Talk:Cogito, ergo sum

Predecessors restored
The section "Predecessors", however well documented and philosophically relevant, has been - I hope inadvertently - deleted. I restored it in another place, after "Introduction" and without the misleading Hamlet quotation. On the other hand, the section "Criticisms" only repeats the misunderstanding, as if the Cogito would have been for Descartes a syllogism. Descartes himself responded to it, as it appeared in the "Objections" to his Meditations, and in the article it is explained in the first paragraph of the section "Introduction". In this discussion, User:Mel Etitis explains it correctly as well. But some people seem to prefer writing (or deleting) before reading. --Sokoljan (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

the really long latin phrase
could someone tranlsate the really long latin phrase in the introduction.

✅. Racconish  Tk 16:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

References in popular culture
This is a common theme in movies and television: "The Matrix," "Inception," etc. .. I just felt this could be something worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.172.104 (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary Images?
The two images under the Criticism section have little to no relevance to the section or the article at all, and seems they were put there only to be captioned. Style makes no mention of using images in this way, furthermore it looks unprofessional and doesn't add anything. I am deleting them. Ajoones (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I generally disagree. The perfect article does recognize the usefulness of images to break up large amounts of text for the sake of reader engagement. What's more, I have always found that a picture and caption provides a good opportunity to summarize the text beside it. Far from "unprofessional", I think images used this way make for a more pleasant read - especially for highly visual audiences like myself.


 * That having been said, the question mark picture was a little weak. Less so Rodin's Thinker. My point would be that, rather than removing images completely, I would always prefer to see them replaced with even more creative, helpful metaphors or examples.-Tesseract2 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You make a good point, and a relevant picture would definitely be more aesthetically pleasing. Feel free to revert my edit or add a better picture. Ajoones (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Small change to beginning
I deleted the section saying that Descartes had not used the term 'therefore' in the meditations because he wanted to avoid the implication that the cogito depended upon an inferential argument.

Although this is the kind of thing that you sometimes read in introductory texts, there is simply no textual evidence for it at all. Indeed, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out, the idea that the meditations doesn't contain an inferential argument for the conclusion whilst the Discourse does is dead wrong: the meditations is the place where the argument is most explicitly developed.

Of course, Descartes in the objections and replies, and later letters, did sometimes assert that the cogito was not based on a syllogism (see Williams' book for a sophisticated and moderately plausible interpritation of exactly what he meant). The point remains: in Meditations 2 he phrases it as an arugment.

BTW, here's what I think: the argument leads us to the cogito conclusion, but isn't required to justify it. The 'cogito ergo sum' argument is propoganda, but isn't justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.129.189 (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think therefore I am/exist?
Why are there two translations given in the text "I think therefore I exist" and later on "I think therefore I am"? Sarahhofland (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The traditional, and best-known, translation is "I think therefore I am". That's also the most literal translation.  However, the meaning is closer to "I think therefore I exist" in modern word usage. Piquan (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it can't be clearer than that. Sarahhofland (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Cannot Figure Out How To Post Properly section

Just a question regarding modern extrapolations, or colloquialisms of the phrase: Is it proper to note them, or reference them? If so, how is it done?

I am asking regarding this phrase that brought me here: Cogito ergo armatum sum

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Cogito_ergo_armatum_sum_mean

66.66.148.239 (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The response to the Lichtenberg point is from Kant, not Williams
Williams refers to the argument later in the book as "of course, just an argument from Kant" from, I believe, the Prolegomena. Typical Williams to not make it clear in the Cogito chapter. The slogan from the Critique is "the rational psychologist mistakes the unity of apperception for the perception of a unity". Clearly this needs fixing. Maybe I will do it at some point. &mdash;Sean Whitton / 16:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Kierkegaard.......not quite the breakdown I recall.....
I'll certainly yield to the authors here, but I remember that a fundamental tenet to the Kierkegaard criticism was that, yes, the I does in fact presuppose the existance of its own narrator, but that the breakdown is something more akin to:


 * I think therefore I am
 * I think
 * I

Tgm1024 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"You not think, therefore I am, and You are"

 * "I think, therefore I am"

Using Game Theory,

I think that you think, though You do not think, therefore I am and You are (relative to me). You are DEAD!

Likewise, I think You think that I think, therefore I am, You are and I am. (I2+You)

Likewise, I think You think I think, though You do not think I think, therefore I 2 am and You2 are. You are ALIVE!

Are both I the same, when think(s) are different? NO, I change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.212.105 (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's neither an example of game theory nor what "think" means in this context. The cogito is using the intransitive sense of "cogitate", not the transitive sense of "believing X to be true". My beliefs about your state are entirely based on my sense experiences, which can't be trusted prior to the deus ex cogitatione which restored Descartes trust in the external world. At that point, there's no need to bring the cogito into it. I think you exist because I again trust my senses that you're taking up space and wasting my time on the internet. — Llywelyn II   03:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"original French statement" -- capitalization
The article begins:
 * Cogito ergo sum (French: "Je pense donc je suis"; English: "I think, therefore I am") is a philosophical Latin statement proposed by René Descartes.

The original, in Discourse, appears as a non-capitalized, mid-sentence phrase:
 * "Mais aussitôt après je pris garde que, pendant que je voulois ainsi penser que tout étoit faux, il falloit nécessairement que moi qui le pensois fusse quelque chose; et remarquant que cette vérité, je pense, donc je suis, étoit si ferme et si assurée, que toutes les plus extravagantes suppositions des sceptiques n'étoient pas capables de l'ébranler, je jugeai que je pouvois la recevoir sans scrupule pour le premier principe de la philosophie que je cherchois."

Capitalization of the phrase quite arguably contributes to the assumption that "I think therefore I am" was a complete statement in and of itself. (It is often restated as a sentence.) That, in turn, discourages many from any further exploration to discover Descartes' intent.

As indicated further down in the introduction, Descartes repeated this phrase mid-sentence in Principles of Philosophy (here in Latin), where he referred to the phrase as a proposition:


 * "Ac proinde hæc cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima & certissima, quæ cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat."
 * English: "This proposition, I think, therefore I am, is the first and the most certain which presents itself to whoever conducts his thoughts in order."

What if we begin the article:
 * The phrase "cogito ergo sum" (French: "je pense donc je suis"; English: "I think, therefore I am") is a Latin proposition by René Descartes.

Parallel minor adjustments should then made elsewhere in the article for consistency. humanengr (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What a poorly-taken understanding. In every example you cite, Descartes is explicitly setting off that thought as a separate proposition—as a distinct sentence. The punctuation and capitalization in the original have no bearing on the fact that it's perfectly correct to discuss the proposition itself as a single laconic expression. It's what Descartes himself was doing. — Llywelyn II   03:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, had missed this. While it might be perfectly correct to capitalize it in some contexts, not only Descartes but most others don't -- see, e.g., this Google ngram. Humanengr (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

NEW SECTION: In Descartes' Writings
The historical provenance should be made clear in a new section entitled "In Descartes' Writings". I've gathered the relevant material in my sandbox. (NB: This pulls in the "Ac proinde …" and translation sentences from the current summary -- to address criticism re summary length; it also includes the dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum material that had been in the summary.)

Would this work as the lead section, preceding what is now the Introduction (which would be renamed "Interpretation")? Or should the new Intro contain only the first sentence in the sandbox and the rest of the material split off for a section at the bottom of the article? humanengr (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

suis vs. sois
Descartes himself said "je pense, donc je suis". But doesn't "je pense, donc je sois" seem somehow more grammatically correct in French? (The subjunctive doesn't work as well in English -- "I think, therefore I be", but it does work in French...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:1502:26BE:5FF:FE1D:BCA1 (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just in case anyone is still interested at this point, no, there is no case whatsoever for the subjunctive sois being needed here. The questioner is probably half-remembering the fact that the subjunctive is required in the subordinate clause following the verb penser used in the negative: Elle ne pense pas que cela soit possible (She doesn't think that's possible), as opposed to Elle pense que c'est possible (She thinks it's possible). Penser in the interrogative, rare in present-day French, can also take the subjunctive when the person asking the question already thinks the response will be negative: Pensez-vous que ce soit possible? (You don't really think it's possible do you?), as opposed to Pensez-vous que c'est possible? (Do you think it's possible?). But in D's statement, there's no negative, no interrogative, and no subordinate clause, so no case for the subjunctive. Your resident French pedant, Awien (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Other Forms Section
The italicization of the final extended Latin quote in this section changes in the middle of it. I didn't want to change it in case the author meant something, but it looks to me like a typo... Cogito-Ergo-Sum (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the catch -- I removed the italics. (I had intended boldface, but now see it's better plain.) humanengr (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

pronunciation of cogito ergo sum
The Latin pronunciations, both as rendered in modern English and in Classical Latin, were initially included in June 2013. The reader is referred to the Reference Desk/Language discussion on rendering OED pronunciation for Latin words in IPA on recent edits. The below continues that discussion:

The original version of ‘sum’ was transcribed as per OED and Collins as ‘sʊm’. Subsequent edits changed that to 'sʌm'. It is proposed now to include both versions so the article would begin:

Cogito ergo sum (, also , Classical Latin: , "I think, therefore  I am") … humanengr (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. — kwami (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Naahh. See below, in addition to which it's inaccurate: plenty of speakers use the French g; no one spoke classical Latin in Descartes time and most current Latin doesn't use it either; and we aren't proscriptivist here. Leave it to the Wiktionary entry. — Llywelyn II   03:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I accept the conclusion above: pronunciation belongs on Wiktionary -- but then there should be a Wiktionary link. But where? I tried putting a Wiktionary template understand the Descartes box, but this leaves it well down the page, and not very obvious to anyone who wonders how to pronounce the Latin. Is it possible to add a Wkt link as a footnote somehow? Suggestions? Imaginatorium (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

MISSING INFORMATION.
By leaving out Dubito (as promoted by religious people), you have changed the message of Descartes. His doubting (Dubito) of religious authority is the beginning of his thinking (Cogito). Then, because he can think about things (not be a pawn in the game of "controlling people with religion." ie the Dark Ages) he concludes that he does exist (Ergo Sum). I'm very disappointed with this omission. It also should go under Teleology since that article promotes "Ends" and ignores the rejection of same. 63.245.178.216 (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Randy C Hamilton
 * Please clarify -- are you referring to a particular section of the article? 'Doubt' appears over 20 times on the page; 'dubito' and 'god' 3 times each. humanengr (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Cogito ergo sum
a more accurate translation is - i doubt, therefore i am
 * That would be "dubito", not "cogito". --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I.e., that's a less accurate translation. — Llywelyn II   03:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Responses
Not sure how important he is these days but Franz von Baader's cogitor ergo cogito et sum seems like a pretty clear homage, even if he did reject Descartes as slippy on the slope to atheism. — Llywelyn II   03:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTADICTIONARY
French pronunciation of French, let alone laundry lists of English mispronunciations of Latin, don't go here. They go in Wiktionary. It would be different in a case like Thailand where the recognizably "correct" pronunciation doesn't follow standard English orthography, but to the extent that the cogito has a "correct" pronunciation, it's a perfectly straightforward one. Further, the IPA mess of regional variations to the pronunciation (which didn't even include the British pronunciation of ergo yet) is just an eyesore. — Llywelyn II   04:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Latin entry for cogito ergo sum for the curious. Variant French and English pronunciations could be added [edit: there ], since they both use this expression as well. — Llywelyn II   03:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Computers do not think.
I would like to point out that even though this conversation is actually using a computer zipping bytes through the ether, it does not have even the inkling of an idea that it is doing so. Yet, it still exists. This does not, therefore, prove existence on non-existence. It just asserts that the observer can state he exists even though he may be disembodied as a spirit.-- Michael Flower (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * a. Of course it knows that it's sending the packets of information. If the internet weren't checking the packets for errors, receipt, &c., it wouldn't work.


 * b. Regardless of that, your 'argument' is a non sequitur. If the computer weren't thinking or aware in the sense Descartes intends, then it falls outside the scope of his argument entirely. You probably mean something closer to a rock exists and doesn't think, therefore Descartes is wrong that thinking is a necessary condition for existence. However, that's not something he ever argued. You only know the rock's existence from your senses and, from his vantage of extreme doubt, it could be doubted. The assumption of the rock is already the assumption that your senses are perfectly valid. Fine, in its way, for getting through your life but completely irrelevant to Descartes's project of seeing if it's possible to philosophically ground our understanding without the initial use of information from our untrustworthy senses. — Llywelyn II   03:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding WP:OR
I saw you had mentioned this article on Jimbo's talk page here. (FYI. I am well familiar with the phrase and Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy having studied it in graduate school.)  This article and another I looked at (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding) appear to me to be more WP:OR than anything else. I brought this up at the second article here and at WikiProject_Philosophy here and the only response was from (thank you):
 * Unfortunately, many of the very best philosophy pages lack Wikipedia acceptable references. It is what it is. It takes scarce expertise and time to make corrections, then the pages need to be protected against well meaning but ignorant editors and just plain vandalism. BlueMist (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If this happened on the GMO pages, all h*ll would break lose. LOL.  Do you have any thoughts on this issue and if we can do something about it?  --David Tornheim (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just try to dedicate some time every week to find sources to fill the page with published opinions, and perhaps keep those pages on a to-do list as a reminder to yourself. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Plato section of those who preceded him in the cogito ergo sum section seems off
I think the attribution of Plato as preceding Descarte in his cogito formulation is wrong and should be removed. The order is wrong, for in Plato it is the sensibleness of the external world which indicates there is something which is sensing, and this makes absolute sense given Plato's epistemology being tied to his ontology of the forms. However, in denying Platonism as Descarte did his epistemology starts with doubting the sensibleness of the external world, and it was this very doubting with caused him to retreat to the formulation of the cogito as being the stable existent internal subject. In short, Plato is an inverse Descartes and does not precede him. In Plato the external illuminates, while in Descarte it is the internal. My guess is Plato would have though Descartes extremely misguided. In fact, Catherine Pickstock in her work "After Writing" convincingly ties Descartes epistemology to the Sophism of Plato's opponents and lays out in some detail how Platonic and Descartian epistemology and ontology are diametrically opposed."I think therefore I am", it can be said, is a direct refusal of Plato's epistemology, not indebted to it.Jgayaldo (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your raising this issue prompts broader review of the Predecessors section in that, up to discussion of Adi Shankar, the focus is on the literal cogito rather than Descartes's intent as captured by Thomas in the dubito (see the intro and Other forms sections). Perhaps the preceding 'predecessors' shouldn't be presented so much as earlier claimants but rather as referents for contrast? humanengr (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section is too long
Philosophical articles and articles in similar topics often have much 'critique', meaning disagreeing response from others in the field, but this one is ridiculous. The criticism section shouldn't be half of the article. It makes the statement look like it has been debunked into oblivion when in reality it's still an important concept in philosophy. I'm going to cut a lot of this section per WP:UNDUE. Some of the criticism isn't even criticism; as noted above, Heidegger says the statement could be shortened and is a bit awkwardly formed, not that it's wrong. Some of the others very generally criticize the concept, not the statement. I'll remove the sort of overview thing because the only criticism of things like these should be addressed as criticism from others in the field. It shouldn't be a compressed collection of individual criticisms. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @, Thank you for this edit. Re your “it’s still an important concept in philosophy”, perhaps we need some mechanism for indicating views that diverge from its use, per the intro, “to form a secure foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt.” E.g., Peirce, “rejected Descartes' appeal to universal doubt and revised the scope and the function of doubt within the process of scientific investigation. His principal concerns with Descartes' radical doubt were ...”. Not sure how to best make this connection here or in the radical doubt article. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Comma in “cogito, ergo sum”
[prompted by consideration of this edit]

Descartes wrote it with a comma in French (1637) and Latin (1644). Gutenberg and the cited The Philosophical Works of Descartes, rendered into English, Haldane and Ross (1911), both include a comma in their English translations.

The dubito elaboration already has the comma.

The cogito appears 11 times in the article — including the title and a template at the bottom.

I’m inclined to go with the above provenance. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 04:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Cogito ergo sum → Cogito, ergo sum – Inserting comma to comport with Descartes's usage, key English translations, etc. -- see last section on Talk page. Humanengr (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. The unpunctuated form will, of course, remain as a redirect.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support; makes sense and seems consistent with sources. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  09:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unsure. According to the article, Decartes never used this exact formulation; the closest he came was "ego cogito...", which as far as I've heard is never quoted.  So what we say is more of a paraphrase, and paraphrases don't inherit punctuation; they either require punctuation inherently or they don't.  And in Latin this phrase doesn't require it, which may be why it's seldom cited with a comma.  To be perfectly strict, Latin was originally written without punctuation as we know it, but we apply it for readability.  Now we would definitely place a comma there in English, but I don't think we would in Latin unless quoting the original phrasing, "ego cogito, ergo sum".  But that's not how we'd normally say it in Latin, which might be at least part of the reason why it's never quoted that way.  Cogito ergo comma optionalis, igitur ut scripta aliis, sine puncta.  P Aculeius (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @, thx for those considered comments and for prompting a further search --> Descartes did pen "cogito, ergo sum" in the posthumous 1683 Inquisitio veritatis per lumen naturale (which was eventually re-published in Adam et Tannery). Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's certainly relevant if he ever used that exact phrasing, although it's still not straightforward if everyone is in fact misquoting or paraphrasing what was said on another occasion (and what really is the difference between paraphrasing something said on one occasion, and misattributing an exact quotation to the wrong source?). But there's still one issue: how is the phrase usually quoted/used?  It's fair to say that Descartes formulated the same thought in multiple wordings, and that one of them corresponds exactly to the proposed title, while none of them corresponds precisely to the present title.  But if the phrase is usually, or almost always, presented without a comma, then the current title reflects the phrase as commonly known, even though it's not exactly how Descartes penned it.  And that's okay, too.
 * Sometimes familiar sayings aren't word-for-word what the source said. Descartes never uttered the words, "I think, therefore I am", but we remember the phrase that way as though he wrote in English, as well as the Latin version, while the French version is relatively unknown.  Einstein never said precisely, "God does not play dice with the universe," and Caesar never spoke the words, "et tu, Brute?" according to the only sources that quote him.  But those paraphrases would be found under the titles as we remember them, more or less, rather than the exact original wording.  So the question becomes not, "did Descartes use a comma", but "does this phrase usually include a comma?"  Either way the article should provide Descartes' exact wording (on multiple occasions, probably).  But the title should be how the phrase is usually presented in English-language sources, not how he actually said it.  That said, if there's a pretty even split in usage, then the move should go ahead, with the note that it's often presented without a comma.  Normally I would look for Google ngrams to check book usage, but there are two problems; first of all, commas are an operator in the search method, and I don't know whether we can search for them.  Second, the occurrence of the phrase in copies of Descartes would tend to skew the results.  So I think we need to see if there's another way to ascertain how the phrase is usually presented in English-language sources.  Then maybe we'll know whether this article ought to go under the proposed title.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The first 100 hits in a simple Google search for "cogito ergo sum" show that most primary reference sources include the comma— Britannica.com, phrases.org, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Collins English Dictionary, The Free Dictionary, Wiktionary, Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy, WordReference.com. Oxford Academic and Oxford Reference omit it (though not exclusively on their sites). The other top-100 hits are majority no comma.
 * I’m good with change title and include footnote per your suggestion re “it’s often presented without a comma”, appending that to fn ‘a’ in the body — along with a brief reference to Descartes’s use of the phrase. Humanengr (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's my proposed addition to footnote 'a':
 * "As far as is known, Descartes used the phrase as such only once. It appears there and in most reference works with a comma, but is often presented without a comma."
 * Humanengr (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - the punctuated phrase seems to be the most common way this topic is referred to (even if it is or is not accurate from Descartes writing). -- Netoholic @ 06:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

dubito … "A better version" or "A fuller form" ??
130.56.207.177 made this edit to the lede, changing "A fuller form, penned by Antoine Léonard Thomas …" to "A better version, articulated by Antoine Léonard Thomas". I favor the former as the latter introduces a judgment of quality, and does so without source. I'll hold off reverting pending discussion here. Humanengr (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that’s long enough. ‘Fuller’ is better than ‘better’. I’ll leave 130…’s ‘articulated’. Humanengr (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Grammatical categorization of ‘I think’ and ‘I am thinking’ in French, Latin, English
I added a parenthetical at the end of the Translation section for a categorization of ‘I am thinking’ as ‘progressive aspect’.

Here's a start on additional grammar-related material:
 * 1) Wiktionary identifies the French pense, the English 'think', and the Latin cogito as present tense.
 * 2) A general French language site, aside from using the cogito as an example for identification of ‘Je pense’ as French present tense and 'I think' as English simple present tense, indicates that the French tense can also correspond to the English continuous or progressive present. (The Wikipedia article on Continuous and progressive aspects does not provide a cite for its "French does not have a continuous aspect per se”.)
 * 3) A blog post titled 'Your pocket-sized guide to… French philosophy: René Descartes': "… The common English translation – 'I think therefore I am' – actually weakens the argument. The French version conveys his argument more successfully because ‘je pense’ can mean ‘I am thinking’ as well as ‘I think’. ‘I am thinking’ more clearly suggests that one exists as a result of their ability to think." However, the cite does not explicitly label the grammatical forms.
 * 4) Similarly, Rob Pope in Textual Intervention: “[N]either Descartes’ French version (Je pense, donc je suis) nor his Latin version (Cogito, ergo sum) admits … a distinction [between ‘language’ and ‘logic’] in purely verbal terms; for neither language distinguishes between progressive and non-progressive forms of the present tense (though each does have other means of signalling duration). Consequently, is it here the case that users of English (which has non-progressive and progressive forms of the present tense) are left with a problem - and a possibility - not routinely available to the users of French and Latin?”
 * 5) An Answer Key to A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin: A Supplement to the Text by John F. Collins: "In most instances, the verbs in the following sentences may be translated alternatively in the progressive aspect: puts to flight / is putting to flight. When you translate Latin, you need a larger context to decide which aspect to use. …"
 * 6) Translating Latin Tenses into English on JSTOR: "The development of the progressive aspect has made impossible any easy correlation of English to Latin tenses … ."

I also searched for but have not yet found a cite that considers the 'gnomic aspect' vis-à-vis the “I think” translation. The WP article on gnomic aspect indicates that when it is “[u]sed to describe a tense, the gnomic is considered neutral by not limiting action, in particular, to the past, present, or future. Examples of the gnomic include such generic statements as: 'birds fly'; 'sugar is sweet'; and 'a mother can always tell'." From the footnote: "These three examples may all be said to be in the present tense, but it is equally reasonable to consider that tense and temporality are simply not relevant to the examples, as all three express generic truths that are not limited by a specific placement in time or construct regarding the flow of time." (The “birds fly” and other examples seem in line with Blackburn’s “I ski” in the Translation section as they all carry the sense of “I occasionally” or “I can …”. I haven’t yet tracked down the cites from the gnomic article for examples and discussion there.)

Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Worked it through; hopefully it flows well enough; will add something directly from Lyons when I get access, unless someone finds that first. Humanengr (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Parmenides "For to be aware and to be are the same"
@, your addition needs a cite to a reliable source. Humanengr (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
Though the intent of the author was to acknowledge his own existence, the phrase is often used as a positive affirmation for individuals who aspire to "be" or become something greater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7204:EEA8:B168:FE67:488C:7020 (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have a cite for that? Humanengr (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

ego cogito, ergo sum in lead sentence
An IP inserted ego in the first sentence without edit summary. Google and Google Scholar show many more hits for cogito, ergo sum than ego cogito, ergo sum; reference works use the former. GS shows 2x the hits for <"Truth by Natural light" OR "Recherche de la Vérité" "cogito ergo sum"> than <"Principia Philosophiae" OR "Principles of Philosophy" "ego cogito ergo sum">; those that cite Principia use it much more so for "cogito, ergo sum" than "ego cogito, ergo sum". Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)