Wed 21 Dec, 2011 05:23 am
Is Kierkegaard right about the cogito argument, when he writes: "If the I in cogito is understood to be an individual human being, then the statement demonstrates nothing: I am thinking ergo I am, but if I am thinking, no wonder, then, that I am; after all, it has already been said."
I would agree; because one cannot infer existence from a logical argument. One can demonstrate the argument, but the argument doesn't prove existence.
Wasn't the point of that statement to have something self evident, something it wasn't possible to doubt, to serve as the foundation for the rest of his philosophy?
Nietzche asked the question "who is this "I" that supposedly does the thinking?" As I understand it, he meant that Descartes' proof wasn't beyond doubt, and not self evident, as Descartes had intended it to be, but merely another assumption.
There is thinking, ergo there is thinking.
There is "I"ing*, ergo there is "I"ing, but not necessarily an "I" who is doing either thinking or "I"ing.
*focusing on the idea or feeling of a subject of experience or an agent of action. I believe that is consistent with both Nietzsche and mystical philosophy. Nietzsche was not a mystic yet he found the Buddhist position (of Anatman) to be reasonable.
I like Nietzsche's comment about philosophers' tendency to present their work in great systems where everything fits together. I think he called it "their lie". I think it was in "Beyond good and evil". He says that thoughts come in a chaotic manner and the systematic orderliness that philosophers present isn't there in the nature of the things being presented. I think he said something like; "thoughts come when they want, not when the thinker wants them".
I've always considered Nietzsche to be more honest than most philosophers.
By all means, profoundly honest. That's why he is known for his indifference to contradictions. He doesn't mortgage his mental future to what he says in the past. Another form of this, I think, is his rejection of systems. The attempt to create systems with total internal consistency is forced rather than spontaneous. Moreover, there's the danger that in a system if one thing fails it all fails--even falls.
S.K's philosophy is really personal and existential. His philosophy was concerned with "actuality" (making a decision and living it) as opposed to Descartes "cogito,ergo, sum". This was Kierk's appeal to Descartes which is I act therefore, I am. (Or so as how I understood😃)
I like that, well said, and true.
There is another dimension to his thought that you might like. I knew a K. fan who not only didn't know about this, he was thrilled to find out it exists
The Difference Between a Genius and an Apostle -- by Kierkegaard
I wish I could 'make' everyone on here read it. The assumption on here seems to be that Jesus picked Apostles with a view to convincing the world by brilliance and education. but that would downplay the part of God in Faith.