1

why "thinking" jumped into the conclusion of "existence" as things can exist without thinking too. and what are all the other method except this that could prove our existence?

  • Thinking when with reflection on the process of thinking (what cogito is) immediately (this is not a logical inference at all and needs not to be) opens that there is somebody or something monitoring the process intimately. Here is then the existence. "To know is to know that I know". We don't have to prove our existence. – ttnphns Jul 19 '19 at 8:22
  • No, To know is to "think and come to know" that you know. "I know" is a result that thinking produces it. – RaGa__M Jul 19 '19 at 8:29
  • You are speaking now of the focusing on the final judgement when the object of the thought is "whether I know or not". I was speaking about a reflection accompanying a thought about, say a "this tree". When I think about the tree and reflect, while still thinking tree, at that thinking, I automatically bring about the existence of a subject besides the object. Reflection is the splitting of the thought process, not changing the object. – ttnphns Jul 19 '19 at 8:38
  • Things can exist without thinking, but can they think without existing? More to the point, how does "I" come out of "thinking"? Like other "methods", this one is flawed at "proving" something if one is determined enough to doubt it. – Conifold Jul 19 '19 at 9:17
  • 1
    Also see: philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/55469/33787 – christo183 Jul 19 '19 at 9:42

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.