Talk:Cogito, ergo sum

message: 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)
thread_title:  Predecessors restored 

message: could someone tranlsate the really long latin phrase in the introduction.
. Racconish  Tk    16:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the really long latin phrase 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References in popular culture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Small change to beginning 

message: 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)
replies: text: The traditional, and best-known, translation is "I think therefore I am".  That's also the most literal translation.  However, the meaning is closer to "I think therefore I exist" in modern word usage. Piquan (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think therefore I am/exist? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The response to the Lichtenberg point is from Kant, not Williams 

message: 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:
:I think therefore I am
:I think
:I
Tgm1024 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kierkegaard.......not quite the breakdown I recall..... 

message: :"I think, therefore I am"
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)
replies: text: That's neither an example of game theory nor what "think" means in this context. The cogito is using the intransitive sense of "cogitate", not the transitive sense of "believing X to be true". My beliefs about your state are entirely based on my sense experiences, which can't be trusted prior to the deus ex cogitatione which restored Descartes trust in the external world. At that point, there's no need to bring the cogito into it. I think you exist because I again trust my senses that you're taking up space and wasting my time on the internet. — LlywelynII 03:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "You not think, therefore I am, and You are" 

message: The article begins:
:Cogito ergo sum (French: "Je pense donc je suis"; English: "I think, therefore I am") is a philosophical Latin statement proposed by René Descartes.
The original, in Discourse, appears as a non-capitalized, mid-sentence phrase:
: "Mais aussitôt après je pris garde que, pendant que je voulois ainsi penser que tout étoit faux, il falloit nécessairement que moi qui le pensois fusse quelque chose; et remarquant que cette vérité, je pense, donc je suis, étoit si ferme et si assurée, que toutes les plus extravagantes suppositions des sceptiques n'étoient pas capables de l'ébranler, je jugeai que je pouvois la recevoir sans scrupule pour le premier principe de la philosophie que je cherchois."
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:
:"Ac proinde hæc cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima & certissima, quæ cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat."
:English: "This proposition, I think, therefore I am, is the first and the most certain which presents itself to whoever conducts his thoughts in order."
What if we begin the article:
:The phrase "cogito ergo sum" (French: "je pense donc je suis"; English: "I think, therefore I am") is a Latin proposition by René Descartes.
Parallel minor adjustments should then made elsewhere in the article for consistency.  humanengr (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What a poorly-taken understanding. In every example you cite, Descartes is explicitly setting off that thought as a separate proposition—as a distinct sentence. The punctuation and capitalization in the original have no bearing on the fact that it's perfectly correct to discuss the proposition itself as a single laconic expression. It's what Descartes himself was doing. — LlywelynII 03:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apologies, had missed this. While it might be  to 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)
thread_title:  "original French statement" -- capitalization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NEW SECTION: In Descartes' Writings 

message: 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)
replies: text: Just in case anyone is still interested at this point, no, there is no case whatsoever for the subjunctive sois being needed here. The questioner is probably half-remembering the fact that the subjunctive is required in the subordinate clause following the verb penser used in the negative: Elle ne pense pas que cela soit possible (She doesn't think that's possible), as opposed to Elle pense que c'est possible (She thinks it's possible). Penser in the interrogative, rare in present-day French, can also take the subjunctive when the person asking the question already thinks the response will be negative: Pensez-vous que ce soit possible? (You don't really think it's possible do you?), as opposed to  Pensez-vous que c'est possible? (Do you think it's possible?). But in D's statement, there's no negative, no interrogative, and no subordinate clause, so no case for the subjunctive. Your resident French pedant, Awien (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  suis vs. sois 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the catch -- I removed the italics. (I had intended boldface, but now see it's better plain.) humanengr (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Forms Section 

message: 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:
 (, also ,  Classical Latin: , "I think, therefore  I am") … humanengr (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me.  — kwami (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Naahh. See below, in addition to which it's inaccurate: plenty of speakers use the French g; no one spoke classical Latin in Descartes time and most current Latin doesn't use it either; and we aren't proscriptivist here. Leave it to the Wiktionary entry. — LlywelynII 03:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation of ''cogito ergo sum'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please clarify -- are you referring to a particular section of the article? 'Doubt' appears over 20 times on the page; 'dubito' and 'god' 3 times each. humanengr (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  MISSING INFORMATION. 

message: a more accurate translation is - i doubt, therefore i am
:That would be "dubito", not "cogito". --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I.e., that's a less accurate translation. — LlywelynII 03:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cogito ergo sum 

message: 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)
thread_title: Responses

message: 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)
thread_title: [[WP:NOTADICTIONARY]]

message: 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  (thank you):
:Unfortunately, many of the very best philosophy pages lack Wikipedia acceptable references. It is what it is. It takes scarce expertise and time to make corrections, then the pages need to be protected against well meaning but ignorant editors and just plain vandalism. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If this happened on the GMO pages, all h*ll would break lose.  LOL.  Do you have any thoughts on this issue and if we can do something about it?  --David Tornheim (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just try to dedicate some time every week to find sources to fill the page with published opinions, and perhaps keep those pages on a to-do list as a reminder to yourself. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding [[WP:OR]] 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Your raising this issue prompts broader review of the Predecessors section in that, up to discussion of Adi Shankar, the focus is on the literal cogito rather than Descartes's intent as captured by Thomas in the dubito (see the intro and Other forms sections). Perhaps the preceding 'predecessors' shouldn't be presented so much as earlier claimants but rather as referents for contrast? humanengr (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Plato section of those who preceded him in the cogito ergo sum section seems off 

message: 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)
replies: text: @, Thank you for this edit. Re your “it’s still an important concept in philosophy”, perhaps we need some mechanism for indicating views that diverge from its use, per the intro, “to form a secure foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt.” E.g., Peirce, “rejected Descartes' appeal to universal doubt and revised the scope and the function of doubt within the process of scientific investigation. His principal concerns with Descartes' radical doubt were ...”. Not sure how to best make this connection here or in the radical doubt article. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section is too long

message: [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)
thread_title:  Comma in “cogito, ergo sum” 

message: 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)
thread_title:  dubito … "A better version" or "A fuller form" ?? 

message: 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:
#Wiktionary identifies the French 'pense', the English 'think', and the Latin 'cogito' as present tense.
#A general French language site, aside from using the cogito as an example for identification of ‘Je pense’ as French present tense and 'I think' as English simple present tense, indicates that the French tense can also correspond to the English continuous or progressive present. (The Wikipedia article on Continuous and progressive aspects does not provide a cite for its "French does not have a continuous aspect per se”.)
#A blog post titled 'Your pocket-sized guide to… French philosophy: René Descartes': "… The common English translation – 'I think therefore I am' – actually weakens the argument. The French version conveys his argument more successfully because ‘je pense’ can mean ‘I am thinking’ as well as ‘I think’. ‘I am thinking’ more clearly suggests that one exists as a result of their ability to think." However, the cite does not explicitly label the grammatical forms.
#Similarly, Rob Pope in Textual Intervention: “[N]either Descartes’ French version (Je pense, donc je suis) nor his Latin version (Cogito, ergo sum) admits … a distinction [between ‘language’ and ‘logic’] in purely verbal terms; for neither language distinguishes between progressive and non-progressive forms of the present tense (though each does have other means of signalling duration). Consequently, is it here the case that users of English (which has non-progressive and progressive forms of the present tense) are left with a problem - and a possibility - not routinely available to the users of French and Latin?”
#An Answer Key to A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin: A Supplement to the Text by John F. Collins: "In most instances, the verbs in the following sentences may be translated alternatively in the progressive aspect: puts to flight / is putting to flight. When you translate Latin, you need a larger context to decide which aspect to use. …" 
#Translating Latin Tenses into English on JSTOR: "The development of the progressive aspect has made impossible any easy correlation of English to Latin tenses … ."
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)
replies: text: Worked it through; hopefully it flows well enough; will add something directly from Lyons when I get access, unless someone finds that first. Humanengr (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical categorization of ‘I think’ and ‘I am thinking’ in French, Latin, English 

message: @, your addition needs a cite to a reliable source. Humanengr (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parmenides "For to be aware and to be are the same" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Do you have a cite for that? Humanengr (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding 

message: An IP inserted ego in the first sentence without edit summary. Google and Google Scholar show many more hits for  than ; 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)
thread_title:  ''ego cogito, ergo sum'' in lead sentence