Poll: Is Cogito Ergo Sum(I think therefore I am) really a good argument?

[Washboard]

Lol, my names in the title Ergo i win

 

[Bohemian Waltz]

No, it just states that you can be certain of your own existence, while you cannot necessarily be certain of anything outside your own mind (until you have solid evidence of the contrary) - it could all be something your mind or some outside force made up for you to experience.

Actually, it's saying just the latter.

Because to get evidence of that something really exists, you have to use tools. And these might also be imaginary, so how can you trust them?

See the problem?

"I think, therefore I am" the only two statements involved are "I think" and "I am". It does not dispute the existence of anything else, but simply affirms the existence of one producing thought.

 

[TWRule]

No, it just states that you can be certain of your own existence, while you cannot necessarily be certain of anything outside your own mind (until you have solid evidence of the contrary) - it could all be something your mind or some outside force made up for you to experience.

Actually, it's saying just the latter.

Because to get evidence of that something really exists, you have to use tools. And these might also be imaginary, so how can you trust them?

See the problem?

Yes, but Descartes wasn't saying that nothing exist outside his mind, he's saying that he can't be certain that those things exist. You'd need a priori evidence that they exist, not empirical evidence.

It's like saying that we don't have sufficient evidence for the existence of God, versus stating flatly that he doesn't exist. The possibility is still open in the former case, as it is here.

Edit: the poster above me is correct - I was describing Decartes' overall position, but this statement itself only affirms the existence of the thinker and doesn't mention anything else.

 

[BrassButtons]

but the point is that you still need to prove that in order to think you must exist for Cogito Ergo Sum to be valid.

By what mechanism would a non-existent entity think about things? How can a thought exist if nobody is thinking it?

Thinking is the result of brain activity. No existence, no brain, no thought (or as Ayn Rand put it: "I am, therefor I think").

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Can the bartender think to himself?

If he can, he exists to himself. If he can't, he doesn't.

The same with you, me and everyone else. It's one of the greatest philosophical arguments of all time, given that it can't be proven wrong.

 

[TWRule]

Cake is tasty therefore it is tasty, doesnt mean its cake.

That's not the structure of the argument. "I think, therefore, I am" is actually the shortened version. The whole thing is "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am."

If I am able to doubt my existence, then I must be able to think, and if I can think then I must exist (in the form of a mind, at least). Therefore, if I'm able to doubt my own existence, I must exist.