Saturday, October 4, 2014
The Cogito
In Meditation II, Descartes believes he has both defeated skepticism and discovered a foundational belief that he will use to justify all his other claims to knowledge. He argues that the very act of doubt proves that he exists. Is he right? Does the Cogito disprove skepticism? Even if it does is it a Pyrrhic victory -- or can this belief be the basis for the rest of his knowledge?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Descartes believes that he can answer the skeptic's challenge on the basis of his existence. He argues that because he is able to think, his existence is a true fact. However, this fact does not seem to be a particularly strong basis for foundational knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that one's existence is true doesn't lead to any particularly relevant knowledge. Even if one knows that his/her existence is true, one is still ignorant about the particular qualities or the nature of his/her existence. e.g. if we are plugged into the Matrix, we each may know that we exist however we would believe that we exist in the false world of the Matrix when we actually live in a pod to serve as batteries for machines. This is particularly relevant to Descartes' argument, since his arguments are reliant on his clear and distinct perceptions and the existence of a God. However, if our reality is a false one, no matter how clear or distinct our perceptions are the knowledge we gain is still false.
Furthermore, knowledge of one's existence can't lead lead to any knowledge that would be relevant to another. If I know that I exist because I think, I can never be sure of the existence of another person because I'm not sure if they think in the same way that I do. This means that even if I exist, and there is some knowledge that could be relevant that I derive from my existence, this knowledge is ultimately useless since no one else would be able to derive the same knowledge from their existence. In other words, any knowledge that I can derive from my existence is subjective to the extent that my existence could be different from others.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOf all of the trying proofs that Descartes attempted in his meditations, many would say that his Cogito proof was the least controversial, and the hardest to argue. The basic idea behind Cogito is that for one to possess the ability to think and reason they have to exist in the first place; perhaps not in the form that they perceive themselves, like in the mirror, or in the world that they see, but the existence, in some form, is proven through the capacity to think.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main issues with this line of reasoning is the fact that it is perhaps one of the only things that are capable of being proven through foundationalism. The issue is, as Descartes found, all other attempt at proving ideas regarding any other topic involve a false premise or assumption on the outside world that is inherently incapable of being known with the same certainty of knowing that you exist; an ultimate, 100% certainty. No other thing can be proven on the basis that I exist, every other entity or idea is external to me, and since the initial proof ran on the basis that my existence is known because it is an essential part of what I use to be conscious of anything, nothing else can fall into that category, or in other words: nothing else can be proven.
So is skepticism really defeated by this proof? Perhaps in the fundamental sense, skepticism which says that nothing can be known for sure is indeed overruled by knowing that we exist, but since it is nearly impossible to know anything else, skepticism might as well just be reworded to "we cannot know anything... (besides our own existence)", and the idea behind skepticism will remain, as knowing existence is not a basis for finding other knowledge, it stands alone in being the only thing we can truly “know” about anything, and we can remain skeptical about any other knowledge.
In Meditation II, Descartes lays out his viewpoint on existence and knowledge using the Cogito argument. He says that due to the fact that we are aware that we are deceived and are aware that we are misled and have doubts, we must exist. The Premises of his argument all conclude that we must exist for all everything that we feel and see to be possible. His argument is simplistic in the way that it efficiently concludes that there is a reason behind why he believes our existence is real, yet it is not a reliable argument. It is possible that we exist, but to base this off of the simple fact that we are aware that we are being deceived is not a strong enough argument. There are many loopholes to this argument that can explain why we are aware of the things around us and can be deceived without coming to the conclusion that it is because we exist. We cannot firmly justify whether other being think like we do and function like we do therefore there is no way for us to prove that someone exists. In addition to this, there is no way for us to know for sure that the existence we consider “existing” it truly what existing is like. We defined the term based on the cultural consensus of what existing is like yet we have no evidence that we are truly living and existing on this planet. We could be in an alternate universe where we think exist but could wake up and realize it was all a dream, anything is possible. Descartes ignores this and simply states that he must be an existing thing because otherwise he would not be able to realize he is being deceived, but this is not the only solution, there are many other things that could explain this.
ReplyDeleteDescartes attempts to build up his new foundation of knowledge based upon the fact that he can think. He claims that since he persuaded himself that there is nothing, he surely does exist, even if everything else is false. Stating his argument in simple terms, “cogito ergo sum”, I think therefore I am.
ReplyDeleteThis argument semi-effectively raises an objection that counters the claims of skeptic’s that we have no knowledge. It does this by using the conclusion of the skeptics that we have knowledge as the premise for cogito. Descartes is simply stating that since we have managed to reach the conclusion that we have no knowledge, we have gained the knowledge that we know nothing, therefore concluding that we must exist since we managed to reach this conclusion. So he does manage to raise the objection to the skeptics theory of we know nothing by claiming that we would not be able to conclude that, unless we truly knew something.
Descartes’ theory does not function as a building block for the rest of his arguments, because it cannot stand on its own without the skeptic’s argument. It is just an objection to the skeptic’s theory, cogito is based of a premise that the conclusion proves false. If cogito was taken from any viewpoint as more that just an objection it self-destructs by stating its own premise as false. And since a premise is false, the argument is invalid and cannot be used to support Descartes other slew of arguments.
Rene Descartes’s “Cogito” argument, deriving from its original Latin text, “Cogito ergo sum”, translated literally as, “I think, therefore I am”, is one of the most notable and important arguments in modern philosophy. Conceived as a response to the idea that, at any given moment, we can believe that we are perceiving the true reality, but can never actually prove it (i.e., it’s impossible to prove when one is dreaming until the dream is over), the Cogito argument seems to suggest that, as long as we are able to form thoughts, we are existing at the highest level. However, since thought can appear to take place on any “level of existence”, from dreaming to true reality, Descartes’s argument only proves that we exist within the reality which we perceive to be real, not that we definitively exist.
ReplyDeleteThe Cogito argument itself is fairly simple. Descartes argues that he has successfully convinced himself to doubt everything around him, as he says, “I have persuaded myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world: no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies” (18). Due to his reliance on the method of methodical doubt, as well as his insistence that his existence needs to be proved, this premise is certainly believable. As a result, Descartes concludes, “doubtless I did exist, if I persuaded myself of something” (18). On the surface, this argument seems to make sense – if Descartes did not actually exist, he would not have been able to convince himself of anything, as existence is a prerequisite to be the object of any convincing, especially one’s convincing of oneself. However, there is a fundamental issue with this argument, rooted in the fact that Descartes lacks a definitive method of proving that what he perceives to be his thought is, in fact, his thought, as well as Descartes’s ideas of what existence truly entails.
Essentially, Descartes has placed himself in a double bind – either existence merely entails existence in the world perceived to be the real one, in which case, Descartes is not really proving anything, or existence requires existence in the truest, realest world, in which case, Descartes is not proving the existence of thought. Looking at the first case, it makes perfect sense that humans are thinking organisms. In whatever world we are presently perceiving, whether our dream world, our “real” world, or some other layer of reality, we are most definitely thinking. Even if some other being is controlling each of our thoughts or actions (say, for example, a robot overlord operating the code that controls our brains, which exist in a vat on the Alpha Centauri), that being does not exist in our perceived reality; in our perceived reality, we perceive ourselves to be thinking. In this case, the Cogito argument appears to be true, but if we look back to Descartes’s original goal, which was to prove that existence is true not only in the world which we perceive, but that we are operating on the highest level of existence, Descartes hasn’t proven anything. Looking at the second case, if Descartes is, in fact, holding himself to the highest standard of existence, he hasn’t proven anything regarding existence. If his previous assumption, that humans are inherently being deceived by some higher organism, whether our true mind that tricks us within our dreams, or our alien, vat-operating overlords, is true, then we can’t even prove that we are thinking. Rarely is a dreamer, for example, aware that he is in a dream. As a result, the dreamer does not realize that his dream self is not the thinking organism, but rather that his waking self, having created this dream world, is doing the thinking for him. If we consider the possibility that some higher organism is our great deceiver, then we are, fundamentally, completely isolated from our thinking. As a result, we might not even be free thinking organisms, and therefore, we might not exist at all.
The remainder of Descartes’s Meditations I relies on the accuracy of the Cogito argument, as Descartes only makes conclusions regarding existence based on what he can perceive to exist. In general, this makes sense – if we know that we exist within the highest, most real reality, then everything around us, which we know to exist within the same reality, must exist as well. (This is not to say that Descartes’s arguments for the existence of God make sense, as they are based on the misconception that Descartes’s beliefs regarding God are legitimate, demonstrated perceptions.) However, as long as we can never be sure whether or not we are being deceived, and thus whether or not we exist, the remainder of Meditations I cannot be taken as fully accurate. Still, as long as we can be sure that we have free will and existence within whatever reality we believe to be real, as Descartes has proven, it is possible to enjoy whatever lives we are actually living. Therefore, even if we are brains in a vat, we have the potential to be happy brains in a vat, and thus none of this may even matter.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not completely agree with Descartes’ foundationalism, I do think that his idea of “I think, therefore I am” is a truly foundational belief and that anything else he concludes is derivative of that argument. This belief is foundational because no matter what happens to a person, as long as they think, they exist. If a God were to take a person and put an end to their existence, then they would no longer be thinking and would therefore not exist. However, even if a person doesn’t believe they exist, they are thinking and therefore do exist. Essentially the argument here is that no matter what the situation is, a thinking thing is an existing thing under all circumstances. This logic defeats the principle of skepticism in that it proves that existence is real; if nothing else, at least people can now be assured that they do exist so long as they continue thinking. However, I do not think that this argument can be the basis for an entire group of beliefs, as it stands on its own and nothing else Descartes says can ever prove anything to be true. The reasoning for this is quite simple; Descartes says that God definitely isn't a deceiver, because God is completely good and therefore he doesn’t lie to or deceive people. However, he does not provide an argument which explains why deception is intrinsically bad. Descartes already said at the beginning of the Meditations that he wasn’t going to assume anything and would start from the ground up, but obviously he has the idea in his head that deception is bad and therefore is making an assumption with no basis for doing so, and is not working off of impartial and uninfluenced logic. So, if he tries to make any arguments by saying that God is not a deceiver and therefore that what he perceives is real, his argument on this front caves in on itself and it remains that the only thing he can truly prove exists is himself. In conclusion, I do believe that this belief itself is fundamental and is its own foundation; however, the way Descartes describes God and then makes an unwarranted assumption about God’s policy on deception is unfair and illogical, so God could technically still be a deceiver. Because of this, it is possible that nothing is real, and therefore the only provably true thought is “I think, therefore I am.”
ReplyDeleteIn his second meditation, Descartes makes the valid argument that because I am capable of thought I therefore must exist. This argument cannot be invalidated—it does not rely on the fact that there is either a deceiving or benevolent god or on sense perception. However, if there was a being intent on the deception of my being, which Descartes discusses in his meditation, this further proves that I exist because if it is trying to deceive me, I must be the object of deception. In order to be an object of deception, I must exist in one sense or another. Although Descartes doesn’t explicitly deal with the scenario in which a benevolent god exists, this possibility still supports his Cogito. To elaborate, if a non-deceiving god exists, this being will obviously not try to deceive me; hence, when the thought arises in my mind that I exist, it must be true because 1. No one is trying to deceive me and 2. It is within the realm of my intellect (able to be backed up by the evidence that I think). It is necessary to mention that this thought is within the limited realm of intellect because, as Descartes discusses in a later meditation, people are susceptible to mistakes if judgments fall outside this realm. The Cogito is also validated because it doesn’t rely on sense perception; if it did, Descartes’ arguments would be circular. Thought is not perceived by taste, sound, smell, touch, or sight; in other words, though it can be generated by these stimuli, they cannot discern it. Hence, thought is an inward characteristic and cannot be vulnerable to deception by the senses. Thus, the Cogito argument must be valid.
ReplyDeleteSince the Cogito cannot be refuted, a single piece of knowledge, the fact that I must exist, also cannot be disproved. Though it may seem obvious and perhaps even trivial, this fact disproves skepticism; we cannot know nothing, because we know that we exist! Unfortunately, I do not believe that the Cogito can become the basis for all knowledge; although it is a good starting point, the knowledge of other things, at least in Descartes’ arguments, relies too heavily on other beliefs, such as the belief in a benevolent God.
In his Cogito argument, Descartes believes that he exists simply because he can think. The thoughts he has are either produced by himself, he argues, or he is being deceived by a great deceiver regarding all of his thoughts. At any rate, though, he must exist; even if he is being deceived, the great deceiver cannot deceive that which does not exist. Moreover, the fact that each human has individually different thoughts seems to ensure their individual existence. He reasons, "If I were to cease all thinking I would then utterly cease to exist” (19).
ReplyDeleteDescartes is absolutely correct in his argument; more specifically, even if one exists on some other planet and is being deceived about the Earth's presence, he still nonetheless exists. Even a dead person's soul thinks after death, with the religious concept of an afterlife, so his soul persists to exist, which is not false. Similarly, a braindead person cannot think through the mind but can do so through the soul; he must exist as well. Apparently, to “exist” has a very broad meaning.
However, Descartes cannot use his cogito argument to argue against skepticism because his knowing he thinks and exists isn't true knowledge in any way, shape, or form. It is like saying that since he knows the fact that the society defines a triangle as a closed shape with three sides, he technically has knowledge. If this were true, he would simply apply it to everything he used to think he knew and they would all become true knowledge. He is using the fact that he perceives something in society to prove it as knowledge, but it is never guaranteed that he can clearly and distinctly perceive. Since “to exist” has such a broad definition, it does not get him anywhere useful; he may be a million light years away from this planet, he may be in the matrix, he may be dead, etc. Similarly, the state of being that we perceive of humans on Earth is already referred to as “existence”, so he is simply restating a definition. It is not very foundational, in other words, but it may have been if “exist” had a more specific definition. Similarly, if he perceives that two objects are added to two other objects, he perceives that it yields four of that object, yet this is still not true knowledge. Sure, that gives him knowledge of the society’s perceptions, and it is true that 2+2=4 mathematically, but would it be considered true, foundational knowledge? To dig out the roots of skepticism and instill foundationalism, one must start with an unclear and obscure idea which is not obvious to the perceptions of society, but nevertheless it must have a specific implication.
In his most thorough argument, Plato utilizes two key concepts that lead to the same conclusion. He first says that if God were in fact a deceiver, then the only way that God would be capable of deceiving him is if he himself existed as an object of God’s deception. So, one cannot be deceived if they don’t exist. Additionally, Descartes claims that the only way that he could ever doubt his own existence is if he thought that his existence lacked reality. Fortunately for Descartes’s cogito, it is necessary that someone exists if they are capable of doubting their own existence. The act of doubt, and thought, inherently requires existence, so Descartes is able to build his two foundational beliefs.
ReplyDeleteBefore this though, acknowledge that skepticism is thoroughly defeated if the cogito is accepted. Many objections have been raised in the past such as Hume’s analysis of personal identity where he claims that the self is constantly functioning off of perceptions that the self previously perceived in the world. He also says that when one removes the conceptions, there is nothing left of the person’s self and identity. Fortunately, for Descartes, his cogito persists through Hume’s counter argument since Hume’s analysis operates using a different definition of “I”. Descartes argues no more than the general concept, “for thinking to occur, there must be a subject for the verb. I must exist in order to think.” On the other hand, Hume argues that the self doesn’t exist, not that “I” don’t exist. Even though he claims that there is no more self when one removes their worldly perceptions, he doesn’t counter the fact that regardless of what perception one is comprised of, they would be able to at least think without these perceptions. Additionally, Hume’s argument actually supports Descartes’s. When Hume says that a person is capable of perceiving things, regardless of how real the perceptions, he just confirms Descartes’s argument in since it is self-evident that one needs to think in order to perceive. Since this thinking leads to existence in the course of Descartes’s argument, Hume helps to affirm it.
Although, while Descartes successfully proves both that he exists and that he is a thinking thing, this achievement is no more than a Pyrrhic victory in that his proof doesn’t allow him to make any further assumptions or conclusions about the nature of what we know. Here, the incompatibility between the Cogito and the general rule becomes very important. When Descartes tries to extrapolate the Cogito to explain that everything is true, he needs to prove the general rule which says that “Everything that I distinctly and clearly perceive is true.” In order to connect the general rule and the cogito, Descartes needs to prove that God exists. Descartes attempts this in two separate ways. The first leads to a circular argument that essentially requires the general rule as a premise before it is even proven. Another one of his arguments pertaining to god fails in an even more apparent way. The second argument’s first premise requires that “god is a perfect being.” But, the only way that we would know god is a perfect being is if he exists in the first place. Since that is the exact point Descartes is trying to prove, this argument defeats itself once again. Since Descartes can’t establish the general rule, then it is impossible for him to assert any more than the original two conclusions from the Cogito.
Descartes attempts to disprove a very difficult concept to argue against, and in my opinion, does so successfully. Skepticism argues that we know nothing, and cannot hope to ever build a concrete understanding of anything. Descartes forms a very interesting argument, which today is referred to as “The Cogito” - he argues that the very fact that he is thinking, and that the very act of doubt in a human’s ability to securely understand anything indicates that in fact, we do know something - ‘I think, therefor I am.’. Most of Descartes’ philosophical claims within his meditations are met with controversy and skepticism, however The Cogito is widely to be the simplest argument and the least deserving of criticism. However, is this very notion of self-awareness worthy of classification as a foundational belief of which to base the credence of understanding of broader concepts upon?
ReplyDeleteWhile I personally do not completely agree with the notion that our very existence serves as a foundational base for belief in other concepts, his simple argument of ‘I think, therefor I am,’ I do believe this is his strongest claim made, and one that may stand strong while his other arguments falter, despite it’s relative inability to prove other topics.