The Worlds Most Misconstrued snd Defiled Quotes

[Kajin]

One small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind.

There was a error in the transmission back to earth, saying it without the A makes no sense, it would be like saying 2 is 4, 3 is 4.

It can actually be used both ways. It only makes no sense if you percieve it as making no sense. The meaning just shifts slightly.
I actually think of man being everyone on the earth right now while mankind is everyone now and onward into the future. It wasn't the intended meaning, but it still makes sense.

 

[QuirkyTambourine]

"Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not a..."

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

This doesn't really scratch the surface of Descartes. His entire philosophy is about systematically doubting everything away, including that you actually exist, then once you doubt that there is any reality, clearly god must exist because that's the only thing you cannot doubt.

(Yes, there are clearer ways of saying that.)
(No, they don't make any more sense.)

The classic "Cartesian Circle", as it were. Still, to my knowledge "I think therefore I am" means exactly what people think it means, even considering the explanation of performative contradiction in the statement "I doubt therefore I think".

Is that not so? I'm trying to understand why this is being presented as a common misquotation.

 

[Starke]

This doesn't really scratch the surface of Descartes. His entire philosophy is about systematically doubting everything away, including that you actually exist, then once you doubt that there is any reality, clearly god must exist because that's the only thing you cannot doubt.

(Yes, there are clearer ways of saying that.)
(No, they don't make any more sense.)

The classic "Cartesian Circle", as it were. Still, to my knowledge "I think therefore I am" means exactly what people think it means, even considering the explanation of performative contradiction in the statement "I doubt therefore I think".

Is that not so? I'm trying to understand why this is being presented as a common misquotation.

If I had to guess, than I'd say it's because it's presented as an end, a conclusion. Instead it is in fact a step during a process, and doesn't really indicate any significant point during that process. Like taking a baking recipe and holding up "take three large brown eggs" as the most important concept instead of what its doing.

Descartes is trying to prove what's real. "I think therefore I am," does not, it only serves as an ego trip for people who say, "this must mean I am real". Which it doesn't. Adding the sentence before doesn't really help though, so...

 

[Mozared]

Apperantly Murphy's Law was misquoted as well. I'm not sure what he did say, but it wasn't "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong", even though it was along those lines.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

If I had to guess, than I'd say it's because it's presented as an end, a conclusion. Instead it is in fact a step during a process, and doesn't really indicate any significant point during that process. Like taking a baking recipe and holding up "take three large brown eggs" as the most important concept instead of what its doing.

Descartes is trying to prove what's real, "I think therefore I am," does not, it only serves as an ego trip for people who say, "this must mean I am real". Which it doesn't. Adding the sentence before doesn't really help though, so...

Ah, but in your second paragraph you are judging the validity of the statement and not the misquotation by third parties. Hehe. The first makes sense, though.

I don't think Descartes is trying to prove what's real- that comes later, but not yet. At this point, he's trying to establish the concept of 'real'. He is not trying to prove any particular thing exists, but he is looking for a way to irrefutably establish that anything at all exists.

I think the best critiques I've read are the ones that question the concept of "I" which seems to be assumed without first being established. I've yet to see a critique which manages to completely divorce the concept of 'thinking' from 'existence' while adequately addressing the performative contradiction problem. I've seen critiques that say we can only establish that 'an object' is thinking, and I've seen critiques that say we can't even establish that much (using Descartes' own logic).

 

[Allan53]

Money is the root of all evil. The actual quote is The love of money is the root of all evil.

There's a distinction between being wealthy and greedy. Although I am neither of those things, so I can't really confirm that first hand.

Actually, I can. A lot of people would say I'm wealthy (I wouldn't, but hey), but I'm not greedy. Greed is a need for more, whereas simple striving is just healthy.

 

[AWC Viper]

i dont want to read through all the pages so here's the one i know that get's done alot

"Excuse me while I kiss this guy" - jimi Hendrix

it should be "Excuse me while I kiss the sky"

 

[Starke]

If I had to guess, than I'd say it's because it's presented as an end, a conclusion. Instead it is in fact a step during a process, and doesn't really indicate any significant point during that process. Like taking a baking recipe and holding up "take three large brown eggs" as the most important concept instead of what its doing.

Descartes is trying to prove what's real, "I think therefore I am," does not, it only serves as an ego trip for people who say, "this must mean I am real". Which it doesn't. Adding the sentence before doesn't really help though, so...

Ah, but in your second paragraph you are judging the validity of the statement and not the misquotation by third parties. Hehe. The first makes sense, though.

I don't think Descartes is trying to prove what's real- that comes later, but not yet. At this point, he's trying to establish the concept of 'real'. He is not trying to prove any particular thing exists, but he is looking for a way to irrefutably establish that anything at all exists.

I think the best critiques I've read are the ones that question the concept of "I" which seems to be assumed without first being established. I've yet to see a critique which manages to completely divorce the concept of 'thinking' from 'existence' while adequately addressing the performative contradiction problem. I've seen critiques that say we can only establish that 'an object' is thinking, and I've seen critiques that say we can't even establish that much (using Descartes' own logic).

Yeah the second paragraph could use some clarity. I meant that on it's own the phrase doesn't indicate as much as most speakers seem to believe.

Sorry I'm fighting through some kind of being sick shit, so I'm not at 100%, and certainly not masochistic enough to critique Descartes. I'm told that there are logical fallacies in his work you can drive a semi through, though I never cared to dig through his work any further than was required to pass Western Civ.

 

[Dimbo_Sama]

Personnaly I'm putting my money on a certain quote from Star Wars...

He's talking about "May the Force be with you..."

hmm... hard to think of anything that hasn't been covered here...

Any quote from the bible, because there is always one peice of scripture that is either contradictory to, or negates the other one.

"I canne do it cap'n, I dunneh have the power" I don't think Scotty ever said that.
It was always something like, "I can't change the laws of Physics" or "You're expect'n a blooday miracle" and stuff like that.

oh yeah, "Water water everywhere, and not a drop to drink" is also wrong.

It's actualy (and in full cause I love this stanza);
"Day after Day, Day after Day we struck ne breath ne motion
as idle as a painted ship upon a painted ocean
Water water everywhere, and all the boards did shrink
Water water everywhere, ne any drop to drink"

I do however love Homer's version of the poem
"Water water everywhere so lets all have a drink!"

 

[deleted_scifidownbeat]

DELETED