Hey guys, I was delighted to recently get this posted on SYMPOSIA (before I was aware of ILP’s existence), so I figured I’ll pop it on here too to see what you guys think, perhaps some of you have read it.
Descartes argument for existence is now incredibly famous, it claims, “Cogito ergo sum.” The usual English is, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes uses the cogito argument as a deductive proof of his existence, a method to know that existence is indubitable and certain, and escape global scepticism. This is important as it not only enables knowledge of the self (one serious epistemological problem), but also allows certain knowledge (another serious epistemological problem). It is hardly surprising that a three word Latin solution to two major problems of epistemology causes such controversy!
In this paper I will look at the cogito in it’s original context, as a deductive argument, and some of the common criticisms of it, some of which I find successful. I will also however demonstrate how the cogito is effective as an empirical statement, (which would likely make Descartes, a rationalist, cringe in his grave). Finally I will attempt to explain why, in the context of Descartes time, this empirical statement needs to be disguised as a deductive argument.
The cogito takes a very simple deductive form, one premise and one conclusion that Descartes is claiming rationally follows.
I think
I exist
This leaves little room for criticism, using a grand total of three words, and one logical function. Nevertheless a wide range of criticisms have been proposed; the first, and most common of which, focuses on the “I”, in the first premise.
This “I” has proved endlessly problematic for the Cogito, some say that this “I” begs the question. Many have argued it already presupposes the existence of “the self” of “the I”, Descartes has got caught up so much in his own metaphysics and got so used to the idea that self exists that he has forgot to justify the “I” of the argument. The argument is that “I am” is essentially implied or logically follows from “I”, and as such the premise “I think”, begs the question. A better formulation, many would suggest is merely “there are thoughts”, as there is no suggestion that the thoughts refer to a self. This seems to miss a great deal of what Descartes is trying to say however, he doesn’t merely argue that “there are thoughts”, he was to argue that “I think”. It is the fact that not only does thinking occur, but knowledge of the thinking occurs, self-consciousness. It is also ironic that so much modern criticism of the argument focuses on the English translation’s addition (the word I), proper elaboration upon the original Latin version would reveal less emphasis on the “I” as such, and more “there are thoughts therefore there is existence”.
Many argue in this case that in order to establish the self, Descartes’ aim, “I” is required, and in this form the conclusion adds nothing to the premises. The argument could be seen to have the suppressed premise, “Everything that thinks must Exist”. If this is the case, then there is another way to attack the deductive logic of the argument, by attacking this new premise.
All things that think must also exist
I think
I exist
The new first premise can be criticised as being purely an assumption. The question arises, “Why must things that think exist?” Descartes would argue that things that think must exist because thinking is merely a mode of a substance, the mind. Descartes does not seem to give any evidence for this at any point; this may seem odd for such a famously successful argument. This point successfully defeats the cogito as a deductive argument; there is indeed a suppressed premise that lacks justification.
This is however not a problem for the cogito, this is because the cogito is not strictly speaking a deductive argument as much as it is an empirical fact. The criticism that “I think” entails “I exist” and therefore the argument is circular, is not actually a criticism. Descartes’ whole argument is in fact merely the empirical statement, I experience, he goes on to elaborate that he must therefore exist, but this is merely elaboration upon what has already been established from the empirical observation that “I experience thought”, or “I think”. Thought is merely a convenient example of something we can experience at any time at will. I see red therefore I exist is essentially the same argument, it simply wouldn’t work for the blind, Descartes uses thought because it is universal. Many may argue that the cogito must be a deductive argument, it goes from the premise of one set of data, “I think” to a second set of data “I exist”.
I would however argue that it is true that the property of existence is already implied in “I think”, as this refers not only to there being a thought, but to there being an active experience of the thought, on the part of the thinker. When the implications of the phrase “I think” are elaborated upon the argument could take the form of:
T&E, E->I : I
{1} 1. T&E Premise
{2} 2. E->I Premise
{1} 3. E 1,&E
{1,2} 4. I 2,3,MP
In this, T stands for the phenomena of a thought, and the E stands for the experience of that thought expressly implied by “I think”, the I stands for “I exist”. Because the cogito is at base an appeal to experience as justification of a claim to existence, it is at heart an empiricist argument. Although there is present an argument indicating expression, therefore, this is a red herring, it functions properly as the terms do indeed entail E, but it adds no new information. One problem with this view of the cogito is that it seems to suggest that thought is more fundamental than existence.
In fact Descartes would be the first to admit that existence is more fundamental than thought. From this view it seems odd that Descartes would work backwards, reasoning from a less fundamental thing, our thoughts, to a more fundamental thing, our existence. Why should Descartes engage in this covert empiricism, and adopt the role of an empiricist in rationalist clothing?
Essentially this is all down to context, the cogito was part of a large philosophical context, the enlightenment. The authorities of authority figures all over the world were challenged. States, religions and theocracies were brought to reckoning through the tool of human reason. For this purpose rationalism accelerated, and became almost autonomous in its authority. Descartes particularly was a dedicated, and leading, rationalist throughout the enlightenment. Trade marked with a dedication to formal reasoning, deductive argument and a commitment to a priori knowledge, the rationalists aimed to challenge the empirical claims from experience which lacked any other justification. Descartes himself was devoutly religious, or at least appeared to be so, but nevertheless he was a major contributor to this historical philosophical movement. The cogito was employed as a form of covert empiricism, it seems to demonstrate that we rationally must exist, and when Descartes doubts reason he is forced to turn to God. It is however the case that it was never necessary to show existence follows rationally from the experience of thought; it is merely an aspect of it.
Descartes’ camouflaging the cogito as a deductive argument lends him a dependence on reason, which isn’t really there, the fact that we experience thought, and we know we exist for certain is true and knowable through experience alone. Descartes’ covert empiricism will remain in debates for years, and it is likely few of those who study the cogito will ever see through his clever disguise, to the pure empirical claim, the foundation of any true empirical theory, “Hey I just noticed - I exist.”