Descartes' Cogito vs. Buddha's anatta

[Corvus]

If you think back clearly, we have not started from “If cogito”.
We just made an inference from the Cogito. Hence nothing was denied.

[Jay]

OK. Perhaps you should edit the Wikipedia article and explain why it’s not a fallacy in “the real world”. . .

[Corvus]

Let me explain please.

Cogito (the original claim)
If cogito then ergo zum (inference1)
If not cogito then not ergo zum (inference2)
Not cogito (assertion from a world case)
Not ergo zum (conclusion)

So cogito stays intact. We just made a series of inferences based on the cogito. Hence there was no denial on the cogito.

As I said, denying antecedent issue was discussed many times before, but I found it is not a clear cut issue, and I find it absolutely necessary to deny and reject any premises if not valid, incorrect, unclear or not making sense before proceeding in any arguments.

But thank you for your pointing out on the issue. It was a great opportunity to revisit the old unclear issues, and clarify again.

[Delirium]

Yes, I recall Descartes recommended skepticism sensu eminenti, which I suppose some refer to as Cartesian doubt.

Also correct that Buddha’s anatta doctrine is about inherent existence, which builds on interdependence (chariot analogy illuminates).

---

The logic has to be clarified too. If thinking implies being/existence, we could consider whether if if not thinking then nonexistence. There are different types of logic e.g. paraconsistent logic and dialetheism; also logical nihilism. What about irrationalism? For example, if your dad is laughing then he’s probably happy, but if your dad is not laughing then could he be happy?

There’s also memes.

[T_Clark]

@Andy

Take care with your interpretation of Buddha’s anatta. He wasn’t saying there is no self in an unqualified manner – he was saying that the self has no inherent existence. And neither does anything else, so the self is not special in this respect.

I think this is exactly right. And thank you for making it so I don’t need to respond to the OP.

[Delirium]

We have the dyads (I think, I exist) and (Interdependence, Anatta).

As arguments they are,

1. I think \implies I exist (Descartes)
2. Interdependence \implies Anatta (Buddha)

[j_j]

@Andy

t is substantially a consideration made in the third person, not in the first, however private the process. The starting point for Descartes is the methodical doubt experienced by a refined intellectual, not the basic experience of a subject.

Excellent. Descartes “I think therefore I am” is better understood in terms of the existence of shared language and logic. We can fix the approach of Descartes by considering that the forum or space of reasons is “given” — to the degree that an explication of this “given” is determinable in a (normatively) rational way.

[Delirium]

There are no magic wands in philosophy, which you can wave around and disappear problems. The self = soul = atman as far as this thread on the claims of Descartes and Siddhartha are concerned.

Not all memes are created equal; something being a meme/meme-plex say anything about that meme/meme-plex