there is thinking therefore I am? something else thinks therefore I exist? that is not the cogito…
Søren Kierkegaard’s critique
The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito.[3] Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already pre-supposes the existence of “I”, and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard’s argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise “I think” into two further premises:
"x" thinks
I am that "x"
Therefore I think
Therefore I am
Where “x” is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the “I” from the thinking thing.[4]
Here, the cogito has already assumed the “I”'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely “developing the content of a concept”, namely that the “I”, which already exists, thinks.[5]
Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thinking thing must have something that exists to think it. It is psychologically difficult to think “I do not exist”. But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or pre-supposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.[6]
Point #1 is what I call “Absolute Nihilism” which all Philosophers must achieve at some point in their life. Here Descartes expresses his self-doubt and uncertainty about the world, or more appropriately-speaking, his doubts about the world through his perceptions of it. He had mistaken “many false opinions for true” and this fact is true for every Individual. So now he expresses a desire to get ride of all those “false opinions” that he has picked up along the way. He wants to be certain about something, or even anything at all! All he knows is that he cannot be certain about something until he has a ‘solid’ foundation laid upon the ground, a framework, for thinking.
It is particularly-interesting to notice that in order for Descartes to complete this process, he signifies that he must isolate himself completely from worldly-desire ~ but why??? We are left with assumptions here. I assume he must disconnect from the rest of the world, Sociality, because the world outside the philosopher contaminates his mind with impurity. That is how I would describe it anyway. Descartes is in retirement before he begins his meditations. Thus he is prepared to clear his mind completely. He is financially-stable. Perhaps he has a family already-provided for. Perhaps he is ready to die in peace should death occur to him. Who knows except a historian who can accurately-pinpoint the context of Descartes life at the time of his meditations? Regardless of the full context, we-the-readers know Descartes has a fit mind for this process because he states it clearly. “I am in the secure possession of leisure in a peaceable retirement”. In other words, he is not tied down by worldly or hedonistic desires. He is ready for exploration.
Point #2 claims that he can through out his entire belief-system if just one belief is in doubt. This is logical & reasonable. One tiny speck of error can destroy his entire foundation for thinking. So that is what he does. He explains it is not necessary for him to go through all of his beliefs because if he has reason to doubt just one piece of knowledge then he assumes the whole of his knowledge can be corrupted by it. I agree with him and his logic.
Point #3 demonstrates that Descartes senses have “tricked” him in some manner-of-speaking. He seems to be an empiricist because he bases the reality of his world off his personal experiences. It would be enjoyable to know what exactly “tricked” him here but he does not signify it, at least not yet. In-fact, he says “misled us” as if speaking on behalf of others. Therefore it is possible that Descartes-himself may never have been “tricked” by his senses. It may have been somebody else close to him. It may have been another individual who made a misjudgment and had to reevaluate it, causing Descartes doubt by the mere implication of error. Regardless, one error based on sense-perception ruins the whole of sense-perception. Descartes is aware of this possibility and he seeks to explore it.
Point #4 begins his attack on certainty, namely-speaking, self-certainty. Descartes states that if our senses can be deceiving, then why is he automatically-compelled to remain certain that he is living & breathing in his cabin right now in the moment? He does not know. But he draws a parallel to mental disorder and bums on the street, who live in pickup trucks, and kidnap teenagers, who delude themselves by believing they are ‘kings’ of the world when obviously this seems a contradiction. In other words, am I the King of England? Are you? I somehow doubt that I am or you are. Then again, like Descartes here, I could be wrong. I do not know. Let us then follow Descartes to see how your or I can in-fact be certain of something,or even anything at all!
Point #5 takes self-doubt to the highest possible level: Descartes cannot distinguish between what is awake or what is dreaming, reality or unreality. He has no way to distinguish anything due to the extreme necessity called upon him to become certain of something. If he is not even certain of his self-conscious existence, as awake, then he is conscious of nothing at all. I call this state “supra-consciousness” and very few are capable of achieving it mostly-due-in-part to a genetic predisposition. Some men are born-thinkers just like some black men are born-sprinters. It is in the blood. Other men mimic this state of “supra-consciousness” with drugs and variants but this is a lacking-state. Drug abusers who need drugs to become supra-conscious are not naturally-compelled to the state but rather artificially-compelled. Pot-smokers, for example, are copies of thinkers. If they could think on their own then they would not need drugs to reproduce the supra-conscious state. And it is fairly-easy to distinguish drug abusers from what I call a “real thinker”.
Point #6 is getting to the bottom of reality-itself, towards the “cogitatio” which Descartes mentions. I assume the meaning of this paragraph is to understand the supra-conscious state as the default state for the Entire Universe Itself. Between dreams and reality, nothing can be distinguished except as absolutely-true or absolutely-false. And I agree with Descartes because I too am an Absolutist. If your mind cannot abstract an Absolute, as a man and a Philosopher, then I say perhaps you are not a man at all, but if you are then you are still definitely-not a Philosopher of any kind. Descartes is (successfully) reducing his entire world and reality, Actuality, to the point of a pin needle. There is Nothingness.
Point #7 signifies Form & Void to me. Descartes is now distinguishing the cause & character for all material and/or immaterial existence (derived from Plato). There is Nothing, or, there is Something. Either way, nobody knows anything at all. Nobody knows Nothing. Somebody knows Something. Nothing makes sense: complete nonsense.
Point #8 demonstrates the impossibility to conceive mathematical abstracts, Form, to ever be false. If form is false then nonsense is achieved. Nothing would make sense, again.
Point #9 brings in the Absolute Author, the Creator of Everything, and Descartes produces the point if this Creation Principle (which created 2+3=5) created mathematical formulas then this Creator could possibly-deceive us, you & I, into a falsehood. And this is how Nonsense is made literal. The writers of these mathematical formulas and equations maintain all of the knowledge about how, why, and when such truths were derived. Is God a trickster? Did he fool us? Does 2+3=5???
We do not know yet. We are certain of Nothing right now.
Point #10 is the greatest paragraph so far. At the introduction, Descartes seems to express his doubt for even God but avoids stating such because of the power of The Church at the time of his writing this. He says, paraphrased “there are those who would disbelieve even God” (meaning himself), which is a great maneuver of reasoning. He hides it so carefully that none of his contemporaries would probably-see it. He then immediately-proceeds to his next necessary steps and states: “but from cogent and maturely considered reasons;” Here he begins to formulate a basis for his understanding and consciousness. Reason is the absolute-power, nothing else. If anything will get him through this mess, toward certainty, then fuck God, only the power of Pure Reason (Immanuel Kant) will lead Descartes to his salvation. Is God Reason? Nobody knows. And that is not the case of these meditations as indicated by Descartes here in this paragraph. Not only is Reason necessary, but Descartes also signifies it as “maturely considered reasons”. This implies that the Philosopher is a Man and an Adult, not a woo-man or a child.
Point #11 is nearly as powerful as his previous paragraph. Here Descartes states that his Reason must be maintained through a continual process, an infinite feedback loop of reoccurrence. And he is correct again. Pure Reason is a supra-conscious state held & maintained by only the best Philosophers of all time. It requires a special mix of blood, genetics, to even mimic this process. White people signify the best “Philosophers” of all time for a reason. Personally-speaking, I can relate to this due to my experiences with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, together, and so my own mind runs 100000000 miles per minute stuck in a feedback loop. Descartes is one such Individual who is aware of the same perceptions I am. And I see where his reasoning is valid or invalid. So far he has not made one single error in his reasoning. There is no “circularity” here, at least, not yet…
The expression of this reasoning is a constant effort. Here Descartes explains that if he shall begin to think of things at all, forget even certainly, then he must maintain his (mature) reasoning and base his evaluations on an incessant testing for probability (The Scientific Method). His observations of life, his empiricism, must be evaluated and reevaluated and reevaluated over and over and over and over and over again. And when his mind tires to the point of collapse then he must start over and evaluate, and reevaluate, and measure, and judge, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over. This is how Philosophers are made to think. It requires a patience no other (normal) people have. It requires discrimination, based on principles. If Descartes finds an error in his thinking then it must be thrown out completely and without hesitation. If Descartes does not find an error then guess what happens??? ~ reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, reevaluation, etc.
Point #12 assumes that God is the Deceiver, God is Lucifer, and is out to pick on Descartes-himself. I believe Descartes actually posits here that the God is actually the Devil-himself but he cannot say such a thing otherwise The Church would come down on him so hard that Descartes Meditations would probably not even exist today. Going even farther forward with that supposition, God is a deceiver and Christians are a bunch of horrid liars, satan-worshipers. And they are not even aware of it, being tricked by The Church. Descartes, being such a brilliant thinker and a Philosopher almost-absolutely-witnessed this power play and relationship. But what could he do about it? Well it is apparent (to me) in his writing that he hid his message very well.
So where is the circularity so far Impenitent? I must have missed it…
Point #1 here brings us back to yesterday. Descartes must have gone to sleep and now woken up after an exhausting day of thinking & writing by ink quill. You see, today it is rather easy to write on a keyboard and I-myself can write very quickly as a result of this technology. Descartes had no such luxury. So he wrote the extent of his First Meditation probably throughout a whole day whereas I responded to his whole day in the context of a short hour. Is not technology great? I believe so…!
Descartes mind must be swimming in doubt today, unbelievable skepticism. So today he resolves to find a footing in the ocean floor, a bottom to the depth.
Point #2 shows Descartes slip from skepticism into cynicism, which is the beginning of his Absolute Nihilism:
“that there is absolutely nothing certain.”
Here is where Descartes achieves his Philosopher-status, something few men ever achieve throughout the entire History of Mankind.
Point #3 is the climax of this discussion in this thread. Descartes has doubted everything; I have doubted everything. I know nothing. (Socrates) Therefore I have achieved the philosophical state-of-existence but not superficially! This is not something a person can merely-repeat and be done with, to say “oh yes I have done that too so I am a philosopher too”. No, this is incorrect. Descartes demonstrated his reasoning, his extreme doubt, and his slip into self-annihilation. Thus “I know nothing” expresses the very beginning of absolute-certainty. And it is not something a man, woo-man, or child can fake. It is a genetic predisposition as I have already-stated. Descartes did not dream this shit up, or, if he did then there is no way for your or my knowing it. He isolated himself, in a cabin, and wrote these thoughts out with pen & paper. What did you do? What did I do? Right now I respond to his Meditations to prove my point. He did the work for me to a large degree. I do not need to travel backward to determine if “I exist” and why?
Descartes introduces to us that under the all-encompassing pressure of Absolute Nihilism, when the mind cracks under pressure, one thing is for certain above all others, and that is Nothing! And not coincidentally, it is in the “I” knowing nothing that Descartes begins-again, begins-anew. I exist, but why? How did Descartes get there? Did he spin around in circles? Is this the “circular argument”? Did he walk around a circle in his room? Is that the “circular argument”? Or perhaps his mind spun in endless circles and circles and circles and circles, like my own mind spins. That seems circular to me. But why are there then derivatives? How was “I exist” derived from the meditation???
If you see Descartes process of thinking as circular then you have not been paying attention thus far. He started from Something. He fell into Nothing. And now he is climbing back out with only a ‘semblance’ of certainty, a piece of himself left over, a derivative of himself. He is beginning to know Something or perhaps Anything.
He is becoming known, a death and rebirth, Nihilism, a phoenix from the ashes…
Point #4 begins the roll downhill from the climax. I am. Descartes does not know what he is, only that he is, and why? ~ because he is. If he can be certain of nothing else then he can only assert “I exist” as a maxim for basis. There is no “begging the question” here unless you have not been paying attention as to how Descartes arrived to this point. He has sunken himself inside himself. If “I exist” is not true, then Nothing is true! And truth is being derived from this merely-potential truth & certainty. Even if truth or certainty is removed from “I exist” then there is still no reason to dispute the truths (or falsities) that arise from “I exist” by default. And the “I exist” was precluded by the supra-conscious state, beforehand, a prior, not afterward! Therefore this argument cannot be circular unless you begin to make assumptions about the supra-conscious state without even knowing the supra-conscious state.
It is similar to stating “I have climbed Mount Everest because I read the autobiography of a man who climbed Mount Everest”. It makes nonsense.
Point #5 distinguishes the material world and the immaterial world in the hope that Descartes can self-identify himself as a man, or as a Something. He assumes he has a body. But it is only an assumption as of yet. He is not certain of it. It could be the wind, or a fire, or an ether as he explains. The soul is unknown as is the body. “I exist”. Descartes does not say how, or in what way, or in what Form, other than “I”.
And furthermore I personally-presume the supra-conscious state as an a priori necessity (and truth) in this conversation.
Point #6 establishes “I exist” upon the premise of “I think”. And Descartes is working backwards at this point. He already figures he must exist, even though he does not know how, but only that logical necessity compels him to exist. He must exist because he is thinking and because he originally-had more than enough compelling reasons to doubt the nature of his very existence in the first place. He had presumed and assumed that God was deceiving him, his senses were deceiving him, the world was deceiving him, he was dreaming or awake, etc. all because of one tiny error!!! Now, if you cannot comprehend the power of this reasoning then you should not move forward in an analysis of Descartes. He says, explicitly-speaking, if you have ever made just one mistake in your entire life then everything you possibly-know or fathom must be completely-thrown-out! And there is no skepticism, cynicism, or nihilism higher than this, the Philosopher! “I exist.” How did we get here? How did we get to this statement?
What was presumed as I have shown is the supra-conscious state, at least theoretically. Descartes uses a different line of reasoning, more fundamental and timeless as complacent to his modern age & time, his Contemporality. “I exist” because I am thinking (note the passive-sense). And therefore my thinking, my supra-conscious state of existence precludes the fact that “I exist”. We are leading up to cogito ergo sum through the concept mens sive animus. Descartes is operating to fixate cogito in active, masculine-thought, not only as an animal, but especially as a man, himself, Descartes.
Point #7 emphatically-states the implications for Descartes existence as a thinking-thing, a self, as an “I exist” thing.
The rest, other things can be illusive.
“I am conscious that I exist, and I who know that I exist inquire into what I am.”
He strives to self-identify, to find an identity beyond the simple “I”, a reduction of supra-consciousness into normative-consciousness.
Point #8 is great.
Here is what “I” am. Read it and weep wannabe-philosophers!
Point #9 Descartes begins to distinguish himself more & more. And he states right here why his reasoning & logic is not “circular”. “Am I not that very being who now doubts of almost everything;” Descartes never had a Reason to believe “I exist” before “I exist” and therefore “I exist” cannot even be precluded by the presumption or assumption “I exist” except for in the case where “I exist” is true!!! And this case cannot exist until certainty begins to become possible, a state of conscious existence (supra-consciousness) that Descartes-himself has stumbled upon in his meditations, not beforehand and not afterward!!!
Thus “I exist” cannot physically-preclude the fact that I exist, or not, until doubt is addressed. I have no reason to believe anything at all under the context assumed by this supposed “circular reasoning”. In-fact, I am not saying anything at all until I express my doubt, and then my skepticism, and then my cynicism toward God, and then my Absolute Nihilism and negation toward everything that ever existed in the first place, at all! And only then, from that point on, can I go on to say anything, to even assume “I exist” under the context of cogito. But it is the context of cogito from whence “I exist” in the first place, a priori, a backward gland to what-once-was and has became Here & Now!
Point #10 shows how Descartes has gained his new-found confidence in himself, and his thought, with good reason!
He can now start believing anything he wants at all for the mere fact that he thinks, and thus, he exist because of his thinking.
He can think; therefore he can nearly-do anything at all! He is Free, to think, and to feel, and to believe in things!
Point #11 portrays the first things/objects Descartes and his mind associate with are his perceptive sensibilities. Since he can begin to think, and exist, and know such things, whether true or not, he can at least believe them because he thinks them. Or, he thinks of them. That is all that is required here, thinking, nothing else unless signified by Descartes, or any other.
Descartes is discriminating Empirical Reality with a new set of eyes, so-to-speak. He can be certain of Something.
Point #12 is the manipulation of reality, and the physical senses, by the human mind. Because Descartes thinks, and discriminates, he can now manipulate objects. This is a profound point beyond the context of this conversation. It implies a reverse-consistency in thinking-itself. Because Descartes thinks, objects cannot by definition. And he is right by the very lining of his reasoning.
Point #13 addresses the general failure of language to signify what is and what is not by the nature of reality, according to Descartes.
Point #14 actually-is a very interesting point. He raises the importance and decrepitude of what I would call “fake nihilists” who are those that purport doubt without actually portraying-doubt at all. It is a confusion of language, not of the mind for such individuals. And these immature boys, dolts & idiots, may never come out of their decrepitude. They are not actually-doubting anything at all. They are merely-pretending to doubt themselves without calling into question anything at all. Descartes signifies the situation. What things are ever called into doubt to begin with?
I have no comment for point #15.
I will leave those implications to others to decipher and decide-upon. Descartes is saying something extremely-awesome here… =D>
Point #16 reasonably-concludes the points thus-far. I know something. I know I exist [b]because[/b] I think. If I did not think then there is no reason to ever assume or presume that I existed. Non-thinking things may not exist at all because they are objects. Without a discriminatory perceiver, a thinker, there is no reason to believe anything at all. And so Descartes postulated God, or Satan, and only expressed his own doubts and Absolute Nihilism toward the fact that anything existed at all. Why should anything exist except in a dream? I am being deceived –or– I am thinking. Those are my apparent choices. The brain-in-a-vat scenario is for Descartes-wannabes, a child’s game. I am thinking. I know I am thinking because I think. I think often in-fact. I exist because I think, according to Descartes, and according to logic & reason & principle & reality & actuality.
Take away “I think” (cogito) and you have no “I exist” (sum).
But I had the persuasion that there was absolutely nothing in the world, that there was no sky and no earth, neither minds nor bodies; was I not, therefore, at the same time, persuaded that I did not exist? Far from it; I assuredly existed, since I was persuaded.
I have shown you his words repeatedly. will you refuse to read them once again?!?
