I’m not a Descartes scholar, so I don’t exactly know how Descartes conceived of self-consciousness, just that he had some conception of it. So I’m kindly asking the experts to help me out.
I assume he understood self-consciousness to be rooted in his Cogito. That is, his argument that thinking is the one sure sign that at least one thing exists - the self. Since he thought of this as the most fundamental knowledge one can have, it establishes the basis for self-consciousness and guaratees that all conscious beings, assuming they are thinking beings, must be self-conscious.
But there is another notion of “self-conscious” that I’m not comfortable dismissing as unrelated to Descartes understanding of it. And this is the notion that consciousness is constantly, immediately, directly, and automatically self-conscious because, out of all things in the world it could be conscious of, its own self is the closest thing to its scope of awareness. Nothing can be more imminently connected with consciousness than itself. Consciousness can be aware of some object that’s farther away from itself, like a chair for example, but in virtue of this greater distance, consciousness can turn away from it, and thereby cease to be aware of it (who knows what could happen to it when you’re not watching it). But it cannot do this with itself. This is different from self-consciousness grounded in the Cogito. With the Cogito, you could cease to be self-conscious just by not thinking “I think, therefore I am”, essentially being able to turn it on and off at will. This is not so with this more constant form of self-consciousness.
I don’t want to push one view over the other. I just want to ask if I’m right in assuming Descartes’ idea of self-consciousness was the type based on the Cogito.
descartes believed he could doubt all things except that he believed there was something that was doubting (this was him). that is the essence of the cogito. when focusing on thoughts not of oneself, the existence of the one focusing is understood (at least as an object in language). that understanding is cartesian existence even when not conciously self aware…
but if rene really doubted his existence he could have done better…
Illusions and/or hallucinations, and dreaming. Without these, Descartes wouldn’t have a gig.
“Reality” is not in the “object” or the “mind,” but in the apprehension of experience and the intentional meanings which occur through language discourse and tacit behavior. One must temporarily suspend experience in order to find the absolute structures which coordinate how experience happens, rather than seeking a reality as a manifestation of dichotomies such as “true” and “false,” “real” and “unreal.”
The object in the dream, for Descartes, is as real as an object he experiences in waking, but he must first dispose of the idea of a “steady” world which the mind experiences through the assistance of a third-- God-- who determines what is or is not “real.”
I specify the “intentional” in the tradition of phenomenology. What I mean is that concepts are never “in themselves” but instead in the praxis of use, a process where there are no dichotomies, only one process of assimilation and organization. To know and be aware of oneself is not to be suspicious, as in the Cartesian tradition, of reality in terms of real and unreal. It is to apprehend process as a body of connections and times (space and time being a priori and not synthetic judgements)…a thought is no more real or unreal than the object which it has in mind.
There are three ways to exist in this universe. One can be “it,” one can be “there,” and one can be “when.” These three are intuitions which don’t make sense logically…and they’re not supposed to, or can’t rather, because they are not deduced in experience but through experience.
We must achieve the impossible, friends. We must achieve the epoche.
Thanks for your replies. I’m not sure if it answers my question though. That’s probably a fault on my part not being able to see the answer in your posts.
So Imp, you say “when focusing on thoughts not of oneself, the existence of the one focusing is understood (at least as an object in language).” - I take this to mean the “I” in statements like “I like pizza” or “I am a doctor” indicates that the person making the statements has an implicit (unconscious?) understanding that he exists. Is that right? Then you say "that understanding is cartesian existence even when not conciously self aware… " - and I take that to mean that consciousness is not always self-aware. Therefore, consciousness is not “constantly, immediately, directly, and automatically” self-aware as I put it in my original post. Is that the idea? Is this how Descartes thought of self-awareness?
yes, rene did not always need to be consciously self aware of himself to insure his existence (of course he dragged in the infinite perfection and awareness of god to help maintain his existence… berkeley took this part and ran with it later…)
but the cogito is circular reasoning at its finest…
I think therefore I have posited my existence as a thinking thing before concluding I exist…
I like chocolate ice cream therefore I am says the same thing…
This is one of the difficult things about discussing consciousness because we are not conscious while doing it. What we normally call consciousness is just habitual reactions of movements, thoughts, and emotions. Self awareness or “consciousness” is not necessary for this so life just proceeds in the same way as it does for a dog for example but only more complex because of a greater capacity for associative thought…
So, IMO, consciousness begins with self awareness during the reactive process of life. We experience this during the day in brief intervals giving the impression that self awareness is a continual process. A person can verify for themselves that it is not so. Becoming aware of a knock on the door does not require self awareness so IMO reacting to it requires only the reactive level of a dog with a computer in its head that reacts appropriately because of established habits.
Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” doesn’t make sense to me simply because the experience of “I am” requires consciousness. Thinking though is often not a conscious process but requires only the reactive functioning of an unconscious computer.
i think a enlightend buddhist is the only human that can claim to be constantly
aware while awake. obviously everyone sleeps and dreams. i think of the world as a small part of reality, myself as a smaller part. just like any animate creature i’m aware. i specified creature because trees are not aware
in remotely the same way, they have a limited range of possible activities(anchored in ground, roots draw water/nutrients, ect) but animals react to stimuli similarly to humans (we are just smarter) i am born, i progress through a series of experiances(with a moderate degree of control that increases with age in succesful people) and i die in the end. Our experiances are what allows us to learn and grow. life kinda sucks because it ends in death. but we can have a good ride. who knows what happens when we die?