From: Patsloane-AT-aol.com
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 15:00:05 EST
Subject: Re: PLC: sets


> > Isn't "I think, therefore I am" a non-sequitur?
>  
>  It is common knowledge, among the philosophical lumpen-proletariat (
> professors
>  of philosophy of the world, unite!)) that "I am" is not a consequence of "I
>  think", but, so to say, the development of its meanning or its co-
> significance. The formula is from the _Discourse of method_. In the
_Meditations_ II,
>  Descartes says "I think, I am".  Most interestingly, the proposition is
valid 
>  under one condition, that "I"
>  *actually* think of the proposition, its meaning and its reality ("toutes
les
>  fois que je la prononce, ou que je la conçois en moon esprit" -- sorry I
don' t
>  have an English translation at hand).
>  Time and thinking -- an old story.
>  
>  Edmund Martin Cartesius
>  
Well, I don't actually think of it, though I remember Descartes thinking of
it. I would assume this means Descartes actually exists, but I don't.  Luck of
the draw, and I don't begrudge him the fruits of his creative (or self-
creative) thought.

hypothetically,

pat


     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---