Descartes argues Cogito Ergo sum Vs The Dalai Lamas belief?

[JohnJooley]

RIght naturally those better familiarised with one of these philosophers will be biased to that philosopher.
Descartes argues from the starting point that all he can be certain of is, he is. Dala lama however argues that our thoughts & conciousness are a stream essentially & that these develop the ego. The buddhist philosophy shares a common idea of showing its idea, explain who you are?....after much thought people see they can't explain themselves, but only give a list of their ideas & thoughts, they aren't anybody, they aren't specifically unique & within this lies a helpful hand to destroying the ego.
Obviously 4-7 lines of a 2500 odd year philosophy isn't going to be very convincing, but for the sake of arguement & deep thought how can one argue against the Dalai Lama.

*NOTE as i said this is a very very brief idea of buddhist philosophy, so naturally it will probably get teared to shreds by those better experienced in philosophy/cartesian philosophy from where i can't adequately provide my points.
*Merry: my mistake i forgot to finish Descartes reasoning. As for arguing, a wrong word.
My point is that Descartes approaches his existence from knowing he is from thought, the dalai lama teaches that ourselves are merely formed from the idea of a stream of conscious thoughts. That we essentially aren't anything else.
I cant see how the different philosophies don't collide on some level

 

[Merryblueeyes]

You misrepresent Descartes when you say that all he is sure of is that he is. He is sure of that because he thinks; therefore, he is saying that thought is the proof of existence which is not far from what the Dalai Lamas is stating as well. Why would one argue against the Dalai Lama or Descartes for that matter. The point of philosophical thought is consideration not argument. The point of an argument is to win or lose. The point of consideration is to lean and expand thought.

 

[Dude]

I read your post and it got me thinking about these quotes:

"Tell me what you do, and I will tell you who you are."

"show me what you do, and I’ll tell you what you believe."

Language dictates that ideas are simply a list of thoughts. To share the idea, you do so in a linear progression, making it a list of the components of the idea.

If you reverse it back, it all comes back to knowing that you exist because you are having a thought.

 

[AB]

we could have a merry debate all day, but fortunately there is a book which outlines this issue very well. check out "the tao of pooh". he brings up this specific issue, if i recall correctly. email me if you want.

 

[JCFubar]

Circular reasoning is defined as using the conclusion as part of the proof.

"I think, therefore I am" is a good example of circular reasoning. The "I think" part already contains the implicit assumption "I am."