Cogito ergo sum

[pcg2]

In reading Descartes’ meditations, he states that he knows that he exists and that he thinks. Both of these statements are incorrigible. However, something I am wondering about is this – how can he claim to know that he exists and thinks, without first knowing what thinking and existing are, in and of themselves? It seems like he is jumping the horse here.

This is the most important philosophical work of the modern period, so I assume there’s something I’m just not getting here. Any thoughts?

 

[Moscati]

That pretty much sums up my frustration with Descartes. I don’t get it either.

However, I haven’t studied modern philosophy very closely at all, except for some Nietzche and Foucalt. I’m sure someone else will have a better answer.

 

[Ferds_Guiang]

my philosophy is a bit rusty but here’s what I do recall. Descartes was searching for that Idea which cannot be doubted at all because of it’s obviousness. So he says that he searched high and low for this idea but found out that he can cast a doubt on every idea he found. This was important for him because unless he found an indubitable truth he could never proceed with his philosophical system. There should be at least one truth to start with and from that truth everything is built upon. He looks into himself and discovers something. He says that he noticed that he is able to think (which was pretty obvious otherwise he could not say nor write anything without first thinking). So if he is a thinking being then he surely must be existing because who would be doing the thinking if he were not existing in the first place (again another obvious truth according to Descartes). Therefore he says he has discovered the first indubitable truth which is “Cogito ergo sum!”- I think therefore I am (I exist).

 

[pcg2]

my philosophy is a bit rusty but here’s what I do recall. Descartes was searching for that Idea which cannot be doubted at all because of it’s obviousness. So he says that he searched high and low for this idea but found out that he can cast a doubt on every idea he found. This was important for him because unless he found an indubitable truth he could never proceed with his philosophical system. There should be at least one truth to start with and from that truth everything is built upon. He looks into himself and discovers something. He says that he noticed that he is able to think (which was pretty obvious otherwise he could not say nor write anything without first thinking). So if he is a thinking being then he surely must be existing because who would be doing the thinking if he were not existing in the first place (again another obvious truth according to Descartes). Therefore he says he has discovered the first indubitable truth which is “Cogito ergo sum!”- I think therefore I am (I exist).

Thank you for your response, but I realized this. My question is how he can claim to know that he is thinking, and therefore existing, if he doesn’t know what it means to “think” or to “exist.”

 

[Bob_Crowley]

In reading Descartes’ meditations, he states that he knows that he exists and that he thinks. Both of these statements are incorrigible. However, something I am wondering about is this – how can he claim to know that he exists and thinks, without first knowing what thinking and existing are, in and of themselves? It seems like he is jumping the horse here.

This is the most important philosophical work of the modern period, so I assume there’s something I’m just not getting here. Any thoughts?

Drop a 25 pound dumbell on your big toe and see if you *know *it exists.

Pain is a pretty good indicator that you exist, and think.

 

[Benadam]

Because he is knowing, there must be a knower and the knower must be what’s thinking about knowing.:twocents:

 

[Leela]

In reading Descartes’ meditations, he states that he knows that he exists and that he thinks. Both of these statements are incorrigible. However, something I am wondering about is this – how can he claim to know that he exists and thinks, without first knowing what thinking and existing are, in and of themselves? It seems like he is jumping the horse here.

This is the most important philosophical work of the modern period, so I assume there’s something I’m just not getting here. Any thoughts?

I think the gist of it is this:
Descartes knew that he existed because even if he imagined that he was being deceived by some demon in thinking that he was thinking, then there still must be a someone who is being deceived. His own doubting that he exists confirms his own existence because someone must be doing the doubting.

I think his declaration “I think therefore I am” is supposed to be especially significant in the history of philosophy because of the systematic approach that Descartes took in developing his philosophy beginning from a position of extreme skepticism. Such rigor became the new modern way of doing philosophy, and Descartes is still regarded as the father of modern philosophy.

Best,
Leela

 

[ChadS]

If I remember correctly didn’t Descartes run into problems with his own line of thinking when he tried to prove the existence of God? What I mean is he came up with the idea of an “evil genius” intent on deceiving and fooling man. He then considered it possible that this “evil genius” could just be fooling him into believing he was actually thinking when he really wasn’t.

It’s been nearly 15 years since I’ve had any formal philosophy classes so I might be wrong on this.

ChadS

 

[tonyrey]

In reading Descartes’ meditations, he states that he knows that he exists and that he thinks. Both of these statements are incorrigible. However, something I am wondering about is this – how can he claim to know that he exists and thinks, without first knowing what thinking and existing are, in and of themselves? It seems like he is jumping the horse here.

This is the most important philosophical work of the modern period, so I assume there’s something I’m just not getting here. Any thoughts?

An excellent and profound question!

The fact is that we don’t know precisely what existing and thinking are! That is why there are disputes about the nature of reality and knowledge. We all live with a stranger who does not completely understand himself or herself. Existence is a mystery and so is thought. We use words, i.e. symbols, to describe our experiences but we are working in the dark.

Yet the success of science demonstrates that we understand reality enough to achieve results even though we cannot get to the “heart of the matter”.That is why, ironically, materialists regard matter as the basic reality. What they forget is that the success of science is due to “us” and our power of thought. Consciousness is our sole certainty. All the rest is speculation. When we feel pain we infer that something caused it but we do not have direct knowledge of that cause. This is where Descartes was dead right. No one else thinks what we think and feels what we feel. We cannot escape from ourselves. But why should we? To exist as individuals free to think and feel for ourselves is a wonderful gift. No one can chain our minds. If others knew exactly what we are thinking we would have no privacy whatsoever! It would be a blessing in some ways but a curse in others. We would no longer be free in the full sense of the word. It would be worse than Big Brother watching us all the time. Others would know every detail of our lives…

If we are Christians we are never alone. Yet this is not a curse but a consolation. We believe God is not a Judge but a Father who loves us more than we love ourselves! The mystery of our existence leads us directly to the mystery of His existence. It makes us acutely aware of how limited our knowledge of reality is, in spite of our technological achievements. We can control objects but to what extent can we control ourselves? We know from bitter experience which is the more important. Ultimately what matters is not what we are but who we are. Our knowledge and understanding are limited but there are no limits to our capacity for love.

We should be grateful to Descartes for his original contribution to our understanding of knowledge. He directed our attention to the fact that knowledge does not begin and end with the outside world, or even with our body, but within ourselves. For us this is the primary reality. Our thoughts and emotions are more important than anything else. We may be living in a magnificent palace with every luxury we desire but at the very same moment we may also be in hell. It is only when our inner solitude is transformed by the highest form of knowledge that we are no longer alone. Love enables us to be united to others and have a foretaste of heaven…

 

[Hypatia]

Thank you for your response, but I realized this. My question is how he can claim to know that he is thinking, and therefore existing, if he doesn’t know what it means to “think” or to “exist.”

I’m still not sure what you are asking. Why doesn’t he know?

I am not sure what it would mean to doubt those things (which is pretty much Descartes’ point). He never doubts, for instance, that he knows what he means by, for instance, a body. What he doubts is that the thought or experience refers to anything beyond the life of the mind (i.e., that there are bodies).

Notice that when he gets to the cogito, he is not left empty handed. He still has the entire catalogue, if you will, of thought and experience. This is what allows him to go on and engage in his proof for the existence of God. Descartes never suggests it is possible to doubt that you have those; you only doubt that they are anything more than activities of the cogito.

My thought and existence are immediate and self-evident for Descartes.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Drop a 25 pound dumbell on your big toe and see if you *know *it exists.

Pain is a pretty good indicator that you exist, and think.

No it’s not. You can get phantom pain, for example.

 

[pcg2]

Drop a 25 pound dumbell on your big toe and see if you *know *it exists.

Pain is a pretty good indicator that you exist, and think.

Not really. Even if pain were a good indicator of existence, that would still leave the problem of what it means “to exist.”

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I think, therefore I think that I am, but maybe not.

I think, therefore maybe God is just having a ripsnorting chuckle.

Sometimes, when I think, I say “Oh God!”

When God thinks, what does He say?

 

[pcg2]

If I remember correctly didn’t Descartes run into problems with his own line of thinking when he tried to prove the existence of God? What I mean is he came up with the idea of an “evil genius” intent on deceiving and fooling man. He then considered it possible that this “evil genius” could just be fooling him into believing he was actually thinking when he really wasn’t.

It’s been nearly 15 years since I’ve had any formal philosophy classes so I might be wrong on this.

ChadS

It wasn’t that the evil genius was tricking him into thinking that he was thinking. The skeptic’s argument goes something like this:

1. It is possible that a malicious demon has made it the case that there is no earth, no sky, etc. (though it appears to me that there is an earth, a sky, etc.)
2. If this is possible, then I do not know (cannot be certain) that there really is an earth, a sky. etc.
3. So I don’t know (canot be certain) that there is an earth, a sky, etc.

You can see the implications of this argument if it held ground. He brought forth the proposition that an all-powerful “evil genius” could make an illusion of X so perfect and undetectable that you would mistake it for the real X. I take the definition of an illusion to be: something that look like or smells like something else X, so much so that you may mistake it for X, or easily come to understand how someone may come to do this.

Here’s my take on this argument. Instead of earth or sky, let’s take X to be NaCl, or salt. Given the above definition of an illusion, it is impossible for this evil genius to create a perfect, undetectable illusion of salt. Given this situation, there are two things that can be said about the state of the world: 1) Salt is made up of molecules of NaCl, and 2) We have the technology to detect the chemical composition of salt. Therefore, if the evil genius attempted to create an illusion of salt, we would be able to detect any deviation from the proper chemical composition (NaCl) of salt. Then, if the evil genius attempts to create an undetectable illusion of salt, it would no longer be an illusion – the substance would actually be salt itself. The only way for it to be undetectable would be for the salt to match the chemical composition of salt – but if it matches the chemical composition of salt, it is no longer an illusion, but salt itself. Therefore, it’s impossible for the evil genius to create a perfect, undetectable illusion of salt.

 

[pcg2]

An excellent and profound question!

The fact is that we don’t know precisely what existing and thinking are! That is why there are disputes about the nature of reality and knowledge. We all live with a stranger who does not completely understand himself or herself. Existence is a mystery and so is thought. We use words, i.e. symbols, to describe our experiences but we are working in the dark.

Yet the success of science demonstrates that we understand reality enough to achieve results even though we cannot get to the “heart of the matter”.That is why, ironically, materialists regard matter as the basic reality. What they forget is that the success of science is due to “us” and our power of thought. Consciousness is our sole certainty. All the rest is speculation. When we feel pain we infer that something caused it but we do not have direct knowledge of that cause. This is where Descartes was dead right. No one else thinks what we think and feels what we feel. We cannot escape from ourselves. But why should we? To exist as individuals free to think and feel for ourselves is a wonderful gift. No one can chain our minds. If others knew exactly what we are thinking we would have no privacy whatsoever! It would be a blessing in some ways but a curse in others. We would no longer be free in the full sense of the word. It would be worse than Big Brother watching us all the time. Others would know every detail of our lives…

If we are Christians we are never alone. Yet this is not a curse but a consolation. We believe God is not a Judge but a Father who loves us more than we love ourselves! The mystery of our existence leads us directly to the mystery of His existence. It makes us acutely aware of how limited our knowledge of reality is, in spite of our technological achievements. We can control objects but to what extent can we control ourselves? We know from bitter experience which is the more important. Ultimately what matters is not what we are but who we are. Our knowledge and understanding are limited but there are no limits to our capacity for love.

We should be grateful to Descartes for his original contribution to our understanding of knowledge. He directed our attention to the fact that knowledge does not begin and end with the outside world, or even with our body, but within ourselves. For us this is the primary reality. Our thoughts and emotions are more important than anything else. We may be living in a magnificent palace with every luxury we desire but at the very same moment we may also be in hell. It is only when our inner solitude is transformed by the highest form of knowledge that we are no longer alone. Love enables us to be united to others and have a foretaste of heaven…

I agree with everything you said
I guess I am just disappointed that I am still left with this bitter taste of dissatisfaction though. If we don’t even know precisely what thinking and existing are, then the rest of Descartes’ arguments seem to be shot to hell. But maybe there is something that I am just not getting here…

And I guess Descartes’ ideas on knowledge aren’t the end all be all on the subject. I just wish there was a more satisfying answer to my question.

 

[tonyrey]

I guess I am just disappointed that I am still left with this bitter taste of dissatisfaction though. If we don’t even know precisely what thinking and existing are, then the rest of Descartes’ arguments seem to be shot to hell. But maybe there is something that I am just not getting here…

I don’t see why the rest of Descartes’ arguments are shot to hell. The fact still remains that our sole certainty is our stream of consciousness. To expect to understand the nature of existence completely is to expect to understand Ultimate Reality, i.e. God. How can minute specks in the vastness of time and space hope to fathom the Infinite?

And I guess Descartes’ ideas on knowledge aren’t the end all be all on the subject. I just wish there was a more satisfying answer to my question.

There are many books on the nature of knowledge by philosophers, theologians, psychologists and neuroscientists. The sheer depth and complexity of the subject illustrates how difficult it is. There is no simple answer but no one has refuted the point made by Descartes. It is even more significant in the light of another fact noted by another French philosopher:

“La pensee fait la grandeur de l’homme.” - Pascal

(Man’s greatness is due to his power of thought…)

He also pointed out that we are aware of the universe whereas the universe is not aware of us! Astonishing when you come to think of it…

 

[Benadam]

He also pointed out that we are aware of the universe whereas the universe is not aware of us! Astonishing when you come to think of it…

If the universe means the entire physical realm, since awareness operates through organs that are of the universe, could all earthly awareness be said to belong to the universe?

Maybe we are the cognizance of the universe.

 

[pcg2]

IThe fact still remains that our sole certainty is our stream of consciousness.

Can you expand on this?

IThere are many books on the nature of knowledge by philosophers, theologians, psychologists and neuroscientists. The sheer depth and complexity of the subject illustrates how difficult it is.

Then I guess I better get reading

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I can understand why humans would think that human logic would apply to God.

But God is Divine.

And God is Infinite.

He has already revealed to us that He is Three distinct Persons on One God.

We know a lot about the Second Person, who we refer to as Jesus.

We know some about the Third Person, who we refer to as the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost or the Paraclete. God, the Second Person, actually took on human form, lived among us, and died, tortured to death by His own creations. How can that be?

How can human logic explain Three Persons in One God?

How can human logic explain the execution of the Second Person?

So why SHOULD human logic APPLY to God?

So, while we can work at it, what kind of reliability can we assume in terms of explaining the inner workings of God using human logic and human vocabulary?

 

[Quid_estVeritas]

In reading Descartes’ meditations, he states that he knows that he exists and that he thinks. Both of these statements are incorrigible. However, something I am wondering about is this – how can he claim to know that he exists and thinks, without first knowing what thinking and existing are, in and of themselves? It seems like he is jumping the horse here.

This is the most important philosophical work of the modern period, so I assume there’s something I’m just not getting here. Any thoughts?

What Descartes was saying is; Everything we “know” about the world we infer from our observations, and all our inferences and observations could be wrong, we could be living in a dream world created by a demon to delude us, we could be a “brain in a vat”, we could be in a “Matrix” world, or numerous other illusions. The world we “observe” with our senses could be “not real”. But the one thing we *Do know *is *real *is that we experience. Everything else may be an illusion but there is no denying our experiencing mind, hence the one thing we know is that our experiencing mind is real.