|
|
Due to spam and off-topic content, these forums are being phased out and replaced with new great books forums. Please join us!
Posted by Joel S Collier on September 27, 19100 at 13:55:38:
In Reply to: Re: I think therefor I am posted by Joel on September 27, 19100 at 12:01:34:
I must exist to reason and i reason so i must exist. if i did not reason that i existed then i could not act, and reasoning i do not exist is an action.
If i could not proove i existed then i could not proove their is reason because i would not believe i exist to prove reason. If reason is invalid than my reasoning against reason is invalid, thus reasoning for my existence is valid way of proving i exist. They go nicely together huh?
got to take a break, this is making me dizzie.
For I think therefor i am to beconsidered self evident it must ume that reason is valid or else the reasoning in the ertion would be bunk. So the proof not only proves i exist it proves that reason is valid. Both must be put toghether because without the proof of i reason cannot exist and with out the proof of reason the reasons for existing are bunk. The fact that i exist and that reason is valid must be the bases of Descartes'es philosphy. I hope it is anyways.
Am i right? I know im wrong in the top proof but i cant find where, can you tell me? This is going to keep me up for nights.
E-mail me if you have time of what kind of cl your taking, teaching, or have taken. I must take that kind of cl as a course. Is Descartes the guy that thought their must be a god because man could not invision somthing higher then themselves unless it existed, what was his reasoning? Oh, please forgive my ignorance, i am still pretty young.