I Think Therefore I Am: Not The First Of Three Valid And True Axioms

The first bit of awareness is not that you are thinking. It is of something. Something in reality. You sense first, then you think. It takes a multitude of sensations before you can have thought, or the manipulation and integration of concepts. As such, the very first statement, if you will, or thought you can make or the base of all cognition, epistemology and therefore philosophy is not 'I think therefore I am', but 'there is something I am aware of'. This entails an existent with identity and a consciousness to be aware of it. Existence comes before consciousness. There is one reality and we perceive it. Our view is subjective, but the world itself is not.

Views: 67


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Frankie Dapper on February 19, 2011 at 11:40pm

Boys and girls,

I think the vituperative rebuttals have run their course.

Interesting aside on animal cognition and self awareness-saw on nat geo an elephant skillfully painting landscape and elephants. I am not talking Jackson Pollock I mean good painting.

Comment by MCT on February 16, 2011 at 11:33pm


Well I think I have made it abundantly clear that you know very little. And the Hippocratic Oath is no exception to your ignorance. First of all, you spelled Hippocrates wrong. And second, the Hippocratic Oath is precisely about how a doctor practices the art and science of medicine, in respect to other health-care workers, patients and their family, but most of all it is an ethical commitment to maintain integrity in the decision making process, while treating a patient. And primum non nocere, or 'first do no harm', is in fact, directly regarding what to remember when considering a therapeutic intervention in a patient's health. It is not suggesting that there is something wrong in pointing out that a nihilistic view of the world fosters low self-esteem.

Comment by John Camilli on February 16, 2011 at 11:28am
I don't think the oath was 'do no harm to patients' was it? I mean what would I know, not being a genius doctor or anything.
Comment by MCT on February 15, 2011 at 11:35pm

Oh! Look whose claiming ad hominem! It's related, especially considering your recent post.

You are not my patient, so what do you think me being a doctor really has to do with it?
Comment by John Camilli on February 15, 2011 at 10:44pm
What a wonderful doctor, to rib someone about their self-esteem! To hell with ol' Hypocrates, eh? Lol. I'm not sure where that came from, since it had nothing to do with our discussion, but I'll let you wrestle with your own demons there. Good talkin to you
Comment by MCT on February 15, 2011 at 10:24pm


You are welcome. Feel free to grab any word I write on AN and arbitrarily suggest that it doesn't mean anything or cannot be defined because other people don't get it. Anytime you need to be set straight, just let me know and I will reluctantly oblige. That is if you wish to have clear thoughts about reality and not phantasmagorical nonsense at the foundation of your ethics. Your lack of focus is a clear cause of low self-esteem. Good luck with your nihilism.

Comment by John Camilli on February 15, 2011 at 4:25pm

And did you really just say "You are off subject and entirley arbitrary, ad infinitum?" As if that wasn't an attempt to sound more intelligent than you are, while invoking the childish mantra 'I'm smarter than you are. Y'huh, infinity more times than you can say n'huh!'


Wow, Michael, just wow. ROFL

Comment by John Camilli on February 15, 2011 at 4:22pm

You are one of the utmost educated people on the planet? I think you mean "foremost," or just "most" would be fine. Being garrulous does not mean you are educated. And if you are one of the most educated people on the planet, then god help us all! I used to think I was smart too, Michael, because I scored the highest at everything I did, I finished first and best, and people were in the habit of calling me smart, so it stuck in my head. I've lived in big enough places for it not to be big-fish-in-a-little-pond syndrome, but it wasn't until I grew tired of the accolades that I really started to realize how worthless it was. Comparing one's self to other humans is no measure of intellect. Compared to the torrents of information out there, we all have but a drop.


And I will stick to what pleases me, thank you.

Comment by MCT on February 15, 2011 at 1:34pm


Essentially nothing of what you have written is true. It does not matter if people cannot understand proper objective epistemology and metaphysics. That does not change the fact that existence exists and has primacy over consciousness which is what we use to perceive the identity in everything that has existence. Whether people can read or not, it is still the noncontradictory integration of concepts that makes knowledge. If a Russian believes the Earth is the center, then he simply does not have proper knowledge. His perceptions are correct, but his conception is not. I realize that I am among the utmost educated in the world and this is frustrating, to say the least, but no matter how comparitively less educated people are, the structure of their brains is still based on the 46 human chromosomes and reality doesn't change based on someone's IQ or education level. They still use logic and reason to create knowledge and act on emotional instict and feelings when they do not have the means to make knowledge.

Plato and Kant don't even remotely have similar ideas to me. I do not claim perfection of any kind for anything. Just personal freedom as a paramount ideal. I use objective reality as a standard. This is not compatible with either, dummy.

You are off subject and entirley arbitrary, ad infinitum. Equating choice with bipple doople. One is a very clear concept even a toddler understands and the other is jibberish. You are clearly OK with equating nonsense with knowledge as you have demonstrated and claimed more than several times that you do not have knowledge of anything. Absolute freedom is the illusion, not choice.

Really, dude, stick to poetry.

Comment by John Camilli on February 14, 2011 at 8:29pm

The first thing you said in this series of replies - "Choice is causal and dependent." - makes no sense. It would make sense if you substitute the word "fate" for "choice." Now before you fly off the handle, I don't mean fate as in the whole future of reality being predetermined. Im fine with  the idea that each moment is determined as it happens, but it is still determined; still caused, and that makes "fate" an accurate word for describing it, not "choice."


If it's caused; determined, then it's not properly called "choice." And us being ignorant of the causes that determine it does not make us the "chooser" of the outcome. If we expect that which is actually caused, then we can have the illusion of causing it, but there isn't something about our expectation that changes what it would have been.  


This is one of those definition problems I'm talking about, and it's why it is important that we have mutual understanding of identities. When you use the word "choice" the way you did, it invalidates, for me, any of the concepts that you build with it. To me, every time you use the word "choice," it's like you're saying "bipple doople." It's completely incongruous with my other ideas about reality. I'm sure I have some words or phrases that do the same thing to you, and that's why I think it's a fruitless endeavor to try to find universal truths. Even if you found them, everyone would misunderstand them differently and our ideas would continue to contradict.



Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service