Cotigo Ergo Sum?

[WmJackP]

Agree, disagree?

Any Thomistic insight? Any people who are all for it?

It is quite possible that what appears intuitive and beyond dispute to Descartes is in fact founded on the assumption that there is an “I”. Certainly there is experience and a physiological basis by which a brain (or corporal substance) accesses experience, but, the question really begs the issue of a “ghost within the machine”.

 

[GEddie]

It is quite possible that what appears intuitive and beyond dispute to Descartes is in fact founded on the assumption that there is an “I”. Certainly there is experience and a physiological basis by which a brain (or corporal substance) accesses experience, but, the question really begs the issue of a “ghost within the machine”.

That’s just philosophical gaming.

Whatever one may believe about “souls” and the like, it is obvious that in human life, there is at the very least, a thinking body, who can be described as an “I.”

ICXC NIKA

 

[Michael_Mayo]

That’s just philosophical gaming.

Whatever one may believe about “souls” and the like, it is obvious that in human life, there is at the very least, a thinking body, who can be described as an “I.”

ICXC NIKA

Yes, but is it the body that does the thinking? That is what atheistic materialists say…that consciousness is an emergent proprty of matter and nothing more.

 

[GEddie]

Yes, but is it the body that does the thinking? That is what atheistic materialists say…that consciousness is an emergent proprty of matter and nothing more.

From the standpoint of the “I,” which the previous commenter seemed to be doubting, it doesn’t matter whether the thought is done by the body, or by a “soul” using the head of the body as its instrument.

It would seem obvious that absent the body’s fully functional head, no thought takes place.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Binto]

I thought it was cogito ergo sum, as in (re)cognition, cogitate, etc.

Oh wow. That makes sense!

 

[Michael_Mayo]

From the standpoint of the “I,” which the previous commenter seemed to be doubting, it doesn’t matter whether the thought is done by the body, or by a “soul” using the head of the body as its instrument.

It would seem obvious that absent the body’s fully functional head, no thought takes place.

ICXC NIKA

Does the soul, which can live independently of the body, think?
Is that the real “I”?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In Thomistic metaphysics existence precedes essence. To say “I think” is to assert an essence that defines my existence. But one must first experience “I am” in order to say “I think.”

Sum: ergo cogito.

Not

Cogito: ergo sum.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Oh wow. That makes sense!

Derivative words are practically the only things remaining from my 4 years of Latin, also some help in learning Romance languages…

 

[GEddie]

Does the soul, which can live independently of the body, think?
Is that the real “I”?

Thinking requires the head; we are thinking bodies.

Souls can maintain existence while bodiless, but life requires the body; it is the Union of spirit and body. And one needs life to think.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Rhubarb]

In Thomistic metaphysics existence precedes essence. To say “I think” is to assert an essence that defines my existence. But one must first experience “I am” in order to say “I think.”

Sum: ergo cogito.

Not

Cogito: ergo sum.

He’s not saying that he exists because he thinks. All he’s saying is that he KNOWS he exists because he thinks.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

He’s not saying that he exists because he thinks. All he’s saying is that he KNOWS he exists because he thinks.

But he has to be conscious first that he exists before he can be conscious that he thinks.

“I exist; ergo I think.”

Either way you say it, you utter a certainty, which was all Descartes was after, to prove to the skeptics that certainty was possible, and that you start with the certainty of your own being as axiomatic and the foundation of all other certainties.

 

[Rhubarb]

I think Descartes would agree, how I read him, that existence is a necessary precondition for thinking, yes. Which is why thinking is all the evidence he needs to demonstrate his existence.

 

[lmelahn]

But he has to be conscious first that he exists before he can be conscious that he thinks.

“I exist; ergo I think.”

Either way you say it, you utter a certainty, which was all Descartes was after, to prove to the skeptics that certainty was possible, and that you start with the certainty of your own being as axiomatic and the foundation of all other certainties.

I think Descartes would agree, how I read him, that existence is a necessary precondition for thinking, yes. Which is why thinking is all the evidence he needs to demonstrate his existence.

That is why, I think the cogito ergo sum is actually sound, as such. It is Descartes’ other presuppositions (which lead him to think that this is the cogito is the first and fundamental truth) that cause him trouble.

In particular, his theory does not take into account the spontaneity and directness with which we understand material beings. In reality, we generally know the things in the world (especially the material things in the world) more easily and sooner than the we know ourselves. In order to form a picture of ourselves, we first need to realize that we are different from the world and from other people.

For Descartes, we first know ourselves, then God, and only third the things in the world. This theory is interesting, but not born out in practice.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think Descartes would agree, how I read him, that existence is a necessary precondition for thinking, yes. Which is why thinking is all the evidence he needs to demonstrate his existence.

The fact that we think is not a demonstration, but an observed assumption.

Descartes gives us a syllogism without warrant.

All thinking beings must exist.
I am a thinking being.
Therefore I exist.

But the major premise (all thinking beings must exist) is an axiomatic assumption which cannot be proven, as all other axioms cannot be proven because they are self evident.

All Descartes is saying is that he knows he thinks, therefore he knows that he exists.

But you must first know that you exist in order to say “I think.”

Descartes certainly was not a Thomist, and it shows in this proposition.

 

[Rhubarb]

Well I think he takes cognitive activity as something that I ly certain existing thing can do, so it can be taken as self-evident like you said.

You don’t think it’s self-evident? What kind of thing can possibly think yet not exist?

 

[GEddie]

He was not a Thomist, neither am I, and so I don’t get the problem.

Presumably a pre-step was omitted that seemed self evident to him:

“To think requires being.”

Of course he had not proven that there could be no “thinking nothing”, but it only made sense.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Charlemagne_III]

He was not a Thomist, neither am I, and so I don’t get the problem.

Presumably a pre-step was omitted that seemed self evident to him:

“To think requires being.”

Of course he had not proven that there could be no “thinking nothing”, but it only made sense.

ICXC NIKA

Sum; ergo cogito.

Very simple. No need to parse it ad nauseam.

But it was a bad habit that Descartes got himself into, to the point of affirming St. Anselm’s subjective proof for the existence of God:

Namely;
I think God exists; therefore God exists. (Short form of the argument)

A proof that Thomas Aquinas dismissed in one paragraph.

It doesn’t matter to me that you are not a Thomist. Some of my best friends are not Thomists.

 

[Thomas_White]

Descartes was attempting to reconstruct certainty at the close of the Middle Ages. He begins by searching for something he cannot doubt–something of which there must be no possibility whatsoever of doubt. He rejects the senses, the reliably of the thought processes and received knowledge. He begins by assuming that everything is false, but soon concludes there is one thing that cannot be false, and that is his own existence: “I think, therefore I am.” Even if he were in error about this, he concludes, it would be he, Descartes, that would be in error. It would similarly be the case if he came to doubt the validity of his proposition, for it would be Descartes that doubted. If his proposition were indeed wrong, it is Descartes that is wrong, as in “I am (wrong).” And for there to be “I am…”, he must first “be”. Convinced this is certain, Descartes takes “Cogito, ergo sum” as the first principle of his 'Discourse on Meditations".

At the end of the Middle Ages, God becomes incomprehensible to man. Immanence is rejected. Descartes abandons theology. God cannot be known by human reason, a development that becomes decisive for the course of modern philosophy.

Neverthess, Descartes goes on to conclude that from his principle–‘Cogito, ergo sum’–the existence of God is provable. Very briefly, Descartes knows the “I” is imperfect, and he conceives of something higher. This ‘idea’ of something higher is not merely something Descartes thinks, or something higher that must coincide with reality. It is reality itself. This conception of Idea was very common in seventeenth century philosophy. Nevertheless, Descartes’ conclusion (I think God exists, therefore he exists) did not escape criticism.

 

[Thomas_White]

Note to the above:

With “Cogito, ergo sum” is there an early formulation of “existence precedes essence”?

 

[Rhubarb]

Note to the above:

With “Cogito, ergo sum” is there an early formulation of “existence precedes essence”?

The way I read Descartes (and I might be mis-reading, I always admit) I don’t think so. I think Descartes is making an epistemic claim - that he can be sure of his existence because he is a thinking thing.