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?
I think Descartes's Cogito successfully disproves skepticism and does offer some basis of knowledge. I have trouble imagining a state where something could think it exists and be wrong or something not think it exists and be right. It is a sort of paradox that I see no loophole to. Moving forward, Descartes claim that he knows he exists can be built upon. He does this by claiming his existence is preceded by the existence of God and catapults from the existence of God to knowing he interacts with bodies and forms exist without his understanding or imagining of them. The path he takes to come to these conclusions is rather problematic, however, and I'm sure we will explore these problems in the near future.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo examine if the Cogito proves our existence let us take the most radical position. The only reason that doubting proves he exists is because he perceives himself as doubting. What allows thinking to be such a privileged perception as to never be deceived? If we were to find that thinking can be deceived, as any other perception, then why would it not follow that our thoughts about the fact that we are thinking could be the product of a deception and thus we could not know we are simple because we think? This is quite a tall task however one that we cannot shrink from. Let us take for example a piece of paper. We would all agree that this paper is incapable of movement on its own. However, when a gust of invisible wind happens upon said paper the paper moves erratically and almost autonomously. By the same logic who is to say that our brains are not like said paper. Rather than conjuring thoughts, the thoughts (entities in their own right) pass through it as wind would, pushing the mind in one direction or another. From this, we would say we do not think but rather we experience thought. This is still not enough to defeat Descartes argument as it still concedes that we experience and to experience we must be for a non-being cannot experience things. Therefore the Cogito does prove our existence.
ReplyDeleteHowever, belief is not the all-powerful fulcrum that Descartes wishes but rather is more like a speck of black on a white canvas. By reducing all experience to illusion, Descartes digs himself into a hole with one way out, God. However, that comes later in the book. In short, a lever does not work with only a fulcrum similarly epistemology does not work with only the knowledge that we exist. There must be an arm (God) connecting Descartes to the world he is trying to move into existence. Absent that arm, he is floating in space. The Cogito alone is not enough to prove other things exist.
The cogito proves that by believing the one doing the belief must exist since these thoughts must originate from somewhere. In the same way, since believing and doubting are the opposites of one another yet both are a form of thinking, if believing means that someone exists so does doubting. I think that he is right to believe this claim. The idea is that “I think, therefore I am.” I compare it to the idea of forms. The number four is simply a tangible (in some cases)/visual representation of the concept, or form, four. Therefore, the idea is since the concept of four has always existed and always will exist independently from humans it is reality. In the same way the thoughts/doubts are a representation of the person who thought them, the thoughts are used as a way to represent the feelings of a person. I can then use this expression to conclude that if forms are real and the representations of the forms are just representations based in truth, the thoughts are then the representations of the people, which then makes the people real. It is also impossible for someone to say that they can think, and then claim that they do not exist. That is at least how I interpreted Descartes argument. In addition, Descartes just used these reasons to prove that he exists therefore he disproves skepticism. Skepticism by definition is the idea that there is no truth in our beliefs, or in other words, there are foundational errors in our beliefs that prove them wrong. By proving that he exists among other things, he is disproving skepticism by finding the truth and realness of our beliefs. I think that it can be the basis for the rest of his knowledge because those thoughts and ideas about himself proves skepticism wrong, which can then lead to the discovery of more knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI think that Descartes' Cogito doesn't disprove skepticism and offer a base of knowledge because he never says how he knows that he is doubting or thinking. Descartes assumes that he exists because he thinks and doubts however that isn't necessarily true. In the Matrix, Neo think that he is real but it turns out the he is just a simulation. This is an example of how you can think that you are real yet not be real. This example isn't perfect because Neo still exists just not in the same plan of life. Regardless it still supports the point, everything that Neo thought existed didn't and everything that Neo thought didn't exist existed. This shows how even if you have evidence that you exist it doesn't mean that you do and rather then thinking that you exist because you think and doubt you should think that you don't exist until given concrete prove that you do. Everything that we might think or do could simply be controlled by a greater being and we could be simply characters in a video game. Because of all of the possibilities of our existence we shouldn't rule anything out until we have looked at everything and just because we think doesn't mean we exist to anything but ourselves.
ReplyDeleteDescartes' argues in the cogito argument that if you are able to think then you must exist, and be real. He says that you cannot trust your senses as they are able to deceive you and appear to be something they aren't. He also talks about the difficulties of distinguishing sleeping sensations from waking sensations. I think that this argument doesn't disprove skepticism or be the basis for knowledge because with this logic then you can never really know if everyone and everything around you is real. You cant know if they are actually thinking or have thoughts, so if you cant prove that the world around you is real then how is that any different from being in a dream or in a false reality. If you cant know the things around you are real then you cant base knowledge off them either because then that knowledge could be false.
ReplyDeleteDescartes Cogito does not disprove skepticism. Essentially, what Descartes argues is that
ReplyDelete1) because a mind thinks (and doubts, inquires, etc.), and
2) because he is currently doubting, then
3) he exists.
This is faulty logic, because even if a mind performs the function of thought, it doesn't mean it is absolutely necessary to produce thought. This type of thought process would analogous to the following example.
1) a pen writes
2) there is writing on a sheet of paper
3) thus, the pen wrote on that paper and necessarily exists
In other words, just because a pen can write, does not mean writing is from the pen (could've been from a pencil for example, or it could've always have been there). Sure, a mind thinks. Does that mean all thought is from the mind? I wouldn't be so quick to affirm that. Descartes seems to argue that he is something beyond perception (like affirming, doubting, etc.), but he cannot prove that he isn't more then just a line of thought (which doesn't seem to align with his idea of his own existence, which would be a entity capable of self thought and perception). While the idea of "existence" is still rather difficult to define, the idea of existence as what Descartes seems to argue is not effectively proven with this Cogito.
Further, this belief would be inaccurate to form a basis of of belief. This is because any further link or connection to a new idea would almost necessitate the use of past knowledge, which came from senses, which cannot be trusted. This can be seen in Meditation 3 when Descartes states that "there must be at least as much [reality] in the efficient and total cause as there is in the effect of the same cause". This connection Descartes makes is founded on his past experiences, which he confirms when he justifies this thought with "it is indeed evidence by the light of nature" and explains it with an analogy involving a rock. These are all inferences made for past experiences. Given that any further knowledge attempted to be acquired from the basis of the cogito would require links founded from past experiences, it is inadequate at building a new foundation of knowledge.
Descartes’s Cogito argument does prove that he exists. He argues in Cogito that since he thinks, he must exist. The logic behind this argument is that there must be a thinker for there to be a thought. Since he has thoughts, he is the thinker of those thoughts and therefore must exist. The only way for this argument not to be true is if human logic were inherently wrong and we are all deceived whenever we use it. Let us assume, however, that human logic is not inherently flawed because there would be no point in arguing anything at all or being rational if that were the case. Ryan makes the case that Descartes does not prove his own existence because he does not prove that he actually thinks with the mind. However, we define the mind as that which we use to think, doubt, inquire, etc., so when Descartes thinks, he must necessarily do it with the mind. It is the only thing we define as capable of thinking. Even if Ryan’s argument (that Descartes cannot actually prove that he is using his mind to think) were true, that still would not prove that Descartes has not proven his existence. It still holds true that there must be a source of thought, and since he has thoughts, he is the source and therefore exists, regardless of what he is (a mind, a body, etc.). Even if Descartes is only a “line of thought”, as Ryan says, that line of thought exists nonetheless.
DeleteHowever, the Cogito argument alone is not enough to prove the rest of Descartes’s knowledge. It is difficult to see how exactly the proof of his own existence will prove everything else he thinks is true. Descartes has already established that everything he perceives or believes may be false, except that he exists. It is unclear how it is possible for him to use the fact that he exists to prove everything else when he has admitted that everything else may be an illusion (how will he prove that what he perceives with his senses is real, or that he is not currently dreaming, when he has already stated that the mind can be deceived when experiencing through the senses or through dreams?). Descartes’s caution in his previous meditations has made it difficult for him to build up his foundation of knowledge.
Descartes' Cogito argument, a.k.a "I think, therefore I am," is quite compelling, and he is right. Any entity that thinks must exist in some capacity (whatever that may be; I guess we cannot ascertain anything corporeal). After all, ideas cannot stem from nowhere; they must have a direct source. I guess this can be extended to the concept that all must be derived from something. In Descartes' world, this something is probably God, who created everything. Therefore, Descartes has proven at least one thing he knows for certain - that he exists - thus disproving skepticism.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Descartes' victory against skepticism comes at a huge cost, and I think this where the phrase "ignorance is bliss" can be perfectly applied. Descartes has proved that anything that thinks exists, but how is he to know whether anything else thinks? The only reason Descartes can even tell he thinks is because he feels his own consciousness. How is Descartes to feel the consciousness of other individuals and ascertain that they are real, not figments of his imagination? And then comes the issue with inanimate entities. Inanimate entities cannot have a consciousness/any ability to produce ideas or doubts... how can they exist in Descartes' world? The simple answer is they cannot. So Descartes has been sitting here for hours, deeply concentrating and meditating, and all he has concluded is that he is a consciousness (without any body to encase it) floating around in a sea of nothingness.
Some may argue that Descartes has created a foundation to build off of, but where can he go from here? He has come to a dead end. It is impossible for Descartes to logically prove that anything else exists, as his consciousness has only been equipped with the ability to sense (which we have established is faulty) and to doubt (which brings more uncertainty than knowledge). Descartes may as well stop here and go back to when he was less "enlightened" before he begins to comprehend the horrors of what he has deduced here, but as a true lover of knowledge he pushes on...
In Descartes’ second meditation, he makes his famous “I think therefore I am,” in order to prove that the only thing that he can be certain of is that he exists. The argument is based around the idea that there must be a thinker in order for there to be a thought, and since Descartes is thinking, he knows that he exists. I believe that this argument is very solid, and I agree that there must be a creator of thought, it cannot be created without something that exists. However, I believe that there is a scenario illustrates when the argument doesn’t work as well as why this argument doesn’t defeat skepticism since he only proved that if he thinks, he exists. The argument of skepticism is that we do not know anything, so in order to defeat this ideology, Descartes must prove that he does have knowledge. Descartes’ argument is structurally sound. However, if we look at the scenario presented in the Matrix, we can see why his argument does not prove that he knows anything, and thus does not defeat skepticism. The Matrix is a machine that every human is hooked up to that simulates a reality. Neo lives over 20 years of his life inside this reality suspecting nothing, so therefore one would not know if they were in the matrix or not. Inside of the Matrix, Neo functions like a regular human, and thus believes and thinks, so Descartes might argue that he exists. However, this simulated version of Neo does not in fact exist, he is nothing but a simulation. There is a Neo that exists in reality. However, this is a separate Neo, so the simulated Neo can not be sure of the existence of the real Neo and thus Neo both believes he exists and does not exist. Therefore, Descartes’ argument would be flawed if the story of the Matrix came to fruition. And since this is a possible reality, Descartes has no knowledge and has not defeated skepticism.
ReplyDeleteDescartes may be right in his first argument, but he is wrong in his belief that one’s existence can be proven from it. He argues that to think is to exist; that senses cannot be trusted, but that the idea of one’s senses proves that one is real. But proving that one thinks at all is impossible. At first glance, Descartes’ argument seems very stable: to not exist and to think one does not exist seems very different. Descartes claims that this is the only belief he knows to be true- his only knowledge. But there is one major flaw: the Cogito concludes that something cannot have thought of existence if it truly does not exist; that nothing couldn't have any thought at all. That proposition could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteUnder his proposition, it is assumed that a brain/mind is needed to contain thought. But if a chair with the leftover mark of a human sits next to someone, it does not mean that person has sat in the chair. While it may be true in some form that a mind is needed to produce thought, thought itself may not need a mind to exist. Thoughts of existence and self may be afterthoughts of minds that do exist; the ideas of a self-believed “person” may only be ideas and nothing else, where no longer anything beholds these thoughts. That is why his argument cannot be a Pyrrhic victory.
I think that Descartes does make a very good point by discovering the Cogito. I believe that with this belief, he proves that I exist and any other object that thinks exists as well (although I will never be able to prove that). Anything that has a mind and is capable of thinking, doubting, or perceiving does exist, regardless of what that thing is perceiving as reality (as your senses can deceive you). So, when I am dreaming while I am asleep, and my perception is nothing but fiction, I still know that I exist because my mind is thinking and creating that dream world. That part of the argument, I believe to be successful. By proving the Cogito, Descartes proves that I know one thing: that I exist. Therefore, I do have knowledge. Thus, Descartes disproves skepticism.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not believe that the discovery of the Cogito is all that impressive. No one can do anything with the knowledge that they exist. Descartes does not prove that we have any other useful knowledge. Therefore, this knowledge does not serve as a foundational discovery for all other knowledge to be based upon. If I want to prove that I have the knowledge that other things exist besides myself, I cannot use the Cogito to prove that. If I want to gain knowledge about a particular topic, I will never actually be able to prove that I have this knowledge with the Cogito. The Cogito proves that I know one thing, but this discovery that skepticism is not true does not truly impact the world.
Descartes' well known phrase "I think therefore I am" expresses his self knowledge on his life. His method is if his mind can think then he is living. In my opinion, although his method is somewhat reasonable, he acknowledges our senses as irrelevant to our livelihood. Being able to feel, smell, and see adds to our proof of existence. Without the use of our senses, Descartes’ Cogito can prove a valid point. In addition, the Cogito completely disproves skepticism because in the Cogito he is proving that he knows he is living. However, if you believe in skepticism you can not know anything. In fact, you can’t even know that you don’t know anything because that means you know that you know nothing.
ReplyDelete