Nietzsche on the cogito ......
When I break down the process that is expressed in the phrase 'I think', I get a number of bold assertions, the reasoning behind which is difficult, perhaps impossible - for example, that I'm the one that thinks that it must be something at all that thinks that thinking is an action carried out by a being which thinks as a cause that there is an 'I', finite, that it is already determined what is to be described with thinking - that I know what thinking is. But if I hadn't already decided about it with myself, according to what should I measure that what is happening isn't perhaps 'wanting' or 'feeling'?
Are Nietzsches objections founded?
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
"I think", however, is the assertion raising questions. Our thoughts might be an illusion. Perhaps we do not think, but merely watch a movie unfolding before our eyes, plugged into a machine, for example. In this case, it is not us who think, but a different being.
I think it would be more accurate to phrase this statement in the following way: "If I think, then I am".
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
****Well, the conclusion is, by definition, correct: if "I think", then I must exist in order to think, hence I am.
The Cogito contains two separate premise: 1) “There is a thought going on” and 2) these thoughts are attached to something called “me”.
Even if we accept that I am thinking at all proves the fact I exist , it says nothing about what I am except a thinking thing and even that may go too far.
Descartes was incorrect to use the words ‘I think’ to be true to his sceptical approach he should have said ‘there are thoughts’ .
He made the assumption if their are thoughts there must be a thinker , this is presumptive , prehaps thoughts could exist independently of thinkers?
The ‘I’ in ‘I think’ could be the same as the ‘it’ in ‘it’s raining , which does not refer to anything
Descartes argument is also circular .....
Leibniz on the Cogito.........
Descartes is trying to prove the ‘I’ exists, but his first ‘premise’ is “I doubt”. It is an invalid argument to assume the truth of the conclusion in one or more of the premises. As Leibniz wrote: “'I am thinking' is already to say 'I am' “
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you define I am by living then think of this. If you were a useless blob but with no shape, no purpose, nothing to impact, and nothing to do, then would you define what you are doing as living. As what we are right now, everything we do can impact something. But what about if you couldn't do. What if all you could do was think. For some, it may be incomprehensible and for some it isn't. This is why I think that this quote, depending on how you look at it, could be true and false.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: useless blob    nbsp   deeper meaning   life  
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: heap of the food    heap of the information   body   mind  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra