This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cogito, ergo sum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The section "Predecessors", however well documented and philosophically relevant, has been - I hope inadvertently - deleted. I restored it in another place, after "Introduction" and without the misleading Hamlet quotation. On the other hand, the section "Criticisms" only repeats the misunderstanding, as if the Cogito would have been for Descartes a syllogism. Descartes himself responded to it, as it appeared in the "Objections" to his Meditations, and in the article it is explained in the first paragraph of the section "Introduction". In this discussion, User:Mel Etitis explains it correctly as well. But some people seem to prefer writing (or deleting) before reading. -- Sokoljan ( talk) 13:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
could someone tranlsate the really long latin phrase in the introduction.
Done. Racconish Tk 16:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a common theme in movies and television: "The Matrix," "Inception," etc. . . I just felt this could be something worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.172.104 ( talk) 01:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The two images under the Criticism section have little to no relevance to the section or the article at all, and seems they were put there only to be captioned. Wikipedia:Style makes no mention of using images in this way, furthermore it looks unprofessional and doesn't add anything. I am deleting them . Ajoones ( talk) 23:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the section saying that Descartes had not used the term 'therefore' in the meditations because he wanted to avoid the implication that the cogito depended upon an inferential argument.
Although this is the kind of thing that you sometimes read in introductory texts, there is simply no textual evidence for it at all. Indeed, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out, the idea that the meditations doesn't contain an inferential argument for the conclusion whilst the Discourse does is dead wrong: the meditations is the place where the argument is most explicitly developed.
Of course, Descartes in the objections and replies, and later letters, did sometimes assert that the cogito was not based on a syllogism (see Williams' book for a sophisticated and moderately plausible interpritation of exactly what he meant). The point remains: in Meditations 2 he phrases it as an arugment.
BTW, here's what I think: the argument leads us to the cogito conclusion, but isn't required to justify it. The 'cogito ergo sum' argument is propoganda, but isn't justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.129.189 ( talk) 10:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Why are there two translations given in the text "I think therefore I exist" and later on "I think therefore I am"? Sarahhofland ( talk) 06:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it can't be clearer than that. Sarahhofland ( talk) 11:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
'''Cannot Figure Out How To Post Properly section'''
Just a question regarding modern extrapolations, or colloquialisms of the phrase: Is it proper to note them, or reference them? If so, how is it done?
I am asking regarding this phrase that brought me here: Cogito ergo armatum sum
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Cogito_ergo_armatum_sum_mean
66.66.148.239 ( talk) 12:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Williams refers to the argument later in the book as "of course, just an argument from Kant" from, I believe, the Prolegomena. Typical Williams to not make it clear in the Cogito chapter. The slogan from the Critique is "the rational psychologist mistakes the unity of apperception for the perception of a unity". Clearly this needs fixing. Maybe I will do it at some point. — Sean Whitton / 16:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll certainly yield to the authors here, but I remember that a fundamental tenet to the Kierkegaard criticism was that, yes, the I does in fact presuppose the existance of its own narrator, but that the breakdown is something more akin to:
Tgm1024 ( talk) 20:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Using Game Theory,
I think that you think, though You do not think, therefore I am and You are (relative to me). You are DEAD!
Likewise, I think You think that I think, therefore I am, You are and I am. (I2+You)
Likewise, I think You think I think, though You do not think I think, therefore I 2 am and You2 are. You are ALIVE!
Are both I the same, when think(s) are different? NO, I change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.212.105 ( talk) 00:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The article begins:
The original, in Discourse, appears as a non-capitalized, mid-sentence phrase:
Capitalization of the phrase quite arguably contributes to the assumption that "I think therefore I am" was a complete statement in and of itself. (It is often restated as a sentence.) That, in turn, discourages many from any further exploration to discover Descartes' intent.
As indicated further down in the introduction, Descartes repeated this phrase mid-sentence in Principles of Philosophy (here in Latin), where he referred to the phrase as a proposition:
What if we begin the article:
Parallel minor adjustments should then made elsewhere in the article for consistency. humanengr ( talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
perfectly correctto capitalize it in some contexts, not only Descartes but most others don't -- see, e.g., this Google ngram. Humanengr ( talk) 02:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The historical provenance should be made clear in a new section entitled "In Descartes' Writings". I've gathered the relevant material in my sandbox. (NB: This pulls in the "Ac proinde …" and translation sentences from the current summary -- to address criticism re summary length; it also includes the dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum material that had been in the summary.)
Would this work as the lead section, preceding what is now the Introduction (which would be renamed "Interpretation")? Or should the new Intro contain only the first sentence in the sandbox and the rest of the material split off for a section at the bottom of the article? humanengr ( talk) 07:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Descartes himself said "je pense, donc je suis". But doesn't "je pense, donc je sois" seem somehow more grammatically correct in French? (The subjunctive doesn't work as well in English -- "I think, therefore I be", but it does work in French...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:1502:26BE:5FF:FE1D:BCA1 ( talk) 22:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The italicization of the final extended Latin quote in this section changes in the middle of it. I didn't want to change it in case the author meant something, but it looks to me like a typo... Cogito-Ergo-Sum ( talk) 00:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The Latin pronunciations, both as rendered in modern English and in Classical Latin, were initially included in June 2013. The reader is referred to the Reference Desk/Language discussion on rendering OED pronunciation for Latin words in IPA on recent edits. The below continues that discussion:
The original version of ‘sum’ was transcribed as per OED and Collins as ‘sʊm’. Subsequent edits changed that to 'sʌm'. It is proposed now to include both versions so the article would begin:
Cogito ergo sum [a] ( /ˈkoʊɡɪtoʊ ˈɜːrɡoʊ ˈsʊm/, also /ˈkɒɡɪtoʊ/, /ˈsʌm/ Classical Latin: [ˈkoːɡitoː ˈɛrɡoː ˈsʊm], "I think, therefore I am") … humanengr ( talk) 07:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, I accept the conclusion above: pronunciation belongs on Wiktionary -- but then there should be a Wiktionary link. But where? I tried putting a Wiktionary template understand the Descartes box, but this leaves it well down the page, and not very obvious to anyone who wonders how to pronounce the Latin. Is it possible to add a Wkt link as a footnote somehow? Suggestions? Imaginatorium ( talk) 05:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
By leaving out Dubito (as promoted by religious people), you have changed the message of Descartes. His doubting (Dubito) of religious authority is the beginning of his thinking (Cogito). Then, because he can think about things (not be a pawn in the game of "controlling people with religion." ie the Dark Ages) he concludes that he does exist (Ergo Sum). I'm very disappointed with this omission. It also should go under Teleology since that article promotes "Ends" and ignores the rejection of same. 63.245.178.216 ( talk) 19:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Randy C Hamilton
a more accurate translation is - i doubt, therefore i am
Not sure how important he is these days but Franz von Baader's cogitor ergo cogito et sum seems like a pretty clear homage, even if he did reject Descartes as slippy on the slope to atheism. — LlywelynII 03:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
French pronunciation of French, let alone laundry lists of English mispronunciations of Latin, don't go here. They go in Wiktionary. It would be different in a case like Thailand where the recognizably "correct" pronunciation doesn't follow standard English orthography, but to the extent that the cogito has a "correct" pronunciation, it's a perfectly straightforward one. Further, the IPA mess of regional variations to the pronunciation (which didn't even include the British pronunciation of ergo yet) is just an eyesore. — LlywelynII 04:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Here's a link to the Latin entry for cogito ergo sum for the curious. Variant French and English pronunciations could be added [edit: there], since they both use this expression as well. — LlywelynII 03:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I would like to point out that even though this conversation is actually using a computer zipping bytes through the ether, it does not have even the inkling of an idea that it is doing so. Yet, it still exists. This does not, therefore, prove existence on non-existence. It just asserts that the observer can state he exists even though he may be disembodied as a spirit.-- Michael Flower ( talk) 06:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Wikid77: I saw you had mentioned this article on Jimbo's talk page here. (FYI. I am well familiar with the phrase and Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy having studied it in graduate school.) This article and another I looked at ( An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding) appear to me to be more WP:OR than anything else. I brought this up at the second article here and at WikiProject_Philosophy here and the only response was from Blue_Mist_1 (thank you):
I think the attribution of Plato as preceding Descarte in his cogito formulation is wrong and should be removed. The order is wrong, for in Plato it is the sensibleness of the external world which indicates there is something which is sensing, and this makes absolute sense given Plato's epistemology being tied to his ontology of the forms. However, in denying Platonism as Descarte did his epistemology starts with doubting the sensibleness of the external world, and it was this very doubting with caused him to retreat to the formulation of the cogito as being the stable existent internal subject. In short, Plato is an inverse Descartes and does not precede him. In Plato the external illuminates, while in Descarte it is the internal. My guess is Plato would have though Descartes extremely misguided. In fact, Catherine Pickstock in her work "After Writing" convincingly ties Descartes epistemology to the Sophism of Plato's opponents and lays out in some detail how Platonic and Descartian epistemology and ontology are diametrically opposed."I think therefore I am", it can be said, is a direct refusal of Plato's epistemology, not indebted to it. Jgayaldo ( talk) 20:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Philosophical articles and articles in similar topics often have much 'critique', meaning disagreeing response from others in the field, but this one is ridiculous. The criticism section shouldn't be half of the article. It makes the statement look like it has been debunked into oblivion when in reality it's still an important concept in philosophy. I'm going to cut a lot of this section per WP:UNDUE. Some of the criticism isn't even criticism; as noted above, Heidegger says the statement could be shortened and is a bit awkwardly formed, not that it's wrong. Some of the others very generally criticize the concept, not the statement. I'll remove the sort of overview thing because the only criticism of things like these should be addressed as criticism from others in the field. It shouldn't be a compressed collection of individual criticisms. Prinsgezinde ( talk) 11:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
[prompted by consideration of this edit]
Descartes wrote it with a comma in French (1637) and Latin (1644). Gutenberg and the cited The Philosophical Works of Descartes, rendered into English, Haldane and Ross (1911), both include a comma in their English translations.
The dubito elaboration already has the comma.
The cogito appears 11 times in the article — including the title and a template at the bottom.
I’m inclined to go with the above provenance. Thoughts? Humanengr ( talk) 22:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 04:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Cogito ergo sum →
Cogito, ergo sum – Inserting comma to comport with Descartes's usage, key English translations, etc. -- see last section on Talk page.
Humanengr (
talk) 02:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
As far as is known, Descartes used the phrase as such only once. [1] [2] It appears there and in most reference works with a comma, but is often presented without a comma.
References
130.56.207.177 made this edit to the lede, changing "A fuller form, penned by Antoine Léonard Thomas …" to "A better version, articulated by Antoine Léonard Thomas". I favor the former as the latter introduces a judgment of quality, and does so without source. I'll hold off reverting pending discussion here. Humanengr ( talk) 21:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, that’s long enough. ‘Fuller’ is better than ‘better’. I’ll leave 130…’s ‘articulated’. Humanengr ( talk) 02:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I added a parenthetical at the end of the Translation section for a categorization of ‘I am thinking’ as ‘ progressive aspect’.
Here's a start on additional grammar-related material:
I also searched for but have not yet found a cite that considers the 'gnomic aspect' vis-à-vis the “I think” translation. The WP article on gnomic aspect indicates that when it is “[u]sed to describe a tense, the gnomic is considered neutral by not limiting action, in particular, to the past, present, or future. Examples of the gnomic include such generic statements as: 'birds fly'; 'sugar is sweet'; and 'a mother can always tell'." From the footnote: "These three examples may all be said to be in the present tense, but it is equally reasonable to consider that tense and temporality are simply not relevant to the examples, as all three express generic truths that are not limited by a specific placement in time or construct regarding the flow of time." (The “birds fly” and other examples seem in line with Blackburn’s “I ski” in the Translation section as they all carry the sense of “I occasionally” or “I can …”. I haven’t yet tracked down the cites from the gnomic article for examples and discussion there.)
Thoughts? Humanengr ( talk) 13:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Peteb4, your addition needs a cite to a reliable source. Humanengr ( talk) 16:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Though the intent of the author was to acknowledge his own existence, the phrase is often used as a positive affirmation for individuals who aspire to "be" or become something greater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7204:EEA8:B168:FE67:488C:7020 ( talk) 20:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
An IP
inserted ego in the first sentence without edit summary. Google and Google Scholar show many more hits for cogito, ergo sum than ego cogito, ergo sum; reference works use the former. GS shows 2x the hits for <"Truth by Natural light" OR "Recherche de la Vérité" "cogito ergo sum"> than <"Principia Philosophiae" OR "Principles of Philosophy" "ego cogito ergo sum">; those that cite Principia use it much more so for "cogito, ergo sum" than "ego cogito, ergo sum". Thoughts?
Humanengr (
talk) 22:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cogito, ergo sum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The section "Predecessors", however well documented and philosophically relevant, has been - I hope inadvertently - deleted. I restored it in another place, after "Introduction" and without the misleading Hamlet quotation. On the other hand, the section "Criticisms" only repeats the misunderstanding, as if the Cogito would have been for Descartes a syllogism. Descartes himself responded to it, as it appeared in the "Objections" to his Meditations, and in the article it is explained in the first paragraph of the section "Introduction". In this discussion, User:Mel Etitis explains it correctly as well. But some people seem to prefer writing (or deleting) before reading. -- Sokoljan ( talk) 13:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
could someone tranlsate the really long latin phrase in the introduction.
Done. Racconish Tk 16:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a common theme in movies and television: "The Matrix," "Inception," etc. . . I just felt this could be something worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.172.104 ( talk) 01:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The two images under the Criticism section have little to no relevance to the section or the article at all, and seems they were put there only to be captioned. Wikipedia:Style makes no mention of using images in this way, furthermore it looks unprofessional and doesn't add anything. I am deleting them . Ajoones ( talk) 23:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the section saying that Descartes had not used the term 'therefore' in the meditations because he wanted to avoid the implication that the cogito depended upon an inferential argument.
Although this is the kind of thing that you sometimes read in introductory texts, there is simply no textual evidence for it at all. Indeed, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out, the idea that the meditations doesn't contain an inferential argument for the conclusion whilst the Discourse does is dead wrong: the meditations is the place where the argument is most explicitly developed.
Of course, Descartes in the objections and replies, and later letters, did sometimes assert that the cogito was not based on a syllogism (see Williams' book for a sophisticated and moderately plausible interpritation of exactly what he meant). The point remains: in Meditations 2 he phrases it as an arugment.
BTW, here's what I think: the argument leads us to the cogito conclusion, but isn't required to justify it. The 'cogito ergo sum' argument is propoganda, but isn't justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.129.189 ( talk) 10:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Why are there two translations given in the text "I think therefore I exist" and later on "I think therefore I am"? Sarahhofland ( talk) 06:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it can't be clearer than that. Sarahhofland ( talk) 11:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
'''Cannot Figure Out How To Post Properly section'''
Just a question regarding modern extrapolations, or colloquialisms of the phrase: Is it proper to note them, or reference them? If so, how is it done?
I am asking regarding this phrase that brought me here: Cogito ergo armatum sum
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Cogito_ergo_armatum_sum_mean
66.66.148.239 ( talk) 12:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Williams refers to the argument later in the book as "of course, just an argument from Kant" from, I believe, the Prolegomena. Typical Williams to not make it clear in the Cogito chapter. The slogan from the Critique is "the rational psychologist mistakes the unity of apperception for the perception of a unity". Clearly this needs fixing. Maybe I will do it at some point. — Sean Whitton / 16:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll certainly yield to the authors here, but I remember that a fundamental tenet to the Kierkegaard criticism was that, yes, the I does in fact presuppose the existance of its own narrator, but that the breakdown is something more akin to:
Tgm1024 ( talk) 20:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Using Game Theory,
I think that you think, though You do not think, therefore I am and You are (relative to me). You are DEAD!
Likewise, I think You think that I think, therefore I am, You are and I am. (I2+You)
Likewise, I think You think I think, though You do not think I think, therefore I 2 am and You2 are. You are ALIVE!
Are both I the same, when think(s) are different? NO, I change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.212.105 ( talk) 00:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The article begins:
The original, in Discourse, appears as a non-capitalized, mid-sentence phrase:
Capitalization of the phrase quite arguably contributes to the assumption that "I think therefore I am" was a complete statement in and of itself. (It is often restated as a sentence.) That, in turn, discourages many from any further exploration to discover Descartes' intent.
As indicated further down in the introduction, Descartes repeated this phrase mid-sentence in Principles of Philosophy (here in Latin), where he referred to the phrase as a proposition:
What if we begin the article:
Parallel minor adjustments should then made elsewhere in the article for consistency. humanengr ( talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
perfectly correctto capitalize it in some contexts, not only Descartes but most others don't -- see, e.g., this Google ngram. Humanengr ( talk) 02:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The historical provenance should be made clear in a new section entitled "In Descartes' Writings". I've gathered the relevant material in my sandbox. (NB: This pulls in the "Ac proinde …" and translation sentences from the current summary -- to address criticism re summary length; it also includes the dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum material that had been in the summary.)
Would this work as the lead section, preceding what is now the Introduction (which would be renamed "Interpretation")? Or should the new Intro contain only the first sentence in the sandbox and the rest of the material split off for a section at the bottom of the article? humanengr ( talk) 07:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Descartes himself said "je pense, donc je suis". But doesn't "je pense, donc je sois" seem somehow more grammatically correct in French? (The subjunctive doesn't work as well in English -- "I think, therefore I be", but it does work in French...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:1502:26BE:5FF:FE1D:BCA1 ( talk) 22:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The italicization of the final extended Latin quote in this section changes in the middle of it. I didn't want to change it in case the author meant something, but it looks to me like a typo... Cogito-Ergo-Sum ( talk) 00:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The Latin pronunciations, both as rendered in modern English and in Classical Latin, were initially included in June 2013. The reader is referred to the Reference Desk/Language discussion on rendering OED pronunciation for Latin words in IPA on recent edits. The below continues that discussion:
The original version of ‘sum’ was transcribed as per OED and Collins as ‘sʊm’. Subsequent edits changed that to 'sʌm'. It is proposed now to include both versions so the article would begin:
Cogito ergo sum [a] ( /ˈkoʊɡɪtoʊ ˈɜːrɡoʊ ˈsʊm/, also /ˈkɒɡɪtoʊ/, /ˈsʌm/ Classical Latin: [ˈkoːɡitoː ˈɛrɡoː ˈsʊm], "I think, therefore I am") … humanengr ( talk) 07:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, I accept the conclusion above: pronunciation belongs on Wiktionary -- but then there should be a Wiktionary link. But where? I tried putting a Wiktionary template understand the Descartes box, but this leaves it well down the page, and not very obvious to anyone who wonders how to pronounce the Latin. Is it possible to add a Wkt link as a footnote somehow? Suggestions? Imaginatorium ( talk) 05:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
By leaving out Dubito (as promoted by religious people), you have changed the message of Descartes. His doubting (Dubito) of religious authority is the beginning of his thinking (Cogito). Then, because he can think about things (not be a pawn in the game of "controlling people with religion." ie the Dark Ages) he concludes that he does exist (Ergo Sum). I'm very disappointed with this omission. It also should go under Teleology since that article promotes "Ends" and ignores the rejection of same. 63.245.178.216 ( talk) 19:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Randy C Hamilton
a more accurate translation is - i doubt, therefore i am
Not sure how important he is these days but Franz von Baader's cogitor ergo cogito et sum seems like a pretty clear homage, even if he did reject Descartes as slippy on the slope to atheism. — LlywelynII 03:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
French pronunciation of French, let alone laundry lists of English mispronunciations of Latin, don't go here. They go in Wiktionary. It would be different in a case like Thailand where the recognizably "correct" pronunciation doesn't follow standard English orthography, but to the extent that the cogito has a "correct" pronunciation, it's a perfectly straightforward one. Further, the IPA mess of regional variations to the pronunciation (which didn't even include the British pronunciation of ergo yet) is just an eyesore. — LlywelynII 04:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Here's a link to the Latin entry for cogito ergo sum for the curious. Variant French and English pronunciations could be added [edit: there], since they both use this expression as well. — LlywelynII 03:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I would like to point out that even though this conversation is actually using a computer zipping bytes through the ether, it does not have even the inkling of an idea that it is doing so. Yet, it still exists. This does not, therefore, prove existence on non-existence. It just asserts that the observer can state he exists even though he may be disembodied as a spirit.-- Michael Flower ( talk) 06:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Wikid77: I saw you had mentioned this article on Jimbo's talk page here. (FYI. I am well familiar with the phrase and Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy having studied it in graduate school.) This article and another I looked at ( An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding) appear to me to be more WP:OR than anything else. I brought this up at the second article here and at WikiProject_Philosophy here and the only response was from Blue_Mist_1 (thank you):
I think the attribution of Plato as preceding Descarte in his cogito formulation is wrong and should be removed. The order is wrong, for in Plato it is the sensibleness of the external world which indicates there is something which is sensing, and this makes absolute sense given Plato's epistemology being tied to his ontology of the forms. However, in denying Platonism as Descarte did his epistemology starts with doubting the sensibleness of the external world, and it was this very doubting with caused him to retreat to the formulation of the cogito as being the stable existent internal subject. In short, Plato is an inverse Descartes and does not precede him. In Plato the external illuminates, while in Descarte it is the internal. My guess is Plato would have though Descartes extremely misguided. In fact, Catherine Pickstock in her work "After Writing" convincingly ties Descartes epistemology to the Sophism of Plato's opponents and lays out in some detail how Platonic and Descartian epistemology and ontology are diametrically opposed."I think therefore I am", it can be said, is a direct refusal of Plato's epistemology, not indebted to it. Jgayaldo ( talk) 20:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Philosophical articles and articles in similar topics often have much 'critique', meaning disagreeing response from others in the field, but this one is ridiculous. The criticism section shouldn't be half of the article. It makes the statement look like it has been debunked into oblivion when in reality it's still an important concept in philosophy. I'm going to cut a lot of this section per WP:UNDUE. Some of the criticism isn't even criticism; as noted above, Heidegger says the statement could be shortened and is a bit awkwardly formed, not that it's wrong. Some of the others very generally criticize the concept, not the statement. I'll remove the sort of overview thing because the only criticism of things like these should be addressed as criticism from others in the field. It shouldn't be a compressed collection of individual criticisms. Prinsgezinde ( talk) 11:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
[prompted by consideration of this edit]
Descartes wrote it with a comma in French (1637) and Latin (1644). Gutenberg and the cited The Philosophical Works of Descartes, rendered into English, Haldane and Ross (1911), both include a comma in their English translations.
The dubito elaboration already has the comma.
The cogito appears 11 times in the article — including the title and a template at the bottom.
I’m inclined to go with the above provenance. Thoughts? Humanengr ( talk) 22:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 04:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Cogito ergo sum →
Cogito, ergo sum – Inserting comma to comport with Descartes's usage, key English translations, etc. -- see last section on Talk page.
Humanengr (
talk) 02:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
As far as is known, Descartes used the phrase as such only once. [1] [2] It appears there and in most reference works with a comma, but is often presented without a comma.
References
130.56.207.177 made this edit to the lede, changing "A fuller form, penned by Antoine Léonard Thomas …" to "A better version, articulated by Antoine Léonard Thomas". I favor the former as the latter introduces a judgment of quality, and does so without source. I'll hold off reverting pending discussion here. Humanengr ( talk) 21:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, that’s long enough. ‘Fuller’ is better than ‘better’. I’ll leave 130…’s ‘articulated’. Humanengr ( talk) 02:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I added a parenthetical at the end of the Translation section for a categorization of ‘I am thinking’ as ‘ progressive aspect’.
Here's a start on additional grammar-related material:
I also searched for but have not yet found a cite that considers the 'gnomic aspect' vis-à-vis the “I think” translation. The WP article on gnomic aspect indicates that when it is “[u]sed to describe a tense, the gnomic is considered neutral by not limiting action, in particular, to the past, present, or future. Examples of the gnomic include such generic statements as: 'birds fly'; 'sugar is sweet'; and 'a mother can always tell'." From the footnote: "These three examples may all be said to be in the present tense, but it is equally reasonable to consider that tense and temporality are simply not relevant to the examples, as all three express generic truths that are not limited by a specific placement in time or construct regarding the flow of time." (The “birds fly” and other examples seem in line with Blackburn’s “I ski” in the Translation section as they all carry the sense of “I occasionally” or “I can …”. I haven’t yet tracked down the cites from the gnomic article for examples and discussion there.)
Thoughts? Humanengr ( talk) 13:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Peteb4, your addition needs a cite to a reliable source. Humanengr ( talk) 16:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Though the intent of the author was to acknowledge his own existence, the phrase is often used as a positive affirmation for individuals who aspire to "be" or become something greater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7204:EEA8:B168:FE67:488C:7020 ( talk) 20:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
An IP
inserted ego in the first sentence without edit summary. Google and Google Scholar show many more hits for cogito, ergo sum than ego cogito, ergo sum; reference works use the former. GS shows 2x the hits for <"Truth by Natural light" OR "Recherche de la Vérité" "cogito ergo sum"> than <"Principia Philosophiae" OR "Principles of Philosophy" "ego cogito ergo sum">; those that cite Principia use it much more so for "cogito, ergo sum" than "ego cogito, ergo sum". Thoughts?
Humanengr (
talk) 22:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).