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?
In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes explores the nature of doubt in relation to the question of existence. He begins this thought experiment by questioning everything that is not indubitable, considering that everything based on the senses can be doubted and is susceptible to error. He then supposes that there is a mighty power with the sole purpose of deception, who can manipulate his sensory perceptions to make him believe things that are false. Given the possibility of such a malevolent deceiver, Descartes concludes that he cannot trust any beliefs based on the senses, as they might be the product of deception. The crux of his argument follows when Descartes posits that one act cannot be doubted: the act of doubt itself. Even if he were deceived by his senses, he must exist as a thinking thing in order to be deceived. Descartes follows with his most famous line, “Cogito, ergo sum” or “I think, therefore I am.”
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Descartes’ conclusion is circular because it presupposes the existence of a thinking self to prove the existence of a thinking self. To say “I am doubting” implies that “I am” is a valid statement, which is the very thing that Descartes seeks to prove. The argument relies on the existence of a thinking self to prove the existence of a thikning self. Suppose we do not truly exist, and the “Cogito” argument instantly loses validity.
Secondly, the “Cogito” relies heavily on suppositions. The basis of fundamentalism, the form of argument that Descartes attempts to adhere to, is indubitable concrete truths. But in order to make his argument, Descartes depends heavily on the existence of god or a malevolent deciever. There are thousands of arguments that allegedly prove and disprove the existence of god, and therefore it is unwise of Descartes to rely so heavily on a non-fundamental truth.
Even if we grant the “Cogito” argument validity, it is still not the end-all be-all of skepticim. Proving the existence of a self does not entail that the self has any knowledge beyond themselves, not does it entail that anything beyond themselves even exists. Therefore, it would be irresponsible to say that Descartes’ argument disproves skepticism entirely, as skepticism extends far beyond the question of self-existence.
In the second of his several Meditations, Descartes brings forth an interesting idea about how one that deliberates in any form is one that exists in the universe, and sets this principle as the foundation for the claims that he makes next regarding his knowledge of the universe. In short, this claim is justified and remains a universal property amongst all beings in the universe. However, this does not mean that the argument of skepticism is defeated because we can only deliberate what we know to be true, which is what is attached to ourselves, and ourselves only.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, Descartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am” is correct because all deliberations and actions must come from a source. In one example, art does not create itself and exist on its own. It is always created by a thinking and deliberating being. Music can only exist because someone has composed it, and paintings can only exist because people have painted them. In this same way, something can only be conceived of if there is a thinking source to conceive it.
Despite this, Descartes cannot use this foundation to prove knowledge, and he cannot use it to defeat skepticism either. Using his cogito argument, we can only ensure that we know that we exist, and because our thoughts are linked to us, we know what our thoughts and plans are. Because everything apart from our bodies is external, we do not know all of the external fates of the universe, and therefore cannot prove anything besides what is linked to ourselves. In the same way I know who I am but I do not know what lives in the Mariana Trench, a creature in the Mariana Trench knows what it is but does not know what lives on the surface. Therefore, Descartes’ cogito argument is a correct argument, but its applications are very limited, and it does not disprove the philosophy of skepticism, because we can prove nothing outside of our bodies, and what is outside comprises an infinite majority of things.
In the second of Rene Descartes meditations, he reaches the famous conclusion, “cogito ergo sum”, or “I think therefore I am”. This comes from his elaborate thought experiment concerning both G-d and “the evil genius”, where he concludes that the mere fact of his debating and doubt confirms his existence, to which I fully believe, but not to the extent of which Descartes uses this conclusion.
ReplyDeleteThe existence of doubt proves the existence of choice, which I believe proves existence undoubtedly. Choice requires a direction, to choose one thing over the other, and this implies thinking. Since if you put something that does not think at a fork in the road, for instance a rock, it will just sit there. However a human, animal, or anything that thinks would choose one path. Choice creates doubt, the thought that what you chose was wrong, and since choice proves existence, this means that doubt proves thought and existence.
However, I do not believe that the cogito can be a basis for all of Descartes' conclusions henceforth. The cogito can not validate Descartes previous knowledge that he disposed of at the beginning of the meditations. The cogito only validates his own personal thoughts and doubts, but cannot prove, for example, that the pigeon is actually a bird. Descartes has no way of knowing if birds, bricks, or anything else is real because all he knows is that his thoughts are real. The next steps are conclusions that are jumped to due to the excitement of proving he exists.
In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes doubts his existence and the existence of all things around him. He starts by arguing that since everything he believes, he believes through his senses, since his senses have deceived him, and since anything that has deceived him can deceive him again, he can’t believe anything he already believes. He then attempts to find some foundational beliefs that he can begin to build a system of beliefs to discover what he truly can believe. Descartes claims that one must exist to be deceived. Therefore if your senses are to be deceived then you must exist and you must be a thinking thing. He comes to the conclusion “cogito ergo sum” meaning “I think therefore I am.”
ReplyDeleteMy first issue with this argument is he accepts that he could be being deceived and the world could be completely different than he believes. If this is true then just like how we could be in a dream and believe that 2+2=5 when in reality it is actually 4. Just because something is logical with the premises we have set up, those premises we have set up can not be used because we can never know how being in a different world than we believe changes what is logical and what isn’t. Therefore if it seems logical that “I think therefore I am” that doesn’t mean that will be true in all realities. Similarly my second issue with this argument is that if we believe that it is logical to believe his premise that one must exist to be deceived, he also accepted the premise that we can’t trust anything that we believe, therefore we can’t believe that one must exist to be deceived because we could have been deceived about it. If this counter argument isn’t true then it would be true that one must exist to be deceived which would be the only argument that would be able to disprove the counter argument, therefore these would be paradoxical arguments and are therefore both illogical.
The Cogito argument outlined by Descartes in his second meditation holds initially, however, fails to prove foundationalist belief when applied further. Descartes frames this argument by first recognizing that senses are unreliable. He explains that dreaming can bring an indistinguishable experience from reality. One may vividly perceive senses in a dream, just like reality, so it is impossible to state that perception is not an illusion. Even further it’s impossible to know anything at all. Descartes contends this, as he cannot doubt the senses without, for certain, having an experience. The only knowledge that Descartes has, beyond doubt, is his own existence. Descartes builds his foundalist system off this foundation. He argues that if he can be certain of his ability to think, he can be sure of other perceptions with a similar distinct and clear nature. From this point, he builds his entire perception of knowledge and philosophical framework. There’s nothing incorrect about this argument, the flaws lie in its application. Since the senses can be doubted the only foundational truth is that the one perceiving, and doubting, self-evidently exists. This same application of deductive reasoning is inapplicable to any other subject. It’s fallacious for Descartes to reason that there is another piece of evidence so clear and distinct as perception. To apply this to anything else would involve the perception of external factors, which, as Descartes has stated, are unreliable. If Socrates were to define the qualifications further for knowledge to be clear and distinct, just as is the evidence of perception, then his argument may stand, however, those qualifications would need to transcend any external knowledge, which is impossible. To believe in anything and accept the existence of the self is to believe in something external, and unprovable. If something cannot be self-evidently proved, it cannot be listed as a foundational truth. Due to existence’s unique nature, no other subject can be established as certain in the same manner. Descartes Cogito argument fails in its extension to beliefs beside one’s own consciousness.
ReplyDelete