"I think, therefore I am"There is no logical deduction from the premise "I think" to the conclusion "I am". Rather it is just two different assertions1) I think2) I am
@mani_bharathy This is true. I know that in many indian meditation circles they discuss this and say that "I am" predates thinking. In meditation this can be experienced and verified.
I think a clearer version of Descartes's argument is"I act, therefore I am."Basically, Descartes's argument is that you can't do anything if you don't exist. Since thinking is doing something, you must exist if you think.
@kyrothehero In order to use the the words 'act, think, exist' there needs to be empirical knowledge. You don't even know what is the act of thinking/existing/acting if you reject empirical knowledge. And that's what Descartes did. He rejected every other knowledge and started from scratch and somehow believed "I think, I am" is for sure to be true.Even more fundamental problem I have is that he has to agree the laws of logic in order to say that. For example to say the word 'I' he need to accept law of identity. And he needs laws of non-contrdiction and exluded middle also for obvious reason. From where he knows those laws of logic is true? Without empiricism there is no way of finding logic laws
@kyrothehero one more question I got related to this is, will it fit animals also?
@mani_bharathy"I think, therefore I am."Notice "I". Descartes is referring EXCLUSIVELY to himself in this statement. That's because he can never actually verify that other people are thinking.So if an animal had the ability to think, then the syllogism would apply to them. However, since we aren't animals and (in Descartes's world) we can't trust our senses, we don't know whether animals can think.
@kyrothehero what for my first comment ?
@mani_bharathy I think that your claim that logic is empirically based is false. I don’t have time to debate it, but that’s the basic idea.