(June 1, 2010 at 6:15 pm)Tiberius Wrote:(June 1, 2010 at 4:37 pm)Saerules Wrote: That argument seems silly. A table is brown, therefore it is. To perform an action... a thing must already exist. To be perceived... a thing must already exist. To be defined as a certain thing... a thing must already exist."I think therefore I am" has no possible comparison with "a table is brown, therefore it is".
The point of the argument is that beings that are capable of cognitive thought exist by definition (i.e. you can't have a non-existent being capable of thought). So in asking the question "Do I exist?" you are in fact answering it. The mere ability to ask such a question (or think it) confirms the beings existence, by the definition of existence.
Wouldn't a thing that is able to act exist by definition? (iow: you surely can't have a nonexistent being that is able to act). Thinking itself is an action... so why would it not also be true "The rabbit runs, therefore it is"?
In asking the question of wether anything exists (not just 'do i exist', but regarding the existence of anything at all)... would not it be true that if a thing can be perceived: it automatically must exist? How could it have been perceived otherwise?
Is not the mere ability to ask that question of anything ('Does it exist?') an automatic confirmation that a thing in fact does exist?
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
