer to your question is based on translation.

You are trying to establish a premise and show a conclusion but I don't accept your premise.

I don't accept your premise because the statement you gave is incorrect on its own. Since your premise is flawed, your OP is a demonstration of the False Premise fallacy.

The statement you gave isn't used "ALL OVER THE WORLD." It's only used in English speaking countries. Since the original language of the statement is Latin, countries whose native language is a Romance language have no problem with the translation.

The translation is the topic. The flaw you are pointing it stems from someone using the wrong words in order to keep the statement clever and simple.

Kick and scream and insult me all you like. I'm answering your question, as have others on the very first page. Is your problem that you don't like the correct answer to your question?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Lullaby Here's your OP: The part you continue to fail to understand is that "I think, therefore I am" is not the classic statement. It's the classic mistranslation. You want a logic-based answer to your question but to go that far is unnecessary. The answer to your question is based on translation. You are trying to establish a premise and show a conclusion but I don't accept your premise. I don't accept your premise because the statement you gave is incorrect on its own. Since your premise is flawed, your OP is a demonstration of the False Premise fallacy. The statement you gave isn't used "ALL OVER THE WORLD." It's only used in English speaking countries. Since the original language of the statement is Latin, countries whose native language is a Romance language have no problem with the translation. The translation is the topic. The flaw you are pointing it stems from someone using the wrong words in order to keep the statement clever and simple. Kick and scream and insult me all you like. I'm answering your question, as have others on the very first page. Is your problem that you don't like the correct answer to your question?

No, for the millionth time. WE ARE NOT DEBATING THE TRANSLATION.

STOP trolling. I'm not going to ask you again. Just suck it up, grow up, and stop trolling. We're not debating the translation. If that's all you want to debate, MAKE YOUR OWN THREAD. Stop spewing this off topic shit in my thread. I'm sick and tired of you thinking you can hijack threads. Grow up and LEAVE if all you know how to do is derail. Thanks!

My question is IS IT CIRCULAR? Do NOT post here again if you all you have to say is this same whiny shit.

[ZNFYRH]

Lullaby, "I think, therefore I am" is the translation.

You want to debate if the translation is circular.

To do so, one has to look at the original statement and see the true meaning of the words.

It's similar to me saying, "Is 'your ancestors are ogres' an insult?" The original Japanese is "kettou matsu oni" which is a violent and horrible insult in the original language.

Why not accept that the thorough translation of "cogito ergo sum" is actually, "I am aware of myself and my existence, therefore I must truly exist" and then just debate the circular logic of that more philosophical statement?

How can you expect to debate something that is wholly inaccurate?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Lullaby, "I think, therefore I am" is the translation. You want to debate if the translation is circular. To do so, one has to look at the original statement and see the true meaning of the words. It's similar to me saying, "Is 'your ancestors are ogres' an insult?" The original Japanese is "kettou matsu oni" which is a violent and horrible insult in the original language. Why not accept that the thorough translation of "cogito ergo sum" is actually, "I am aware of myself and my existence, therefore I must truly exist" and then just debate the circular logic of that more philosophical statement? How can you expect to debate something that is wholly inaccurate?

omg.. this is getting ridiculous. Your like not listening or something. Just go away! Leave! Make your own thread! Thanks!

[Kamehameha34]

Yes, but to think you DO have to exist. That's my point. I've specifically said numerous times, in response to this, that I'm not claiming it goes the other way around. It doesn't.

Then you're just renaming the second premise.

2. To think, one must exist.

This in no way makes it circular.

If you don't exist, you lack all necessary parts to think. Until you explain what the hell these other possibilities are, I have no way of continuing this with you.

I'm satisfied with its unknown status, at the moment. You're the one making a claim. I've no need to make allowances.

Ignoring my point with an excuse doesn't prove yours. It was a question, but you don't have to answer if you don't know how.

I said in lieu of trolling. Logical fallacies aren't excuses, they're rules placed for citation when a debator is being wholly illogical. If you're going to shrug off the fact that you're being illogical, then you're really not fit to debate the logic of anything.

You're making a positive claim. I am not. Proposing a claim, and assuming it's true when I don't provide a negative proof is fallacious.

Construct a syllogism, proving that existence is necessary for thinking, or I'll pull a Zhavric and consider your point conceded.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Then you're just renaming the second premise. 2. To think, one must exist.

No.. the second premise was still a declaration of what's happening. You can't change it to a scenario.

Assumption to make premise: I exist.
Premise: I think.
Conclusion: I exist.

That's circular. The premise "I think" is already assuming the conclusion to be true in order to reach the conclusion. That's circular.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'm satisfied with its unknown status, at the moment. You're the one making a claim. I've no need to make allowances.

Right.. so where's your response? I just told you why you actually do have to exist in order to think. This is all I get in return? wtf?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I said in lieu of trolling. Logical fallacies aren't excuses, they're rules placed for citation when a debator is being wholly illogical. If you're going to shrug off the fact that you're being illogical, then you're really not fit to debate the logic of anything.

Why the hell do you think a question is a logical argument? Just answer the damn question and stop making excuses.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Construct a syllogism, proving that existence is necessary for thinking, or I'll pull a Zhavric and consider your point conceded.

This sounds familiar.. oh yes.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Make for me a syllogism, proving your point. It will be welcomed if accomplished in lieu of trolling.

Quote by: Me No, address my points. I'm not here to debate how you want me to.

Why should I make you a syllogism if you can't even address my first points? Think man, think.

[Kamehameha34]

Assumption to make premise: I exist. Premise: I think. Conclusion: I exist.

Wrong. It follows as the way I've been phrasing it for a few pages, now.

I just told you why you actually do have to exist in order to think. This is all I get in return? wtf?

No. You're response to "Why do you have to exist to think?" was "Because you have to EXIST to THINK".

Why the hell do you think a question is a logical argument? Just answer the damn question and stop making excuses.

You're question is off-topic, and has nothing to offer.

This sounds familiar.. oh yes.

I accept your concession.