
Dutch: 
Deze aflevering gaat over of jij bestaat of niet.
Als je ooit gepootjebaad hebt in de grote ocean van de filosofie
Dan heb je vast wel eens deze uitsprak gehoord: "Ik denk, dus ik ben,"
geschreven door de 17e eeuwse Franse filosoof en Kapitein Haak lookalike René Descartes.
In zijn "Meditaties op Eerste Filosofie" probeer Descartes absolute kennis te vinden,
en wat hij zich realiseert is dat een heleboel van wat hij dacht te weten, eigenlijk niet zeker was.
Bijvoorbeeld: Ik denk dat ik deze video aan het maken ben, maar het zou ook zo kunnen zijn dat ik aan het dromen ben,
of aan het hallucineren of in een virtuele realiteit ben.
Descartes maakte zich vooral zorgen over de mogelijkheid dat hij zijn hele leven aan het dromen was.
Hij schreef:
"Er zijn geen zekere kenmerken waaraan ik het verschil tussen dromen en realiteit kan herkennen.
Nou denk je waarschijnlijk,

English: 
This episode is all about whether or not YOU exist.
[electronic theme music]
If you've ever so much as dipped your toe in the vast ocean that is philosophy,
then you will have heard the phrase "I think, therefore I am,"
First written by 17th-century French philosopher, and Captain Hook look-alike, Rene Descartes
In his "Meditations on First Philosophy," Descartes tried to find absolutely certain knowledge
and what he realized was that a lot of what he thought he knew was actually open to doubt.
For instance, I think I'm making a video right now, but I could be asleep and dreaming or hallucinating,
or living in a virtual reality.
Descartes was especially concerned with the possibility that he might be dreaming his entire life
He famously wrote, "There are no definitive signs by which to distinguish being awake from being asleep."

English: 
This episode all about whether or not you exist.
If you've ever so much as dipped your toe in the vast ocean that is philosophy,
then you will have heard the phrase "I think therefore I am,"
first written by 17th century French philosopher and Captain Hook lookalike René Descartes.
In his "Meditations on First Philosophy," Descartes tried to find absolutely certain knowledge,
and what he realised was that a lot of what he thought he knew was actually open to doubt.
For instance, I think I'm making a video right now but I could be asleep and dreaming,
or hallucinating, or living in a virtual reality.
Descartes was especially concerned with the possibility that he might be dreaming his entire life.
He famously wrote,
"There are no definitive signs by which to distinguish being awake from being asleep."
Now, you're probably thinking,

Portuguese: 
Esse episódio é sobre se você existe!
Eu penso, logo existo
Se você já vasculhou pouco sobre o campo vasto que é a filosofia
então você já ouviu a frase "Eu penso, logo existo", escrita em princípio
pelo filósofo francês
(e sósia do Capitão Gancho) René Descartes. 
Em suas
"Meditações Sobre Filosofia Primeira"
Descartes tentou achar conhecimento absolutamente certo,
mas o que ele percebeu foi que muito do que ele achava que sabia
na verdade estava aberto a dúvidas. Por exemplo: eu acho que estou fazendo um vídeo agora,
mas eu poderia estaria dormindo e sonhando, alucinando
ou vivendo numa realidade virtual. Descartes estava principalmente preocupado com a possibilidade
de que ele poderia estar sonhando a sua vida inteira.
Ele escreveu: "Não há sinais definitivos pelos quais distinguir
estar acordado de estar dormindo".

English: 
"That's a stupid thing to be worried about. I know I'm not dreaming
because I'm not flying or Batman or having dinner with Olivia Wilde."
But the point is that when you're dreaming, most of the time you think it's real
and you think this is real, too, so how do you know you aren't dreaming right now?
[DRAMATIC MUSIC]
Descartes actually took this one step further.
See, in a dream you can still know things like 2+2=4 and all triangles have three sides.
These are just truisms, tautologies.
But Descartes chose to imagine an all-powerful, evil demon
whose sole purpose was to trick him about everything he thought he knew.
Everything that you think you know, the evil demon could be deceiving you with his fantastic powers.
Now, that sounds like a bit of a crazy idea and, yeah, a lot of philosophy is a bit pie-in-the-sky.
We normally assume that we know things because if we had that kind of scepticism all the time
then we just wouldn't get anything done.
But Descartes wasn't happy with things that seemed true or were probably true.

English: 
Now you're probably thinking, "That's a stupid thing to be worried about. I know I'm not dreaming because
I'm not flying or Batman or having dinner with Olivia Wilde."
But the point is that when you're dreaming, most of the time you think it's real
and you think this is real too, so how do you know you aren't dreaming right now?
[inception bwoooonnng]
Descartes actually took this one step further.
You see, in a dream, you can still know things, like two and two makes four and all triangles have three sides.
These are just truisms, tautologies.
But Descartes chose to imagine an all-powerful evil demon
whose sole purpose was to trick him about everything he thought he knew,
everything that you think YOU know, the evil demon could be deceiving you with his fantastic powers.
Now that sounds like a bit of a crazy idea, and yeah, a lot of philosophy is a bit "pie in the sky."
We normally assume that we know things because if we had that kind of skepticism all the time,
then we just wouldn't get anything done.
But Descartes wasn't happy with things that seemed true or were probably true.

Portuguese: 
Agora vocês provavelmente estão pensando que esta é uma coisa estúpida para se preocupar, eu sei que não estou dormindo porque não estou voando
não sou o Batman ou estou jantando com Olivia Wilde. Mas o argumento é que quando você está
sonhando,
na maioria do tempo você acha que o que está sonhando é realidade.
E você acha que isso é real também. Então....como você sabe que não está sonhando...agora?
Descartes levou isso um passo adiante.
Num sonho, você ainda pode saber coisas, como "2+2=4" e
"todos triângulos têm três lados", estas são simplesmente verdades, tautologias.
Mas Descartes escolheu imaginar um todo poderoso demônio maligno,
cujo único objetivo era enganá-lo sobre tudo que ele achava que
sabia.
Tudo que você acha que sabe pode ser o demônio
te enganando sobre com seus poderes fantásticos.
Essa ideia soa como uma ideia meio louco, e sim, muito da filosofia é um pouco
de loucura.
Nós normalmente partimos do pressuposto que sabemos as coisas porque se tivermos esse
ceticismo o tempo inteiro nós não conseguiríamos fazer nada.
Mas ele não estava feliz com coisas que soavam verdade ou eram provavelmente verdade,

Dutch: 
"Dat is iets stoms om je zorgen over te maken, ik weet dat ik niet aan het dromen ben
want ik ben niet aan het vliegen, ik ben niet Batman en ik zit niet aan tafel met Olivia Wilde."
Maar het punt is, dat als je aan het dromen bent, je het meestal denkt dat het echt is
en je denkt ook dat dit echt is, dus hoe weet je zo zeker dat je nu niet aan het dromen bent?
[DRAMATISCHE MUZIEK]
Descartes ging hier nog een stapje verder in.
In een droom kun je namelijk nog steeds dingen weten, zoals 2+2=4 en alle driehoeken hebben drie zijden.
Dat zijn gewoon waarheden, tautologieen.
Maar Descartes stelde zich een machtige kwaadaardige demoon voor
wiens enige doel was om hem voor het lapje te houden over alles wat hij dacht te weten.
Bij alles wat je denkt te weten zou deze demoon je kunnen misleiden met zijn krachten.
Nou klinkt dat een beetje gek en, ja, veel filosofie is een beetje raar.
Meestal nemen we aan dat we dingen weten omdat we, als we de hele tijd sceptisch zouden zijn,
we gewoon nergens meer aan toe zouden komen.
Maar Descartes was niet tevreden met dingen die waar leken of waarschijnlijk waar waren.

Dutch: 
Hij wou het absoluut zeker weten, dus hij probeerde alles wat hij kon te betwijfelen.
Als er ook maar een minuscule kans was dat iets niet waar zou kunnen zijn
geloofde hij het niet, en zocht hij verder naar iets dat onbetwijfelbaar was.
Hij geloofde niet in de externe wereld, in zijn eigen lichaam, in andere mensen, alles,
om iets te proberen te vinden dat zeker weten waar was
en waar hij achter kwam is dat hij niet kon twijfelen aan zijn eigen bestaan.
Alleen al de actie van het twijfelen, bevestigd dat er iemand is die het twijfelen doet.
Vandaar, "Ik denk dus ik ben."
Descartes heeft er daarna nog van alles aan toegevoegd,
maar voor nu laten we het hierbij want het is misschien niet zo onbetwijfelbaar als Descartes dacht.
[RECORD SCRATCH]
Descartes heeft het misschien niet zo duidelijk opgeschreven,
maar waar hij naartoe wil, is dat hij niet kan betwijfelen dat hij nadenkt, omdat twijfelen een vorm van nadenken is,
en omdat gedachten een bedenker nodig hebben, is dat hoe hij moet weten dat hij toch bestaat.
Maar 19e eeuwe Duitse filosoof en besnorde badass Friedrich Nietzsche -

English: 
He wanted to be ABSOLUTELY certain.
So he tried to doubt everything he could.
If there was even the slightest chance that something might be false, he disbelieved it
in order to find something indubitable.
He disbelieved in the external world, in his own body, in other people, everything
to try and find something certainly true.
And what he found was that he couldn't doubt his own existence.
Just the act of doubting it confirmed that there was someone there doing the doubting.
Hence, "I think therefore I am."
[Hallelujah Chorus]
[chorus continues]
Now, Descartes went on to build a whole lot of other stuff on top of that,
but we're gonna stick with that for now because
it might not be as indubitable
as Descartes wanted it to be.
[vinyl scratch]
Descartes doesn't do a great job of spelling it out,
but what he's driving at is that he can't doubt that he is thinking
since doubting itself is a kind of thinking.
And since thoughts require a thinker, that's how he knows he must exist.
But 19th-century German philosopher and
mustachioed bad ass Friedrich Nietzsche
[enunciating] Nietzsche.
"Nee-cheh"

Portuguese: 
ele queria ter certeza absoluta. Então ele tentou duvidar
de tudo que ele podia. Se havia a menor chance de algo
não ser verdade,
ele não acreditava, afim de achar algo induvidável.
Ele não acreditava no mundo externo, no seu próprio corpo, em outras pessoas,
não acreditava em nada, para tentar achar algo certamente verdade.
O que ele descobriu foi que ele não podia duvidar da sua própria existência.
Só o ato de duvidar confirmava que havia algo lá
para duvidar,
ou seja, penso logo existo. Descartes também evoluiu muito essa ideia,
mas nós vamos trabalhar com issa ideia por ora, pois
pois pode não ser tão indubitável como Descartes queria que fosse. Descartes não diz claramente
mas o que ele quer dizer é que ele não pode duvidar que ele está pensando,
já que duvidar por si só é um tipo de pensamento.
E como pensamentos requerem um pensador,
é assim que ele sabe que deve existir. Mas o filósofo alemão
(e bonzão alemão bigodudo) Friedrich Nietzsche
"Nitche", "Nitche", não Nitchi, Nitchê

English: 
He wanted to be absolutely certain, so he tried to doubt everything he could.
If there was even the slightest chance that something might be false,
he disbelieved it in order to find something indubitable.
He disbelieved in the external world, in his own body, in other people, everything,
to try and find something certainly true,
and what he found was that he couldn't doubt his own existence.
Just the act of doubting it confirmed that there was someone there doing the doubting.
Hence, "I think therefore I am."
Now, Descartes went on to build a whole lot of other stuff on top of that,
but we're gonna stick with that for now because it might not be as indubitable as Descartes wanted it to be.
[RECORD SCRATCH}
Descartes doesn't do a great job of spelling it out,
but what he's driving at is that he can't doubt that he is thinking since doubting itself is a kind of thinking,
and, since thoughts require a thinker, that's how he knows he must exist.
But 19th century German philosopher and mustachioed badass Friedrich Nietzsche --

Portuguese: 
achava que "pensamentos requerem um pensador"
não é indubitável. Pensamentos podem existir como uma
corrente flutuante de ideias conectadas,
então o máximo que Descartes poderia dizer está acontecendo algum pensamento.
Então há isso para se pensar, mas também há outra questão,
principalmente: indubitável significa verdade?
Parece que muitas coisas poderiam ser indubitáveis.
Eu poderia achar indubitável que eu sou Napoleão, mas isso não faz com que
seja verdade. Mas é importante lembrar o que Descartes quer dizer quando ele usa
a palavra "dúvida"
Quando ele diz que vai duvidar de tudo que não seja indubitáveldoubt here well this is gonna doubt
anything that is an indubitable in
para achar conhecimento absolutamente certo,
absolutamente certo,  o que ele quer dizer é que ele vai desacretidar qualquer coisa que possa
ser errada. Se eu estou totalmente convencido que eu sou Napoleão,
eu poderia ao menos admitir que eu possa estar errado sobre isso,
até Napoleão ele mesmo poderia achar que ele poderia estar
errado sobre sua própria identidade.
Mas se eu pensar que estou pensando, eu não posso estar errado
sobre isso, já que se eu estivesse eu não estaria considerando o problema.

Dutch: 
Nietsjuh. Nietsjuh. Niet nietsjie. Nietsjuh (Nederlandstaligen weten dit al) -
dacht dat het idee dat gedachten een bedenker nodig hebben niet onbetwijfelbaar was.
Gedachten zouden misschien kunnen bestaan als een soort vrij-bewegende aaneenschakelingen van losse ideëen,
dus Descartes kon hoogst zeggen dat er nadenken aan het plaatsvinden was.
Dus dat is iets om over na te denken, maar er is nog een andere vraag, namelijk betekent "onbetwijfelbaar" ook per se "waar"?
Het lijkt erop dat er een heleboel dingen zijn die onbetwijfelbaar zijn.
Ik zou het onbetwijfelbaar kunnen vinden dat ik Napoleon ben, maar dan is het nog niet waar.
Het is belangrijk te onthouden wat Descartes bedoeld wanneer hij het woord "twijfel" gebruikt.
Als hij zegt dat hij alles gaat betwijfelen wat niet onbetwijfelbaar is, zodat hij ware kennis kan vinden,
dan bedoeld hij dat hij alles dat misschien verkeerd zou kunnen zijn, niet meer gelooft.
Als ik ervan overtuigd ben dat ik Napoleon ben, dan zou ik misschien op zijn minst nog wel kunnen toegeven dat ik daarin fout zou kunnen zitten.
Zelfs Napoleon zelf zou wel eens bedacht kunnen hebben dat hij het fout zou kunnen hebben over zijn eigen identiteit.
Maar als ik denk dat ik nadenk, kan ik het daarover in ieder geval niet fout hebben, wat als dat wel zo was
dan zou nu niet over het probleem aan het nadenken zijn.

English: 
Neetchuh. Neetchuh. Not neetchee. Neetchuh. --
thought that "thoughts require a thinker" isn't indubitable.
Thoughts might exist as some kind of free-floating chain of unconnected ideas,
so the most that Descartes could say was that thinking was going on.
So there's that to think about, but there is also another question, too, namely "Does indubitable mean true?"
It seems like a lot of things could be indubitable.
I could find it indubitable that I'm Napoleon but that doesn't make it true.
But it's important to remember what Descartes means when he uses the word "doubt" here.
When he says he's going to doubt anything that isn't indubitable in order to find certain knowledge,
what he means is he's going to disbelieve anything that might be wrong.
If I'm totally convinced that I'm Napoleon, then I might at least admit that I could be wrong about that.
Heck, even Napoleon himself might entertain the thought that he could be wrong about his identity.
But if I think that I'm thinking, I can't be wrong about that, since, if I was,
then I wouldn't be considering the problem.

English: 
Not "Nee-chee"
"Nee-cheh"
thought that "thoughts require a thinker" isn't indubitable.
Thoughts might exist as some kind of
free-floating chain of unconnected ideas.
So the most that Descartes could say was that "thinking is going on."
So there's that to think about, but there's also another question too,
namely: does indubitable mean true?
It seems like a lot of things could be indubitable.
I could find it indubitable that I'm Napoleon, but that doesn't make it true.
But it's important to remember what Descartes means when he uses the word "doubt" here.
When he says that he's going to doubt anything that isn't indubitable in order to find certain knowledge,
what he means is he's going to disbelieve anything that might be wrong.
If I'm totally convinced that I'm Napoleon, then I might at least admit that I could be wrong about that.
Heck, even Napoleon himself might entertain the thought that he could be wrong about his identity.
But if I think that I'm thinking, I can't be wrong about that,
since, if I was, then I wouldn't be considering the problem.

English: 
The issue is whether or not I can say that it's definitely me doing the thinking,
i.e. do thoughts require a thinker?
Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell thought that there was at least a chance Descartes could be wrong about that.
Bertrand Russell was the one who suggested that thoughts might exist as a chain of unconnected ideas,
but that's kind of a weird idea -- like, what would thoughts even be if there was no one there having them?
What do you think? Leave a comment with your suggestions and questions
and we'll answer them at the end of the next video! Favourite, share, tell your friends about Philosophy Tube,
and, if you leave a like, then you definitely exist.

Portuguese: 
O problema é se ou posso ou não dizer que sou definitivamente eu pensando,
se pensamentos requerem um pensador. Nietzsche e Bertrand Russell
achavam que havia ao menos uma chance de Descartes estar errado sobre isso, foi Russell que
sugeriu que pensamentos podem existir como uma
corrente de ideias conectadas. Mas isso é uma ideia estranha,
como pensamentos seriam sem ninguém tendo eles?
O que você acha? Deixe um comentário com suas sugestões,
perguntas e nós vamos responde-lás no fim do próximo vídeo.
Favorite, compartilhe, conte a seus amigos sobre o Philisophy Tube e você deixar um like
você com certeza existe.

English: 
The issue is whether or not I can say that it's definitely ME doing the thinking,
i. e., do thoughts require a thinker?
Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell thought that there was at least a chance
Descartes could be wrong about that.
Bertrand Russell was the one that who suggested that thoughts might exist
as a chain of unconnected ideas.
But, that's kind of a weird idea, like
what would thoughts even be if there was no one there having them?
What do you think? Leave a comment with your suggestions and questions
and we'll answer them at the end of the next video.
Favorite, share, tell your friends about PhilosophyTube
and if you leave a "like," then you definitely exist.
[electronic theme music]

Dutch: 
Het probleem is of ik wel of niet met zekerheid kan zeggen, dat IK het ben die aan het nadenken is,
oftewel, hebben gedachten een bedenker nodig?
Nietzsche en Bertrand Russell dachten dat er ieder geval een kans was dat Descartes het wat dat betreft fout had.
Bertrand Russell was degene die suggereerde dat gedachten misschien zouden bestaan als een aaneenschakeling van losse ideëen,
maar dat is een beetje een vreemd idee - wat zouden gedachten uberhaupt zijn, als er niemand was die ze had?
Wat denk jij? Laat een comment achter met je suggesties en vragen
en dan zullen we ze aan het einde van de volgende video bespreken! Voeg deze video toe aan je favorieten, vertel je vrienden over Philosophy Tube,
en als je deze video like't, dan weet je zeker dat je bent.
