Personal philosiphy

[socialistsalami]

So i think, that thinking has to exist , if you have to think, to think what your saying. You know what i mean? Cause my brother says thinking does not exist. So, any theory's about that could you please put them here? :thumbup1:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This should be moved to Chit Chat.

[Apoi_Viitor]

So i think, that thinking has to exist

I think you're correct about thinking that thought has to exist.

[Nuvem]

So i think, that thinking has to exist , if you have to think, to think what your saying.

You just blew my mind.

[¿Que?]

It's not so much that thought doesn't exist, but that subjectivity is a social construct. We are social animals as Marx suggests.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

So i think, that thinking has to exist , if you have to think, to think what your saying. You know what i mean? Cause my brother says thinking does not exist. So, any theory's about that could you please put them here? :thumbup1:

Sounds like you're down with the Cartesian Cogito, bro. As in: "I think, therefore I am." Problem is, what next? Just because I happen to exist and think doesn't mean what I think is where it (=the world) is where it (my mind) is at... So thinking could exist without being real, you dig?:cool:

[Decolonize The Left]

Moved to Chit Chat.

- August

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Moved to Chit Chat.

- August
Don't feel bad, bro. You see, the can of worms you opened up with your question (known technically as the problematic of the transcendental ego) is very, very threatening to a certain species of white folk. Because, if it should turn out that what they think they know has nothing to do with what they like to think of as the "real" world, then maybe they're not standing at the center of the universe after all, deciding what's wrong or right for the rest of us.

Be well. :thumbup1::cool:

[Fawkes]

clothing optional

[Martin Blank]

Sounds like you're down with the Cartesian Cogito, bro. As in: "I think, therefore I am." Problem is, what next? Just because I happen to exist and think doesn't mean what I think is where it (=the world) is where it (my mind) is at... So thinking could exist without being real, you dig?:cool:

I think thinking can be thought of differently when thinking about the thought process and thinking capacity of the person you think you're thinking about. Being a materialist, I think I disagree with the Cartesian argument, and think it would be better to say sum ergo cogito: I am, therefore I think. But when I think I'm in the state I think I'm in, I think that just gets cuts down to sum, cogito: I am, I think.

This has been another public service announcement from WYMI, philosophy radio.

[southernmissfan]

So i think, that thinking has to exist , if you have to think, to think what your saying. You know what i mean? Cause my brother says thinking does not exist. So, any theory's about that could you please put them here? :thumbup1:

areyouawizard.jpg

[ZeroNowhere]

I think we're not thinking properly about thinking here. Thinking is not thinking when it lacks a thinker, and the thinker is not a thinker unless he thinks, so the question about which we must think is whether or not we think that there exist thinkers, that is, thinking things. We must then furnish empirical proof of thinkers thinking about things, and hence must find thinkers and hence thinking in a specific place and time, and then, I think, prove that they continue to exist and to think in times after this time, as if the thinker dies or ceases to think then we clearly do not have thinking. As such, the primary question which we must think about is: where are the thinkers? And the answer is: not in Chit-Chat.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I think thinking can be thought of differently when thinking about the thought process and thinking capacity of the person you think you're thinking about. Being a materialist, I think I disagree with the Cartesian argument, and think it would be better to say sum ergo cogito: I am, therefore I think. But when I think I'm in the state I think I'm in, I think that just gets cuts down to sum, cogito: I am, I think.

This has been another public service announcement from WYMI, philosophy radio.

I think the question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but a practical question - oh, wait, Marx said that, not me.

I think, therefore, that any attempt to follow Marx in exposing the roots of the bourgeois ideology of self is revolutionary praxis, no matter how crude that attempt might appear; and that any attempt to repress such attempts should be seen for what it is, no matter how couched in "materialist" jargon it might be.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A/a ?

[Raúl Duke]

I think thinking can be thought of differently when thinking about the thought process and thinking capacity of the person you think you're thinking about. Being a materialist, I think I disagree with the Cartesian argument, and think it would be better to say sum ergo cogito: I am, therefore I think. But when I think I'm in the state I think I'm in, I think that just gets cuts down to sum, cogito: I am, I think.

This has been another public service announcement from WYMI, philosophy radio.

+rep

[Os Cangaceiros]

wut