Welcome to Gaia! ::

Hmmm. There probably are more meaningless statements out there, so I wouldnt be so sure...

And what do you mean by "meaningless" anyway?

Because "Cogito ergo sum" does mean something, after all:

It means "If I am thinking, then I exist."

or alternatively "I exist, because I am thinking."

Sure, you can say that the statement is unsupported in that it assumes "I am thinking," but that in itself does not make it meaningless, right?

Dont you believe that every proof has assumptions, that is "the nature of proofs?"

If so, then isnt every single proof out there absolutely meaningless?

Why, to summarize, do you think "Cogito ergo Sum" is meaningless?

Thanks for the clarification. To be honest, I had already read that thread, and was much enlightened but not completely so.

I have a few questions/contentions:

1.) - Can you prove that? No. So you must then be speaking on the level of opinion?

2.) Could you explain a bit more about what you mean by "meaningless?" Because I certainly got something out of "Cogito ergo sum" even if you didnt, and therefore that phrase represents successful communication between Descartes and myself, which is the essence of meaning, right?

3.) -If "Cogito Ergo Sum" is meaningless, then what else is meaningless? It seems to me that your standards may be far too high. Statements that are not true can still be meaningful, no?

4.) -So? Just because the statement is unprovable doesnt mean it is meaningless! If so, every statement would be meaningless as every statement relies on assumptions that are unprovable.

5.) - I dont think so. I think "I" is a noun referring to an object/set/class, usually a human being, usually the specific human being that originated the thought or sentence that contains the word "I." It is possible for "I" to refer to someone who does not exist, as happens often in works of fiction. (e.g. "I am Ozymandias, King of Kings...")

Thus, the statement "I exist" means "the object/set/class (I am not sure what term to use) that is supposedly doing the talking, does in fact have an instance in the real world." Thus "I am Ozymandias, King of Kings, I exist" is a false statement, (to my knowledge) because whoever Ozymandias is he does not exist in this world. Even though the statement was written by a real human poet, the person or object to which the "I" refers--and who supposedly wrote the statement--does not exist.

6.) I would agree with larya-chan, in that things which do not exist can have the impression of thinking. So I am by no means saying that Descartes was right, just that his statement does, in fact, have meaning.

zz1000zz, as far as I can tell either I dont understand anything you said or else you are completely wrong.

Keep in mind, I have not had any instruction in logic whatsoever. So perhaps you are holding me to a too-high standard. I apologize in advance for any failures I may or may not have committed.

That said, I do say that I would much rather you respond rudely than not at all. I wont hold it against you if you lose your temper; I will focus instead on your arguments and continue to do my best to think through all of this.

I await your responses to my questions, or alternatively attempts to explain your posts in ways that I can understand.


...

P.S. I am quite suprised by this. What I said makes perfect sense to me, and (for the most part) so did what you said.

Probably.


Ah, so you didnt mean it as some categorical argument! You were just using hyperbole! I see now; at first glance I thought you were asserting something that should not be asserted. So, we can agree that this is your opinion and not a proof?



Yes, more on that later.



I dont think I ignored what you said. I dont think I made things up.

"I never said...meaningless" -Well, that is what I thought you said. You see, you said it was the most meaningless thing, etc. and then in the very next sentence you said "'I think' and 'I am' are improvable." That implied that you thought a phrase was meaningless if it could not be proven.




You seem to be saying that in order for a phrase to have meaning it must... leave a person "better off" for having read it?
What do you mean by "better off?"

"It gives us nothing 'I' does not give." -So, the phrase is meaningless because it could be expressed just as well in a simpler form? Is that what you are saying?

Personally, my criteria for meaning in a phrase is (as I have already said) is whether or not I, the reader, got something out of it, some communication of some sort from the author to myself. That is why I think the phrase has meaning. I think that we probably have different definitions of "meaning;" I am trying to understand what yours is.




Okay.



Hmmm. As it happens, my discussion of "I" in fiction was intended to explain my disagreement with your second paragraph, the one that says:



I think that the word "I" does not necessarily imply existence. As I pointed out, Ozymandias said the word "I" yet he does not exist.

You could argue that Ozymandias did not actually say it, that in fact it was the live poet who said it, but even then you are forced to admit that the poet was not referring to himself with his "I," proving that it is possible for "I" not to imply "I am."

When Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote "I am Ozymandias," he was not saying "I, Percy, Exist."

Since "I" does not imply "I am," there IS a distinction between
"I think therefore I am" and "I."

See?

...


Please point out my errors; I am confident that you will see many.

P.S. I think that it is fine that you call my reasoning stupid, annoying, infantile, nonsensical, etc. I dont mind, and at least you have an outlet for your emotions. As long as you explain why, that is. wink

It might take me a while to wrap my head around that. So, by your standards, in order for a phrase to have meaning it must "add something" or make the reader "better off?"

It would help if you could explain what you mean by "add something" or "better off." I do agree first of all that "I think therefore I am" only succeeds in pushing the axiom back one step, from "I am" to "I think." To me, though, that still "adds something." I think I am better off for having read "I think therefore I am."




Not knowing anything about high-level metaphysics, or "the people" to which you refer, that passes completely over my head. I suppose it doesnt matter too much?



I dont think saying "I" implies that he existed. This may be getting down to semantics here, but I think the fact that he does not, in fact, exist is reason to formulate our definition of "I" so that it does not imply existence. Because if our definition of "I" necessarily implies existence, then... saying "I" is logically false in the case of Ozymandias? I think that is an unreasonable definition of "I."

I have proposed a better definition of the word "I," which speak of the devil is the very next thing you discussed...



Notice how I said "usually." Emphasis on the word "Usually." Usually, the noun "I" refers to the specific human being that originated the thought or sentence, but not always. Sometimes "I" can refer to someone else, even someone like Ozymandias who does not exist.

Just because most people fail to grasp the significance of a sentence does not mean the sentence is meaningless. I would say that as long as at least one person understands or grasps the significance of a sentence, that sentence "has meaning" because it is a successful communication of an idea between two people. I agree with you that most people erroneously take it as a proof that they exist, but so long as I at least can see how it really just pushes back the axiom one step, the sentence has meaning.*

Perhaps I should clarify:

My definition of Meaning is as follows: "A word or phrase is said to have meaning when it successfully communicates an idea from one person (the author) to another (the reader) so that the idea (combination of electric pulses, whatever) in the head of the latter matches or is the equivalent of the idea in the head of the former."

Notice that the idea doesnt have to be true, and it doesnt have to make anyone healthier or happier or "better off." My definition basically describes whatever it is about squiggly black lines that makes them more than just squiggly black lines- the fact that they communicate, or equivalently the fact that they are interpeted as something else besides ink.

So you see, by my definition "Cogito Ergo Sum" most likely has meaning.**

*If you could prove to me that when Descartes wrote the sentence he literally meant it as a proof of existence, and not just moving the axiom back one step, then the sentence still does have meaning because it is a successful communication of an idea, etc.

**If you could prove that every author of the phrase, from Descartes onward, intended it in a way that was not grasped by any reader, if you could prove that the phrase has not successfully communicated any idea, then yes the phrase would have no meaning.

Okay... so now you are saying I shouldnt have taken you literally?

Now you are saying that I should have understood and acted on the intent or the spirit of your statement, instead of the literal meaning?

Fine.

But dont expect me to apologize for taking you literally. All you had to say was, in the very beginning of this argument, something like "Oh, well, of course there is some meaning in the phrase. But I am sure you agree the phrase is overused and not nearly as important as it is trumpeted as being." If you had said that, I would have stopped "griping" immediately, and probably agreed with you. Instead, you defended your statement as true, saying that I was the one who did not "understand what [you] said in the slightest."

So I really wasnt griping, zz1000zz. I was trying to understand your argument, trying to understand how you could say such a thing as "'Cogito ergo sum' is the most meaningless statement to ever become widely known." Because, as I have mentioned before, I am not confident in my own abilities as a logician, and therefore was troubled by my inability to agree with your simple statement.

...

And as for your analogy with eugenics and racial purity,

I might indeed "gripe," not because I am trying to catch you in a falsehood, but because (in this hypothetical scenario) I do not realize that you are speaking facetiously. Since I do not know you in person, and since my experience of your writing has up until this point been characterized by meticulous adherence to logic (indeed, I have sometimes seen you call out people for being offended by your insinuations by saying that you did not directly insult them), this lack of "situational awareness" is, I think, understandable.

In the future, thanks to this conversation, I will be sure to take your more audacious statements with a grain of salt. This will ensure that the discussion stays relevent and does not collapse into semantics.