Yes, Atla, there is a circular reasoning here, but it's not "cogito ergo sum", but your obsession with circular reasoning. You insist there is circular reasoning from the outset, and by George you come up with the conclusion that there is circular reasoning in "CES".Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:46 am+
Ok maybe we are talking about a somewhat different circular reasoning here.
There is no such thing as a thought and a thinker, and there is no dependent thing here. Thought and thinker are one and the same, but once we assume two things, we will be lead into circular reasoning that will reinforce the idea that there are two things.
Therefore the only circular reasoning here is your obsessing about it. You start with it, and you finish with it. A perfect, clear, shining and elegant example of it.
"There is no such thing as a thought and a thinker." Well, well. I can't really reply to this, it's so basically wrong. Don't you think? Aren't you? Just tell me: you deny your own existence? And you deny that you are capable of thought?
OR ELSE perhaps you are trying to say in your own (ineffective) style that you and your thought are inseparable. Then if that were the case, it would be impossible for you to have this thought today, and another, different thought tomorrow. And indeed you don't think of all your thoughts, at any time; you are not your thoughts. Sure thought and self are separable.
But hey, if you see it that way, don't let me stand in your way. You can declare in your own philosophy that self and thought are inseparable. They are one. That is not true, but you can build a philosophy around it nevertheless. Go do it, it will be an interesting project.