I think, therefore I am (René Descartes)

"Thinking is existence"

Kimmo Huosionmaa


http://metsantarinoita.blogspot.com/p/i-think-therefore-i-am-rene-descartes.html

Those very well known words of the famous philosopher René Descartes are also very mysterious, and when we are thinking about the personality of this man, we might ask, what he meant, when he said or wrote those very famous wors? Did he mean, that the thinking proved that he was alive or existed? That means Descartes was thought something very deep in his head. And when we are trying to analyze the origin of those words, we might want to know, was Descartes very tired?  Or was he in some bar, or talking with another person? And did this another person wrote those words to paper, because he or she understood the deep philosophy about those words. This is the reason, why this text is actually philosophical writing about those famous words, what are one of the most well-known words, what any philosopher has ever said.


But there is another way to close those words, and this is that Descartes actually was very careful in his private relationships, and avoided to talk deep things with opponents, who might modify or tell those things selectively to the people, who they would not be meant. I think that Descartes meant that writing would save his head sometimes because that allows proving the words to the officials. Of course, Descartes warned other people that the unthinkable talking would sometimes cost his head, but because he spoke too much all the time, would he like to write his thoughts to the paper, because that eliminated the possibility to tell selective parts of those thoughts for other persons.


I think that René as I sometimes call this philosopher was not the very impressive man, and because he wrote his ideas to the paper, would other persons see the things, what he thought. All thought must be seen better than some parts of those thoughts. During his life, there might be millions of words, what this man, who was Frenchman and lived in Sweden have said, and sometimes those persons met the man or woman, who took only two words of this man's work, and then they delivered those words to everybody.


That would have seemed quite interesting in the eyes of Descartes because two words don't make anybody worse than they really are. We have all been children, and in that time, we have said many words, what were not clever. But if somebody says, that I saw two unthinkable words at the age of 12, I would think that person would be some way different than the normal person. Those kinds of persons sometimes come to the table of the men like Descartes. They would not remember anything than those two words, and that seems very nice in their own eyes.


But when people are coming to the age of 43, they would say also something else, than just those two wods. This is the thing, what might be interesting in the mind of René Descartes. Those words were not everything, what he said even in those ages, and when we are thinking about the famous words  "I think, therefore I am", we should think, does Descartes say those words to the person, who suspected his right to be in somewhere like University?


Or is he the right person for his duties? Then this person asks, does Descartes think, that he is clever, he might say, that thinking is the way to show the right to be in the place, where thinkers are studying. Maybe this suspicious person has kept the course book all the time in the command, and then this person would ask Descartes, how he could do the exam.  And then Descartes said, that he put the paper his own ideas. This is one way to think about the place in the society.


Because some people have existed, they have right to be in the places, where they have made the pass-test, what has been accepted. When we are thinking about the University, there would be millions of people, whoever writes their own ideas. They just lend the books from the library and then copy those thoughts from the books to their works.  René Descartes is the very interesting person, and he is very good character both fictional and scientific writings. And the words are free, and some writer would write the book, where the main character would be this famous philosopher. This is free land, and people have right to use their own words in the writings. In philosophy is no need to proof the words what have been written, what gives the freedom for making the texts, and tell our opinions for other persons.

I think I exist, and if I'm punished for my texts, I exist for some powerful man

http://kirjabloggaus.blogspot.fi/p/i-think-i-am-existed.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

René Descartes said once, that if the human being thinks that makes this person existed. In his lifetime, normal or ordinary people did not exist for rulers of the nations. And everything, that said against the king or rulers was the straight attack against the god. If we think this way, everybody who says something against rulers exists only when they are punished.


When we are following the way of thinking, what Descartes followed, we must say that if somebody makes texts or makes speeches, what means nothing, we must ask a question "why this person would punish"? If writing means nothing, the consequences must be nothing? So what in some writings or speeches is so harmful, that the king gives the order to arrest that text maker. Why poor philosopher causes the situation, that all nation must change the laws in the country?


When people make the own writings,  this person must have the capacity to think about those things. And that kind of writings might be harmful to people, that believe that person must keep quiet when somebody would not ask something about that person. Only persons who have right to speak or write something, are superiority officers. And the role of henchmen is to keep their mouth shut, when their leaders are speaking.


When the person raises to a very high-rank official, would the orders, what this person gives become so-called common orders. This might cause some misunderstandings because that kind of person is above everything. Normal man or woman can't say or do anything, what might harm that superiority official.


And if some worker would say something bad about this very high-rank businessman, would that cause the situation, that this person must step down from the tower, and say something about this case to that worker. In this case would look very funny, that some main director of enterprise corporation kicks this worker off. And in this case, would happen that the director would give common orders, that the doors of the company will be closed for the person, who is from some city or state. This means that the director wants to make generic orders for hiring the position. Those high ranking officials of the private or public sectors might sometimes hide behind orders, what are given to all industry. This means, that this person would just walk away if somebody says or does something bad about that person who might be king of the state.


Soon comes to the orders to kick off 3000 persons from their working place, because somebody said that the slips, what this boss used was not very good looking. So that kind of thing might cause the situation, that thousands of workers would kick off or something like that would happen. This is how powerful men are working in real life. And also everybody, who writes about those things, should be quiet because they would not find the jobs from those companies.

http://kirjabloggaus.blogspot.fi/p/i-think-i-am-existed.html

Is the man a thinking machine without any feelings?

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Thinking about Gottfried Leibniz and his relationship with feelings is quite difficult. Gottfried Leibniz was the man, who made the worlds first mechanical computer. So in the Leibniz world was only one rule to think. For Leibniz, the human must be like some thinking machine, what doesn't let the feelings when the brains are working with some problem.


And some persons maybe should thank the god, that lobotomy was not invented in the time of Leibniz. By using the lobotomy could be possible to create the "thinking machine" who doesn't have any feelings for another person. Lobotomy could destroy the feelings of the human. And that could be the way to create the person, who doesn't have feelings at all.


 When we are talking about the morality and philosophy, we must understand that some philosophers might used cover identities during their life, because their work didn't always satisfy another person, and because all philosophers are quite liberal persons, they might get very bad troubles, if they were worked in the absolute monarchs in late 18th. century. In those days everything that didn't satisfy the kings were censored.  And then the person, who published awkward things about the way of rule the nations, the route would go to execution place. That's why the philosophers must live under the cover identity because they must avoid the hate of the rulers of the state.


When we are talking about the persons, who wrote the texts about the refinement of humans, they would get many letters from the religious people. This is the reason, why philosophers sometimes write their essays for the secret name, and then we will return to the things like the name of René Descartes. I believe that this very civilized man was actually normal Swedish person, who just studied French.


That language covered the identity of this man, who created the idea, the thinking is the thing, what makes the existence of the creature, and this is the nucleus of his famous phrase, what goes something like this: "I think, so I am". The thinking of abstraction is the key element of the mankind dominance of the planet Earth.  The abstraction makes possible to plan the houses and other things before. In the real world, the ability to think the abstract things is called the imagination.


When we are talking about the innovation, we are talking about the productive imagination. That makes us create new technology and new solutions. But when we are talking about the people like philosophers, we must say, that many of those people were quite liberal, and of course the liberalism and freedom of thinking are not always been satisfied for the kings and other rulers of the nation.


Freedom of thinking is freedom for speaking. And that freedom means the threat to dictators and the authoritarian governments. If the man thinks another way than others, that person will become dangerous. The thing is called the rebellion, and those rebellious persons are very dangerous for authoritarian governments, because those leaders have always some secrets, what they don't want to share.

It's not prohibited to use own brains

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When he was at Swedish court René Descartes wrote a book, what has a very strange name "Rules for the direction of the natural intelligence". Sometimes I have thought that René Descartes was not this man real name, and I certainly believe that this man was not even visited in the court of Stockholm, and there are many stories about those famous philosophers what are not true. The name of that book will tell everything about the life and the soul of that man. The nucleus of this book is, that in every decision the person must remember, that independent way of thinking is not prohibited. This is seen very often when people are talking about defending the country.


When the superpowers like the USA and the Soviet Union made their nuclear arsenals, the leaders of those nations forgot, that everything, what the physics can create is not necessary to make in full function model. And this is the reason, why those nations have more nuclear weapons than another nation, and the bad thing is that they pushed many more nations to the "nuclear club". And then there would become the situation, that nuclear disarmament is not any more realistic answer.


And the most comical thing is that the USA and Russia, what is replaced the Soviet Union are the first states, what are talking about the nuclear weapons. But when we are going back to think about the name of the book, what Descartes wrote, we must think that there is nothing more dangerous thing than the human mind, what makes something in the impulsive condition, and those things might often be very devastating. When the human makes decisions, must this leader able to listen to another persons, when the orders are given.


In this scenario, I don't mean that the leader must do what the henchmen say, and the decision might stand, but the modal askings about the opinions of the action are not the bad thing at all. Of course, the leader makes the decision alone, but if other persons are heard, that would give the information, what might be very important. And if the landscape or water area is polluted, the price could be decreased for this reason. When he was in Swedish court Descartes sees what means absolute monarchy and the absolute power.


The king could execute anybody by given orders to execute some person, and if this man was angry, the results could be devastating for all nation. "What bigger the ruler is, that bigger is the damage, what the ruler can cause for the nation", is old fashion wisdom, and if the king were executed all his generals would that cause little problem in the military forces. When Descartes made that book, he probably got the king angry. The name of that book was mentioned, that someone in the kingdom needed instructions to use their own brains, and maybe the king was one of those people.


Who knows about the relationship with the Descartes and court. There are many things what is written about those men, and probably great philosopher René Descartes was actually some Gunnar Eriksson, who even saw the court of Stockholm. Sometimes I believe that this famous philosopher might be the artistic name, what was used the ordinary man, who spoke and wrote very good French, and that was the reason, why the king would not able to find that man.