Talk:Cogito, ergo sum

The section "Predecessors", however well documented and philosophically relevant, has been - I hope inadvertently - deleted. I restored it in another place, after "Introduction" and without the misleading Hamlet quotation. On the other hand, the section "Criticisms" only repeats the misunderstanding, as if the Cogito would have been for Descartes a syllogism. Descartes himself responded to it, as it appeared in the "Objections" to his Meditations, and in the article it is explained in the first paragraph of the section "Introduction". In this discussion, User:Mel Etitis explains it correctly as well. But some people seem to prefer writing (or deleting) before reading. --Sokoljan (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

could someone tranlsate the really long latin phrase in the introduction.

  Done. Racconish ^Tk 16:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is a common theme in movies and television: "The Matrix," "Inception," etc. . . I just felt this could be something worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.172.104 (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The two images under the Criticism section have little to no relevance to the section or the article at all, and seems they were put there only to be captioned. Wikipedia:Style makes no mention of using images in this way, furthermore it looks unprofessional and doesn't add anything. I am deleting them . Ajoones (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I generally disagree. Wikipedia:The perfect article does recognize the usefulness of images to break up large amounts of text for the sake of reader engagement. What's more, I have always found that a picture and caption provides a good opportunity to summarize the text beside it. Far from "unprofessional", I think images used this way make for a more pleasant read - especially for highly visual audiences like myself.

That having been said, the question mark picture was a little weak. Less so Rodin's Thinker. My point would be that, rather than removing images completely, I would always prefer to see them replaced with even more creative, helpful metaphors or examples.-Tesseract2 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

You make a good point, and a relevant picture would definitely be more aesthetically pleasing. Feel free to revert my edit or add a better picture. Ajoones (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the section saying that Descartes had not used the term 'therefore' in the meditations because he wanted to avoid the implication that the cogito depended upon an inferential argument.

Although this is the kind of thing that you sometimes read in introductory texts, there is simply no textual evidence for it at all. Indeed, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out, the idea that the meditations doesn't contain an inferential argument for the conclusion whilst the Discourse does is dead wrong: the meditations is the place where the argument is most explicitly developed.

Of course, Descartes in the objections and replies, and later letters, did sometimes assert that the cogito was not based on a syllogism (see Williams' book for a sophisticated and moderately plausible interpritation of exactly what he meant). The point remains: in Meditations 2 he phrases it as an arugment.

BTW, here's what I think: the argument leads us to the cogito conclusion, but isn't required to justify it. The 'cogito ergo sum' argument is propoganda, but isn't justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.129.189 (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why are there two translations given in the text "I think therefore I exist" and later on "I think therefore I am"? Sarahhofland (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The traditional, and best-known, translation is "I think therefore I am". That's also the most literal translation. However, the meaning is closer to "I think therefore I exist" in modern word usage. Piquan (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, it can't be clearer than that. Sarahhofland (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

'''Cannot Figure Out How To Post Properly section'''

Just a question regarding modern extrapolations, or colloquialisms of the phrase: Is it proper to note them, or reference them? If so, how is it done?

I am asking regarding this phrase that brought me here: Cogito ergo armatum sum

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Cogito_ergo_armatum_sum_mean

66.66.148.239 (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Williams refers to the argument later in the book as "of course, just an argument from Kant" from, I believe, the Prolegomena. Typical Williams to not make it clear in the Cogito chapter. The slogan from the Critique is "the rational psychologist mistakes the unity of apperception for the perception of a unity". Clearly this needs fixing. Maybe I will do it at some point. —Sean Whitton / 16:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll certainly yield to the authors here, but I remember that a fundamental tenet to the Kierkegaard criticism was that, yes, the I does in fact presuppose the existance of its own narrator, but that the breakdown is something more akin to:

I think therefore I am

I think

I

Tgm1024 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

"I think, therefore I am"

Using Game Theory,

I think that you think, though You do not think, therefore I am and You are (relative to me). You are DEAD!

Likewise, I think You think that I think, therefore I am, You are and I am. (I²+You)

Likewise, I think You think I think, though You do not think I think, therefore I ² am and You² are. You are ALIVE!

Are both I the same, when think(s) are different? NO, I change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.212.105 (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's neither an example of game theory nor what "think" means in this context. The cogito is using the intransitive sense of "cogitate", not the transitive sense of "believing X to be true". My beliefs about your state are entirely based on my sense experiences, which can't be trusted prior to the deus ex cogitatione which restored Descartes trust in the external world. At that point, there's no need to bring the cogito into it. I think you exist because I again trust my senses that you're taking up space and wasting my time on the internet. — LlywelynII 03:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article begins:

Cogito ergo sum (French: "Je pense donc je suis"; English: "I think, therefore I am") is a philosophical Latin statement proposed by René Descartes.

The original, in Discourse, appears as a non-capitalized, mid-sentence phrase:

"Mais aussitôt après je pris garde que, pendant que je voulois ainsi penser que tout étoit faux, il falloit nécessairement que moi qui le pensois fusse quelque chose; et remarquant que cette vérité, je pense, donc je suis, étoit si ferme et si assurée, que toutes les plus extravagantes suppositions des sceptiques n'étoient pas capables de l'ébranler, je jugeai que je pouvois la recevoir sans scrupule pour le premier principe de la philosophie que je cherchois."

Capitalization of the phrase quite arguably contributes to the assumption that "I think therefore I am" was a complete statement in and of itself. (It is often restated as a sentence.) That, in turn, discourages many from any further exploration to discover Descartes' intent.

As indicated further down in the introduction, Descartes repeated this phrase mid-sentence in Principles of Philosophy (here in Latin), where he referred to the phrase as a proposition:

"Ac proinde hæc cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima & certissima, quæ cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat."

English: "This proposition, I think, therefore I am, is the first and the most certain which presents itself to whoever conducts his thoughts in order."

What if we begin the article:

The phrase "cogito ergo sum" (French: "je pense donc je suis"; English: "I think, therefore I am") is a Latin proposition by René Descartes.

Parallel minor adjustments should then made elsewhere in the article for consistency. humanengr (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

What a poorly-taken understanding. In every example you cite, Descartes is explicitly setting off that thought as a separate proposition—as a distinct sentence. The punctuation and capitalization in the original have no bearing on the fact that it's perfectly correct to discuss the proposition itself as a single laconic expression. It's what Descartes himself was doing. — LlywelynII 03:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@LlywelynII: Apologies, had missed this. While it might be perfectly correct to capitalize it in some contexts, not only Descartes but most others don't -- see, e.g., this Google ngram. Humanengr (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The historical provenance should be made clear in a new section entitled "In Descartes' Writings". I've gathered the relevant material in my sandbox. (NB: This pulls in the "Ac proinde …" and translation sentences from the current summary -- to address criticism re summary length; it also includes the dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum material that had been in the summary.)

Would this work as the lead section, preceding what is now the Introduction (which would be renamed "Interpretation")? Or should the new Intro contain only the first sentence in the sandbox and the rest of the material split off for a section at the bottom of the article? humanengr (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Descartes himself said "je pense, donc je suis". But doesn't "je pense, donc je sois" seem somehow more grammatically correct in French? (The subjunctive doesn't work as well in English -- "I think, therefore I be", but it does work in French...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:1502:26BE:5FF:FE1D:BCA1 (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just in case anyone is still interested at this point, no, there is no case whatsoever for the subjunctive sois being needed here. The questioner is probably half-remembering the fact that the subjunctive is required in the subordinate clause following the verb penser used in the negative: Elle ne pense pas que cela soit possible (She doesn't think that's possible), as opposed to Elle pense que c'est possible (She thinks it's possible). Penser in the interrogative, rare in present-day French, can also take the subjunctive when the person asking the question already thinks the response will be negative: Pensez-vous que ce soit possible? (You don't really think it's possible do you?), as opposed to Pensez-vous que c'est possible? (Do you think it's possible?). But in D's statement, there's no negative, no interrogative, and no subordinate clause, so no case for the subjunctive. Your resident French pedant, Awien (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The italicization of the final extended Latin quote in this section changes in the middle of it. I didn't want to change it in case the author meant something, but it looks to me like a typo... Cogito-Ergo-Sum (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the catch -- I removed the italics. (I had intended boldface, but now see it's better plain.) humanengr (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Latin pronunciations, both as rendered in modern English and in Classical Latin, were initially included in June 2013. The reader is referred to the Reference Desk/Language discussion on rendering OED pronunciation for Latin words in IPA on recent edits. The below continues that discussion:

The original version of ‘sum’ was transcribed as per OED and Collins as ‘sʊm’. Subsequent edits changed that to 'sʌm'. It is proposed now to include both versions so the article would begin:

Cogito ergo sum^[a] (/ˈkoʊɡɪtoʊ ˈɜːrɡoʊ ˈsʊm/, also /ˈkɒɡɪtoʊ/, /ˈsʌm/ Classical Latin: [ˈkoːɡitoː ˈɛrɡoː ˈsʊm], "I think, therefore I am") … humanengr (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fine by me. — kwami (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Naahh. See below, in addition to which it's inaccurate: plenty of speakers use the French g; no one spoke classical Latin in Descartes time and most current Latin doesn't use it either; and we aren't proscriptivist here. Leave it to the Wiktionary entry. — LlywelynII 03:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, I accept the conclusion above: pronunciation belongs on Wiktionary -- but then there should be a Wiktionary link. But where? I tried putting a Wiktionary template understand the Descartes box, but this leaves it well down the page, and not very obvious to anyone who wonders how to pronounce the Latin. Is it possible to add a Wkt link as a footnote somehow? Suggestions? Imaginatorium (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

By leaving out Dubito (as promoted by religious people), you have changed the message of Descartes. His doubting (Dubito) of religious authority is the beginning of his thinking (Cogito). Then, because he can think about things (not be a pawn in the game of "controlling people with religion." ie the Dark Ages) he concludes that he does exist (Ergo Sum). I'm very disappointed with this omission. It also should go under Teleology since that article promotes "Ends" and ignores the rejection of same. 63.245.178.216 (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Randy C HamiltonReply

Please clarify -- are you referring to a particular section of the article? 'Doubt' appears over 20 times on the page; 'dubito' and 'god' 3 times each. humanengr (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

a more accurate translation is - i doubt, therefore i am

That would be "dubito", not "cogito". --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I.e., that's a less accurate translation. — LlywelynII 03:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not sure how important he is these days but Franz von Baader's cogitor ergo cogito et sum seems like a pretty clear homage, even if he did reject Descartes as slippy on the slope to atheism. — LlywelynII 03:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

French pronunciation of French, let alone laundry lists of English mispronunciations of Latin, don't go here. They go in Wiktionary. It would be different in a case like Thailand where the recognizably "correct" pronunciation doesn't follow standard English orthography, but to the extent that the cogito has a "correct" pronunciation, it's a perfectly straightforward one. Further, the IPA mess of regional variations to the pronunciation (which didn't even include the British pronunciation of ergo yet) is just an eyesore. — LlywelynII 04:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here's a link to the Latin entry for cogito ergo sum for the curious. Variant French and English pronunciations could be added [edit: there], since they both use this expression as well. — LlywelynII 03:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would like to point out that even though this conversation is actually using a computer zipping bytes through the ether, it does not have even the inkling of an idea that it is doing so. Yet, it still exists. This does not, therefore, prove existence on non-existence. It just asserts that the observer can state he exists even though he may be disembodied as a spirit.-- Michael Flower (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

a. Of course it knows that it's sending the packets of information. If the internet weren't checking the packets for errors, receipt, &c., it wouldn't work.

b. Regardless of that, your 'argument' is a non sequitur. If the computer weren't thinking or aware in the sense Descartes intends, then it falls outside the scope of his argument entirely. You probably mean something closer to a rock exists and doesn't think, therefore Descartes is wrong that thinking is a necessary condition for existence. However, that's not something he ever argued. You only know the rock's existence from your senses and, from his vantage of extreme doubt, it could be doubted. The assumption of the rock is already the assumption that your senses are perfectly valid. Fine, in its way, for getting through your life but completely irrelevant to Descartes's project of seeing if it's possible to philosophically ground our understanding without the initial use of information from our untrustworthy senses. — LlywelynII 03:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Wikid77: I saw you had mentioned this article on Jimbo's talk page here. (FYI. I am well familiar with the phrase and Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy having studied it in graduate school.) This article and another I looked at (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding) appear to me to be more WP:OR than anything else. I brought this up at the second article here and at WikiProject_Philosophy here and the only response was from Blue_Mist_1 (thank you):

Unfortunately, many of the very best philosophy pages lack Wikipedia acceptable references. It is what it is. It takes scarce expertise and time to make corrections, then the pages need to be protected against well meaning but ignorant editors and just plain vandalism. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If this happened on the GMO pages, all h*ll would break lose. LOL. Do you have any thoughts on this issue and if we can do something about it? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just try to dedicate some time every week to find sources to fill the page with published opinions, and perhaps keep those pages on a to-do list as a reminder to yourself. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think the attribution of Plato as preceding Descarte in his cogito formulation is wrong and should be removed. The order is wrong, for in Plato it is the sensibleness of the external world which indicates there is something which is sensing, and this makes absolute sense given Plato's epistemology being tied to his ontology of the forms. However, in denying Platonism as Descarte did his epistemology starts with doubting the sensibleness of the external world, and it was this very doubting with caused him to retreat to the formulation of the cogito as being the stable existent internal subject. In short, Plato is an inverse Descartes and does not precede him. In Plato the external illuminates, while in Descarte it is the internal. My guess is Plato would have though Descartes extremely misguided. In fact, Catherine Pickstock in her work "After Writing" convincingly ties Descartes epistemology to the Sophism of Plato's opponents and lays out in some detail how Platonic and Descartian epistemology and ontology are diametrically opposed."I think therefore I am", it can be said, is a direct refusal of Plato's epistemology, not indebted to it.Jgayaldo (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your raising this issue prompts broader review of the Predecessors section in that, up to discussion of Adi Shankar, the focus is on the literal cogito rather than Descartes's intent as captured by Thomas in the dubito (see the intro and Other forms sections). Perhaps the preceding 'predecessors' shouldn't be presented so much as earlier claimants but rather as referents for contrast? humanengr (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Philosophical articles and articles in similar topics often have much 'critique', meaning disagreeing response from others in the field, but this one is ridiculous. The criticism section shouldn't be half of the article. It makes the statement look like it has been debunked into oblivion when in reality it's still an important concept in philosophy. I'm going to cut a lot of this section per WP:UNDUE. Some of the criticism isn't even criticism; as noted above, Heidegger says the statement could be shortened and is a bit awkwardly formed, not that it's wrong. Some of the others very generally criticize the concept, not the statement. I'll remove the sort of overview thing because the only criticism of things like these should be addressed as criticism from others in the field. It shouldn't be a compressed collection of individual criticisms. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Prinsgezinde, Thank you for this edit. Re your “it’s still an important concept in philosophy”, perhaps we need some mechanism for indicating views that diverge from its use, per the intro, “to form a secure foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt.” E.g., Peirce, “rejected Descartes' appeal to universal doubt and revised the scope and the function of doubt within the process of scientific investigation. His principal concerns with Descartes' radical doubt were ...”.[1] Not sure how to best make this connection here or in the radical doubt article. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

[prompted by consideration of this edit]

Descartes wrote it with a comma in French (1637) and Latin (1644). Gutenberg and the cited The Philosophical Works of Descartes, rendered into English, Haldane and Ross (1911), both include a comma in their English translations.

The dubito elaboration already has the comma.

The cogito appears 11 times in the article — including the title and a template at the bottom.

I’m inclined to go with the above provenance. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

130.56.207.177 made this edit to the lede, changing "A fuller form, penned by Antoine Léonard Thomas …" to "A better version, articulated by Antoine Léonard Thomas". I favor the former as the latter introduces a judgment of quality, and does so without source. I'll hold off reverting pending discussion here. Humanengr (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok, that’s long enough. ‘Fuller’ is better than ‘better’. I’ll leave 130…’s ‘articulated’. Humanengr (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added a parenthetical at the end of the Translation section for a categorization of ‘I am thinking’ as ‘progressive aspect’.

Here's a start on additional grammar-related material:

1. Wiktionary identifies the French 'pense', the English 'think', and the Latin 'cogito' as present tense.
2. A general French language site, aside from using the cogito as an example for identification of ‘Je pense’ as French present tense and 'I think' as English simple present tense, indicates that the French tense can also correspond to the English continuous or progressive present. (The Wikipedia article on Continuous and progressive aspects does not provide a cite for its "French does not have a continuous aspect per se”.)
3. A blog post titled 'Your pocket-sized guide to… French philosophy: René Descartes': "… The common English translation – 'I think therefore I am' – actually weakens the argument. The French version conveys his argument more successfully because ‘je pense’ can mean ‘I am thinking’ as well as ‘I think’. ‘I am thinking’ more clearly suggests that one exists as a result of their ability to think." However, the cite does not explicitly label the grammatical forms.
4. Similarly, Rob Pope in Textual Intervention: “[N]either Descartes’ French version (Je pense, donc je suis) nor his Latin version (Cogito, ergo sum) admits … a distinction [between ‘language’ and ‘logic’] in purely verbal terms; for neither language distinguishes between progressive and non-progressive forms of the present tense (though each does have other means of signalling duration). Consequently, is it here the case that users of English (which has non-progressive and progressive forms of the present tense) are left with a problem - and a possibility - not routinely available to the users of French and Latin?”
5. An Answer Key to A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin: A Supplement to the Text by John F. Collins: "In most instances, the verbs in the following sentences may be translated alternatively in the progressive aspect: puts to flight / is putting to flight. When you translate Latin, you need a larger context to decide which aspect to use. …"
6. Translating Latin Tenses into English on JSTOR: "The development of the progressive aspect has made impossible any easy correlation of English to Latin tenses … ."

I also searched for but have not yet found a cite that considers the 'gnomic aspect' vis-à-vis the “I think” translation. The WP article on gnomic aspect indicates that when it is “[u]sed to describe a tense, the gnomic is considered neutral by not limiting action, in particular, to the past, present, or future. Examples of the gnomic include such generic statements as: 'birds fly'; 'sugar is sweet'; and 'a mother can always tell'." From the footnote: "These three examples may all be said to be in the present tense, but it is equally reasonable to consider that tense and temporality are simply not relevant to the examples, as all three express generic truths that are not limited by a specific placement in time or construct regarding the flow of time." (The “birds fly” and other examples seem in line with Blackburn’s “I ski” in the Translation section as they all carry the sense of “I occasionally” or “I can …”. I haven’t yet tracked down the cites from the gnomic article for examples and discussion there.)

Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Worked it through; hopefully it flows well enough; will add something directly from Lyons when I get access, unless someone finds that first. Humanengr (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Peteb4, your addition needs a cite to a reliable source. Humanengr (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Though the intent of the author was to acknowledge his own existence, the phrase is often used as a positive affirmation for individuals who aspire to "be" or become something greater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7204:EEA8:B168:FE67:488C:7020 (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a cite for that? Humanengr (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

An IP inserted ego in the first sentence without edit summary. Google and Google Scholar show many more hits for cogito, ergo sum than ego cogito, ergo sum; reference works use the former. GS shows 2x the hits for <"Truth by Natural light" OR "Recherche de la Vérité" "cogito ergo sum"> than <"Principia Philosophiae" OR "Principles of Philosophy" "ego cogito ergo sum">; those that cite Principia use it much more so for "cogito, ergo sum" than "ego cogito, ergo sum". Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ikjbagl offered a correction in this edit with edit summary Latin does not use accents, I don't even know why they are there--the accents make no sense. "Hujus" makes no sense and should be "cuius".

It turns out that the 1644 (original) edition did have accents — see the image I inserted for provenance sake. (FWIW, the 1685 edition removed the accent from 'facile' but kept it on 'ideò' and 'à nobis'.) As for The Search for Truth by Natural Light, Adam et Tannery (1901) shows accents; 'hujus' vs 'cuius' is 'this' vs 'whose' 'ratiocinii' (reasoning). (Here FWIW, the 1835 Garnier[2] omits accents but shows 'hujus'; but Adam et Tannery is the classic ref.) Humanengr (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your work and research on this, but I can assure you that Classical Latin never uses accents, and that hujus is not at all a Latin word. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see Wikt includes it as an alt for huius. Re accents, I agree re Classical Latin. But the issue here is scholastic Latin. (See the Punctuation §.) In looking a bit further, here's part of a Grok response (FWIW) … backward accents … would be unusual but not entirely out of the realm of possibility for the era's printing practices. … Humanengr (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ikjbagl, Imaginatorium — Reconsidering in view of the modernization of the French by an IP in this edit, I'm leaning toward making the Latin likewise more intelligible, i.e., remove accents and change 'j' to 'i' (rejicientes to reiicientes in Principles of Philosophy as well as hujus to huius in The Search for Truth by Natural Light, along with a footnote re these changes). Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

First, I think the "modernisation" of Descartes' french is utterly misguided. In WP:fr there is the option of rendering a "modern version" for accessibility purposes, but in WP:en the only function of quoting the french is to show what Descartes actually wrote. I would revert that change, if I knew a neat way of reverted a past edit.

Then I simply think it is misguided to attempt to write what a modern speaker of Latin (really?) thinks Descartes ought to have written. After all, why doesn't Ikjbagl also assure us that classical Latin never used lowercase letters, because they had not been invented yet? Equally, 'j' is just a variant (longer, come si dice in italiano 'i-lungo') form of 'i', so it can hardly be "wrong". I don't really know why he wrote accents, but he did. If there are footnotes, they should be to explain that "hujus" is a variant form of "huius", if that is really necessary.

There is a slight question here: why do I not insist on showing the old 's' forms that look like 'f'? Bof. There could be a case for just showing a facsimile of the origin (perfectly readable) along with an English translation. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thx; in view of MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE, I'll revert the French (which, iiuc, is perhaps better termed 'Early Modern French' than 'Middle French') and add/adjust footnotes as appropriate. Humanengr (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - I had forgotten about this, but maybe a footnote could just say: "The archaic '-ois' and '-oit' endings correspond to '-ais' and '-ait' in modern French" (you have to work out how to make non-breaking hyphens or x-dashes for some alphabetic value of x). Imaginatorium (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that the French edit had inserted a word raison -- hmph. Anyway, I can insert picts for the original language text in Discourse and the Meditations. So, to dissuade from such mischief in the future, should we just substitute the picts for the original language text or retain both? Treat the French and Latin differently? Humanengr (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

On thinking about it, I do not think this is a good idea - after all "accessibility" probably means we would have to put the text in an alt tag for the image - so simpler just to correct the text to the original. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The "Objections and responses" section included in the 1st edition of the Meditations (1741) has this sentence in one of Descartes' responses: "neque etiam cum quis dicit, ego cogito, ergo sum, sive existo, existentiam ex cogitatione per syllogismum deducit, sed tanquam rem per se notam simplici mentis intuitu agnoscit"

So the three words in question are actually there in the 1741 book. The translation (mine) is: "nor when someone says, "I think, therefore I am, or exist", is he deducing existence from cogitation by a syllogism, but is rather acknowledging a thing as self-evident by simple intuition of the mind".

So he's not talking about someone else, but his own actual statement. Therefore, even though it is in italics, it is the first Latin appearance of "cogito, ergo sum". 80.89.79.100 (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great find! Link here. I can bring that in and do the other attendant mods -- might be a bit though. Humanengr (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).