Descartes Revisited: Probably A Very Cliche Thread

MooseJockey · October 23, 2006, 4:00am

“I think; Therefore; I am”

“Cogito, ergo sum”

“Je Pense donc je suis”

I want to expand my understanding of this quote, please discuss, enlighten an inferior mind!

Peter_Kropotkin · October 23, 2006, 4:14am

If you doubt everything (with reservations)
what are you left with?

Kropotkin

MooseJockey · October 23, 2006, 4:19am

I suppose my mind, but how can you limit all existence to yourself? There is more than one great mind. Who am I to say that “I am” when in fact “we are”?

Catch my drift?

I don’t think it was a very well thought out quote, however, it beacons interesting discussion.

Peter_Kropotkin · October 23, 2006, 4:32am

Peter Kropotkin: If you doubt everything (with reservations)
what are you left with?

MJ: I suppose my mind, but how can you limit all existence to yourself? There is more than one great mind. Who am I to say that “I am” when in fact “we are”?

K: If you doubt everything, how do you KNOW there is something
else? How do you KNOW “there is more then one great mind”.
What proof do you have there is something else?

Kropotkin

jagermeister330 · October 23, 2006, 5:03am

“I think, thefore I am” is inherently contradictory, for a very simple reason. To even be able to think the prior statement is impossible without existence. I won’t start to suggest what Descartes was thinking when he said that; I haven’t read enough of Descartes to comment knowledgeably.
It is possible to exist without thinking, but it entirely impossible to think without existing.

Phaedrus · October 23, 2006, 5:04am

That’s precisely what he was trying to say.

MooseJockey · October 23, 2006, 5:07am

K: If you doubt everything, how do you KNOW there is something
else? How do you KNOW “there is more then one great mind”.
What proof do you have there is something else?

Well you and I both consider ourselves the “I” in Descartes quote. That’s sound enough proof for me. I certainly could be imagining you, but you could be imagining me as well.

harvey · October 23, 2006, 12:13pm

Oh, my ears and whiskers, how late it’s getting!’

http://ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1682527&highlight=#1682527

http://ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1682798&highlight=#1682798[/url]

YadaYada · October 23, 2006, 1:17pm

Kennethamy:

In his Meditations and Discourse Descartes begins by arguing that sense perception is inveterately unreliable, and as such, cannot afford us certain knowledge of anything beyond themselves. For instance, we can know that we have a red impression, but we cannot infer from that that we know that there is anything red that is causing that subjective red. impression. The general argument in the First Meditation is that if we accept sense impressions as our basis for knowledge, we can know nothing beyond them, and so, in general Empiricism implies Skepticism. (Descartes gives three different but connected arguments for that inference from Empiricism to Skepticism all based on “the method of doubt”: the argument from illusion; the argument from dreaming; and the argument from the Malign Genie). Consequently, for us to go beyond skepticism, the doctrine that nothing can be know beyond our immediate experiences, we need to discard empiricism, and seek cetain knowledge in what Kant would later on call “pure reason”. In the Second Meditiation, Descartes point to an example of certain knowledge that goes beyond immediate sensation which is achieved by pure reason alone. And that is, of course, “The Cogito”. He holds that he can show that he himself exists because his criterion for certainty, his method of doubt, demonstrates that that his own existence is itself, indubitable, inasmuch as doubt he exists is self-refuting. For he must exist in order to doubt. If we combine the arguments in the First and Second Meditiation, we derive the following argument.

Empiricism (reliance of the senses to provide us with knowledge of the world around us) leads to (implies) Skepticism (that we cannot know for certain the existence of anything beyond our immediate sense-perception).

But The Cogito is an example of knowledge that is certain, and which tells us with certainty that something does exist beyond our immediate sense perception, namely our selves.

Therefore, 3. Empiricism is false (from 1, and 2, by modus tollens)

Thus, in a few strokes, Descartes has:

Rebutted the claim that our immediate sensations can afford us certain knowledge of a world beyond us.

So has rebutted Empiricism as a theory of knowledge.

Has given an important example of knowledge (the existence of one’s self) that does not reply on sense-impressions.

Has prepared the ground by giving a foundation for certain knowledge which is independed of sense knowledge, so called, namely the Cogito, from which he hopes subsequently to erect knowledge independent of sense-perception.

His rejection of the proper sensibles (as you put it) in favor of thought, is not a mere whim on his part, but is supported by the three arguments in Meditation 1 which I have already mentioned, from which he concluded that empiricism was a dead end as a source for certain knowledge.

YadaYada · October 23, 2006, 1:22pm

harvey · October 23, 2006, 1:44pm

Descartes introduces the primacy of ideas over reality on the market. Once knowledge is converted to idealism, ideas takes precedence over reality and one can no longer distinguish the two finalities of intelligence: practical knowledge and speculative knowledge. Bottom line.

YadaYada · October 23, 2006, 1:55pm

“I think therefore I exist” may be rephrased

There exists an I
such that (I thinks)
therefore I exists.

There have been alternate formulations

There exists an I
such that (I experience/perceive and to be perceived/I’s actions cause a reaction/I performs some action)
therefore I exists.

I could claim that any single thought implies a self-evident thinking process, but there is clearly no logical link between a thought or thinking process and a physical thinker. The leap to the physical is unjustified.

I am not denying that I exist. I’m just saying that I know that I exist through self-evident experience and not by logical deduction from a thought, as Descartes claimed.