What is your understanding from a Spiritual perspective about this famous philosophy quote?

See, I actually disagree with the statement. I would argue that while we are thinking we are using the intellect, a tool of the ego and are therefore deflected from the true depth of who we are.

Only in the silence of complete 'stillness' can we said truly to BE.

Another interesting question. I think the first question should be who or what is this "I" we are identifying? The initiator of the thinking. Descartes's contention is that since there is an initiator then there is a person who is doing this thinking. Without the body (in this case the brain) there can be no thought. So that would mean that without the body there can be no spirit. From nothing there can be nothing. However if we look at this Universe, everything in it began from an anomaly. Whether you believe it always existed or it began with a 'Big Bang' or that God created it. It defies the logic (of our tiny little brain). So to go back to your question, Rene's statement "I think therefore I am" is correct but this "I" he is talking about may have existed elsewhere. Or it could be that it (I) never existed at all. LOL

My head reels!

Loved your question.

I came across something you might find interesting...

"I poked into every dark recess and made an assault on every problem, I plunged into every abyss. I scrutinized the creed of every sect and I fathomed the mysteries of each doctrine. All this I did that I might distinguish between the true and the false.There was not a philosopher whose system I did not acquaint myself with,or a theologian whose doctrines I did not examine."

Not Descartes, but Al-Ghazali writing in the 11th century, and like Descartes trying to examine each apple, to throw out those that are rotten, and to begin from a new starting point. But he found that reason was insufficient for knowing the truth of Ultimate Reality and although he started rationally, he argued instead of "I think therefore I am", rather "I will, therefore I am", true knowledge was in the experience of the spiritual path, of God's will.

But the spiritual way to understanding of Ultimate Reality suffers from the drawback of being subjective, which seems to be one of those impossible problems that can never be overcome.

This is probably the most famous line in the history of philosophy, and it's a valid statement. However, one of the things that's rarely said is that what we think is extremely important in determining the kinds of lives we live. OK, you exist, but given that, what kind of existence are you going to have, and how much do you have do say about whether or not you're happy with that existence. If you put love into the world, you live a loving life, and that's more than it's own reward. If you put hate into the world, you live a life that's filled with hate. Have a nice day!

I agree with Phoenix.

The perception of "being" comes before the perception of thinking. The correct should be "I am, therefore I think". You can be without a thought, but you can't think without being.

However, I think Descartes was trying to describe the only certainty he had at the moment, which was the certainty that he was. And that was the only certainty he had, that he existed (he could not be certain about other existences other than his). His intention was to say that once he thinks, he knows he is. Whatever goes on his mind tells him he is one being. Everybody else could be an illusion of his own mind.

Good question.

Peace!

From a spiritual perspective that quote won't work. Only in the false persona, ego, do we find, I think, therefore I am. The spirit doesn't think. The spirit knows. The spirit intuits everything. I think, therefore I am only describes a physical, mental being, much like a computer. It does not touch, nor describe the consciousness that we are.

Just read a book "Varieties of Scientific Experiences".. a collection of lectures of Carl Sagan speaking about science and religion.

Carl would argue that we have intelligence, and if there is a God, surely he meant for us to discover and understand the set of rules that order this universe into the wonder that it is; if there is no God, then it is even more imperative that we understand everything we can.

I tend to fall on the former side of that argument. It's enough for me to think that any gift I'm given shouldn't be left to waste away.

Peace

.

I enjoy Descartes writings, but this quote has had me flummoxed for years!

When I go to sleep at night and dream, I definitely think in my dreams.

I dream a lot about journeys, and often I am standing at a bus stop thinking about what number bus I need to get, or what railway station I need to go to.

My thoughts in my dreams are quite complex and convuluted and I make decisions in my dreams and decide to do this that or the other.

Well, to me that is thinking, but it is not real thinking, because it is a dream and it is an illusion, and the me in the dream is not real.

It is the same with my waking life. How real are my thoughts and how real is my perception of myself?

I know I'm just a sequence of fleeting thoughts and perceptions that alter and change from minute to minute.

But I also know the real me which is not the victim of Thought, and is just pure action.... and I try to live from that centre as much as I am able.

Namaste

.

i was taught that it was actually Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum or " I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am" which resonates with me a little more. Basically it kinda proves that we exist because in order to objectively think about what we are and who we are there has to be an " I '" or a " me " that is doing the thinking. This also implies dualism which Descartes was famous for discussing where the "cogito" was actually residing in the pineal gland and was responsible for the the mind/body interactions. I loved studying Descartes

I have never been 100% certain of this quote's meaning, and so can't be sure whether or not I agree.

As I consider it, I think of a rock, and as far as we know the rock does not think, yet it "is" in the sense that it exists.

So it makes me wonder if in the quote, by saying I "am", if he means he is "alive". This makes sense to me, because it is our ability to think, our ability to have consciousness and awareness of ourselves, that makes us accept ourselves as "alive".

Or maybe he was at a much lighter level and simply saying it is not much of a life if you just skim through it without ever using your own mind or identity, and it is much more lived and real if you use your abilities to think and reason.