What Do You Think Of The New M.I.High?

(OK drop my Descartes quote: I think therefore I am.) New Question: If I do not think do I cease to exist?  What does it mean to not think?

• Much of western philosophy and religion seems to stem from the idea that I derive my identity from my thinking.   Certainly we take the larger part of our humanness from our ability to out think our genetic ancestors and relatives. But is it thinking alone that makes us human? Is it my individual thinking alone that makes me who I am?   If I am defined by what I think - then is there any part of what I think that is not me?   We think about many things these days due to our high level of exposure to media and technology. Am I all of those things that I think about? (money, work, possessions, sex, family, wars, strikes, rebellions, terrorism, murder, crime, environmental crises, etc.)   If any of these thoughts are not me, then is there any line that can be drawn between those that are me and those that are not? What part of what I think is not me?   Much of the core of eastern philosophy (Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism) is the concept that the most important knowledge is the knowledge of oneself. Yet the methods used by these philosophies all include meditation; which seeks to calm the mind, to slow or stop the incessant thinking. Enlightenment comes from something beyond thought. At our essence, we are something beyond our thoughts.   Perhaps I can perceive of myself not as a human-thinking, not as a human-speaking, and not as a human-doing, but rather as a human-being.

• Answer:

  Respectfully, I think you may attribute to Descartes more than he said. His argument say that the act of doubting ones existence requires a doubter. So if one is able to doubt, one must exist. There isn't much in that about identity of the self. His mission was not an epistemic one. Rather, it is an ontological one.  He is trying to determine, supposing his sense to be faulty, what can be determine beyond a doubt to exist.