"I think, therefore I Am."

  • Thread starter Thread starter slinky1882
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JPII was just making the commonplace point that modern skepticism started with the cogito. I remember that from my Philosophy survey. After this you get critiques by Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant…down to the most recent existentialists and whatever. Philosophers were having a really hard problem irrefutably proving that anything was real, because the natural world could be just all an illusion. Poor ol Descartes was trying to help, by starting with something he thought unassailable, but instead his successors showed where he was wrong, and it turns out that pure philosophy is still not so sure anything really exists. After all, you can’t prove it irrefutably! So we ended up with postmodernism, deconstructionism–since we are not certain about reality then there is no real meaning either, blah blah. Life was so meaningless and contingent, according the Sartre, that the only rational reaction was nausea. The cogito contained the seeds of self-annihilation, which is being reaped all around us as we can see.

Trouble is, it goes against all common sense. A person could not really live his life that way, as Chesterton and many others pointed out. We do indeed know things are real and base our actions on this reality every day.
 
God doesn’t exist because
Click to expand...
Descartes has a clear and distinct impression of him; rather Descartes has a clear and distinct impression of God because God exists. Descartes is offering another version of Anselm’s ontological argument; which is also based upon the self’s impression of God.
Bad word choice on my part, I should have said that Descartes believed that God logically follows from self-awareness. His argument goes something like this.
  1. I think, therefore I exist.
  2. I doubt, therefore I am incomplete and dependent.
  3. I have a clear and distinct idea of a complete and independent being (God).
  4. I exist, therefore God must exist.
Whereas Anselm’s argument goes something like this:
  1. The thought of God exists.
  2. Existence in reality is more perfect than existence in thought.
  3. God is perfect.
  4. Therefore God must exist.
The difference between the two is while Anselm posits a perfect God as the most basic premise for his argument, Descartes posits an imperfect man with a clear and distinct idea. While the basic form is ontological in both cases, Descartes is rooted in an innate idea with given content, while Anselms is purely definitional. Descartes’s argument is less of an argument than a self-evident axiom which an unprejudiced mind should grasp.

Again, the Pope’s problem is not with the argument in and of itself, but that the argument is rooted in the self rather than in God.

God Bless.
 
A more accurate philosophy would be “God thinks of me, therefore I am!”
 
40.png
Ignatius:
A more accurate philosophy would be “God thinks of me, therefore I am!”
Click to expand...
This is pretty much what Berkeley said, though he would put it “to be is to be perceived” (esse est percipi). He held that our existence is dependent on God’s perception of us.
 
WanderAimlessly said:
“I think, therefore I am” is one of the few things I remember from my “Theories of Knowlegde” Philosophy class in college. If I remember right, other way (I am, therefore I think) was discussed too.

I see nothing wrong with the statement since does not, in itself, contradict any teachings directly. It is when, statements are extrapolated that people get in trouble.

PF
Click to expand...

On ther one hand, it is an argument against extreme skepticism’ on the other, it reduces humanity to thought. How pernicous this can be is what happens when you apply this to the issue of abortion/Terri Schiavo.
 
Hi, slinky1882,

God holds me in existence, therefore I am.

did you know that ex sisto literally means
“to stand out”

Best,
Maureen
 
Cogito ergo sum is an epistemological, not ontological statement. According to Etienne Gilson, Descartes statement comes frmo Augustine through John of Sallisbury.
 
40.png
reen12:
Hi, slinky1882,

God holds me in existence, therefore I am.

did you know that ex sisto literally means
“to stand out”

Best,
Maureen
Click to expand...
Maureen,
Very true, but could you expand on the “ex sisto”??? Are you pointing to the roots of the word “existence”??? Thanks and God Bless.
 
Question: How do I prove to myself that I exist?

Answer: I think. Therefore I am.

The statement “God holds me in existence, therefore I am.” does not satisfactorily answer the question.
 
I don’t think Descartes is making thought an antecedent to existence. By saying “I think, therefore I am”, Descartes says that he exists because he has the ability to think, ie, existance is necessary before thought can occur. His statement is not a biconditional, (ie “I am if and only if I think”), he merely logically deduces his own existence. Decartes does not name thought to be the only, exclusive method of determining existence.

The statement does not imply that the ability to reason is the only method of determining existence; rather it names only one criterion where one must exist before the criterion can be satisfied. Indeed, I believe that Decartes implies that existence is in fact the antecedent to thought, not the other way around.
 
Chris Jacobsen:
Question: How do I prove to myself that I exist?

Answer: I think. Therefore I am.

The statement “God holds me in existence, therefore I am.” does not satisfactorily answer the question.
Click to expand...
Does thought really prove existence??? How does one bridge the gap from thought to existence??? Curious. Thanks and God Bless.
 
Fidei Defensor:
I don’t think Descartes is making thought an antecedent to existence. By saying “I think, therefore I am”, Descartes says that he exists because he has the ability to think, ie, existance is necessary before thought can occur. His statement is not a biconditional, (ie “I am if and only if I think”), he merely logically deduces his own existence. Decartes does not name thought to be the only, exclusive method of determining existence.

The statement does not imply that the ability to reason is the only method of determining existence; rather it names only one criterion where one must exist before the criterion can be satisfied. Indeed, I believe that Decartes implies that existence is in fact the antecedent to thought, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but for clarity, why didn’t Descartes put the statement like “I am therefore I think”??? Curious. Thanks and God Bless.
 
Hi, slinky1882,

It’s been almost 40 years since I read Descartes.

It seems to me, that as a youngster, I followed
along with what he was saying, and that
somehow he smuggled God into the proof.
[remember, 40 years!] because I recall saying
to myself: Waaaitt a minute…!
  • unaided* by revelation.
    Conclusion: not much, with the exception
    of aesthetics and the Metaphysics of Aristotle.]
    I enjoyed existentialist thought, but found
    it pathetic in the light of revelation. Articulate,
    in terms of the “givens” of human life, but truly sad.
    Man, as his own project -Prometheus Unbound.
Your question was: Was Descartes “I think,
therefore I am” compatible with Catholic thought.
Obviously, the ability to think* allows* us to
know that we exist.

The *why *of existence is the issue here.

ex sisto to “stand out” would indicate that
we are “pulled” out of “non-existence” into
existence by an act of God’s mercy and love.

Gestalt theorists would probably use the
term “background.” Gestalt psychologists
would use the term “Void.” As Christians,
we would have to employ a term like “no-thing-ness”…
i.e. from all eternity we “weren’t” and then,
in an* augenblick* we…* are*, by an act of
creation.

[BTW, Gestaltist’s have no problem identifying
an emergency, because, by definition, a
situation e-merges from the “background,”
that compels immediate attention.]

Hope the semester’s going well,

reen12
I mean, it’s nice that I can think. But a rational-
animal’s first use of thought would likely be ‘how
did I get here?’ followed by: ‘What am i doing
here, thinking away like this?’
 
Best thing ever done with this quote:

“I think, I think I am. Therefore I am… I think!”
-The Moody Blues (“On the Threshold of a Dream” album)-

Peace.
 
40.png
reen12:
Hi, slinky1882,

It’s been almost 40 years since I read Descartes.

It seems to me, that as a youngster, I followed
along with what he was saying, and that
somehow he smuggled God into the proof.
[remember, 40 years!] because I recall saying
to myself: Waaaitt a minute…!
  • unaided* by revelation.
    Conclusion: not much, with the exception
    of aesthetics and the Metaphysics of Aristotle.]
    I enjoyed existentialist thought, but found
    it pathetic in the light of revelation. Articulate,
    in terms of the “givens” of human life, but truly sad.
    Man, as his own project -Prometheus Unbound.
Your question was: Was Descartes “I think,
therefore I am” compatible with Catholic thought.
Obviously, the ability to think* allows* us to
know that we exist.

The *why *of existence is the issue here.

ex sisto to “stand out” would indicate that
we are “pulled” out of “non-existence” into
existence by an act of God’s mercy and love.

Gestalt psychology would probably use the
term “background.” As Christians, we would
have to employ a term like “no-thing-ness”…
i.e. from all eternity we “weren’t” and then,
in an* augenblick* we…* are*, by an act of
creation.

[BTW, Gestaltist’s have no problem identifying
an emergency, because, by definition, a
situation e-merges from the “background,”
that compels immediate attention.]

Hope the semester’s going well,

reen12
I mean, it’s nice that I can think. But a rational-
animal’s first use of thought would likely be ‘how
did I get here?’ followed by: ‘What am i doing
here, thinking away like this?’
Click to expand...
Maureen,
Thanks and I hope you are doing well. And I am glad to see you remembered our dialouge on “nothing” and “no thing”. 😉 Yes, thought can be a signal to existence. I know this open a whole can of worms, but I am curious as to why Descartes didn’t write the statement as “I am therefore I think”. Does anyone have an idea??? Thanks and God Bless.

P.S. The line from Prometheus Unbound above is eerily similar to one of the brothers from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov.
 
40.png
slinky1882:
Perhaps, but for clarity, why didn’t Descartes put the statement like “I am therefore I think”??? Curious. Thanks and God Bless.
Click to expand...
For the same reason your algebra teacher didn’t give you the answers and expect you to come up with the equations!

Descartes didn’t start by questionning his own existance. He started with a sceptical examination of all knowledge, looking for a rational basis. He was like a mathematician looking for a system with no axioms.

At each point, he found himself unable to establish a basis for reality because he kept asking himself, “How do I know the basis for THIS proposition is true?”

He finally arrived at the most fundamental question of all, “How do I know I exist?”

If he’d been an Irishman, he’d have phrased it, "Sure an’ if I don’t exist, who’s askin’ all the damn’ fool questions?"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
Hi, slinky1882,

quote: slinky1882
I know this open a whole can of worms, but I am curious as to why Descartes didn’t write the statement as “I am therefore I think”. Does anyone have an idea??? .

P.S. The line from Prometheus Unbound above is eerily similar to one of the brothers from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov.
Click to expand...
I have no answer to offer on your first paragraph above.
I was underwhelmed by Descartes, and am not
surprised that questions are left over when finished
reading him.

As to your paragraph 2:

Are you thinking of Ivan’s Grand Inquisitor?
“Eeerie” is the word for it, in light of what occurred
in the twentieth century. Did you know that
existentialism really gathered steam because of
the experience [existenital !] of European intellectuals
during WWII ? Did they turn away from “community”
to the “self” in reaction to the war? I don’t know.

{I knew I had had an exchange over no-thing-ness
with someone on the forum!}

Maureen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top