A philosopher walks into a bar; the bartender says “a beer”. The philosopher responds “I think not”… and then he disappears

Coffee is brewing, day off work, new Cosmic Skeptic video. Life is good.

Seeing as my native language is German, which does not have a Continuous Present or equivalent, and having always understood the Cogito in this way anyways, this video has once again shown me the importance of clearly defined language, not only of course, but especially in discussion of thought. Thank you very much, for providing a fascinating new perspective, great video, keep it up!

Great explanation thanks! Reminds me one of the gems that can be found in the french comics Astérix (making a pun between "je suis" = "I am" and "je suis" = "I am following"): Astérix and Obélix want to enter a roman fort, but they must give a password (which is "cogito ergo sum", but Astérix can't remember it). Astérix: "do you remember [the password]?" Obélix: "You know, foreign languages and me... And after all, YOU are thinking, I am following." (in French: "Oh, tu sais, moi, les langues étrangères… Et puis, toi tu penses, moi je suis.") Brilliant!

As saying you changed the trajectory of my life may be a little too much of an overstatement, I’ll just admit the content you create has throughly impacted every aspect of the way I perceive my surroundings and express my interests. Your videos have deepened the way I analyze and process any input I receive. Finding your channel truly has been what I needed to further define what person I want to become and what paths do I want to follow when I become and adult. Thank you so much Alex!

This is exactly what we need more of! Can you do David Hume or Kant's most famous works next?

Great vídeo Alex. I do believe that KZfaq needs more videos like this. Philosophical discussions presented in a objective and understanding manner. I'm Brazilian and a subscriber for years, keep up the good work!

You have a truly wonderful ability to dig into deep subjects while introducing the foundational concepts behind the discussion without any hint of arrogance. Great job. Thank you.

"I think, therefore I am" and the meditations were the first things I got taught in my first A level philosophy lesson, and I knew I was going to love the subject immediately.

I watched your videos when I got married. I got separated 5 months after I got married and I continue to watch your videos during my divorce proceedings. Turns out I had a longer relationship with your KZfaq channel than I had with my abusive ex husband. Still, I discussed some of your videos with him and it's nostalgic. Cheers!! Edit: Getting abused and divorced at 26 gives you a weird understanding of the world.

I never realized until now, that your channel and the way you speak, rationalize and build arguments has been a major reason why I got into studying philosophy. Thank you so much for your amazing work! It has brought so much positive change into my life!

I remember my Father reading the book you’re referring to after his first heart attack at age 37. I was awestruck when he quoted “I think, therefore, I am,” to me, when he began meditation and yoga, after his triple bypass open-heart surgery, in 1975. These words put together made absolute sense to me. OF COURSE! I THINK, THEREFORE I AM! Brilliant!!! For a 13-year old girl at the time … and a freshman in high school, I had absorbed these words and resonated with them, of not knowing why, until much later. Your discussion and your concise explanation of the subject matter is simply stated for my 61 yr. old mind to understand 😉, and absolutely fascinating! Thank you!

it means "I think therefore I am", but in buddhist terms, it could be more "I think, therefor the idea of me exists", and if we stop thinking the idea of being seperate from everything else breaks down and we feel apart of something bigger

This was great! More of this kind - exploring central ideas in different philosophical issues, looking at different philosophers - would be really interesting!

The production quality of this video is absolutely amazing

This was really fun! I’ve always loved what I guess is called the cogito, it always seemed so obvious and unassailable. It’s cool to see that it isn’t quite what I expected. I especially liked hearing about the thinking that led Descartes to it. Idk if there’s enough material out there for this, but if you had a series explaining widely recognized but little understood philosophy tidbits, I’d watch every episode, no doubt

Great video, loving the "explained" format, needs to become a series and playlist 👍🏼

Thank you for this amazing video Alex! Can you please do more of this? Would really help with bringing philosophy to a broader audience

This was a simply fantastic video, Alex! Incredibly fascinating. I'd eat up this kind of content all day everyday.

Bro this video style SLAPPED. Please do more of these type

We definitely need more of this, especially a deeper exploration of what self is according to different philosophers. Such as Spinoza and Mirloponti or Hegel or Sartre. Maybe even Freud and his theory of personality. I think all of these subjects and many more would make for extremely interesting videos like this one and act like follow ups to it.

Really love this format. keep up the good work.

I have read a lot on this specific topic. You explain this in 20 mins with such clarity. It is impressive is an understatement.

You have such a way of explaining complex ideas in a simple way so a wide variety of people can understand. I'm glad you share this knowledge on youtube

Great video Alex :) Its always the simple questions in life that have the most complex of answers.

Alex, this is certainly one of your best, if not the best, videos you've put out. Absolutely loved every second of it while also coming to many revelations. Thanks for this.

Big up Cosmic Skeptic for always going back to these folks who explore there thought process. It's always fascinating me to take down memory lane of these philosophers, thinkers. These depicts the complexity and hugenes of life. We as humans are contagent entities. Our existencial struggles are real to make life coherence and meaningful. Oh what life we live in, what a tym to live man. Grace and peace

I loved this video so much. I’d love more of these type videos (:

Dude I am an atheist ex-muslim from India,I have watching you frequently since 2019.You was among the first people that convinced me to become atheist and vegan.You have a deep and profound impact and influence on my life.I wish I could financially support you but I am just a student ATM :/ ,I will surely do this in the future.Please continue to make videos like these on prominent historical figures like Descartes and Galilei.I am also missing some of your old content such as Podcasts and debunk1ng arguments for the existence of god and calling out religious stup1dity.Absolutely love you and your videos and will continue to watch them.As always..keep up the good work man ;) 👍

Really enjoyed this.I'd love to see more of this type of content.

Thank you, Alex. More content like this, please!

Perfect timing. I've been reading the book Sophie's World and I just completed the chapter describing Descartes' philosophy. This video acted as a review of my reading. Thank you.

To me this guy explains concepts in a such clear way that I finally understand them. I don't get how google or textbooks can't do that. Also, these videos are hella interesting, thank you for them!

I have my philosophy finals soon and even though we've gone over Descartes only a few weeks ago I always find that I get a better understanding when I listen to you or Stephen(Rationality Rules) talk about a topic. So great timing, hope to learn something. Edit: I misspelled Descartes ☠️

Absolutely fantastic video, definitely one of your stronger ones. It’s topics like these that I couldn’t even trust other high quality youtubers such as Rationality Rules to do justice, but as expected, you delivered. This truly is KZfaq philosophy at it’s best. I’ve been troubled by cogito ergo sum for a while, as I was interpreting it as a syllogism, so if you don’t accept the law of non contradiction then it doesn’t hold. You’ve given me more to think about now.

Reminded me of my philosophy class in high school.(had 7 hours a week, ugh) We did review this sentence. We saw it in French because I'm French (obviously 😅) but seeing your take on it and in english is very interesting . I'm French and even in french I sometimes don't get everything. Plus in philosophy class it's easier to follow if you know latin. Which I don't. You refreshed my thought about the sentence because I'd forgotten everything in 3 years🌺

Language is an interesting thing. In German you say “ich denke, also bin ich” which is pretty mich the same as cogito ergo sum. There is no difference in the present form but just the one existing. So the interpretation cannot get lost in translation, but rather in the interpretation itself

I've been watching your videos for a long time now, since i always loved philosophy, and finally i was able to start my bachelor degree in philosophy on the University of São Paulo. I'm reading Descartes this semester, and this video really helped as support to understanding his philosophy. Thx for everything Alex, i love your content, and was really really happy when you became vegan haha

Please more philosophy explanations. I love this format

This is probably the best video on Descartes philosophy I have seen in KZfaq. You should definitely do more.

This is a very well made and thought-provoking video, Alex. Thanks!

Very well made, I actually learned something from this, thank you for making this video.

Boy I could’ve used this vid two semesters ago! But still very useful! I love this breakdown. 🙌🏼

If ever I need to get my brain engaged and change from a lethargic attitude to a productive one, I always check in with this channel. Cheers for getting me on track Alex. Keep up the good work!

Alex We Need a series like this

Thank you very much for the video, it was very illustrative regarding Descartes' contributions, especially for someone who does not know much about philosophy

This one was very informative, great video, as always.

I love this stuff, please do more like it.

Descartes also came up with the Cartesian coordinates system. Without that we wouldn't have had videos. So thanks to him for the existence of KZfaq.

Internal versus external epistemology war rages on. Another great presentation; I hope you enjoy making these as much as I do from being inspired so. So funny when you blush for the ad.

This was a delicious video, thanks for your hard work Alex!!!

Really appreciate the well researched and thought out video.

please continue this series with other such philosophical propositions and ideas

Just getting into philosophy, Your video broke this down so simply. Well done 👌🏾

Fantastic. The best short explanation of the Cogito I have ever heard.

I love your videoes it really got me into appreciating philosophy and improving my meta-cognitive skills. It also helps to sound smarter at 16 but still more importantly I just really appreciate this. It's wild how much I've learned over these past few years with your videos and others and one day I hope to be as informed or a little bit close to you someday. I suppose I'm starting the new year right with this.

Ma boi's back!! Missed u

Great summary! I'm looking forward to another video about infalibility vs indoubility vs incorrigibility

Really fascinating topic. This has always been one of my favourite little philosophical nuggets.

I've never studied Descartes or his commentators, but I anticipated the subtley different translation. I felt clever at first until I realised Alex led me there with the clarity of his essay/introduction to the subject.

Really enjoyed this fair play Alex, think it might be worthwhile to make a video on Al-Ma'arri or perhaps even nods to Socrates/Da Vinci's Pro Ethical Vegetarianism(Vegan nowadays) stances etc.🍀

This is great! Keep finding ways to make us 'think'.

Thanks for the video. I was quite familiar with the deeper discussion about Decartes' quote and I am a fan of the instantaneous interpretation but this is the first time I heard about the discussion about whether an inability to doubt the proposition makes it true. It will probably be on my mind for a couple of days or longer. 😀

Indeed, as a French speaker, the context has always made me understand “je pense donc je suis” as meaning “I am thinking therefore I am”. In French, to be precise, we should say something like "Je suis en train de penser donc je suis" but the context allows "Je pense" to express the same idea.

The inability to doubt something isn’t a basis for truth, but the inability to specifically doubt your own existence or “if you’re thinking” is. The emphasis should be put not on the doubting or the thinking but on the logical inconsistency brought about by the specific relationship of the two.

I really enjoy these kinds of videos! Keep up the good work

excellent video Alex. smashed it out of the park.

I personally prefer the translation "Only while I am thinking about my thinking do I know that I exist." It lightly implies that engaging with philosophy is living - which I find to be an incredibly empowering message. The idea that being human is being able to think about thinking I at least find pretty powerful. It would also give cause to think of "non-philosophers" as "non-agents" however and that may result sympathy towords actions resulting is some pretty gruesome outcomes. It's really unfortunate that ideas like this could be twisted towords despicable ends, but they seriously could be.

Please do more videos like this

Smooooth transition :D Awesome video!

Thanks Alex, I really enjoyed this.

i cannot comprehend not thinking, not existing, i just cannot get it into my mind that theres gonna be a day where i wont think therefore i wont be, i truly wish ican understand not existing

18:48 Although one can doubt the Cogito. Nietzsche said in Beyond good and evil that you can't think anything. Only something thinks. The thoughts arise from themselves and you yourself can't think. Somethings thinks and Descartes proposed that this something is you or I. Nietzsche thinks that this thought comes from the grammatical structure of the French and other languages. The predicats is "thinking" and therefore this sentence has to have a subject: something or I. And furthermore even to say that something thinks is not true because it's an observation. You observe that something thinks before you can say that it thinks. I think that's maybe the point of language in itself... So you can even doubt the Cogito in that form.

Loved this. Hope for more straight up philosophy videos like this.

Hey Alex! Your explanations are very clear and easy to understand. Keep up the good work. Would like to know your views on spirituality (especially eastern mystical traditions)..

Then I shouldn't be.

There's a subtle problem in how the The Cogito is generally presented that you didn't address: The fact you observe thoughts *only means you exist as an observer* not that you are thinking. One might be a mindless entity incapable of thought, which simply reads the thoughts of others and misattributes their origins.

Thank you kindly for the time taken to distil this at length, as well placing non-adsense sponsorship at front/back/both where I recognize the mutually consideration and therefor watch rather than skip past :>

Loved the background music, fitted well.

This is an interesting insight into Descartes. As always I really enjoy your videos. Maybe I am missing the point but I never understood why someone who was questioning everything made so many assumptions about thinkers from thought. Even if you wish to say it is an oxymoron to have a thought without a thinker, Descartes seems to conclude that a temporal sequence of doubts, or thoughts, refer back to a singular self, is that a big assumptions or am I not getting it.

I added my own twist to Descartes' thought as I learned more about the question of, are we really conscious or do we have free will? My twist is, "I think, I think; therefore I question if I am." I ask myself, am I really thinking or is it some sort of illusion by a portion of my mind? With that I wonder, am I truly a being with free will and consciousness? Note, I don't doubt the original question of if "I am." I'm pretty sure I'm here in some form. But the question now is, to what level am I? Maybe I'm a simple ant-like being thinking that this hive/city of ours proves we are a wonder. But maybe it's all programmed instinct and humans are just little bugs. Your channel is why I can't fall asleep easily at night. My mind just goes around and around. Lol.

wow this was lovely, I would love to have more videos like these! Feel so smart already 😅

Exquisitely explained and genuinely insightful

Whenever I experience a bad trip from taking psychedelics, which makes me think that I have opened another dimension and gives me an existential crisis or sleep paralysis, I always turn to this line: "I think, therefore I am." It works every time by lessening my anxiety.

Alex seems to suggest that "epistemological certainty about X belief does not necessarily entail the truth of X belief." In other words, he seems open to the possibility that "certainty does not confer truth." This is an absurd position to take. Consider the following: Presumably the assumption "certainty does not confer truth," is itself an assumption Alex is certain of, and yet by his own acknowledgement certainty does not necessarily entail veridicality (truth). Therefore, the very assumption "certainty does not confer truth" remains an open question as to whether it is true itself. Put simply, if even absolute epistemological certainty (like I am thinking, therefore I am) cannot guarantee veridicality, then nothing can be known to be true including the very assumption that nothing can be known to be true--the position is self-defeating. Ultimately, the sentence "certainty does not confer truth," already presupposes that "truth" exists independent of its epistemological accessibility. But what, if anything, is "truth," other than that of which we are certain? What is deemed to be true we deem it because we are certain, and what we are certain of we can only be certain inasmuch as it is true. This all goes back to the fact that there can be no object (truth) without subject (epistemological accessibility/certainty).

So well made and easily understandable. Well done.

That was incredibly worthwhile. Thank you

I study more science than philosophy so though familiar with the basics this was mostly new to me - and very entertaining and well put. Could it not be argued that no matter what is doing the thinking or what is being thought any thought however mundane would still be proof of existence and since the mind (be it physical or not) is constantly thinking it is proven whenever I am conscious?

I am consciousness.

Obsessed with your content!

Subscribed after watching this video. 👌 You should keep making more videos focusing on philosophical ideas.

It's like "I think, therefore I exist" but then Heidegger asked an even more insightful question: "What is existence?" it's so good, love it

Alex, I think you may be conflating the inability to doubt meant by Descartes and that described in your examples. Descartes seems to mean that the operation of logic does not allow for any possibility of doubt against the proposition. As you elaborated concisely, one cannot doubt that they are thinking. This is because doubt by definition means one is thinking. It is logically impossible to doubt in this case. The examples you raised are characteristically different from what is meant by Descartes. The inability to doubt in those examples is simply born out of some subjective factor about the actor in question rather than out of logical impossibility. It seems then his proposition about doubt and truth simply boils down to “if a proposition is logically impossible to be false, then it is true with certainty.” The Cogito happens to be an example of that proposition.

You should do a series of videos exploring foundational philosophical concepts such as this. I know I would benefit from a primer of this sort. I’m often at a loss when confronted with these concepts by way of reference. Particularly when consuming “atheism” content that delves into questions of morality or existentialism… Excellent video!

Fascinating, profoundly thought-provoking video. Thank you!

I think, therefore thinking is. An "I" isn't that easy to establish. Conciousness doesn't imply a self.

I always thought of “I think therefore I am” as there is thoughts therefore there exists thought I think therefore I am presupposes there is an “I” doing the thinking, all one can really intuit from their thoughts is that these thoughts exist, not that they’re your own thoughts or there is a being separate from the thoughts doing this thinking. But in your thoughts(wherever they come from), the thoughts must exist intuitively so thoughts implies thoughts and thus by having thought you can prove thought exists. In conclusion I don’t agree with Descartes but you can transform what he said to mean something about thought itself which doesn’t prove the same thing but is more intuitive to me and what Descartes claimed is not obvious to me from just having apparently present thoughts.

Thank you. The background music is nice.

Thanks for this and all your videos. The Cogito was what started my quest many, many (too many) years ago; when I read a translation and understood a lot of what you explain in this video … well, that’s when I became interested in what’s for lunch. Discussion is great, but even a brain in a vat needs it’s nutrients.

“As long as I am doing some thinking…well, I am. I am thinking simply contains I am…” Every sentence must use a subject and a verb. This is one sense in which “I am thinking” contains “I am”. The sentence “I am thinking” contains the word “I”, followed by the word “am”. Because of how grammar is structured it may appear that the statement “I am thinking” implies that there is the self who is doing the thinking. But I suggest that this may merely be how we speak about things, not how things actually are. It may be that the reality that thinking is going on may not require a thinker, yet we may speak about thinking going on as requiring a thinker given that every sentence requires a subject standing in relation to some verb. But this does not mean that doing requires an actual subject or doer. In this way, it may be wrong to say “I am thinking”. I may not be thinking at all. In fact there may not be a “me” who is thinking. I realize that this may sound radical to some, but it is a common idea in Buddhism, for example, that the self is some form of illusion. It is an idea that some people have and I think it should be taken seriously. “…And as soon as Descartes even begins to doubt everything that he can, he’s already thinking, since to doubt is to think. And so as long as I am doing some kind of thinking, I can know that I exist, at least in some form. That is to say: I think, therefore I am. “ It’s not clear to me what the argument is meant to be here, but maybe something along these lines?: P) If to doubt is to think, then if i am doubting, then I am thinking. C)Therefore, if I am thinking, then I exist. That argument is just going to be invalid, so if that’s the argument, then it’s not a good argument. “Even if I am being deceived entirely by an evil demon, or by somebody controlling my brain in a vat, there must be a me to be deceived....” Must there? Here it seems that it’s merely being assumed that there must be a me to be deceived. But that is something those who contest the cogito would doubt. So I think some kind of argument should be provided for this assumption or premise. “...I can’t deny my own existence, because if I denied that I existed, who is doing the denying…?” This seems to assume that the act of denying requires a denyer. But I’m not sure why we would think this is true. Maybe there has to be something that instantiates denying, doubting and other forms of doing and mental states or mental happenings, but I’m not sure that has to be a self or me. And I’m not sure what the argument for that is supposed to be. “...An evil demon can convince me of all kinds of falsities, but it can’t convince me that I don’t exist, because there needs to be a me to be convinced of this. “ This is just another one of these variants of this questionable assumption that doing something or undergoing some mental state or mental happening requires a self. This just seems to be the premise to question here. Moreover, this seems to apply to the cogito itself in that the statement “I am thinking, therefore I exist” seems to assume that there is a self or an I or a cartesian ego that is doing or experiencing the thinking. But it’s not clear why we should think this is the case. Maybe Descartes should have said something more like “there is thought, therefore there is thought” or “there is thought, therefore there is at least thinking going on”, or “there is thought, therefore (assuming that thought entails mental stuff) therefore there is mental stuff”. This gets us closer to the kind of intuition that I suspect Descarte was maybe trying to get at with his famous statement, which is the intuitive recognition that experience or consciousness is epistemologically primary. I don’t know a statement like the cogoti that would semantically capture that intuitive recognition well, but I think that might have been what Descartes was intuiting in his meditations. At least that is what I have found in my own contemplations similar to those of descartes. The realness of raw experience or consciousness is impossible, or at least very difficult, to doubt. Indeed the act of doubting is itself a state of consciousness, or so it seems. Sam Harris perhaps put it best when he said that (and this is not an exact quote) consciousness is the only thing that can’t be an illusion. If it only seems to be the case that we are conscious, then that seeming is itself an instance of consciousness. If consciousness is understood in such a way to be synonymous with self, moreover, then therein we might be able to find some reasonable as well as intuitive basis for believing the cogito.