I am Self-Aware - The Cogito vs The Dasein
Antonio Rossin wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>there is an assertion of self-awareness in both Descartes and
>>Heidegger; although, it is more implicit in the latter.
>>Descartes says 'I experience; therefore, I am'. clearly both embedded
>>statements ('I experience' and 'I am') assert self-awareness. in
>>Heidegger one must first translate the text into the first person
>>Heidegger himself says the being-here must use when addressing itself.
>>so, 'We are ourselves the entities to be analysed' [BaT 67] would
>>become 'I am this which I will analyze'. self-analysis inevitably
>>involves self-awareness.
>Then, it seems to me, self-analysis and self-awareness should be the
>same.
both Descartes and Heidegger would agree that self-awareness implies
self-analysis. Descartes wanted others to meditate along with him,
following in his footsteps, proceeding from self-awareness thru
self-analysis to discover their own answer to 'what am I'.
Heidegger makes self-awareness the mode of being peculiar to humans and
says that this mode of being takes its being as the subject of its
inquiry into being; so, its again like self-analysis.
>Which implies that he (Descartes - I don't know about Heidegger) could
>have stated: "sum, ergo cogito" as well.
Descartes could probably say "sum, ergo cogito". because it is stated in
the first person, there is the performance factor to consider. my
performance of an assertion of 'I am; therefore, I experience' shows
that I am experiencing --- my own assertiveness at the very least.
Heidegger speaks in the third person; and, if he says 'being implies
experiencing' he is foolish. in his view everything that is is a being
of some sort; so, a stone has being; but, it does not experience
anything at all.
>>>2. Why did he [Descartes] think it useful, himself stating that he
>>>exists as a soul? which target did he address his statement to?
>>Descartes was attempting to demonstrate the survival of soul after
>>the death of its body; hence, the emphasis on the distinction between
>>the soul and the body. in the 6th meditation Descartes concludes that
>>soul can exist without the body.
>Well, it seems to me, Descartes is far more renown for his initial
>statement, the cogito, than its attempted conclusions.
it's easier to remember Descartes' signature saying than follow his
complex argument; but, one can accept a statement like 'I experience;
therefore, I am' without accepting the arguments that lead to the
conclusion that soul can exist without the body.
in a sense, we know that Descartes started down the right path but took
a wrong turn somewhere. but where did he go wrong and how far could we
go if we didn't make his mistakes.
>>I agree. the fact of the speaking is the evidence that demonstrates
>>that the speaker is. the topic of the speech is irrelevant to this
>>purpose.
>Eh? Therefore, according with Forensic Inference, we could say that
>the topic of the speech is irrelevant as for its its related
>communication responsibility, to anyone who speaks to demonstrate...
>one exists.
>Or else, that the ones who speak to demonstrate that they exist don't
>feel any responsability for the communication impact that the topic of
>their speeches may have onto others. q. e. d.
>>you could be on to something here. I became interested in this area
>>of psycho-philosophy after taking up the the 'what am I?' meditation
>>to relieve stress. the meditation involves a kind of dialectic. after
>>asking 'what am I' and getting an answer, the meditator rejects the
>>answer. so there's a dialectic between 'I am an X' and 'no, [some
>>reason why 'X' does not define what I am].
>Quite interesting. As for myself, I had no psycho-phylosophic
>purposes, but I became interested in this area of psychology because
>of the implications of thinking, and communicating it to the faithful,
>onto individual and collective health.
>Let's suppose, starting from the (self)analysis of thinking, I've
>gegun to walk a Forensic Inference road up to Epistemology...
>From my pragmatic point of view, I analyze the two ends of the
>equation I am = I Think: (not exactly a true equation, indeed ;-) )
>1. (I think therefore) I am. Within any communication performance, I
>see this is a useless tautology leading nowhere.
>2. (I am therefore) I think. As far as one communicates one's own
>thinking to others, let's see this the starting point of a knowledge
>exchange, implying both the speaker's and the listener's responsibility
>for what is passing through. For what could and should be avoided as
>un-healthy and as a damage for survival.
>For instance, to avoid any fundamentalist reification caused by the
>educative imprinting of the "Principle of Authority", that's the Mother
>of all the behaviourally reified tautologies...
someone who abuses a position of authority or responsibility to hurt
someone else can be seen as operating with a self-destructive (and
other-destructive) cogito-like principle, 'I affect your life;
therefore, I am'. as performative argument, it works just as well as any
other; but, it's not an authentic lifestyle.
Joe
--
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. --- H-N Castaneda
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@^@
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
