Regarding the previous lesson (2) in Introduction to Philosophy
Hello Rabbi, I had a specific question about the previous lesson and I didn’t get to ask in real time.
The Rabbi singled out Descartes’ cogito as a symbol of rationalist, rather than empiricist, philosophical proof.
I wanted to clarify the point, I didn’t fully understand why it wasn’t an observation post, when I walk it’s definitely an observation post .
But even when I think, it is an observation. I observe that I think , and from this I conclude that I exist. It is simply a necessary observation that cannot be deceptive, unlike other observations.
I would be happy if the Rabbi could clarify this point for me, thanks in advance.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Perhaps it can be formulated that in the sentence "I observe that I think," the sting is already in "I observe," meaning I exist. If "I think" is my observation of my situation, then the cogito is activated on the observation itself.
No, because that could be argued and claimed that I am not observing. You need an assumption that is proven on its own basis (without observation).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
