Cotigo Ergo Sum?

[Thomas_White]

Better said, both essentia and substantia have been used to translate the one Greek word ousia.

Classical Latin lacks a present participle for sum, but Medieval Latin made one up: ens. It translates what Aristotle called to on.

What I mean is, Aristotle did not have different words for “substance” and “essence;” that is a posterior development.

I understand. It has been a very long time since I last studied Aristotle in a college classroom, so I reread the sections of the ‘Metaphysics’ you quoted. And then as now, I think there are internal difficulties in the theory as it relates to matter and form as well as to potentiality and actuality. But it is quite complex and aside from the OP’s comment.

 

[thinkandmull]

But even if Decartes is right, how do we know truth? If we doubt everything but our thinking, where do we anchor everything else but our thoughts?

You need to read his Meditations man

 

[thinkandmull]

The cogito ergo sum idea is, in my opinion, the least problematic aspect of Descartes’ epistemology. He is arguing from the effect (thinking) to the cause (being), and that is fine; that is an example of the Thomistic maxim agrere sequitur esse.

The problem, in my opinion, is that Descartes accepted, almost as a fait accompli without proof, three rather problematic ideas:

(1) Some of our knowledge is innate; that is, some of it does not derive in any way from our senses.

(2) That the fundamental criterion for truth is clarity (the ease with which we know something) and distinctness (an idea’s ability to be distinguished from a different idea).

(3) That the object of our knowledge is our ideas, rather than the things represented by those ideas.

In Descartes’ world, we can imagine our intellects as a kind of screen: images appear and disappear from it. For Descartes, we have no way of telling whether those images are projections of real objects, or whether they are cleverly painted on by an “evil genius.”

This gives rise to an epistemological problem called the “problem of the bridge”: how can we tell that our ideas about things in the world are accurate? How can we be sure that ideas correspond to the things they represent?

Descartes is forced to concoct a complicated theory, in which thanks to the idea of God, we know the existence of God, and because God cannot tell a lie, we can rely on the ideas that we have about the world.

A much better theory (in my opinion) is that of Aristotle and St. Thomas. Rather than as a screen, we should imaging our intellects as a window. Through the window, we can see the things in the world: not always with all the clarity and distinctness that we would like, but we see them, and we see them reliably. The window may sometimes be partly clouded or colored, but it does not take away from the fact that what we see through it is real and reveals true information about itself.

There is no problem of the bridge, because we have direct (albeit limited and imperfect) knowledge of reality through our senses.

Well I just as well say that Aquinas believed without proof that there are not innate ideas

 

[thinkandmull]

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.

Thomas was not an existentialist, nor was Descartes

 

[thinkandmull]

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.

You’ve obviously never had doubts of this nature and solved them. Its easy to wonder if you exist then notice that your are thinking, then reason that your therefore must exist

 

[thinkandmull]

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.

When did Descarte say God cannot be known by human reason? For that matter, when did Aquinas say He could?

Descarte had two ontological arguments. Aquinas’s Five Ways are just as subjective as they are, but that doesn’t mean they are wrong

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t know a lot about Jacques Maritain so I can’t comment on that. I do know that the Principles of Philosophy Descartes wrote “While we thus reject all of which we can entertain the smallest doubt, and even imagine that it is false, we easily indeed suppose that there is neither God, nor sky, nor bodies, and that we ourselves even have neither hands nor feet, nor, finally, a body; but we cannot in the same way suppose that we are not while we doubt of the truth of these things; for there is a repugnance in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks. Accordingly, the knowledge, I think, therefore I am, is the first and most certain that occurs to one who philosophizes orderly.” The bold part is the Cogito. This is the statement the phrase comes from.

To me, he is clearly making an epistemic claim, not an existential one. He is concerned about what he can and cannot know. And from the certainty he can have of his own existence he derives everything else. He’s not saying the things we doubt DOESN’T exist. He’s saying we cannot be sure of them if we come from this position of doubt.

So I did some (very, very brief) research on Jacques Maritain. I don’t think the assumption that metaphysics precedes epistemology is necessarily contrary to what Descartes wrote above.

(Edit) Though, it seems Maritain wants to say we can come to know about being from sense perception. That is not what Descartes wants to say. Brain-in-a-Vat or the Cartesian Demon are supposed counter-examples. But again, this is a debate about epistemology, not metaphysics.

(Second Edit) I feel I should make it plain that I’m not defending Descartes’ overall philosophy. But, I think if we take “doubt everything” as a foundation for epistemology, his method of getting to the certain knowledge of our existence is appealing to me. I do tend towards infalibilism when it comes to what we can know.

His Meditations came BEFORE his Principles of Philosophy

 

[thinkandmull]

Maritain agreed with Ortega that Descartes pushed philosophy entirely in the direction of subjectivity from which it has yet to recover.

This is one reason why Leo XIII sought to reinstate respect for the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, and Maritain was one of those who were glad to assist in that goal by attacking Descartes, Luther, and Rousseau, three great champions of subjectivism.

Wow, Luther didn’t believe that if you think its right its right. He may have come up with ideas on theology from personal experience, but every priest does that too. I don’t know where Rousseau fits into this Trinity either

 

[tonyrey]

Regardless of all other considerations there is no doubt that our primary datum and sole certainty is our stream of consciousness that materialism has never explained. On the other hand we infer the existence of everything else from our perceptions which are so consistent that solipsism is sheer fantasy. Pascal was correct in his view that “Man’s greatness lies in his power of thought”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You’ve obviously never had doubts of this nature and solved them. Its easy to wonder if you exist then notice that your are thinking, then reason that your therefore must exist

I don’t understand why anyone would find it easy to wonder whether he exists.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Thomas was not an existentialist, nor was Descartes

It’s certainly true that Descartes was not an existentialist by an y definition of existentialism.

By which definition of existentialism would you say Aquinas could not be an existentialist?

 

[tonyrey]

Is it really possible for any sentient creature not to thunk? I think all the time. The thoughts may be minuscule and drab, but they are thoughts.

You underestimate yourself, John, if your conclusion is based on your own experience.
As Pascal pointed out, you are aware of the universe but the universe doesn’t know it exists!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Thomas was not an existentialist …

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism

Scroll down to Notable Christian Existentialists. Maritain makes the case that Aquinas was an authentic existentialist in his book Existence and the Existent.

 

[thinkandmull]

Descartes said in his Replies that he wasn’t personally having a huge problem as if he was really doubting the world was real. He believe that reason was more reliable than the senses, so with a literary style he did away with senses until the proper time in the meditation.

Aquinas believed we are born with a human nature, no?

John Paul II in Crossing the Threshold of Hope spoke of Descartes as if Descartes was saying that his thinking MADE him exist, instead of merely showing to himself to he existed. That is a modernist interpretation of Descartes, but that is not really what he said.

 

[Thomas_White]

When did Descarte say God cannot be known by human reason? For that matter, when did Aquinas say He could?

Descarte had two ontological arguments. Aquinas’s Five Ways are just as subjective as they are, but that doesn’t mean they are wrong

As with so much of this argument, it is contingent on how a word is defined. In this instance the word is “known”. What Descartes seems to be saying is that God cannot be objectively known, and that his existence cannot be proven by empirical knowledge. Descartes concludes that the “existence” of God can be subjectively proven, but subjectively “knowing” that God exists is hardly the same thing as “knowing” God. The implication is that God cannot be known through human reason alone. It thus becomes for man a matter of faith and belief.

Descartes begins with the proposition that he cannot be certain of anything. He has general uncertainty and doubt, and this uncertainty includes knowledge of God’s existence. This concerns objective knowledge. Neverthess, one has the sense that Descartes does not “believe” that God does not exist, and in fact in the “Discourse on Method” he immediately sets out to prove that he does.

It is left open that something of the ineffable can be “experienced” (as opposed to objectively known) in a mystical way. ‘Cogito ergo sum’: If in conclusion I exist, I can potentially experience what IS (Being), but the experience is subjective. And in this formulation, existence precedes essence.

 

[thinkandmull]

existence preceding essence has nothing to do with ‘Cogito ergo sum’, He is talking about his process of realizing truths. He is not talking about his human nature as such yet. Descartes had two ontological arguments which are completely different from each other. The St. Anselm one starts with what they believed was the natural idea of God, played with it logically, and poof! the truth of its objectivity jumped out at him. Aquinas argued from apparent finite goods to an infinite good in the 4rth way. That’s subjective too.

 

[Thomas_White]

existence preceding essence has nothing to do with ‘Cogito ergo sum’,

“I think, therefore I am” has everything to do with existence preceding essence. It means precisely what it says. It is the beginning of idealism** and modern philosophy.

I don’t know that the way categories and concepts become confused beginning with Aristotle, and why nothing could seem certain for Descartes at the end of scholasticism, is clear without beginning with Plato.

Descartes say, “Je ne suis qu’une chose qui pense.” I am only reason. Philosophy becomes based on the individual consciousness. This is subjectivism.

 

[thinkandmull]

In a sense, Aquinas had to start with doubt in working out his Five Ways. Descarte didn’t say that everything was relative. He tried to prove that God objectively exists. Cotigo ergo sum was part of a process of thought within a meditation in which he concluded that he had a rational proof that he existed because he was wondering about his existence. This isn’t Sarte

 

[Thomas_White]

In a sense, Aquinas had to start with doubt in working out his Five Ways. Descarte didn’t say that everything was relative. He tried to prove that God objectively exists. Cotigo ergo sum was part of a process of thought within a meditation in which he concluded that he had a rational proof that he existed because he was wondering about his existence. This isn’t Sarte

Of course not. The point is not that Descartes was an existentialist but rather that as the so-called first modern man he is the harbinger of what will be a paradigm shift in philosophy, so to speak, that will only in four-hundred years result in Sartre’s existentialism.

There is the history of philosophy, and this development did occur. But it would only occur during the course of centuries. Following Descartes, the concept of immanence, as defined as man’s ability to know God through reason (objectively), is no longer a serious philosophical consideration.

 

[lmelahn]

Well I just as well say that Aquinas believed without proof that there are not innate ideas

Without a demonstration, I grant you. But do you, thinkandmull, have any experience of innate ideas?