| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Scot McDermid" |
| Date: |
14 Oct 2003 03:14:34 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Si cogitam sim |
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vnrflilrlh6va2@corp.supernews.com...
"Vladimir Dzubo" <fortytwo42@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u9Reb.133303$bo1.104301@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
What is the significance of Rene Descartes' "I think, therefore I am"?
It seems to assume that I am thinking, of which there is no evidence
whatsoever. It also seems to assume that in order to think, I must
exist,
of
which again there is no evidence whatsoever.
One (being myself) thought that Descartes set out to make no
assumptions.
[i think therefore i am]
some animals are animals that think thoughts
I am an animal that think thoughts
All members of a class are members that exist
All members of a class are members that display class attributes
All creatures that think thoughts are creatures that exist
Therefore I am a creature that exists since I think thoughts
As it was described to me in ol' Phil 100, Descartes asserted
TWO things:
1/ There is thought.
2/ That thought belongs to me.
Now it gets a bit weird: Because maybe the thought isn't mine.
Maybe the thought just *thinks* that there is a *I* that it thinking it.
So assertion 1 is supported but assertion 2 isn't.
And so... at the root of it all, all there is is thought. And thought is
all and the only thing of which we can conclude with certainty.
Not that I'm a Christian believer (hell no!) but have a look at
John 1:1
From
http://www.carm.org/kjv/John/john_1.htm
1 In the beginning (at the root)
was the Word, (word = "thought")
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Si cogitam sim |
14 Oct 2003 03:30:56 PM |
|
|
"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@SAVEcomTHEcast.SPAMnet> wrote in message
news:KOYib.776578$uu5.134731@sccrnsc04...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vnrflilrlh6va2@corp.supernews.com...
"Vladimir Dzubo" <fortytwo42@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u9Reb.133303$bo1.104301@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
What is the significance of Rene Descartes' "I think, therefore I am"?
It seems to assume that I am thinking, of which there is no evidence
whatsoever. It also seems to assume that in order to think, I must
exist,
of
which again there is no evidence whatsoever.
One (being myself) thought that Descartes set out to make no
assumptions.
[i think therefore i am]
some animals are animals that think thoughts
I am an animal that think thoughts
All members of a class are members that exist
All members of a class are members that display class attributes
All creatures that think thoughts are creatures that exist
Therefore I am a creature that exists since I think thoughts
As it was described to me in ol' Phil 100, Descartes asserted
TWO things:
1/ There is thought.
2/ That thought belongs to me.
These would be a bit more formal and translated. I was trying to work from
common sense or beginnings in regular language.
Now it gets a bit weird: Because maybe the thought isn't mine.
Maybe the thought just *thinks* that there is a *I* that it thinking it.
So assertion 1 is supported but assertion 2 isn't.
Cogito, Ergo Sum (The Circle Game) Descartes
THE CIRCLE GAME: "Descartes was a philosophical disaster!" Attacking
Descate's Cogito from within Descartes's own logical structure rather than
from a modern context.
Examining Descartes's philosophy from within its own logical structure, we
see that Descartes is unable to escape the necessity of an observer in his
attempt to find a foundation for his philosophy. As I will show, he grounds
his philosophy on the postulates of his ability to discern truth from
fiction and his own existence. Descartes foundationalist philosophy fails,
as a result, because neither the infallibility and integrity of the observer
nor the observer's existence are certain.
Descartes attempts to create a foundationalist philosophy based on a single,
undeniable truth which he knows to be "fixed and assured". He takes "I
think, therefore I am" "as the first principle of the philosophy I was
seeking", believing that this is the only truth which is necessary to found
a philosophy. His logical structure , however, relies on a second postulate.
He claims that "the capacity to judge correctly and to distinguish the true
from the false is naturally equal in all men". This postulate is more
fundamental to his logical structure than the cogito because without it, he
cannot escape the skepticism of his foundationalist structure.
Unpacking the significance of this postulate is somewhat of a metaphysical
thicket, but the effort is well rewarded. There is no question that by
thinking "I think, therefore I am", Descartes is thinking. Beyond the
statement of his existence, however, Descartes cannot form any other
conclusion unless he has the ability to discern the truth of a
thought-except the conclusion that he is, there is no method to discern a
true thought from a thought implanted into his head by an other being unless
he can make the distinction himself. If he is to make any progress in his
philosophy, he must rely on this second postulate.
Even with this condition, Descartes's philosophy remains unstable. His first
postulate, the cogito, fails because it depends on the integrity of the
subject, the ego. Unlike a similar postulate of mathematics, such as x+0=x,
which does not depend on the integrity of the observer in order to be true,
Descartes's postulate is singularly tied to the subject because the subject,
the "I", is an integral part of the statement. In the postulate, the "I"
must be distinct since the cogito makes no claims about the existence of
anything outside the mind. Descartes admits, however, that the mind is
subject to failings caused by the body:
"the mind depends so much on the temperament and on the disposition of the
organs of the body, that if it is possible to find some means of rendering
men as a whole wiser and more dexterous than they have been hitherto, I
believe it must be sought in medicine".
Furthermore, the mind cannot be sure of even its own state. Descartes admits
that "there are no conclusive signs by means of which one can distinguish
clearly between being awake and being asleep". Most significantly, however,
Descartes requires the fallibility of his mind in order to prove the
existence of God. Within his proof, Descartes gives as an antecedent to his
argument the observation that "my being was not completely perfect" when it
was created. But the infallible ability to discern truth is, by nature of
its indisputeability, a form of perfection. He appears to be directly
contradicting his second postulate, the ability to discern truth from
fiction. This logical breakdown within Descartes's argument hints at a much
greater problem, however.
Descartes has a problem of authorship. That he exists and that he conceives
of his existence are synonymous according to the cogito postulate.
Furthermore, the existence of anything outside of his mind depends on his
own existence. He is assured of the existence of the rest of the Universe by
his perception of thinking of it. If the observer stops observing himself,
he ceases to exist, however. Thus the reality of the Universe within
Descartes's system depends on his ability to conceive of it, which in turn
requires that he exist. This introduces a rather interesting problem in to
his philosophy.
By the time he has completed his proof of the existence of God, Descartes
concludes that his own existence is dependent of the existence of God.
Because he creates a foundationalist philosophy, Descartes must believe that
the laws of the Universe are deriveable from the cogito postulate. After
attempting to establish the existence of God, however, he admits that "I
have observed certain laws which God has so established in nature and of
which he has impressed such notions in our souls". According to his
postulates, all that is in Descartes's mind is the result of the fact that
he thinks, yet here he seems to be adding yet another subject to the set of
actors upon which his philosophy rests. The validity of the claims he has
already made are again questioned by further doubt over the author of
existence:
"And who can give me the assurance that this God has not arranged that there
should be no earth, no heaven, no extended body, no figure, no magnitude, or
place, and that nevertheless I should have the perception of all these
things, and the persuasion that they do not exist other than as I see them?"
Clearly, Descartes would not want to add dependency on a second subject to
his philosophy but he nonetheless accepts the notion that not all existence
can be attributed to his thoughts alone. God, he qualifies, must also have
authorship:
"if the objective reality of any one of my ideas is such that I know clearly
that it is not within me, either formally or eminently, and that
consequently I cannot myself be its cause, it follows necessarily from this
that I am not alone in the world, but that there is besides some other being
who exists, and who is the cause of this idea."
It is illogical that such a being, whose existence in the Universe is
dependent on the thoughts and observations of an observer could also be the
author of the same observer's thoughts. Surely Descartes realized this but
he seems to ignore its significance. He declares "God is necessarily the
author of my existence" and so falls into a circular dependency, where his
own existence is dependent on a God whose existence in the Universe is
dependent on Descartes's ability to conceive of God and to determine the
truth of such a perception. Because the observer is thus permanently trapped
within Descartes's web of logic, the entire foundation of the structure is
unsound.
With the foundation of Descartes carefully laid structure crumbling in front
of close examination, it appears, a philosophical failure. Such an
evaluation is made strong if it comes from within the logical structure that
Descartes presents. The job is easy, however, because Descartes establishes
such a dependent, recursive structure that his entire fabrication falls
under its own twisted weight.
DeadLinkhttp://www.stanford.edu/~bwark/papers/circle_game.html
Closer look at the First Meditation step by step
http://tinyurl.com/qx82
And so... at the root of it all, all there is is thought. And thought is
all and the only thing of which we can conclude with certainty.
A polluted stream of consciousness with some frosting, thoughts, seems about
as much evidence as any mammal has as the world seems to move by while in
their now moment.
Not that I'm a Christian believer (hell no!) but have a look at
John 1:1
Athiest's who read bible commentaries for other reasons than atheism, are
cool.
From
http://www.carm.org/kjv/John/john_1.htm
1 In the beginning (at the root)
was the Word, (word = "thought")
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
.
|
|
|
|
|
