Posted by Benji on January 05, 19101 at 07:42:36:

In Reply to: Cogito, ergo sum posted by Culley Smith on September 20, 1998 at 19:45:37:

My friend, you state 'by the nature of what a thought is...', and in doing so presume that you know what the nature of a thought is.
The simple fact is there is no definitive evidence for what a thought actually is (then again is there definitive evidence- Evil Demon and all- for anything?) and so that renders your statement a fallacy.
The entire subject of what the metaphysical is has been the forefront of philosophical debate for thousands of years, that's why Descartes' statement is regarded as being so profound.
It almost gives us proof of our own existence; almost. Sadly, though, due to your presumptive attitude your statement is washed away by the essential fact that no-one can define the metaphysical.
Simply, there is no 'nature' of what a thought is.

Barry Benjamin Taylor, Fallowfield, Manchester

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup