Jean-Paul Sartre said" I exist,therefore I am"what you think?

I think that is a pretty empty tautology. I exist, so I exist. So what? It tells us nothing.|||I thought it was: "I think, therefor I am" by René Descartes?|||Make it simple. I am that I am. The burning bush and Popeye said that.|||I think that he thought that he thought, so he thought that he was.








This is more easily understandable if one considers the actual structure of an atom and the scale and placement of its components. If one takes into account the fact that the neutrons and protons form a dense cluster at the center of the atom and that the electrons orbit in such a way that huge spaces exist between them and the nucleus it becomes clear that the atoms that make up seemingly solid objects are made up of 99+ percent empty space at any given moment.





This alone does not seem too important until you add the idea that the atoms that make up many seemingly solid objects are more of a loose conglomeration that share a similar attraction but never really touch each other.





At first glance this does not really seem relevant, but closer analysis reveals that this adds a tremendous amount of empty space to solid objects that are already made up of atoms that could be thought of as 99 percent space. When so-called solid objects are seen in this light it becomes apparent that may not be the seemingly solid objects they appear to us to be.





We ourselves are not exceptions to this phenomenon.





These seemingly solid objects are more like ghostly images that we interpret as solid objects based on our perceptual conclusions.





From this one could conclude that Perception is some sort of a trick that helps us to take these ghostly images and turns them into a world we can associate and interact with. This clever device seems to be a creation of our intellect that enables us to interact with each other in what appears to be a three dimensional reality.





I want to add that this is based on my own personal way of looking at the situation and was never intended to be a physics lesson.








Love and blessings Don|||I think, therefore I am? Seems to anchor the most basic assumption we must make to go forward with any further thinking at all. That we exist in a form sufficient to warrant any further attention to ourselves.|||Sartre was existentialist, so he basically thought there was no meaning to life except existing, then we made an existence. I believe we have a purpose in our life.|||That may not have been his words, even in French. But if it's what he meant, then maybe so. But if he didn't say it, then he didn't say it.|||I think this quote came from Descartes, but it went: "I think, therefore I am".


From my view-point, he means that because he can think, he must exist. Of course, this is philosophy we're talking about, so it can mean anything you wish for it to mean.





Your other quote is pretty much the same thing, I think. He recognizes his existence in this world, so he knows is a part of it.|||I am, therefore, I think.|||It's a good balance formula 'twixt Rene and Jean-Paul.





Both are horizontally based; human thinking leads to being; human existence leads to being.





What "being" implies for Descartes is Mind/mind, Soul/awareness, dualism; what being implies for Sartre is supervenient awareness, man as grownup germ, useless passion, reduction to the Newtonian atomistic.





Descartes posited God and therefore Soul; Sartre of course neither posits nor experiences either.





"Nihilism," Father Seraphim Rose;


"A Philosophy of Universality," O. M. Aivanhov.|||*sigh*, I think Sartre has the most watered down philosphie of any of 'em, and existentialism is a humanism or something like that.