Just one letter can change your whole world view (caution - possible religious thread)

Quick, John, I got the shakes...

is there a meeting nearby?... 

 You forgot the Clydesdale mantra...

"Edo, ergo sum":  I eat, therefore I am.

Cogito, dim sum

I think these are dumplings

Non illegitimi carborundum.

Seriously, I am not embarrassed to say I don't understand what Don is asking. To me, though why I am is of less concern than the fact that I am.

Why am I here? To do what I can

Why am I? Because it needs doing

Why? 42 

I yam what I yam

(popeye_half.gif)

(yams.png)

Mmmmm, yams...... *drool*

I forgot to eat breakfast.

Somebody on COJ is embarrased? That would be a first.

Plus, I just gotta add Frank Sinatra's response to Hamlet's To be or not to be is, as everyone knows, do be do be doo...

I think, therefore I am, is the setup for modern thought. The idea that self-knowledge is the starting point both for understanding the self and for understand God.

Or for understanding the lack of God. Nietzsche couldn't have declared that "God is dead", without first believing that "Cogitor, ergo sum".

I am thought, therefore I am, proposes that knowledge of reality, both of the self and of the transcendent (god by any name), starts with the notion that I am known by something greater than myself. And that being known by this greater thing is the basis for meaning in my life.

Two completely different views of reality.

It seems to me that this question cuts to the heart of discussions like the Da Vinci Code one. It's sorta the first step. And I'm genuinely interested in hearing where people are at on this.

Right, but in this case the "other" is not another human person but a transcendent "being".  Call the other "being" what you will: god, life force, spirit, whatever. 

I am descidedly humanist in my thought, but do not reject the "supernatural" because I believe that

 Nobody knows everything, even collectively we as humans don't know everything....sicence points this out to us every day. Therefore, in realizing that there are limits on understanding, and likely always will be, the supernatural exists.

Now I'll admit that I am not so sure that there is a big  bearded, sandal-wearng, invisible guy in the sky who is moving the universe around like a chess board. However, even if such an entity is absent, we are still obligated to treat each other well...in order, perhaps for the species to continue.

Manners define society, and society defines manners.

Is there an "I" ....it doesn't matter. There are things to be done, get to it......Chop wood carry water.

There's nothing simplistic about that!

How did you come to this conclusion?

It seems to me that everyone at some time in their life asks the questions: who am I, what am I doing here, what is my purpose, how do I fit into the grand scheme of things, is there a grand scheme of things.

And is seems that the conslusions people draw come from a whole variety of human experiences. For some, it is laying on your back as a child and gazing at the stars. For others, it's sitting on a beach and watching the waves. Maybe it's sitting by a fire and watching the flames.

For many, it comes from early experience with religious tradition and ritual. For others, it comes from rational thought that at times seems in conflict with religion.

Many people also draw their conclusions because of their relationships with other people.

How did yours come about?

And Don, correct me if I'm wrong, but "If I am perceived, then I must exist" in Baader's case it MUST be God that is doing the perceiving.  The fact that others (man) perceive me is incidental.  I am perceived by God, therefore I exist. (this is the end of where I'm asking Don if this is right or not as presented by Baader because from here on I don't think he will agree with me.) 

This can be re-phrased to say that if there is no God, I do not exist, however I clearly exist, therefore there must be a God.  Some would say that is a simplistic truism used to amaze and confound the masses.

I ascribe to Rene Descartes' philosophy of "I think, therefore I am."  I am aware of my own thoughts and that is quantifiable in my mind.  This is a far more comforting thought than Baader's philosophy of my existence being dependent on the "thought" of another being, human or otherwise.  As I cannot read minds, I can never be sure that anyone else is actually thinking, much less thinking of me.  Anyways it just smacks of a bad acid flashback to me!

That is a good point.

Again, the alternative is Descartes', where my own knowledge of myself is good enough.  This could still lead to a belief in a transcendent being that knows me, or it could also lead to a belief that there is no higher transcendent being. 

Right.  If my interpretation of Baader's intent is correct, he simply rephrased Descartes statement to force the necessary inclusion of the existence of God.  Descartes statement (in a way) allows free will on the issue.  It could be argued that God Himself would be in favor of Descartes statement (if one were to presume what God would and would not favor) as demonstrated by Himself granting man free will.

LOL! Oh, so now you're forcing me to get philosophical! I just don't think there are any therefore's about it. If I got knocked in the head and never again thought a thought, I'd still exist. I'd be unaware of my existence, others wouldn't. So then it'd be the option with an 'r'.  If I faked my death, escaped into the woods and no one ever heard from or saw me again, I'd be the only one aware of my existence and it's be the sans-'r' option (I suppose I'm neglecting God, but I don't think He sits around and thinks about me in order to sustain my existence...). For now, I'm aware of my existence and others are too, so for now, it's both.

It is what it is. I guess I did all the searching and wondering and seeking for all the why's and wherefores (not that I expect that I'm done with that for the remainder of my life) and came up empty and now my philosophy is exactly that, 'it is what it is'. I am who I am (which I have the power to change). I have what I have (most of which is the result of my hard work and good choices, but a good bit was luck or windfall). I believe that I have most of the power to positively or negatively effect my own life, but that there is a huge portion which is out of my hands and I have to accept and work with what I get from that arena. I believe that genorosity and kindness will only affect me positively and that I will get out of life what I put into it.