This topic was inspired by a discussion about Descartes famous statement “I think, therefore I am” (under “a decieving god”)
I hold there are axiomatic concepts inherent in this satement.
existence (am)
consciousness (think)
identity (I)
Some responders ,i.e imp(and others), to this thread stated that Descartes “proved nothing”, and “backed” their point by showing that it was circular reasoning, which begs the question " Does circular reasoning require thought"?
Then others asked me to prove existence and consciousness. In other words , they are asking (read carefully) prove the pre-conditions of proof. If Descartes is using"circular reasoning"to prove his existince and consciousness then those who question the validity of this statement use circular questioning to disprove it.
Doubt what you will ,but you cannot doubt that you are thinking, for even doubt presupposes thought.
All one has to do is slip the grammar - rather than say ‘because I am doubting I must exist (as a thinking thing etc.)’ one simply says ‘it can be doubted that I exist’…
See, no reliance on my existence, no reliance on ‘I’…
Because you said so- (“one simply says it can be doubted that I exist”). Or by one do you mean a rock can doubt your existence? Or maybe your cat, dog, fish or iguana all of a sudden gain the ability to speak and says “it can be doubted you exist”, disregarding the fact you fed it this morning and took it to the vet yesterday.
As usual, a discussion with a skeptic results in an absurd statement poseing as a thoughtful one-wait, it can’t be thoughtful because the non-entity -who didn’t say it- denies the ability to know for certain that the thoughts their statement required before they made it exist.
So apply the same grammatical shift, instead of saying ‘one can simply say that it can be doubted that I exist’ say ‘it can be said that it can be doubted that I exist’ which nowhere presupposes the ‘I’…
are you simply stating that these three things are axiomatic, that by whatever way of logic we’ve used to put these together, we’ve come to regard these as being true? I would say if anything that these are far too vague to regard as being axiomatic.
These are axioms because they are the fundamental starting points of a philosophical system. Even skeptics implicitly accept them in their attempt to explicitly reject them. They are vague in the fact that they subsume all complexities. You cannot prove nor disprove them, but without them you cannot prove or disprove anything. Thus they are the pre-conditions of proof. And thus they are axiomatic.
As I say before, these statements are not axiomatic, cause you think they are, but I don’t agree. There is no way that Descartes’ statement works, for it to be both statements within it need to be proven as intrinsic.
I’m sorry, but its as simple as that. Now please think of something else to talk about.
I may not be reading this right, but you guys seem to think that Descartes’s "I think therefore I am " can be debunked by claiming that it only exists in language? Am I right?
If so, I cannot see how this is possible. If language is a metaphor for abstract concepts, then what is bringing forth these concepts? The human mind is, thus consciousness or the “I” must exist.
Even if we take an evolutionary stance upon this issue and claim that consciousness was not originally intrinsic, but was developed over time through a growing awareness of one’s surroundings, then it still stands that consciousness and the “I” intrinsically exist and are not just inventions of language, it just took time to develop.
Consciousness certainly exists. We can doubt this but we cannot deny it. Langauge is really an afterthought as far as this goes, since there has to be a consciousness present for there to be a meaning, and language is just symbols without consciousness (cf. Bright Eyes: a scribble and a sonnet would really just be the same without a conscious mind writing or reading it.)
But the question of the ‘I’ is trickier to me. Consciousness is not obviously the same thing as the I. What gives us the sense of self-identification? What is the origin of this consciousness? Is the I a singular thing or more than one thing? Is the ‘I’ my body, my mind, my soul or all three? Can I doubt with my body as much as I can doubt with my mind?
If I was just a disembodied mind, would there still be an ‘I’? I can think, doubt, believe, etc., but cannot act–isn’t it in acting that we define ourselves, become ourselves, identify ourselves? Do animals have the sense of an I? Would a body without a consciousness qualify as being a self?
Saying ‘consciousness exists’ is self-evident. Saying ‘I think therefore I am’ is not: the I that thinks is not necessarily the I that is. Where, exactly, does the thought that thinks this exist?
I’m sorry, guys, but the OP is right-on. Descartes’ argument really goes like this:
logic works
the existence of thought is contingent on the existence of a thinker
thoughts exist
Therefore, a thinker exists.
“I” is then defined as the a thinker, given through the relationship of identity “I=thinker”
Without logic, nothing implies anything, and/or everything implies anything, and/or anything implies everything, nothing, and/or anything; or none of the above.
Existence and consciousness cannot be “proven” because they are what defines what is provable. Identity is just a function of definition.
Nietzsche was fond of bashing Descartes. He liked to accuse Cartesians of foolishly seperating the doer from what is done: take away all thought and you take away the thinker, he said. Ergo, the thinker is only his thoughts. Identity is a grammatical construct. Not that I fully agree, but some of you seem to be espousing a rather Nietzschean view on this without actually saying his name.
“I think therefore I am” only works given the axioms that “a thing that does not exist is nothing” and that “that which is nothing cannot be or have thoughts”. These are the REAL axioms, exempt from provability.
Doubt only presupposes thought if you presuppose that it does.
However, you seem to be facing a non-existent dilemma, mr.knowitall: you state that Descartes did not make a proof but rather an axiomatic assertion–he assumed what he was trying to prove. Yet you are arguing against those who assert that Descartes was guilty of this. What exactly is your position here? Did Descartes prove anything, or did he not?
In my humble view, the problem lies not in defining the consciousness from a phenomenological point of view and not even in disecting the substrata of doubt. Indeed, I don’t think that is what Descartes had in mind. The problem resides in that that Descartes off-handedly identifies doubt with thought, which leads to the assessment of the “I”, as self-awared conscience.
I think it is rather obvious that the ergo in Descartes’ statement signifies not a logical deduction, but an intuition, something like an immediate evidence: thought is not deducted out of doubt, nor is existence out of thought. It is, as it has been posited before, circular reasoning, which starts at a point where the “I” becomes self-awares, this becoming immediately equivalent with his existence.
What puzzles me, though, is how the cogito <=> sum link is constructed, because I doubt that Descartes would have affirmed the same things with equal ease if he had been contemporary with us. I am thinking of computers, as self-adjustable entities: one cannot deny the “thinking” ability of modern technology - but could we go as so far and attribute conscience to computers ? I don’t think so… What about doubt, then ?.. Does it encompass consciousness ? I’m still unsure, given the rather ambiguous settings it dawns in…
I don’t find it very hard to assume, in most instances at least, that I exist, that I can concieve of things, such as my existance, and that if I exist then I am myself.
To be honest the real point is that, the cogito (whether it ‘proves’ anything or not - it doesn’t “prove” anything no matter how self evident it is, but still) is a position that no good philosopher should find himself in, really philosophy isn’t better than real life, it’s parellel Descartes just started an odd trend of esotoricism within in philosophy.
Existence and consciousness PRECEDE proof. This is why they are axioms-by definition. They must be assumed to be true without proof.
I am not arguing the point that Descartes didn’t “prove” his existence and consciousness, I am aruing against those who think they can “disprove” his statement.
These axiomatic concepts of existence and consciousness need not and , again, cannot be proven or disproven, but they must be accepted to prove or disprove anything else. If one (truly) does not accept that they exist and are conscious they have one option- close their mouth, crawl into a corner - and die.
By the way I consider Identity to be an axiom implicit in existence - to be is to be something.
All in all I agree with much of your post. Your “real axioms” are extended versions of mine
My position is as follows:
Existence and consciousness PRECEDE proof. This is why they are axioms-by definition. They must be assumed to be true without proof.
I am not arguing the point that Descartes didn’t “prove” his existence and consciousness, I am aruing against those who think they can “disprove” his statement.
These axiomatic concepts of existence and consciousness need not and , again, cannot be proven or disproven, but they must be accepted to prove or disprove anything else. If one (truly) does not accept that they exist and are conscious they have one option- close their mouth, crawl into a corner - and die.
By the way I consider Identity to be an axiom implicit in existence - to be is to be something.